# How does socialism contravene freedom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2019, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175 "2019-02-08T12:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/41 "2019-02-09T16:54:21Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > It has long been a conservative talking point that capitalism promotes freedom, while socialism kills it. When you talk about socialism, people think of the Soviet Union and Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Poor, unfree, and corrupt. Pretty much all the wealth generated to date comes from capitalism. Capitalism makes a country wealthy. Socialism encourages corruption and makes a country poor or poorer. Again, look at the Soviet Union and Venezuela and Zimbabwe. The social democratic countries of Europe do not have the same levels of wealth as the USA. Now, I happen to think that the State paying for healthcare, education, roads, and so on is a price worth paying. But there’s a balance, and the question is where the balance point is for you. It’s easy to excoriate one extreme or the other. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/42 "2019-02-09T17:02:59Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > At least 3 of those ideas are fine. I only notice 2. The ones about apprenticeships and spending more time outdoors, except if those outdoors are close to a coal power plant or other industries that pollute the air. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/43 "2019-02-09T17:27:37Z")
Note that socialism doesn’t require **state** ownership of the means of production, but rather **worker** ownership of the means of production. The reason centrally state-planned economies get the description “socialist” is because, in theory, the workers and citizens commonly “own” the state in some way. In practice, the centrally planned economic version of socialism hasn’t worked out (long term, anyway). These states are often a degenerate or “bourgeoisie” system which are just stealth-oligarchies of some form. Left-Anarchists like the term “state capitalism” for these states, but I try to avoid it because almost everybody has a different definition of “state capitalism” (some have used the term for things like the US bank bailouts, for instance, that is, **state defense** of capitalism). There are plenty of socialistic things in the US, but they’re not (or at least not only) the commonly cited stuff like public \. Rather, the socialist projects in the US are things like worker co-operatives or collectives, or the few strong industrial labor unions that exist (big asterisk! not all unions necessarily fit, especially state or company unions). Basically, if all the workers commonly own the tools which they use to do business, and receive all the revenue from their own work, that’s socialism. If somebody **else** (e.g. venture capitalists, a board of stockholders, whatever) own the business and assets and effectively “allow” their workers to use it, giving them a **portion** of the revenue while taking excess “profits” for themselves, that’s capitalism. The thing about socialism that’s hard to wrap your head around in a capitalist system is the lack of “private” property like Henry Ford owning a factory, or your company owning your work computer. Note that this is not personal property. Your hair brush, your jewelry and clothes, your family heirlooms… those are yours. This also doesn’t mean some other entity like the state owns these devices (necessarily). Rather it’s a fundamental paradigm shift. If someday holes up in the textile mill and says he owns it and you have to have his permission to work and give him a portion of the cost of the clothes you make, the community laughs at him because they need the textile mill to make clothes, they walk in, push him aside, and start making stuff, and the workers sell their goods like normal, etc. Obviously this is a simplified scenario, but it gets across the gist. I really, really recommend Philosophy Tube’s four videos on Marxism for a background, including some later critiques of his philosophies: https://www.youtube.com/embed/CWF_0lkBhjY?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PLvoAL-KSZ32f2WAqejJdLM2ByZWKpREt8 As well as his followup series on Liberalism which, in parts 3 and 4, starts going heavily into Neoliberalism and its relationship with Capitalism and the associated failings: https://www.youtube.com/embed/VlLgvSduugI?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PLvoAL-KSZ32e9ziASGC8ZWwrvV4fEXoRj The first being more important than the second for this discussion. Each individual video is only about 8-10 minutes, so if you watch them over a few days each one on its own isn’t a big time investment. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/44 "2019-02-09T17:43:44Z")
One of the earlier movements that could be considered “socialist” before the term even existed were the Luddites, victims of perhaps one of the most successful political hit jobs ever conceived. The Luddites were not, in fact, against technology, but rather argued for them and their apprentices to get the proper training, job security, and respect around the operation of the new automated looms that weavers had before their invention (weaving beforehand was a skilled apprentice-based trade, like say, being an electrician). They did destroy automated looms en masse, but this wasn’t because they hated the new technology. They absolutely didn’t, in fact, the Luddites really saw the looms as an opportunity to do their trade more efficiently and reduce their work load, or do more interesting/complicated things with their work. But they couldn’t afford them, or at least not at the same volumes the moneyed classes could. And the moneyed were buying the looms and factories and replacing the previously skilled weavers, threatening their livelihood and living conditions. Not to mention the working conditions in these new factories were **awful**. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/45 "2019-02-09T17:57:21Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Canada, China, France, and numerous other countries demonstrate that this is just a mindless regurgitation of a right-wing talking point. Now you’ll want to say these aren’t real examples of socialism, and you will refine your definition that conveniently specifies that the things that didn’t fail are not socialism. Bring that No True Scotsman argument, we know it’s all you’ve got. You know, the irony factor of you calling my post mindless is off the charts, even in this thread. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m going to do since they AREN’T examples of socialist economies. At best, the examples you give are basically mixed (and generally more capitalist than socialist in their mix…essentially, almost all of those are capitalist economies with some small socialist trappings still in there wrt state ownership of some segments of the means of production). China probably comes to closest to a socialist political or economic system, but even there it’s a mix…closer to 50/50 than your others, but still not even close to a full on socialist economy. Sorry if that’s convenient or inconvenient for you, but the truth hurts. There are, of course, real Scotsmen examples if you like. North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela springs out as examples of mostly socialist economies, but there are others. Sadly, none of the ones you gave are. Let me guess…you got your list from this, right? [http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/](http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/) The problem with this list is they are using ‘socialist country’ to mean 'countries that have social welfare, for the most part (China being an exception). Let’s break it down and see what they say: > [@](#): > > Denmark > Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less. This is a capitalist system with some state owned and operated businesses and a ‘wide range of welfare benefits’. This isn’t economic socialism. > [@](#): > > Finland > Finland has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is 100 percent. Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. Whereas in the Netherlands, government control over the economy remains at a minimum, but a socialist welfare system remains. The lifestyle in the Netherlands is very egalitarian and organized, where even bosses do not discipline or treat their subordinates rudely. Same thing. Note the ‘government control over the economy remains at a minimum’ and ‘social welfare system remains’. > [@](#): > > Canada > Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings. Same. Basically, like you, this guy doesn’t actually know what socialism or a socialist economy is. They are equating social programs with socialism. This is, fucking ironically, the exact same mistake a lot of conservatives make. > [@](#): > > Sweden > Sweden has a large welfare system, but due to a high national debt, required much government intervention in the economy. In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. Norway is not a member of the European Union. This one is probably the highest in the mix (except for China, which is below)…I don’t know, WAG, maybe 70 percent capitalism with maybe 30% economic socialism. It’s still not close to the other way around, so it’s like the others by and large…a mixed economy. Where the bar is set differs, as it does in the US, but they are all basically the same. Social democracies with core capitalist economic systems with some socialistic bolt on’s and some government control of some businesses. In your list, here is the one I’d be willing to concede might be closer to 50/50, or even 40/60: > [@](#): > > China > In China the government manages and controls the economy. Many of the domestic companies are owned and run by the government. Recently, the Chinese economy has become more geared towards capitalism, but is still officially socialist. Life in China remains relatively less stressful and more relaxed than life in capitalist countries like America. The government (or the CCP to be precise) does still control a lot of the means of production. High ranking CCP officials or officers in their military control sort of their own fiefs (in the name of the people, of course). Their government controls a lot of aspects of their economy directly…housing, manufacturing, their stock market, their money policy. Not as the rest on your list, but more of a command economy with some bolt on capitalist stuff (good old fashion crony capitalism in fact). So, this one I’ll give you, even though it’s STILL not predominantly socialist (and it’s debatable how much of a disaster it is or is headed towards). The rest though? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/46 "2019-02-09T18:07:48Z")
The argument is that in a socialist system, the government runs the economy and the people therefore don’t have any choices as consumers. If the government runs the national automobile company, for example, then there’s only one type of car being sold and everyone has to buy one. In a scenario like that, then it’s true; socialism would contravene freedom. But you can’t really derive a general principal from a hypothetical datum. In the real world, our government does not manufacture cars and nobody is suggesting they should. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a private entity and it has the same kind of near monopoly that capitalists claim to oppose. The same kind of private monopolies exist or are coming into existence in fields like beer, DNA testing, eyeglasses, financial management, online sales, surgical instruments, telecommunications, and waste management. The free market is under a lot more threat from capitalists than from socialists. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/47 "2019-02-09T18:31:27Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Same. Basically, like you, this guy doesn’t actually know what socialism or a socialist economy is. They are equating social programs with socialism. This is, fucking ironically, the exact same mistake a lot of conservatives make. This restates the point I was making above: social welfare programs are a very different thing from socialism. They are government programs, paid for by whatever economic setup the nations runs. If they are big, you need a very capitalist economic setup to pay for them (or they will be brief, and gone soon). So if you want big social programs like that, ones which last, you need a more capitalist economy. The notion that social programs like UHC, unemployment benefits, general welfare etc are socialism are very wrong. ---
**Author:** ![bizerta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@bizerta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizerta)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/48 "2019-02-10T12:54:41Z")
With socialism, what’s the incentive to work if everyone gets the same car, health care, home, food? Does everyone get a Lexus? Who’s gonna make it if the former workers on the assembly line can get a job as a beer taster for the same amount of money? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/49 "2019-02-10T13:04:00Z")
> [@bizerta](#): > > With socialism, what’s the incentive to work if everyone gets the same car, health care, home, food? Does everyone get a Lexus? Who’s gonna make it if the former workers on the assembly line can get a job as a beer taster for the same amount of money? That’s a very simplistic understanding of socialism. Most economies and government systems on Earth are a mix of capitalism and socialism – including the US. The main arguments are whether we are better off with a socialist or capitalist health care system, and perhaps a few other related issues. Not whether we ought to replace the entire capitalist economy with a socialist system. If you think that’s what Bernie and/or AOC are arguing, then you’re not paying attention to what they’re actually saying. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/50 "2019-02-11T00:06:31Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Note that socialism doesn’t require **state** ownership of the means of production, but rather **worker** ownership of the means of production. The reason centrally state-planned economies get the description “socialist” is because, in theory, the workers and citizens commonly “own” the state in some way. In practice, the centrally planned economic version of socialism hasn’t worked out (long term, anyway). These states are often a degenerate or “bourgeoisie” system which are just stealth-oligarchies of some form. Left-Anarchists like the term “state capitalism” for these states, but I try to avoid it because almost everybody has a different definition of “state capitalism” (some have used the term for things like the US bank bailouts, for instance, that is, **state defense** of capitalism). That may once (arguably) have been the definition of socialism but it is not the modern definition of it. Any more than being a republican means you want to abolish the monarchy. There are self-identified socialist politicians and political parties the world over. Basically none of them (even old lefties like Jeremy Corbyn) support a platform that involves the workers seizing the means of production. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/51 "2019-02-14T06:05:39Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > That may once (arguably) have been the definition of socialism but it is not the modern definition of it. Any more than being a republican means you want to abolish the monarchy. > > There are self-identified socialist politicians and political parties the world over. Basically none of them (even old lefties like Jeremy Corbyn) support a platform that involves the workers seizing the means of production. I’ll grant I was being a bit loose and end-gamey with my definition. Socialism was defined as a midpoint between Capitalism and Communism where the state still exists, but has effectively been co-opted by workers fed up with Capitalism, and trying to work out how to properly redistribute resources to the workers. It’s not terribly strict about how exactly that “redistribution” is happening, and given that in Das Kapital Marx was more describing an economic theory than advocating a specific course of action, the definition is fairly agnostic intentionally (i.e. different states in different time periods would likely try very different means of doing this, some succeeding, some failing, some becoming terrible hellholes (see: USSR), some transitioning relatively smoothly etc). So in some respects social programs and Corbyn-style leftism can be seen as redistributing resources and wealth (including the means of production) away from the bourgeois capitalist class to the proletariat, but “socialism” definitionally sort of **implies** that redistribution keeps incrementally happening over the long term until communism is achieved. Granted the definition of “communism” is a bit floaty as well, with countless theorizations over **exactly** how that looks. The definition of socialism I was giving had a bit of an anarcho-syndicalist bent in mind but I can’t always help it considering I’m a literal dual-carding Wobbly and union steward. (I do have some interest in the systems Paul Mason describes in his book Post-Capitalism, though, I recommend it). ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/52 "2019-02-14T06:34:31Z")
Well, this is America, where I had the same conversation with any number of Republicans (and we had it here too). Me: What’s wrong with mandatory health insurance? Them: You can’t force me to buy insurance. Me: But you WANT health insurance, right? Them: Yes, but you can’t make me buy it. Me: :smack: There’s this odd idea that the government shouldn’t be able to force you to do things when the basic incontrovertible fact is that the government forces you to do things every day. Like wear clothing. Tell me where in the Constitution of this or about any other nation where this is clearly specified. Yet we accept that the government can indeed force us to wear clothing. The other argument is that you’re taking things away from people to give to other people and that isn’t right. Yet every government ever since the dawn of time has done this. Just take a look at the late 1800’s to early 1900’s. Inequity was so great and the “plight of the common man” so miserable that the entire world erupted into revolts, strikes and outright revolutions to stop the pain. Nations that didn’t succumb to Communist Revolution changed their laws and introduced socialist measures to reduce the inequity and make the average life more pleasant and bearable. And yet we still have this broad streak of “but the rich deserve to have everything” that permeates even down to poor individuals who somehow think they’re just temporarily disadvantaged millionaires. We’re still bathed in constant anti-well being propaganda denouncing worker safety as too expensive, vacations and sick time as too expensive for companies to grant, taxes as some great evil that should be destroyed, food safety as something inconvenient and expensive, etc. This illusory “freedom” they claim is destroyed by even minimal levels of socialism is your freedom to be poor and die young. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/53 "2019-02-14T07:35:41Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > So in some respects social programs and Corbyn-style leftism can be seen as redistributing resources and wealth (including the means of production) away from the bourgeois capitalist class to the proletariat, but “socialism” definitionally sort of **implies** that redistribution keeps incrementally happening over the long term until communism is achieved. . Except no modern socialist party or politician defines it way at all. Outside of the odd frimge extremists (who almost always describe themselves as communist) socialism means wanting a capitalist democracy where the state takes a larger role, paid for by higher taxes, in order to reduce inequality via social programs. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/54 "2019-02-14T13:45:37Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You know, the irony factor of you calling my post mindless is off the charts, even in this thread. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m going to do since they AREN’T examples of socialist economies. At best, the examples you give are basically mixed (and generally more capitalist than socialist in their mix…essentially, almost all of those are capitalist economies with some small socialist trappings still in there wrt state ownership of some segments of the means of production). China probably comes to closest to a socialist political or economic system, but even there it’s a mix…closer to 50/50 than your others, but still not even close to a full on socialist economy. Sorry if that’s convenient or inconvenient for you, but the truth hurts. There are, of course, real Scotsmen examples if you like. North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela springs out as examples of mostly socialist economies, but there are others. Sadly, none of the ones you gave are. > > Let me guess…you got your list from this, right? [http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/](http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/) > > The problem with this list is they are using ‘socialist country’ to mean 'countries that have social welfare, for the most part (China being an exception). Let’s break it down and see what they say: > > This is a capitalist system with some state owned and operated businesses and a ‘wide range of welfare benefits’. This isn’t economic socialism. > > Same thing. Note the ‘government control over the economy remains at a minimum’ and ‘social welfare system remains’. > > Same. Basically, like you, this guy doesn’t actually know what socialism or a socialist economy is. They are equating social programs with socialism. This is, fucking ironically, the exact same mistake a lot of conservatives make. > > This one is probably the highest in the mix (except for China, which is below)…I don’t know, WAG, maybe 70 percent capitalism with maybe 30% economic socialism. It’s still not close to the other way around, so it’s like the others by and large…a mixed economy. Where the bar is set differs, as it does in the US, but they are all basically the same. Social democracies with core capitalist economic systems with some socialistic bolt on’s and some government control of some businesses. > > In your list, here is the one I’d be willing to concede might be closer to 50/50, or even 40/60: > > The government (or the CCP to be precise) does still control a lot of the means of production. High ranking CCP officials or officers in their military control sort of their own fiefs (in the name of the people, of course). Their government controls a lot of aspects of their economy directly…housing, manufacturing, their stock market, their money policy. Not as the rest on your list, but more of a command economy with some bolt on capitalist stuff (good old fashion crony capitalism in fact). So, this one I’ll give you, even though it’s STILL not predominantly socialist (and it’s debatable how much of a disaster it is or is headed towards). The rest though? Nope. Fine. But what those countries are doing - we should be doing too. So come up with a nice catch phrase to describe them, so we can band together to achieve it, unless of course you think those countries are hell holes. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/55 "2019-02-14T14:01:51Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > Fine. But what those countries are doing - we should be doing too. So come up with a nice catch phrase to describe them, so we can band together to achieve it, unless of course you think those countries are hell holes. What often happens in these conversations is this: “That practice [UHC, wider unemployment benefits, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc] is socialist, and socialism never works.” “But they do [that practice] in many countries [UK, Canada, Scandinavia, etc] and it works just fine.” “Yes, but those countries aren’t _really_ socialist so it doesn’t count.” ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/56 "2019-02-14T20:48:58Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Except no modern socialist party or politician defines it way at all. Outside of the odd frimge extremists (who almost always describe themselves as communist) socialism means wanting a capitalist democracy where the state takes a larger role, paid for by higher taxes, in order to reduce inequality via social programs. > [@BwanaBob](#): > > Fine. But what those countries are doing - we should be doing too. So come up with a nice catch phrase to describe them, so we can band together to achieve it, unless of course you think those countries are hell holes. We generally refer to it as Democratic Socialism, or the Nordic Model. High capitalism, high investment in the middle class though social programs. But if you turn the settings on both down a little it becomes just the default first world setup, I think. I can’t cite this, but my impression is that the US has less welfare and less tax on the high incomes than other first world nations. So its really the US setup that deviates from the mean. The word for the general situation of more taxes for high earners and more welfare, is, well “_Normal_” ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/57 "2019-02-14T23:20:17Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > We generally refer to it as Democratic Socialism, or the Nordic Model. High capitalism, high investment in the middle class though social programs. > > But if you turn the settings on both down a little it becomes just the default first world setup, I think. I can’t cite this, but my impression is that the US has less welfare and less tax on the high incomes than other first world nations. So its really the US setup that deviates from the mean. The word for the general situation of more taxes for high earners and more welfare, is, well “_Normal_” The Scandinavian model is Social Democracy. Democratic Socialism a la the DSA and their ilk is different. For whatever reason Bernie is the primary person confusing the terms and it’s starting to spread among the public consciousness. Yeah yeah descriptivism vs prescriptivism whatever but also, like, actual democratic socialists were still kinda using that term… ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Mabes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mike_mabes/32/1782_2.png) [@Mike\_Mabes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_Mabes)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/58 "2019-02-14T23:58:17Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > What often happens in these conversations is this: > > “That practice [UHC, wider unemployment benefits, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc] is socialist, and socialism never works.” > > “But they do [that practice] in many countries [UK, Canada, Scandinavia, etc] and it works just fine.” > > “Yes, but those countries aren’t _really_ socialist so it doesn’t count.” It happens every single time. > [@Jragon](#): > > The Scandinavian model is Social Democracy. Democratic Socialism a la the DSA and their ilk is different. For whatever reason Bernie is the primary person confusing the terms and it’s starting to spread among the public consciousness. Yeah yeah descriptivism vs prescriptivism whatever but also, like, actual democratic socialists were still kinda using that term… Then the definitions get even further refined. I’ve been skimming but I don’t think there has been a post that address the real question of the OP - does Sweden (Denmark et al) contravene freedom? ETA - Chimera and a few other posters addressed this ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/59 "2019-02-15T00:03:51Z")
> [@Mike\_Mabes](#): > > It happens every single time. > > Then the definitions get even further refined. I’ve been skimming but I don’t think there has been a post that address the real question of the OP - does Sweden (Denmark et al) contravene freedom? > > ETA - Chimera and a few other posters addressed this So did I. Short answer…Sweden (Denmark et al) aren’t socialist economies nor socialist governments. I believe Grim Render also addressed this. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Mabes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mike_mabes/32/1782_2.png) [@Mike\_Mabes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_Mabes)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175/60 "2019-02-15T02:31:06Z")
> [@XT](#): > > So did I. Short answer…Sweden (Denmark et al) aren’t socialist economies nor socialist governments. I believe Grim Render also addressed this. Right. The OP was classifying those countries as socialist, which has been contradicted by you and a number of others. The question was whether or not those mis-classified countries contravene freedom. And most of the posts were about defining socialism, which is great. I did not know the distinction between demcratic socialism and social democracy. For what it’s worth I lean toward social democracy. In theory I am a democratic socialist but we are not nearly evolved enough as a species for that. Everybody sharing everything is not happening in my lifetime [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-socialism-contravene-freedom/829175.md?page=4)