I remember someone I was in a debate with on this board claiming Sweden was ethnically homogenous. I assumed it was ignorance specific to that person. Now it seems that this is the common view in America. Do you really believe that everyone here is blue-eyed and blond, or, failing that, at least ethnically Swedish?
[sub]I actually happen to be blue-eyed and blond. But my point remains valid.[/sub]
Complete miss. Do you disagree that “socialism” has a specific meaning?
None, to my knowledge.
Cuba, I guess. Libya, maybe. I’m unfortunately not very well informed on this point. I’ve never been to Cuba nor Libya. But I have spent a rather massive portion of my life in Sweden, and I know what “socialism” means. For starters, any country with a market economy is disqualified. Do you dispute this?
By the way, when did I say I was a socialist in this thread, and how is it even relevant?
xtisme has a point- there has never been a country based on Marxist principles (actually, a few small communes, like the Scandiavian one- Christisomething?- might qualigy), and damn few ones based on genuinely “socialist” principles. For example, even supposedly Communist countries like Soviet Russia were arguably “state capitalist” ones, with an economy directed by the central government rather than based on collective ownership and decision-making. However, I agree that the word “socialist” cannot be applied to Sweden- any more than the word “capitalist” can be applied to the USA, really. I mean that no state has a single, “ideologically pure” economic system- most of them are a mixture of capitalist and quasi-socialist policies (like enviromental regulation, say, or a minimum wage).
Agreed.
No, but I do believe it to be more homogenous than, say, the US. Isn’t it? I’ve only spent a few hours in Sweden, but I spent a week in Copenhagen once and there were a whole lot of tall fair people getting sunburned in the park there. (We figured they didn’t mind leaving their babies in strollers outside when they went into shops because all the babies looked alike - nobody’d steal them because they’ve got one just like it at home! Saw exactly one non-white baby, belonging to a lady in a sari.)
Well, this depends on your use of serious health treatment. If you’re talking about things like dialysys or a heart transplant at the Mayo Clinic, then yeah, you better hope you have good insurance. And if you can cover the co-pay and other non-covered costs, you probably have at least a decent enough job to have health insurance.
If you’re talking about someone having a heart attack, stroke or suffering a gunshot wound, it’s illegal for a hospital to turn you away. They have to try to save your life. However, follow-care or anything else needed after you’re stabalized, without insurance, will mean you’ll be moved to county ASAP.
Not sure what your personal view or understanding is of the system, but it still amazes me to hear from citizens of other countries that beleive someone without insurance would be left to die outside the ER entrance.
Anyway, just wanted to clear up any misconceptions that may be out there. Carry on.
Damnit, I forgot to include something to the above.
First, it is, in my experience, exceedingly rare to be denied treatment for anything that requires medical attention. Just about every public hospital/clinic will see you for things like physicals, minor injuries, sprains, burns, etc. With or without insurance. Unless it’s something not needed for sustaining health. If you want a boob job or vasectomy, expect to pay upfront.
The majority of what is said about health care is the fact that after care, the place will send you a bill. That’s what’s meant, for the most part, by people not being able to afford health care. Not that you pay when you are seen, but that the bill follows you until paid. If you need to see a doctor, you can. It’s just not going to be free. Hence, a huge percentage of bankroptcies filed due to health care costs. By the way, it does happen often, but it’s not the epidemic some make it out to be. Very few health care centers struggle to post profits.
Not exactly sure, as I’m not that familiar with the American situation. Let’s try and find some statistics… The best I could do right now is that in 2002, 13% of the Swedish population consisted of first-generation immigrants. That leaves plenty of room for racism.
Now, I may be skewed in the other direction as I live in what is probably the most ethnically heterogenous city in Sweden. I get the hiccups whenever anyone mentions “Sweden” and “ethnically homogenous” in the same sentence.
Actually, “capitalist” would be a poor analog for applying the term “socialist” to Sweden. If one were to call Sweden socialist, it would be more accurate to call the U.S. libertarian.
As most of us recognize, the U.S. really isn’t a libertarian state, but neither is Sweden socialist. I would say it’d be fairer to call Sweden a model of a welfare state, but here in 'Merica, that also has a negative connotation. But Sweden is most definitely in the capitalist camp: the 4th richest man in the world is a Swede, fercryingoutloud.
Oooh, but I forgot to mention the one thing that really bothers me about Sweden. It’s like pulling teeth to get a bottle of booze in the damn country. The state run liquor stores are damn hard to find, the hootch is expensive, and are open for what – 4 hours and 13 minutes a day, three days a week? (exaggeration, of course)
Yes. But he lives in Switzerland. Since 30 years. For tax reasons.
This, at least, is true. Outside the big cities, anyway.
I can’t say I know all that much about Norwegian-American history, but I’ve never heard a bad word about them. Were there once Norwegian gangs roaming around the mid-West terrorizing people?? Could be, but their descendants are for the most part considered model citizens. 
The Washington Post ran an interesting series of articles on Finland not too long ago. (You can probably find it with a search.) The series was highly laudatory; about the only bad thing they could come up with was what they perceived to be too much conformity among the Finns; too much agreement and comfort. Sounds like a weak argument to me.
I have not been to Scandinavia, but I have spent a good deal of time in Germany, which usually ranks just a couple notches down these quality of life lists. IMHO Germany is an excellent country, so I can’t wait to see how good Scandinavia is. Now the only question is, how has Scandinavia succeeded where so many others have failed??**
** A British academic ruffled feathers not too long ago by arguing that in part it was Scandinavia’s relative homogeneity (at least until recently) that enabled it to get to where it is. In a nutshell, people are more likely to support social support for their compatriots if they feel like the people they are supporting are similar to themselves – ethnically, religiously, linguistically, culturally. Is there truth in this argument, and if so, how will the rising tide of immigration to Scandinavia change things?
We’ve already lived through several waves of immigration, the most recent one from former Yugoslavia as it was becoming former Yugoslavia. The system seems as popular as ever, which admittedly means that people bitch and moan a lot but don’t actually seem to want anything to change. I doubt there will be much difference.
Is this exactly what Sweden is? Nope. Sweden is quasi-socialist…and so is the US. The ‘means of productions’ are under complete control of ‘the people’…however they are under a form of ‘collective control’ in the form of regulation and such on ‘behalf of the people by the state’. No?
I don’t believe that ‘socialist’ and ‘capitalist’ are necessarily mutually exclusive terms…nor do I believe that there is any pure form of either. There is a sliding scale (IMHO) between socialism and capitalism…with Sweden being closer to the socialist side and the US being closer to the capitalist. IMHO Sweden is about as close on the scale to the ‘socialist’ side, and being a success story (of sorts), is about as close as one could get to a ‘liberal socialist paradise’…at least in the real world.
Right…as I said, no true scotsman. Since we live in the real world though, we have to fudge things occationally…since no one EVER has a pure theoretical system that crosses all the T’s and dots all the I’s.
You were making pronouncements about what is or isn’t socialism (in your opinion) so I dubbed you ‘Mr. Socialist’. It was done tongue in cheek btw…and no, its not relevant to the thread. It wasn’t meant to be an insult, if thats what you are getting at. If you took it so, my apologies…
-XT
The true Scotsman fallacy is reasoning similar to this:
“All Scotsmen wear kilts.”
“But Angus McDonald doesn’t wear a kilt!”
“He’s not a true Scotsman. All true Scotsmen wear kilts.”
That’s not what has happened here. Show me a country that has implemented socialism, and I will call that a socialist country.
I don’t think you understand some important terms here.
In Sweden, just like in the United States, if you want to start a business, you apply to get some permits, you invest your money, and you succeed or fail. (Though there’s more forms to fill out in Sweden, probably.) In a socialist country, you don’t start a business. You go to work at People’s Shoe Factory Number Five. (You’ll note that the Wiki article you looked at examines the centralized economies of the Soviet bloc and the far-leftists in Europe who advocated centrally planned economies, not the actual economies of Scandanavia.)
Both the United States and Sweden are about as quasi-socialist as they are quasi-fascist. It is nonsense. I can just as easily say that the US is more fascist than Sweden because we have a stronger executive, but that doesn’t mean that we’re fascist at all. Sweden can be called a welfare state, and so can the US to a lesser degree, but neither are socialist, quasi or otherwise.
Ah! We hear so much here about Germany and France that we tend to forget there are large numbers of immigrants (and I suppose you mean Turks, Arabs and North Africans) in every country in Europe.
I guess you might make a case for that, adversity breeding character and all that . . . but try running for office on a platform that your country (any country) should be any poorer and see how far that gets you!
Errmm . . . by which definition of the term? (It’s a lot easier to define “Scotsman” than it is to define “socialism.”)
At least, a planned economy rather than a market economy.
Like I said above, I believe Cuba and Libya fit the bill, but I’m not well enough informed to be sure.