I’m no economist and it has alwyas confused me as to how socialism seems to work perfectly in some countries like Sweden and fail in many others.
What are the “good” conditions for socialism to be effective?
Not to turn it into a discussion of terminology, but a better description would be Social Democratic. The Nordic countries function because they have relative small and very homogenous populations, which – together with some historic circumstances – have created a very high level of public trust. In many ways it’s more helpful to think of Nordic countries as tribes. In addition there’s the whole protestant working morals, and how some people see the welfare state as an earthly implementation of Nordic Christianity.
In any case, the current level of immigration and globalisation has put the systems under heavy pressure, it is already being downscaled and it is doubtful the welfare state will survive the current generation.
Yeah, what he said. I’ll add that Socialism in its purest form doesn’t work well. You need some sort of dynamic economic base in order to generate revenue. The best examples I can think of are the Western European countries (with obvious recent exceptions along the Mediterranean coast) where capitalism and socialism are blended. There is enough economic freedom to keep them solvent, but that is accompanied by a strong commitment toward the governing body guaranteeing basic human needs (food, shelter, clothing) and rights (medical care, education, employment in some countries).
Sweden has a mixed economy, just like the US. The mix is a little different, but both are so far removed from real socialism that the difference is negligible.
What conditions would allow socialism to work? If humans were like social insects, it would work great.
The fact is that there’s not as much difference between socialism and free market capitalism as some people like to pretend. The majority of the people in the country do not own their own business - they’re employees who work for somebody else.
If you’re working for somebody, what real difference does it make to you if the person up above you is a private businessman or a government official? Either way, you’re just working for somebody else. In the day-to-day routine of life there’s no big difference between socialism and free market capitalism.
Which is not to say there are no differences. In the long run, free market capitalism allows for a wider variety - some things won’t work as well as what the socialist system is doing and some things will work better. A well-run socialism tends to be more stable. The advantage of free market capitalism is that it rises to higher levels; the advantage of socialism is that it avoids falling to lower levels. Socialism will give you fewer millionaires living in mansions and fewer homeless people living in the streets.
I think, and have always thought, this to be the case, but it seems like people call you an eevil racist whenever you say it. “What, so you have to be a white Aryan to make socialism work?” No. I think the same thing is true of Japan, because of the totally homogenous population. I don’t really know what kind of economic system Japan has, or how it is affected by the government, but I assume it incorporates some elements of socialism.
What do you mean by “socialism”. Real socialism is the system used in the USSR. I beg to differ in your statement that day-to-day life was pretty much the same for people in the USSR and and people in any Western Mixed Capitalist country.
Right. It’s not some essential element of a particular race that makes this true, it’s a general element of human nature…we’re all xenophobes, to some degree, and socialism requires a trust that humans, in aggregate, aren’t going to give to out-groups. I still think, despite this, that some socialist elements are necessary to keep things stable, absent a rulership with overwhelming military/police force. The New Deal was as much an attempt to forestall a socialist/Communist revolution in the USA as it was a noble attempt at compassion on the part of FDR. Actually, probably much more so.
You could write a book (I just may one day) about how culture changes what people consider private and public - and how it makes them more effective or less. There are many things you could get away with making public in Sweden, or aty least you once could), which simply wouldn’t work in the United States. Likewise, the cozy public-private partnerships you still see in Japan would be decried as corrupt depravity in the States, though it went down fine over there.
However, I can support some basic statements:
Culture changes what you can effectively offer a public service. It is not easy to change this to some alternative ideal, no matter what your politics. No, not even if you’re absolutely sure the alternative would be better.
Cultures value public/private goods in different ways. Generally, the governments gets most deeply involved with things that almost everyone thinks ought to be available to everyone. You can also link goods with both public and private support. Here in the States, public housing has a nasty reputation, and governments tend to eventually ruin it even if they somehow create a success. But they’re deeply involved in housing policy.
To wit, compare at how regulations changed and shaped the housing markets here in the US, where owning a home , even a small one, is considered simply part of life. This wasn’t part of any grand scheme - but hundreds of individuals and groups acting towards a specific end, from Congress on down to the local mortgage broker, all with the same cultural assumptions in mind.
Third, it’s not so much ‘socialism versus capitalism’ but a question of very different services people feel comfortable letting others run for them. Quite often governemnts handle things considered unpleasant or unimportant, even if that involves a vital service. Consider how often governments handle trash service. Everyone needs it, but nobody wants it, and would prefer to simply have it whisked away out of sight. And diffrent parts fo the world handle it differently, some public ro private, as their local circumstances suggest.
No, the Soviet Union ran under a communist system. In communism, the economy is completely controlled by the government. There’s no private property, you’re assigned to a job, there’s supposed to be no money, etc.
In socialism, there’s still private property and businesses and jobs and money and things like that. The difference is that major businesses are owned by the government instead of private citizens. An example of socialism would be something like the post office or the BBC or El Al airline (although not any longer; the government of Israel privatized El Al in 2004). The idea is that the company will be run for the best interests of the people of the country (who, through the government, are its owners) rather than the best interests of the shareholders.
I’ll grant you that some people use the word socialism to mean all kinds of things from “let’s smash the state” to “let’s kill all the Jews”. But we should stick with the main meaning of the word. Otherwise, we can argue that North Korea is an example of how a democracy works.
I agree that ethnic homogeneity is a critical ingredient for success in any form of socialism or highly-taxed environment. Given this fact which several above point to, I wonder why Americans cannot stop parroting “Diversity is a strength”? Clearly lack of diversity is not hurting the Koreans or Japanese and didn’t hurt the US for its first few hundred years.
Hold on there. First, that’s an… unusual definition. I’m sure you could find many who’d support it, but I could point out dozens of socialist thinkers who would think you’re crazy, or at least dead wrong. I object to your claiming the word for your own views on what socialism should be.
It’s not like I invented this definition. It’s a pretty standard one. What’s your definition of socialism?
Technically, “Socialism” has no meaning. In the earliest days of use of the word, as best I can tell, it was basically a movement to create a classless society. The intention of many to achieve this, was to go with the “to all according to his ability, to each according to his need”-ethos of Communism. What we have ended up with, in the West, is meritocracy. You get what you get based on what you’re willing and able to do and what others are willing to value that at. I’ll agree that most of the founders of the Socialist movement wouldn’t have striven for meritocracy, but in the long run it’s the version of a classless society that seems to be more effective.
But for the non-founders - which is to say the majority of all sympathizers of Socialism - meritocracy is just fine. And so in most nations, the Socialist party was able to climb and become a fairly mainstream political party. The equivalent to the US Democratic Party in many nations is titled “Socialist” and in some nations it’s the equivalent to our Republic Party. Socialist groups never took off much in the US since the US never had much of a class system, beyond slavery, and was fairly meritocratic from early on.
Overall, what this means today is that depending on who you are and what environment you grew up in, the term “Socialist” means something entirely different. The original Socialist leaders mostly went along avenues like Communism and Utopianism. The modern day ones range from being nothing different from Democrats or Republicans, and there’s a strong move to redefine the Scandinavian countries as what was Socialism all along. (They aren’t. They’re modern, meritocratic, Capitalist countries with a more inclusive social net than most other countries, but still just slightly to the left of Europe where the US is just slightly to the right.) In the end, the term is meaningless since it would take 10 pages just to argue over a definition that everyone would agree upon, before the debate could even begin.
Now to drop the word “Socialism” and ask, “Why do the Scandinavian countries seem to be able to go on successfully with 80% tax rates, unemployment plans that let you sit around playing video games till the day you die just because you want to, and so on?”
Well…
A) It’s possible that they aren’t. The US instituted Social Security something like 50 or 60 years ago. The government isn’t scheduled to go bankrupt due to Social Security for another 20-30 years even still. If you look at us just today, by all means we’re a success. In reality though, not so much. Some things just take time to fail.
B) It’s possible that the sort of people who would rather sit around playing video games all day, if made to work for a living, just end up getting in every one else’s way and actually impede work. You’re just as well to pay them to stay home.
C) It’s possible that the politicians are lying and have a gradually rising problem of unemployment growing under their feet, as workers realize they don’t have to work.
D) It’s possible that sitting on top of a large source of the world’s oil supply means that they can basically do whatever they want and be happy all the way till the oil runs out, and then they’ll have to start getting serious about life again.
E) It’s possible that giving access to higher education to anyone who is interested, is key to a meritocratic society and for the best in the long run.
F) It’s possible that their policies of free love and kindness has brought in an amazing rate of immigrants to loot the country and take it back to Albania, the Middle Eat, and elsewhere, such that the yearly crime rate since 1985 perfectly matches the immigration rate and has lead to a growing level of racism in those countries.
G) It’s possible that even with 80% tax rates, since it is not a set of Communist countries, and they are in fact a meritocratic countries, there is still personal wealth and some people are very rich and own big yachts and fancy Swedish sports cars, and others are poor and live in small one-room apartments. But each is getting what he was willing and able to work for, or at least close enough to not really make much of a difference.
The American population has never lacked racial/ethnic diversity.
Yup. If people weren’t mammals with the ‘selfish gene’, socialism would be effective. At least for everybody who wasn’t a worker. As things stand, it demonstrably doesn’t work, and I’m fairly confident that it cannot.
Not entirely - the Israeli government retained a “special state share”, which gives it certain veto rights over the airline. This is common practice with former government companies; call it socialism lite.
American blinders there. The rest of the world (and especially the Western world outside of the US) uses socialism as meaning a capitalistic system where the State intervenes regularly (and is considered required to do so) to smoothen inequalities.
That the US manages to use interchangeably socialism and communism is their own failure, they shouldnt ask the rest of the world to follow suit in their miscomprehension.
First off, the US has more history on its side than the rest of the world; it’s you who diverged, not us. As Sage Rat implied, and Little Nemo clearly doesn’t understand, Socilism was envisioned much more closely to Soviet-style Communism than today’s Dem-Socs. Robert Owen would recognize it, as would Henri de Rovroy. Marx might not like it, but it was his baby as well.
Socialism is a system of public ownership and control over the means of productions including direct distribution towards the needs of the populace.
To be frank, you’ve confused one segment of Socialism with the whole thing. The most notable feature of Dem-Soc is how very un-socialist it is.
I once had a Libertarian friend who argued that socialism works perfectly well so long as one does not expect it to be an economically self-sustaining system, but an externally subsidized one like the Army-- which type of environment also has the level of organization and discipline necessary to enforce “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”