What is so diabolical about socialism ?

[stellanoir]

Most of the Scandinavian counties have Universal Health Care.

They have the undisputed highest standard of living.

They have post pregnancy extended leaves.

Some of them send their constituents to tropical resorts for SAD.

They rehabilitate their criminals.

What's so diabolical about them?

Just wondering.

Why do we have so many non violent alleged criminals awaiting trial with no recourse and why is our judicial system so impossibly broken?

Why is the super committee not examining the extraordinary waste and cruelty of our penal system.

just wondering'. . .

[OffWithTheirHeads]

1. I blame the Calvinests

[stellanoir]

4. Oh yeah that's easy

lol

[OffWithTheirHeads]

69. It's an easy night.

I have enough of the hard ones.

[BOG PERSON]

12. i blame Columbus

[stellanoir]

17. Yeah it's all the Spainards' fault

kidding

[LWolf]

90. What's a "Calvenest?" nt

[Scuba]

2. Nothing. It's just a Republican boogieman. n/t

[valerief]

3. Socialism is wonderful. That's why the 1% here all get it. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Winner.

Everyone else can quit trying to come up with the perfect answer now.

[stellanoir]

36. Representative leadership has been a ruse since HAVA

was enacted.

[stellanoir]

58. It's about equality is all.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. It's about society and civilization, not the law of the jungle

That's what makes it bad. Amoral survival of the fittest is the American way (it shouldn't be, but that's what the Randians want).

[stellanoir]

7. We gotta take care of each other is all.

[Auggie]

6. I bet the majority of Americans don't understand the meaning

[stellanoir]

8. They truly don't.

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. It is always and only about the 1% demonizing the very things that are good for us.

I don't know much about socialism, but I do know the 1%s mechanisms, and there it goes, full force.

[stellanoir]

11. Consider the health and well being of the Skandahooligans

and you'll truly be amazed

[BOG PERSON]

10. that's social-democracy

socialism goes farther than taxing the wealthy to fund public services or, say, state-owned enterprises. socialism abolishes private property and brings the means of production as well as the social product (incl. any surplus) under state ownership . and that state presumably has some kind of democratically accountable institutions to organize production and distribution of the social product equitably.

[inna]

15. "socialism abolishes private property" - lol, no it does NOT. what nonsense, FFS.

[BOG PERSON]

26. "FFS" yes it does

social-democracy is what you're thinking of. social democracy just tries to keep the contradictions inherent to capitalism from disrupting society w/in a given nation-state. it does not resolve those contradictions entirely, as the rise of rightwing populist movements in social-democratic scandinavian countries indicates . real socialists dont want a new compact between capital and labor, they want the abolition of private property, liquidation of the bourgeoisie and the end of class society.

[inna]

44. "real socialists" - LOL, give me a f'ng break, will ya?

first, who are you to declare who's a "real socialist" and who is not? (consider yourself speaking to one, if you like. :hi: )


second, i presume you meant "contract", not "compact"?...


third, you're speaking in such hopeless orthodox dogma that it's not even... funny. gotta run, anyway.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. To answer your points, as a neutral:

1) They are a person, who is giving their opinion, just like you and the OP are.

2) compact: "an agreement or convenant between two or more parties" (Merriam-Webster)

3) If what they are saying is "hopelessly orthodox dogma", then you seem to be admitting that they are repeating an extremely common opinion. So you are now undermining your first point. It is fairly common to say that socialism involves the large scale ownership of the means of production (and distribution) by the workers or state, and that Scandinavian countries haven't been trying to achieve for some time; they are instead social democracies, with a well-developed state social support system, but also many large private corporations run for profit.

[PETRUS]

57. I may be wrong, but

I think the confusion is over the difference between PRIVATE property - i.e. the means of production - and PERSONAL property - i.e. your books and flower garden and stuff.

[Abq_Sarah]

74. I don't recognize the difference between private and personal property

I find in a very general sense that people who try and make the distinction between their personal property and my private property will guard their "personal property" with a vengeance but have no problem with my "private property" being seized. The same goes for intellectual property. People view their computer as THEIR property but music, books, movies, etc... as stuff that's free for the taking.

[PETRUS]

78. You don't recognize it?

Or do you mean you don't think there's a good way to make a clear distinction? I'd accept either, I'm just asking. (Or am I yet missing your point?)

By the way, I think intellectual property is bogus and the patent and copyright system should be scrapped. There are better ways to fund research, reward innovation, and pay artists.

[stellanoir]

73. It's all BS until we care about each other more.

[Major Nikon]

79. That's not what socialism is

I'm not sure if your wiki is broke, but here is the first sentence which is the essence of socialism:

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.

Notice that private property isn't even mentioned. In true socialism the means of production are cooperatively owned, which means for the most part, nobody works for private individuals, companies, or corporations. The fruits of production are divided among those who actually are doing the producing (labor). You are correct in that no European country has universal socialism. They have mixed economies, as does the US. Some of those countries do have more socialized industries. For instance, the oil industry in Norway is socialized.

[banned from Kos]

82. uhh - the means of production IS private property

my little lithograph shop is - well, private property.

(example only)

[Major Nikon]

85. The claim was...

"socialism abolishes private property". Private property can and does exist under socialism.

[banned from Kos]

86. such demonstrates the absurdity of socialism

If one cannot own his watch-making shop - why bother?

Why aspire? Becoming your own master is the goal.

[Major Nikon]

88. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing affair

The socialization of natural resources makes perfect sense and should have been done decades ago.

[Quantess]

89. Sweden is arguably a friendlier environment for small business than the USA.

Lots of Swedes own their own businesses.

[inna]

95. utter projection

& too funny

[stellanoir]

29. It's absurd

An older gent for whom I once babysat for his grandchildren, was demonized for saying that we were too dependant on Arab oil in the 30's.

That was nutz.

He had a great house and fantastic gatherings.

[Pharaoh]

31. Thats Communism

But the right wing always trys to put them together.

[BOG PERSON]

39. maybe the right-wing is right about this one

but iirc the right-wing argue that social-democracy is a slippery-slope to communism. but the opposite seems to be the case, social-democracy seems to inoculate people against communism. or maybe social-democracy only really works in a rich country, and living in a rich country is what actually turns people away from communism.

[stellanoir]

42. Oh I can say this to you because i've loved your posts for so long.

Communism and Socialism are not the same.

We just need to take care of each other better is all.

The greed and selfishness is just horrendous.

[AntiFascist]

47. I understand what you're saying...

how do you feel about nationalization of oil and other natural resources?

[BOG PERSON]

50. most capitalist countries

nationalize their strategic industries and resources. for example chile's copper mines are nationalized but that doesnt change the underlying fact chile is a capitalist country.

[AntiFascist]

80. The US is more service oriented...

we provide the military service and then the drilling and distribution services.

[banned from Kos]

51. great question - (if I may) Most of our oil is own public property - already socialized!

Its our fault we only auction the rights to drill for it.

There is nothing stopping us from changing that.

[AntiFascist]

52. Most of our oil we have to fight to "defend" (and I use that term ironically)...

our right to have access to it. At the same time, we demonize Muslims.

[stellanoir]

77. They're not socialiized for the greater good.

They're privatized and yeah, they're people.

snort

[stellanoir]

53. self delete

[stellanoir]

56. I think Gaia truly needs a break

[BOG PERSON]

59. thats true

capitalism is going to ruin the planet and social-democratic countries will just offload the costs of environmental destruction onto the less-social-democratic places. one way or another.

[Diclotican]

62. AntiFascist

AntiFascist

I have no problems, if nationalizing of oil and other natural resources can be used to the best of a population inside a nation.. As long as it exist laws, and regulations, where everyone can get a fair share of the resources I have no problem with a nationalizing of important resources.. Of course this is something that can end up in troubles, as many nations often doesn't have all the necessary tools to exploit the resources in a way who are best for everyone.. Many nations who do have a lot of reassures are often also poor country, without the know-how how to exploit the resources for the benefit of everyone. And we all know what came next when that happend...

Another way to secure the best outcome, is to work together with private industry, where the State have laws and regulations, and a fair share of the wealth, but where private industry also are in the loop, to produce and to exploit the reassures.. In Norway, we used the 40-60 percent, where the Government was using a lot of resources over the years, in company with the big oil companies - and our own State owned Statoil, to exploit our amazing treasure in the North Sea. And we managed it well.. It helped also, that we was, and are a stable nation, with strong democratic ties, and a fair un corrupt governance who understood the importance of keeping it real... Today Norway, is one of the richest country at the face of the earth, and are also a stable democracy, where we do have a good life I guess many americans would kill to get if they was able to grasp what it all was about...

But, one of the reasons Norway have used our treasures in the sea for the best of everyone, is because the politicians of the 1960s and 1970s, was looking ahead, and planned for the long run.. And even tho it is a long time since we first started to produce oil from our oil fields in the north sea the long look ahead is still there.. And we save a lot of our money, to the day that we doesn't have any oil and have to rely more on other means.

Our system are not perfect by any means.. But our system is preferable over many other economical systems out there...

Diclotican

[AntiFascist]

68. Yes, Norway seems to have its act together quite well!

Contrast this with Saudi Arabia where, along with the help of the Bush Dynasty, wealth has been greatly concentrated into the hands of the few. I realize that this is a completely different society with its own concerns, but the relationship with the US is troubling, with the fact that the US's 1% is becoming more and more like SA's royals with its labor class becoming more and more like that of China.

[Pharaoh]

72. Yes!

nobody has the right to own our mutual resources.

They are buying up the last of the fresh water now. How insane is that?

[eridani]

87. "Let it be known, there is a fountain

--that was not made by the hands of men." --Grateful Dead

Bingo--no individual should be allowed to own things not made by the hands of men. Things that are made by us--different matter entirely.

[stellanoir]

49. these old paradigms must be thoroughly trashed.

[stellanoir]

61. So we will get to share. . . . right . . .?

[stellanoir]

64. Yeah but we're getting squat here.

[AntiFascist]

13. Leftover from 50's McCarthyism....

Lucille Ball, one of the most successful executive women in Hollywood, almost got crucified for once registering as Communist. She ran the studio that made the original Star Trek.

[stellanoir]

16. I have my Lucy moments when I spaz out once a day.

Don't see it as problematic.

[greymattermom]

14. dog whistle

For blacks and Jews

[stellanoir]

33. I truly like Blacks & Jews

[Quantess]

91. LOL, WUT?!

[Amonester]

18. Because only (most) of the 1% have it.

The 99% must pay.

[Xithras]

19. McCarthyism. The govt spent 50 years convincing Americans that we're "better dead than red".

In my experience, most people who object to socialism can't actually put together a coherent argument about why it's bad, but simply get angry if you question the position that it is. Nearly two generations were raised to the "socialism is evil" drumbeat, and so well ingrained that it's become a moral issue for them. There's also the issue that many genuinely don't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism. When they do start arguing against it, they almost unfailingly start arguing against communist principles, without realizing that there are extensive differences between the two. I am a socialist. I am not a communist.

But mostly, they fear it because they believe that it will destroy their dreams of one day becoming rich and poweful. Point out to them that China, which is a Market Socialist economy, has more personal billionaires than the United states, and their heads explode.

[stellanoir]

23. Thank you

Yet I'm leaning toward the Scandinavian than the Asiatic model.

[PETRUS]

63. I agree with your main point.

But I'd say China is capitalist. I have no experience with their political structure, but I've conducted business with them for 12 years and they have an ownership class and their principle goal is profit.

[stellanoir]

71. yeah and i feel like few

that they are on the wane. Given their irreverence alone,

[Remember Me]

70. +1

I'm really pretty much a socialist; I don't usually THINK of myself that way (primarily because we are so trained NOT to!), but when it comes right down to it, yup. I am.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Those that demonize it are obviously anti-socialists.

Can you think of any great society or nation built by anti-socialists? Can anti-socialists ran an institution that is, by definition, socialist in nature...like government obviously is? I think the answer is no to both. The anti-socialist party has been proving it for the past 40 years.

[banned from Kos]

28. Socialist Party of the US peaked at 6% of the vote in 1920 well

before Fox News and Murdoch began their propaganda campaign.

so the US is definitely an anti-socialist great nation.

[lunatica]

21. Nothing. It will eventually be a part of our Democracy too.

People who are against it are profoundly ignorant. They think it's what Communism under Joseph Stalin was. Plain stupidity. It's a red meat word. A code word that makes teabaggers and capitalists wet their pants in terror but not necessarily for the same reasons.

[banned from Kos]

22. Scandanavia and mainland Europe are not socialist - they have market systems

Socialism is practically dead.

[BOG PERSON]

32. n/m

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

40. Could it depend on how we define the term?

I used to live in Europe and there were Socialist parties, Socialist newspapers, and Socialist candidates. They didn't call themselves democratic socialists but just plain socialists. They did believe in democracy and they accepted a regulated form of capitalism. They would take great exception if someone called them communists, with whom they strongly disagrred. They generally believed in the expansion of government regulation and control of society but absolutely not in totalitarianism. By the way I also encountered many communists who considered themselves committed to communism through democratic means. There may be a correct usage of the term "socialist" according to American political science textbooks, but I think that definition is probably limited to the U.S.

[banned from Kos]

48. Sure - But here is a Wiki link to Germany and they don't list a Socialist Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_political_parties

I guess "The Left" and the Greens might be though.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

55. I don't know about Germany

but here are links to the French, Spanish, and Italian Socialist parties:

http://www.parti-socialiste.fr/

http://www.psoe.es/ambito/actualidad/home.do

http://www.partitosocialista.it/

[hack89]

24. Scandinavian countries are not socialist

they all have strong market based economies - they have embraced capitalism.

They do have a strong and equal partnership between labor, government and business.

[AntiFascist]

27. China has also embraced capitalism...

yet they have not exactly embraced labor, in a capitalist sense.

[BOG PERSON]

30. it's not like they wouldn't like to

the last thing a capitalist state wants is a recalcitrant working class. but i don't think china is anywhere near a position to buy off their working class.

[AntiFascist]

37. They do have a growing Middle Class in places like Shanghai...

they also have lots of cash saved up.

[Diclotican]

67. hack89

hack89

Well, all scandinavian nations, have a Government, where the State (in the meaning of the nation) do have a fair share of control over economy, and where they directly own, or indirectly control a fair share of the economical life in the nations.. That be in Norway, Sweden, or in Denmark. Different systems for different nations, but in fact, all of the tree Scandinavian nations do have a great State, who can control and govern the economy in a fashion.. This goes all the back to right after world war 2, where they had to control the economical life in a matter that is not easy understood today.. But in fact, even today the Government own parts of public land, and have also a large role in economical life.. That be in Sweden Denmark or in Norway..

Finland and Iceland are not part of Scandinavia by the way, but most people outside of this area, often think about Finland and Iceland as part of Scandinavia.. As the name suggest, Scandinavia is made up of Sweden Denmark and Norway - Scan-Di-Navia. But the whole area, where everyone else "Know" as Scandinavia is often reckoned as "Norden"... But that is maybe just an detail, as we all know what you mean, when you say scandinavia:P

Diclotican

[RufusTFirefly]

34. Here's what Founding Father Thomas Paine thought

From a biography of Paine by Craig Nelson

Paine additionally used Part the Second (aka The Rights of Man, Part 2) to propose what one day would become the welfare state, including systems of health insurance; grants for the education of children and the first years of young adults; pensions for the elderly; and a graduated income tax: "When it shall be said in any country in the world, 'my poor are happy, neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness'; when those things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government."

[WillyT]

35. NOTHING !!! - The Biggest Socialist Entity On The Planet Is The U.S. Military !!!

And then there are the cops, the firefighters, teachers, nurses...

The publics tax dollars being redistributed for the public good... or at least that's how it USED to work.

Right now they Privatize the gains ($$$), and Socialize (Tax $$$) the losses.

:shrug:

[AntiFascist]

38. National Socialism...

(with respect to the military). In other words, putting people to work for the 1%.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BOG PERSON]

43. first step toward socialism: scrap the constitution

:bounce::party::bounce:

[brooklynite]

45. and replace it with...?

[Amonester]

46. cheney/bu$h already did.

They both walk (drunk) and talk (garbage) free...

[Initech]

54. There's no profits to be made.

[kestrel91316]

60. Beats me.....

:shrug:

IMHO only Satan's minions would be opposed to social democracy.

[Starry Messenger]

65. Nothing. It would be great.

But it reduces the bottom line and that's unacceptable under capitalism. And before anyone jumps on my shit about it, regulation of capitalism just does not really work for long...and it takes intense blood equity to even squeeze the smallest concessions out of corporations. Wouldn't it be better to direct all of that energy to a better system?

[AntiFascist]

76. What do you think of the system in Norway?

Can you speak to Diclotican's posts in this thread? I believe that the major part of the problem in the US has to do with our emphasis on defense spending. Too many people have been brainwashed. Once we can divert these funds to social programs, things may improve.

[Starry Messenger]

81. Norway is only Norway because of their proximity to the USSR, historically.

It's the same reason we got the New Deal, fear of revolution. Being closer to the Soviet Union and because they aren't an imperialist country, Norway got to keep its social democracy. We can't just order up Norway's economy like it is off the dollar-menu of economic systems. The US is home to some of the most rapacious corporations in the world--witness the blow-back on Occupy, which is fairly mild in its demands. Do you think that the barons of the boardrooms are going to just let us have Norway's economy because it sounds nice? What part of this county's monopolies are people trying to hang on to in this country? Are they doing anything progressive? Most of them don't even pay taxes and they are embedded in our government to keep it that way. Why do we keep trying to make nice with this system? I am really struggling to understand why people stick up for it.

[arcane1]

66. It's a civic religion:

Any time money passes between party A and party B, there has to be a party C in the middle, skimming a percentage of it. Without the 3rd-party skimming, the money is being "wasted" :eyes:

[hughee99]

75. I think for many americans, socialism and communism have been rolled into one

even though they are not, and communism had been "the enemy" for 50 years, so socialism is suffering from guilt by association.

[booley]

83. the word

Many people have this idea about what socialism is and what capitalism is.

An idea that doesn't necessarily match reality. But they feel it's true and leave it at that. It also means that any thing that doesn't fit with what those ideas gets thrown out. (it's nto even a conscious choice)

So wealthy people in socialist countries and deregulations leading to corporate control of the government simply get ignored.

People in this country actually love socialism and government programs. They just hate what they think is Socialism and government programs.

[Dover]

84. Having never lived within a socialist system, I can only speculate

and rely on what I've seen/heard/read. And those impressions seem very positive for the most part.
However every system is corruptible. I think our society/institutions are both a reflection of who
we are while also influencing us. So while I think socialism has some very positive aspects, as
do aspects of populism and capitalism, etc., I hope we'll focus more on the content rather than the form
and create a new society, perhaps a hybrid, that we feel resonates and expresses who we are now as
individuals and as a collective in all our diversity. I contend that much more has changed within us
than we realize, and it's very very positive even it it feels like we are taking two steps back for
every step forward.

If we were building a society from scratch today, what would it look like? And what
would it reveal about us and how we've changed? What have we learned from the past and what would
we like to be living like in the present? Let's build it.

[Monarda]

93. One word: Pelagianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

Pelagianism is a Heresy that holds that man is capable of improving his condition without the assistance of Divine grace. The Lutherans and Calvinists, at least in the beginning of the Reformation, denied that people had the free will to help themselves through actions (works, i.e., prayers, rituals). They believed in the total depravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity of mankind caused by Adam's sinfulness. Only God could decide through His grace, who was good and who was bad. Any good action on the part of a man to was useless. Ironically, the Lutherans and Calvinists worked harder than anyone else to improve themselves -- thus demonstrating that they belonged to the elect upon whom God had shed his grace. The Catholics continued to claim the efficacy of works -- in combination with grace. The problem was that as countries were found in which whole populations had never heard of Christianity, the idea that these millions of people were all damned to eternal torture made God seem unacceptably cruel. Many Calvinists and Lutherans began to modify their positions to a greater or lesser degree. Unitarianism made great strides in Calvinist New England and Switzerland. But when the French Revolution came, those who supported it (liberals) were condemned for denying the depravity of man much as the so-called Pelagians had been. The first people who tried to build a sewer in London to combat the spread of typhus also encountered violent opposition from religious conservatives. Curiously, in the nineteenth century individual attempts at self-improvement became acceptable, even as communal actions were considered practically sacrilegious.

[Hydra]

94. Interesting post

And welcome to DU. Your point seems to dovetail with the rise of dominionism- you aren't allowed to make a better world because God already choose his favorite people, and they're the 1%.