[Раскольников]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Nordic Socialism


The state mitigation of an imperfect system, by means of providing universal healthcare and education, and making sure that all citizens, whether or not they work, have an acceptable standard of living.


I used to be a libertarian, but then I started listening to Christopher Hitchens, and saw how successful the Nordic states were (and indeed are).


No more, comrade.

So would this be like Social Democracy?

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by Раскольников)
So would this be like Social Democracy?

An extreme of social democracy. I describe myself as a "radical social democrat". I find other forms of socialism to be wistful and unfeasible.

[Classical Liberal]

How would you make pencils?

[Drapetomanic]

(Original post by CUFCDan)
This sort of argument for anything does not sit well with me.

No one released a detailed plan of how capitalism would work either. A lot, especially feudal lords, didn't think it could work.

Capitalism itself is extremely difficult to regular and maintain, which is why we're seeing the issues we see now. The transition to capitalism was disastrous on whole swathes of people.

What's your point? That we should make similar mistakes by leaning towards an ill-defined gift economy without a thorough plan? My point is that the kind of market socialist economy I'm talking about has much theoretical and empirical grounding. Since models have been described in detain, an the success of democratic firms can be measured within a capitalist marketplace.

(Original post by Раскольников)
Do you support something like the Chinese model?

NONONONONO! The Chinese model isn't a market socialist model, it's more authoritarian capitalism. You still have company owners making millions, monopolies, exploitation, alienation, chaotic investment etc.

Added to their economic problems (and I do think their "bubble" will burst big time), they essentially have a dictatorship controlling the populace, crushing their liberty, whilst enforcing nationalist propaganda in order to keep people further in check and fuel the imperialism we're starting to see.

(I imagine there could still be big differences between the Chinese system and your idea of how things should be done, perhaps due to possible effects of the history that led the Chinese into their particular model.)

Right.

Sounds interesting. Do you know where I could find this book? I couldn't find it on amazon. Or do you recommend any other books on market socialism?

Both David Schweickart's Against Capitalism and After Capitalism are good.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Capita.../dp/0742513009
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-capi.../dp/2735105377

The Democratic firm by David P. Ellerman is OK. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...h__7jWq6CytL9A

[MTR_10]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Nordic Socialism

The state mitigation of an imperfect system, by means of providing universal healthcare and education, and making sure that all citizens, whether or not they work, have an acceptable standard of living.

But only within the nations borders? Isn't it hypocritical to say that and then consume and utilise the services of workers who do not have an acceptable standard of living just because they happen to live outside of the country?

I used to be a libertarian, but then I started listening to Christopher Hitchens, and saw how successful the Nordic states were (and indeed are).

But very elitist and inaccessible for the vast majority of people. Socialism ≠ elitism.

[Harolinho]

I don't know if I'm a socialist -

I don't necessarily believe in equality of earnings but I absolutely believe in equality of opportunity.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Harolinho)
I don't know if I'm a socialist -

I don't necessarily believe in equality of earnings but I absolutely believe in equality of opportunity.

If you are a socialist, then you would believe that genuine equality of opportunity would result in more or less equality of outcome.

[Harolinho]

(Original post by anarchism101)
If you are a socialist, then you would believe that genuine equality of opportunity would result in more or less equality of outcome.

Equality of outcome? Not at all - many people find themselves in much the same situations and yet some prosper and some falter. Of course there would be a much smaller gap between the rich and the poor - and the distribution of well would be much more even.

[Dogfish44]

(Original post by Раскольников)
- What kind of socialism do you support?
- What does socialism means to you?
- What led you to adopt your beliefs, and what makes you hold them still?
- Anything else....

1) Social Democrat. Elected BIG government, high government services, exponential tax rates (To a point). Standard left wing ideologies, see Scandinavia.

2) Equality through fair but not disproportionate government interference - lower ability to gain capital income through inheritance, but making sure those who don't work through choice don't get all the bonuses of the rich.

3) It's a question of whether people should come before businesses to me, and I rank the people first.

4) I'm distinctly more centralist than a lot of socialists, but I still hold the same ideals.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by MTR_10)
But only within the nations borders? Isn't it hypocritical to say that and then consume and utilise the services of workers who do not have an acceptable standard of living just because they happen to live outside of the country?

Nobody is denying that worldwide working conditions need to be improved. However, at the rate of technological progress, I think that the problem will solve itself faster than government intervention would. I would love to live in a world without poverty or suffering--I just can't see a way of actively moving towards one.

[/QUOTE]But very elitist and inaccessible for the vast majority of people. Socialism ≠ elitism.[/QUOTE]

How do you mean? Can you elaborate?

Nordic taxes are incredibly high, and there are no private schools or hospitals. I can't see how that is elitist? The cradle to grave benefits system which ensures every person's prosperity. I can't see how that is elitist? Their prison system focuses entirely on rehabilitation and not at all on punitory measures. I can't see how that is elitist?


I'm not trying to be inflammatory; I just want to amend my worldview and political stance if it is incorrect.

[TheIronist]

Scandinavian countries are not socialist. The fact that a lot of redistribution (in the form of social spending) takes place doesn't make them socialist. Take a look at their ownership patterns. Who owns most of the property? how are businesses organised? what is the incentive structure like? what is the education system like?

I think most capital/property is owned privately, businesses organise according to capitalist principles (very deep division of labour within the workplace), people are incentivised primarily by monetary rewards (higher salaries, bigger profits), etc, etc.

When I think of socialism I think of a system where private ownership of capital is abolished and, subsequently, people are not paid according to their productive contribution. The goal of the firms is not maximise profits. Education is carried out for the sake of learning, not for the sake of "preparing" you for the workplace (or at the very least, education is not exclusively about gaining skills for the workplace). etc.

I may have painted socialism in too rosy a light (I am not really a socialist btw) but this is what it is imo. The Scandinavian countries (which are always ridiculously romanticised) can at best be described as social democracies (they're quite "neoliberal" in other respects).

[snozzle]

All Socialism requires economic planning ultimately. It reduces freedom to near zero. A society where all economic decisions are planned is a totalitarian one.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
My point is that the kind of market socialist

There's no such thing in the realm of the possible, it's a chimera.

Socialism is an organised economy, not a market one. What's socialist about free economic agents being allowed to freely respond to the price mechanism and make economic choices as they see fit?

[MTR_10]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Nobody is denying that worldwide working conditions need to be improved. However, at the rate of technological progress, I think that the problem will solve itself faster than government intervention would. I would love to live in a world without poverty or suffering--I just can't see a way of actively moving towards one.

But very elitist and inaccessible for the vast majority of people. Socialism ≠ elitism.

How do you mean? Can you elaborate?

Nordic taxes are incredibly high, and there are no private schools or hospitals. I can't see how that is elitist? The cradle to grave benefits system which ensures every person's prosperity. I can't see how that is elitist? Their prison system focuses entirely on rehabilitation and not at all on punitory measures. I can't see how that is elitist?


I'm not trying to be inflammatory; I just want to amend my worldview and political stance if it is incorrect.

Apologies if my post sounded like I was being critical or trying to disregard the Nordic system in any way.

The problem I have and the point I am trying to make though is that these countries may well be socialist within themselves but outside of their border's the people and systems which produce a lot of the goods which they consume are quite un-socialist. For example, Nordic companies may have good wealth distribution amongst themselves but then consume American consumer goods (thereby supporting a grossly unequal capitalist system). If everyone stopped doing this then we would all be better off (I don't mean financially by the way).

Now if only these countries could transfer their system to the rest of the world, we would all be much happier and healthier. I really applaud their approach but just don't think that socialism will work on a global scale (sadly).

Also, you seem to support socialism on the one hand (within your own borders perhaps?) but then accept poverty and suffering is probably inevitable for everyone else? What do you mean by this and why do you think socialism is possible in these countries but not across the world? So you believe you can live a good life but it is not possible for others too as well? Why?

So essentially my question is do you think the Nordic model can/ will be applied to the rest of the world and if so how?

[Adam C]

What kind of socialism do you support?

I'm a libertarian socialist (specifically an Anarcho-Communist). Contrary to some beliefs, this is not a contradiction in terms. Anarcho-Communists believe in a stateless, classless society where money has been abolished and all means of production are in common ownership.

What does socialism means to you?

Essentially what I described above. Socialism is a democratic system both more humane and more efficient than capitalism. What socialism does NOT mean is Labour party style reformism or Stalinist state-capitalism.

What led you to adopt your beliefs, and what makes you hold them still?

I had very vague socialist sentiments before I began to study 20th century history, reading about figures such as Lenin, Trotsky and Mao. I admired their ideals but couldn't bring myself to agree with their authoritarian methods. After that, I read some of Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin and combined my socialism with anarchism.

Ask me things, if you like.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by TheIronist)
Scandinavian countries are not socialist. The fact that a lot of redistribution (in the form of social spending) takes place doesn't make them socialist. Take a look at their ownership patterns. Who owns most of the property? how are businesses organised? what is the incentive structure like? what is the education system like?

I think most capital/property is owned privately, businesses organise according to capitalist principles (very deep division of labour within the workplace), people are incentivised primarily by monetary rewards (higher salaries, bigger profits), etc, etc.

When I think of socialism I think of a system where private ownership of capital is abolished and, subsequently, people are not paid according to their productive contribution. The goal of the firms is not maximise profits. Education is carried out for the sake of learning, not for the sake of "preparing" you for the workplace (or at the very least, education is not exclusively about gaining skills for the workplace). etc.

I may have painted socialism in too rosy a light (I am not really a socialist btw) but this is what it is imo. The Scandinavian countries (which are always ridiculously romanticised) can at best be described as social democracies (they're quite "neoliberal" in other respects).

Only two types of people think scandanavian nations are socialist, or europe for that matter, American tea party republican types who think anything that isn't whatever the tea party is about right now is socialism, and idiot American "liberals" who say stuff like "socialism isn't all bad, look at europe and place like sweden, socialism just means the government takes care of some industry ..."

HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUR

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Раскольников)
- What kind of socialism do you support?
- What does socialism means to you?
- What led you to adopt your beliefs, and what makes you hold them still?
- Anything else....

If I had to choose between this what we have now and a Carson style Mutualist society, I would be undecided, but I support Geolibertarianism to a certain extent.

Socialism to me, means a fashion label for young people who are a product of the anti-status quo status quo (if that makes sense) of pop culture.

I was led to my beliefs by first being a massice cynic to the people (student culture) around me, then by influence of my parents, then american friends, then lots of reading.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
All Socialism requires economic planning ultimately.

All economies require economic planning. Capitalist firms plan their production processes. However, if you take socialism at its actual meaning, worker ownership of the means of production, that would mean the decentralisation to the individual level. Anything further up the tier (i.e. between 'bottom up' and 'top down') would come about as a result of free association.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Adam C)
I'm a libertarian socialist (specifically an Anarcho-Communist). Contrary to some beliefs, this is not a contradiction in terms.

If anything, it's a tautology, since communism is already defined as stateless.

[Adam C]

(Original post by anarchism101)
If anything, it's a tautology, since communism is already defined as stateless.

That's what I usually tell people, actually. But the words socialism, communism and anarchism have been so degraded that people think Tony Blair is a socialist and North Korea is communist.