Moving it to its own thread to avoid spamming the previous one.
I'm trying to convey a general idea, arguing against a recently posted statement:
"As for a socialist country, many have tried, none have succeeded."
I happen to believe that several European countries can both be considered relatively successful (that obviously should be properly defined) and have been shaped by socialist parties of various flavors recently enough to still have left their thumbprint on how things work. I guess Canada could also qualify, but since my initial statement was that there were successful countries in Europe based on socialism, I will stick to that limitation.
Just asking you guys to try to see the overall picture, and decide if you agree/disagree if a given country belongs on the list or not. A deep analysis of any country can and has occupied scholars for millennia
Here is a list of countries I would consider falling under the broad category as their current way of dealing with things has been influenced by socialist parties of various flavors, and it has led to a well-functioning state.
Since the poster that made that statement didn't define socialism in great detail, I am not sure why that burden would be laid on me
I did a quick search and removed a few that I found not to really qualify, goodbye Ireland and Italy.
These countries have very different ways to deal with things, the common factor being that a socialist party has or is playing a major role in shaping that country's current way of government.
Obviously, conservatives would argue that in their country the years when socialist parties were in power were periods of decline, but that is beside the point if the socialist ways of setting up the country weren't instantly demolished entirely by the next government. I am not considering the normal swings as there is a new government elected, that is just how things work.
Any additions or subtractions are welcome!
Denmark
Germany
Finland
France
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Sweden
Can a socialist country succeed?
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 31
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:22 am
- violet
- Suspicious Little Mad Woman
- Reactions: 289
- Posts: 19709
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:48 pm
- Location: About as far away as can be.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydor ... 72502974ad
"The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.
To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/
"Global media (especially in the US) likes to portray Norway and Scandinavia as socialist. But “cuddly capitalism” is a much more accurate term. Let's take a look at the truth of the Nordic model."
"The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.
To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/
"Global media (especially in the US) likes to portray Norway and Scandinavia as socialist. But “cuddly capitalism” is a much more accurate term. Let's take a look at the truth of the Nordic model."
1
1
The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.
- Plutarch
- Plutarch
The countries listed above are social democracies, not socialist countries.Guru Meditation wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:57 amMoving it to its own thread to avoid spamming the previous one.
I'm trying to convey a general idea, arguing against a recently posted statement:
"As for a socialist country, many have tried, none have succeeded."
I happen to believe that several European countries can both be considered relatively successful (that obviously should be properly defined) and have been shaped by socialist parties of various flavors recently enough to still have left their thumbprint on how things work. I guess Canada could also qualify, but since my initial statement was that there were successful countries in Europe based on socialism, I will stick to that limitation.
Just asking you guys to try to see the overall picture, and decide if you agree/disagree if a given country belongs on the list or not. A deep analysis of any country can and has occupied scholars for millennia
Here is a list of countries I would consider falling under the broad category as their current way of dealing with things has been influenced by socialist parties of various flavors, and it has led to a well-functioning state.
Since the poster that made that statement didn't define socialism in great detail, I am not sure why that burden would be laid on me
I did a quick search and removed a few that I found not to really qualify, goodbye Ireland and Italy.
These countries have very different ways to deal with things, the common factor being that a socialist party has or is playing a major role in shaping that country's current way of government.
Obviously, conservatives would argue that in their country the years when socialist parties were in power were periods of decline, but that is beside the point if the socialist ways of setting up the country weren't instantly demolished entirely by the next government. I am not considering the normal swings as there is a new government elected, that is just how things work.
Any additions or subtractions are welcome!
Denmark
Germany
Finland
France
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Sweden
Of the socialist countries, there are democratic socialist countries e.g. Russia and 'authoritarian' socialist countries e.g. Nth. Korea.
And just like that you lost all credibility.Guest wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:44 amthere are democratic socialist countries e.g. Russia
1
1
"Goodness me! Now STD free..."
Thanks for clarifying your views, Guru. As violet pointed out, the Scandinavian countries are definitely not socialist. Gross inequality is a fact of life in the Kingdom of Sweden. But as you say socialists did play an important role in shaping Sweden into the country it is today.
Russia is not a socialist country. Nobody in Russia claims that it is a socialist country so I have no idea why the guest poster is making that claim.
Russia is not a socialist country. Nobody in Russia claims that it is a socialist country so I have no idea why the guest poster is making that claim.
"Socialist" doesn't mean the same to an American or to a European.
If an American calls you a socialist he generally means hardcore communist.
To Europeans, "socialist" means social democrat. European socialist parties are moderate centrist parties that believe in a market economy, unlike the communists.
A socialist party like the labour party in the UK can have various factions. Tony Blair's or Keir Starmer'ssocialism isn't the same as that lunatic Jeremy Corbyn's.
If an American calls you a socialist he generally means hardcore communist.
To Europeans, "socialist" means social democrat. European socialist parties are moderate centrist parties that believe in a market economy, unlike the communists.
A socialist party like the labour party in the UK can have various factions. Tony Blair's or Keir Starmer'ssocialism isn't the same as that lunatic Jeremy Corbyn's.
2
2
- Orichá
- I have some social problems
- Reactions: 70
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:20 pm
- Location: unknown
Basically all modern developed and undeveloped nations are functionally socialist, from Canada, the U.S. to all Asian, Oceanic and European nations, and everywhere in Africa and South America, too. Capitalism occurs simultaneously in the supposedly wealthy free nations, just as it does in the supposedly Communist ones...
The old-fashioned "political definition" of socialism is just that -- outdated... Today, the functional economy of the whole society most accurately measures and defines its socialistic nature.
Look how all people in all countries depend on governmental organization including the regulation of money. The act of collecting taxes and spending them on the whole society is already basically socialistic. (Look at the handouts of $ to the public during COVID in Canada and the U.S... Poor Cambodia got vaccine socialism courtesy of China.)
So, basically, communal organization for cash/welfare/public education defines socialism everywhere... That's also modern government...
Now, unless you chose equality as your yardstick for "true socialism", you can't say I'm wrong. Anyway -- NO country on Earth, whether it prays to a god made of Capital or one made from Chucky's grandad, is even a little bit equal...
So, to be clear... According to the definition of theoretically pure socialism, no such place exists on Earth... But functionally, nowadays ALL countries are socialistic...
The old-fashioned "political definition" of socialism is just that -- outdated... Today, the functional economy of the whole society most accurately measures and defines its socialistic nature.
Look how all people in all countries depend on governmental organization including the regulation of money. The act of collecting taxes and spending them on the whole society is already basically socialistic. (Look at the handouts of $ to the public during COVID in Canada and the U.S... Poor Cambodia got vaccine socialism courtesy of China.)
So, basically, communal organization for cash/welfare/public education defines socialism everywhere... That's also modern government...
Now, unless you chose equality as your yardstick for "true socialism", you can't say I'm wrong. Anyway -- NO country on Earth, whether it prays to a god made of Capital or one made from Chucky's grandad, is even a little bit equal...
So, to be clear... According to the definition of theoretically pure socialism, no such place exists on Earth... But functionally, nowadays ALL countries are socialistic...
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
...Hannah Arendt
...Hannah Arendt
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
Off topic but only a few of those vaccines were given free, most were paid for.
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 14 Replies
- 3674 Views
-
Last post by spitthedog
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:01 am
-
-
Which country would you rather live in?
by Mike Farce » Wed Nov 29, 2023 7:59 pm » in 'Not' Cambodia - 4 Replies
- 326 Views
-
Last post by fapsara
Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:30 pm
-
-
- 37 Replies
- 4671 Views
-
Last post by Iridesce
Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:15 am
-
- 1 Replies
- 1357 Views
-
Last post by newnewnewbie
Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:19 pm