5 ms·

Norway and Sweden are capitalist states with significant social programs. The government does not own the means of production and doesn't completely manage the

Norway and Sweden are capitalist states with significant social programs. The government does not own the means of production and doesn't completely manage the economy - they just tax it; in fact they don't even tax corporations all that heavily.

jbooth 9y ago
Norway's doing something very similar to Venezuela as far as nationalized oil going to the public purse, and it's working out great for them. When social-democratic countries screw up due to authoritarianism and corruption, it's 'because socialism'. When capitalist countries screw up the same way, and there have been a lot of them, it's because of the corruption.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- talmand 9y ago
  I would think most people say socialism in this case because it was put up by many influential people as a proud of example of socialism back when times were good. It's the same thing when socialists point to failing capitalistic systems and say "capitalism". It's the problem of people not wanting to properly discuss things and always fall back on blaming people based on labels.
- ameister14 9y ago
  >Norway's doing something very similar to Venezuela as far as nationalized oil going to the public purse, and it's working out great for them. They did it in a completely different way, though, and the funds were managed and executed differently. Norway helped establish a company and essentially behave as shareholders, with their share revenues going into a fund that reinvests it in stock internationally. They deliberately do not depend on it to subsidize social programs entirely and only withdraw 3% per year. Venezuela's leadership actively controlled the fund and used it to support wide-reaching social policies that could only be sustained with new revenues, pushing more oil production and making it a larger percentage of their economy which ultimately caused massive failure when the oil prices went down, they were producing at high capacity already and they couldn't get rid of the social programs.
  - mcv 9y ago
    So the difference is that Norway uses it carefully, while Venezuela uses it recklessly. It's not the idea that's the problem, it's the way it's applied.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      Sure, the idea that the State can get revenues from investments in the economy and put it in a sovereign fund is not the underlying problem.
kunimu 9y ago
It's also important to note that the definition of Socialism as being merely state ownership of most or all production and "complete management of the economy" is a vulgar definition, sometimes even expounded by Socialists themselves. On its own, this would simply be an economy with all the features of capitalism, including but not limited to: * wage labour being the dominant mode of sustenance * a class structure still visible (in fact, is seems as though such a "Socialist" mode of production would have even more well defined classes than our current mode) * private property, but rather than being owned by capitalists it is owned by the state So "workers owning" means of production is not adequate for Socialism. Rather, there must be some kind of shift in terms of how society functions in general. There should be no trade, as trade is a side-effect of the operation of the law of value and exchange value, a dialectical contradiction only found in capitalism. There should be no state, as the state is what exists to defend private property and prop up class interests. Production should be entirely for useful qualities. All productive power of society should be owned by workers (this is your "owning the means of production") either by representation of a government (which is not a state, the distinction is important) or via some other apparatus. For these reasons I am extremely skeptical when people describe countries such as Venezuela, which operate as capitalists, owners of property, on a global scale as "Socialist". If it is Socialism then it is certainly no Marxian Socialism.
- talmand 9y ago
  >> * private property, but rather than being owned by capitalists it is owned by the state Wha? How is state-owned property considered private property? Also, I would have said Venezuela was socialist because the socialists in my country said it was. And I'm fairly certain members of their ruling class described their country's government as socialist.
  - kunimu 9y ago
    Private property is not determined by its owner, but rather its function. Ordinary people can own private property, such as land which is taxed or rented out, means of production upon which people are employed etc. It is a fact that the Venezuelan state owns private property, and also that they employ people in exchange for wages. This is no different at all to what Apple or GM does in the United States. It is also possible for society in general to act as a capitalist. The way Marx and other Socialists use the term "private property" is perhaps different to its modern meaning. Proudhon writes, >There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. “Possession,” says Duranton, “is a matter of fact, not of right.” Toullier: “Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact.” The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
They're hybrid economies, with significant private and public sectors.
- ameister14 9y ago
  The US is also a mixed economy with significant private and public sectors. The State is still capitalist because of the way it engages with the market, which is why I described Sweden and Norway that way.
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    It's a definitely a thing of degrees rather than binary. Nevertheless, the level of state intervention or control of the economy in Scandinavia is such that describing them as partially capitalist and partially socialist is accurate.
mcv 9y ago
Norway and Sweden (and several other European countries) are trying to balance the good parts of capitalism and socialism, while avoiding the bad parts of both, and providing more freedom than the worst manifestations of both.

jbooth 9y ago

Norway's doing something very similar to Venezuela as far as nationalized oil going to the public purse, and it's working out great for them. When social-democratic countries screw up due to authoritarianism and corruption, it's 'because socialism'. When capitalist countries screw up the same way, and there have been a lot of them, it's because of the corruption.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
talmand 9y ago
I would think most people say socialism in this case because it was put up by many influential people as a proud of example of socialism back when times were good. It's the same thing when socialists point to failing capitalistic systems and say "capitalism". It's the problem of people not wanting to properly discuss things and always fall back on blaming people based on labels.
ameister14 9y ago
>Norway's doing something very similar to Venezuela as far as nationalized oil going to the public purse, and it's working out great for them. They did it in a completely different way, though, and the funds were managed and executed differently. Norway helped establish a company and essentially behave as shareholders, with their share revenues going into a fund that reinvests it in stock internationally. They deliberately do not depend on it to subsidize social programs entirely and only withdraw 3% per year. Venezuela's leadership actively controlled the fund and used it to support wide-reaching social policies that could only be sustained with new revenues, pushing more oil production and making it a larger percentage of their economy which ultimately caused massive failure when the oil prices went down, they were producing at high capacity already and they couldn't get rid of the social programs.
- mcv 9y ago
  So the difference is that Norway uses it carefully, while Venezuela uses it recklessly. It's not the idea that's the problem, it's the way it's applied.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Sure, the idea that the State can get revenues from investments in the economy and put it in a sovereign fund is not the underlying problem.

kunimu 9y ago

It's also important to note that the definition of Socialism as being merely state ownership of most or all production and "complete management of the economy" is a vulgar definition, sometimes even expounded by Socialists themselves. On its own, this would simply be an economy with all the features of capitalism, including but not limited to: * wage labour being the dominant mode of sustenance * a class structure still visible (in fact, is seems as though such a "Socialist" mode of production would have even more well defined classes than our current mode) * private property, but rather than being owned by capitalists it is owned by the state So "workers owning" means of production is not adequate for Socialism. Rather, there must be some kind of shift in terms of how society functions in general. There should be no trade, as trade is a side-effect of the operation of the law of value and exchange value, a dialectical contradiction only found in capitalism. There should be no state, as the state is what exists to defend private property and prop up class interests. Production should be entirely for useful qualities. All productive power of society should be owned by workers (this is your "owning the means of production") either by representation of a government (which is not a state, the distinction is important) or via some other apparatus. For these reasons I am extremely skeptical when people describe countries such as Venezuela, which operate as capitalists, owners of property, on a global scale as "Socialist". If it is Socialism then it is certainly no Marxian Socialism.

talmand 9y ago
>> * private property, but rather than being owned by capitalists it is owned by the state Wha? How is state-owned property considered private property? Also, I would have said Venezuela was socialist because the socialists in my country said it was. And I'm fairly certain members of their ruling class described their country's government as socialist.
- kunimu 9y ago
  Private property is not determined by its owner, but rather its function. Ordinary people can own private property, such as land which is taxed or rented out, means of production upon which people are employed etc. It is a fact that the Venezuelan state owns private property, and also that they employ people in exchange for wages. This is no different at all to what Apple or GM does in the United States. It is also possible for society in general to act as a capitalist. The way Marx and other Socialists use the term "private property" is perhaps different to its modern meaning. Proudhon writes, >There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. “Possession,” says Duranton, “is a matter of fact, not of right.” Toullier: “Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact.” The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor.

TulliusCicero 9y ago

They're hybrid economies, with significant private and public sectors.

ameister14 9y ago
The US is also a mixed economy with significant private and public sectors. The State is still capitalist because of the way it engages with the market, which is why I described Sweden and Norway that way.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  It's a definitely a thing of degrees rather than binary. Nevertheless, the level of state intervention or control of the economy in Scandinavia is such that describing them as partially capitalist and partially socialist is accurate.

mcv 9y ago

Norway and Sweden (and several other European countries) are trying to balance the good parts of capitalism and socialism, while avoiding the bad parts of both, and providing more freedom than the worst manifestations of both.