6 ms·

That is just because they used the wrong version of Socialism. They just need to switch to a working version and they should be good. /s

by 49para 8y ago

gameswithgo 8y ago
like denmark, germany, etc?
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Denmark and Germany are not socialist.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Denmark is actually, literally, in the Merriam-Webster definition of Social Democracy / Democratic Socialism. [1] Your one-word denials are unhelpful and uninteresting. Cite some sources and make a case. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democracy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democrac...
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      You are confusing democratic socialism with social democracy. This is a common mistake, but you should understand the difference.
      - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        So should literally every single person every commenting on US politics ever, because pretty much no person in recent history who has ever come close to holding any federal elected office in the US has ever advocated for actual socialism, even the people who self-identify as socialists like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If you use the real definition of socialism, you might as well say "the US should not adopt Nazism" as "the US should not adopt socialism" because both are equally likely to actually be adopted (i.e. not very likely at all). No mainstream politician in the US is suggesting that the state should take over ownership of most private businesses.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        These are actually considered equivalent in modern political discourse, hit that Merriam-Webster link in the parent.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        > These are actually considered equivalent in modern political discourse Not true. Especially not in Europe. > hit that Merriam-Webster link in the parent Unfortunately, Merriam-Webster has it wrong in this case. Social democracy is not a synonym for democratic socialism. The two are very different ideologies with very different goals. As stated in the Wikipedia article for social democracy (with accompanying references): "Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy... Social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system... By the post-World War II period, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to Marxism and shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform in place of transition from capitalism to socialism." [emphasis added] Contrast this with the article for democratic socialism: "Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism... As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production." In summary, social democracy grew out of a movement that advocated transitioning from capitalism to socialism, but ultimately rejected such a transition in favor of working within a capitalist economy. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, advocates for the abolition of capitalism and private property. It does not reflect the present policies of Denmark and Germany, given that neither intends to abolish private property and transition to a socialist economy.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - curtisblaine 8y ago
      Social democracy is not socialism. Social democracy is always expressed within a capitalist and liberal framework, while socialism negates capitalism altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Canada too. It's not pure socialism, it's democratic socialism and it works great.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    Canada is not democratic socialist.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Don't just say no, cite some sources and have a conversation. Two of our four major parties (the NDP and the Parti Québécois) officially adheres to a Democratic Socialist policy [1]. Sure they've not had a turn at governing though they've been the official opposition, and the NDP is currently in charge of the Alberta government. They're not some fringe party. Their platform overlaps heavily with the ruling Federal Liberals - and they're both considered "centre-left" parties. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        The NDP constitution refers to democratic socialism only in the following sentence: New Democrats seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour.... This doesn't mean they adhere to democratic socialism. In fact, only a minority faction of the NDP is committed to democratic socialism, namely the NDP Socialist Caucus. I couldn't find a source for PQ adhering to democratic socialism, but would welcome any references. The Liberal Party and its provincial counterparts are definitely not democratic socialist. Second, even if the NDP and PQ adhered to democratic socialism, that would not mean Canada is democratic socialist. The fact that the Conservative Party adheres to conservatism, for example, does not mean Canada is conservative. Third, Canada is not democratic socialist because democratic socialism is incompatible with capitalism. Democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, including the elimination of private property. There is simply no realistic chance of Canada transitioning to a socialist economy and eliminating private property in the foreseeable future. This doesn't mean it couldn't happen eventually, just that it is not feasible under Canada's current political climate, government institutions, and legal framework. PS: Did you mean to refer to Bloc Québécois (the federal party) rather than Parti Québécois (the provincial party)?
- curtisblaine 8y ago
  No: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-...
kpil 8y ago
I think socialism in any degree fails if there is also anything more than trace levels of corruption in public management and the political system. The socialism in Venezuela is also of the crazy-left type, not even remotely as in Denmark or Germany.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  All government falls over in the face of corruption - and agreed on everything.
- theyinwhy 8y ago
  If anything, Denmark and Germany (not talking about DDR) have been social market economies at one point but that's a long way to go to socialism.

That is just because they used the wrong version of Socialism. They just need to switch to a working version and they should be good. /s

by 49para 8y ago

That is just because they used the wrong version of Socialism. They just need to switch to a working version and they should be good. /s

gameswithgo 8y ago

like denmark, germany, etc?

antidesitter 8y ago
Denmark and Germany are not socialist.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Denmark is actually, literally, in the Merriam-Webster definition of Social Democracy / Democratic Socialism. [1] Your one-word denials are unhelpful and uninteresting. Cite some sources and make a case. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democracy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democrac...
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    You are confusing democratic socialism with social democracy. This is a common mistake, but you should understand the difference.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      So should literally every single person every commenting on US politics ever, because pretty much no person in recent history who has ever come close to holding any federal elected office in the US has ever advocated for actual socialism, even the people who self-identify as socialists like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If you use the real definition of socialism, you might as well say "the US should not adopt Nazism" as "the US should not adopt socialism" because both are equally likely to actually be adopted (i.e. not very likely at all). No mainstream politician in the US is suggesting that the state should take over ownership of most private businesses.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      These are actually considered equivalent in modern political discourse, hit that Merriam-Webster link in the parent.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > These are actually considered equivalent in modern political discourse Not true. Especially not in Europe. > hit that Merriam-Webster link in the parent Unfortunately, Merriam-Webster has it wrong in this case. Social democracy is not a synonym for democratic socialism. The two are very different ideologies with very different goals. As stated in the Wikipedia article for social democracy (with accompanying references): "Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy... Social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system... By the post-World War II period, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to Marxism and shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform in place of transition from capitalism to socialism." [emphasis added] Contrast this with the article for democratic socialism: "Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism... As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production." In summary, social democracy grew out of a movement that advocated transitioning from capitalism to socialism, but ultimately rejected such a transition in favor of working within a capitalist economy. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, advocates for the abolition of capitalism and private property. It does not reflect the present policies of Denmark and Germany, given that neither intends to abolish private property and transition to a socialist economy.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - curtisblaine 8y ago
    Social democracy is not socialism. Social democracy is always expressed within a capitalist and liberal framework, while socialism negates capitalism altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 8y ago
Canada too. It's not pure socialism, it's democratic socialism and it works great.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Canada is not democratic socialist.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Don't just say no, cite some sources and have a conversation. Two of our four major parties (the NDP and the Parti Québécois) officially adheres to a Democratic Socialist policy [1]. Sure they've not had a turn at governing though they've been the official opposition, and the NDP is currently in charge of the Alberta government. They're not some fringe party. Their platform overlaps heavily with the ruling Federal Liberals - and they're both considered "centre-left" parties. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      The NDP constitution refers to democratic socialism only in the following sentence: New Democrats seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour.... This doesn't mean they adhere to democratic socialism. In fact, only a minority faction of the NDP is committed to democratic socialism, namely the NDP Socialist Caucus. I couldn't find a source for PQ adhering to democratic socialism, but would welcome any references. The Liberal Party and its provincial counterparts are definitely not democratic socialist. Second, even if the NDP and PQ adhered to democratic socialism, that would not mean Canada is democratic socialist. The fact that the Conservative Party adheres to conservatism, for example, does not mean Canada is conservative. Third, Canada is not democratic socialist because democratic socialism is incompatible with capitalism. Democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, including the elimination of private property. There is simply no realistic chance of Canada transitioning to a socialist economy and eliminating private property in the foreseeable future. This doesn't mean it couldn't happen eventually, just that it is not feasible under Canada's current political climate, government institutions, and legal framework. PS: Did you mean to refer to Bloc Québécois (the federal party) rather than Parti Québécois (the provincial party)?
curtisblaine 8y ago
No: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-...

kpil 8y ago

I think socialism in any degree fails if there is also anything more than trace levels of corruption in public management and the political system. The socialism in Venezuela is also of the crazy-left type, not even remotely as in Denmark or Germany.

arcticbull 8y ago
All government falls over in the face of corruption - and agreed on everything.
theyinwhy 8y ago
If anything, Denmark and Germany (not talking about DDR) have been social market economies at one point but that's a long way to go to socialism.