9 ms·

I don’t know what your definition of socialism is which makes it difficult to respond to you. But in any historical manner, Norway is not a socialist society. W

I don’t know what your definition of socialism is which makes it difficult to respond to you. But in any historical manner, Norway is not a socialist society. We now have more freedom of choice in the market place than most countries and also compared to our own history. Norway was more socialist after the Second World War, where many industries was built up by the government. But since the 80s our government slowly divested from almost all these industries leading to much more affordable prices and greater competition. It’s a great country to start up companies and create wealth. There are aspects of Norway that is socialist, but the country by historical standards and by the very definition is far far from being socialist. It is difficult to categorize countries as socialist or free markets, since all countries has a bit of a mix. However, it is easy to see what it is decidedly not. Compared to socialist countries like USSR, East Germany, North Korea, Venezuela, we can all agree that Norway is not like those, it is indeed far closer to free markets than compared to socialism.

EGreg 8y ago
Most people use the word socialism incorrectly. They look at social democracy which is just markets with redistribution and safety nets, and they say “socialism”. Any welfare programs that help the poor - they say “socialism”. They look at cities and countries engaging in State Capitalism and call it socialism. Socialism is collective ownership of the Means of Production. Examples of textbook socialism include: Communes and Kibbutzes Co-operative housing Credit Unions Employee owned corporations Open source projects And you can have democratic governance of larger structures, which MAY be called socialism: The public stock market (capitalism and socialism can coexist).
- gcb0 8y ago
  and then there's the definition from countries too close to nazi germany and/or the ussr at some point in its history: a term they will politely but enfaticaly deny, always.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    Nazi Germany was of course an example of national-socialism, which was a branch of fascism, not socialism. The name is very difficult for people to understand (although loads of people willfully misunderstand it), but saying it was socialism is like saying the Democratic People's Republic of Koreais an example of why democracy or republicanism is terrible.
    - black-tea 8y ago
      You start with a set of things and you map them to a smaller set of categories. The more you learn about things, the bigger your set of categories becomes, until eventually you find the sets are equal. Far too much effort is wasted arguing along the way.
    - kebman 8y ago
      If you look at the Nazi program, up to 50% is clearly Socialist in nature, while the rest is Nationalist and Nationalist-Socialist. Thus it's fair to say that there are more similarities between Socialism and Nazism, than differences. Critics use the fact that Hitler "cooperated" with the big companies, rather than fully nationalizing them, as a way to claim that he wasn't Socialist, however that is misleading. While Socialists would send the Kulaks to their deaths in the Gulags, Hitler kept his business leaders alive as long as they cooperated. Thus Russia threw away expertice, while Hitler kept it. This lead to great economical advances in Germany, though at a terrible human cost. Meanwhile the more traditional Socialist approach in Russia didn't really lead to much ecnomical progress at all, while having a comparably terrible human cost.
      - smcl 8y ago
        If you think Nazis had anything to do with Socialism, I suggest you read up on what the Nazis did to the Socialists in Germany ...
        LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
        They send the competition to the camps, but at the same time for example made it really tough to evict people from flats for landlords. Nationalistic socialism was a socialism too. They even had the enormous debts and mismanagment (Mefo-Wechsel), that in addition with racism and a non-fertilizer agriculture made the "Expansion" in all directions necessary to avoid collapse.
- antipropaganda 8y ago
  Most people also use the word capitalism incorrectly. The capitalism-socialism dichotomy is largely an invention of Marxists. Many who oppose socialism do so because they prefer a society where individual justice is not overshadowed by "collective justice". The idea is that people are expected to work for their benefits, save up money to form capital and then invest that capital to create a safety net for themselves. Most people on the conservative side are not opposed to helping people who can't help themselves or giving people who did their best but fell on hard times, a break, through bankruptcy. If a country has a large amount of natural resources like Norway, it can be somewhat successful in dispensing with individual excellence. For example, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world. However, this may not be sustainable since natural resource eventually run out. For example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauru#Modern-day_Nauru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauru#Modern-day_Na... Norway used its oil profits to create a sovereign wealth fund and invested it in stocks. What is the system called when dispensable income is used to form capital which is then invested in other ventures to create additional revenue streams ? I would call it capitalism. If all countries where Norwegian money is invested decided to become socialist and seized their property, Norway will not be upheld as a socialist success, would it ?
  - Gravityloss 8y ago
    > If a country has a large amount of natural resources like Norway, it can be somewhat successful in dispensing with individual excellence. I'm not sure what is meant by this? I would assume that the more resources the government or the community has, the more they can support people's talents. You can invest more in education and arts. > Norway used its oil profits to create a sovereign wealth fund and invested it in stocks. What is the system called when dispensable income is used to form capital which is then invested in other ventures to create additional revenue streams ? I would call it capitalism. True, that's a good point, it's state level capitalism. If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism?
    - kwhitefoot 8y ago
      > If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism? Perfect!
- NPC32419419 8y ago
  This is the definition from Encyclopædia Britannica (1911): Socialism is that policy or theory which aims at securing by the action of the central democratic authority a better distribution, and in due subordination thereunto a better production, of wealth than now prevails.
djrobstep 8y ago
My definition of socialism is the absolutely conventional one: Common ownership of the means of production. Socialism doesn't mean "the opposite of markets", hence the existence of market socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism Norway is in fact far more socialist than Venezuela: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/27/norway-is-far-more-socialist-than-venezuela/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/27/norway-is-fa... > But since the 80s our government slowly divested from almost all these industries leading to much more affordable prices and greater competition. The percentage of national wealth owned by the Norway government has been steadily growing since the 80s.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ptaipale 8y ago
  Norway is not socialist in the "means of production" sense. The means of production, be it machinery or brains, are privately owned. The government owns assets that are exploited in this production - primarily, the oil fields - but not means of production.
  - NPC32419419 8y ago
    Errmm, and STATOil rings the bell?
  - djrobstep 8y ago
    You're being very incoherent. > The means of production, be it machinery or brains, are privately owned. They are not. The government literally owns the bulk of the wealth. Not only in the oil sector but in a wide variety of industries, both directly and through the fund.
    - Gravityloss 8y ago
      You are correct in the sense that the government owns 67% of Equinor (formerly Statoil and Norsk Hydro): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinor And controls the oil fund.

EGreg 8y ago

Most people use the word socialism incorrectly. They look at social democracy which is just markets with redistribution and safety nets, and they say “socialism”. Any welfare programs that help the poor - they say “socialism”. They look at cities and countries engaging in State Capitalism and call it socialism. Socialism is collective ownership of the Means of Production. Examples of textbook socialism include: Communes and Kibbutzes Co-operative housing Credit Unions Employee owned corporations Open source projects And you can have democratic governance of larger structures, which MAY be called socialism: The public stock market (capitalism and socialism can coexist).

gcb0 8y ago
and then there's the definition from countries too close to nazi germany and/or the ussr at some point in its history: a term they will politely but enfaticaly deny, always.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  Nazi Germany was of course an example of national-socialism, which was a branch of fascism, not socialism. The name is very difficult for people to understand (although loads of people willfully misunderstand it), but saying it was socialism is like saying the Democratic People's Republic of Koreais an example of why democracy or republicanism is terrible.
  - black-tea 8y ago
    You start with a set of things and you map them to a smaller set of categories. The more you learn about things, the bigger your set of categories becomes, until eventually you find the sets are equal. Far too much effort is wasted arguing along the way.
  - kebman 8y ago
    If you look at the Nazi program, up to 50% is clearly Socialist in nature, while the rest is Nationalist and Nationalist-Socialist. Thus it's fair to say that there are more similarities between Socialism and Nazism, than differences. Critics use the fact that Hitler "cooperated" with the big companies, rather than fully nationalizing them, as a way to claim that he wasn't Socialist, however that is misleading. While Socialists would send the Kulaks to their deaths in the Gulags, Hitler kept his business leaders alive as long as they cooperated. Thus Russia threw away expertice, while Hitler kept it. This lead to great economical advances in Germany, though at a terrible human cost. Meanwhile the more traditional Socialist approach in Russia didn't really lead to much ecnomical progress at all, while having a comparably terrible human cost.
    - smcl 8y ago
      If you think Nazis had anything to do with Socialism, I suggest you read up on what the Nazis did to the Socialists in Germany ...
      - LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
        They send the competition to the camps, but at the same time for example made it really tough to evict people from flats for landlords. Nationalistic socialism was a socialism too. They even had the enormous debts and mismanagment (Mefo-Wechsel), that in addition with racism and a non-fertilizer agriculture made the "Expansion" in all directions necessary to avoid collapse.
antipropaganda 8y ago
Most people also use the word capitalism incorrectly. The capitalism-socialism dichotomy is largely an invention of Marxists. Many who oppose socialism do so because they prefer a society where individual justice is not overshadowed by "collective justice". The idea is that people are expected to work for their benefits, save up money to form capital and then invest that capital to create a safety net for themselves. Most people on the conservative side are not opposed to helping people who can't help themselves or giving people who did their best but fell on hard times, a break, through bankruptcy. If a country has a large amount of natural resources like Norway, it can be somewhat successful in dispensing with individual excellence. For example, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world. However, this may not be sustainable since natural resource eventually run out. For example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauru#Modern-day_Nauru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauru#Modern-day_Na... Norway used its oil profits to create a sovereign wealth fund and invested it in stocks. What is the system called when dispensable income is used to form capital which is then invested in other ventures to create additional revenue streams ? I would call it capitalism. If all countries where Norwegian money is invested decided to become socialist and seized their property, Norway will not be upheld as a socialist success, would it ?
- Gravityloss 8y ago
  > If a country has a large amount of natural resources like Norway, it can be somewhat successful in dispensing with individual excellence. I'm not sure what is meant by this? I would assume that the more resources the government or the community has, the more they can support people's talents. You can invest more in education and arts. > Norway used its oil profits to create a sovereign wealth fund and invested it in stocks. What is the system called when dispensable income is used to form capital which is then invested in other ventures to create additional revenue streams ? I would call it capitalism. True, that's a good point, it's state level capitalism. If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism?
  - kwhitefoot 8y ago
    > If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism? Perfect!
NPC32419419 8y ago
This is the definition from Encyclopædia Britannica (1911): Socialism is that policy or theory which aims at securing by the action of the central democratic authority a better distribution, and in due subordination thereunto a better production, of wealth than now prevails.

djrobstep 8y ago

My definition of socialism is the absolutely conventional one: Common ownership of the means of production. Socialism doesn't mean "the opposite of markets", hence the existence of market socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism Norway is in fact far more socialist than Venezuela: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/27/norway-is-far-more-socialist-than-venezuela/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/27/norway-is-fa... > But since the 80s our government slowly divested from almost all these industries leading to much more affordable prices and greater competition. The percentage of national wealth owned by the Norway government has been steadily growing since the 80s.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ptaipale 8y ago
Norway is not socialist in the "means of production" sense. The means of production, be it machinery or brains, are privately owned. The government owns assets that are exploited in this production - primarily, the oil fields - but not means of production.
- NPC32419419 8y ago
  Errmm, and STATOil rings the bell?
- djrobstep 8y ago
  You're being very incoherent. > The means of production, be it machinery or brains, are privately owned. They are not. The government literally owns the bulk of the wealth. Not only in the oil sector but in a wide variety of industries, both directly and through the fund.
  - Gravityloss 8y ago
    You are correct in the sense that the government owns 67% of Equinor (formerly Statoil and Norsk Hydro): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinor And controls the oil fund.