4 ms·

Norway is not a socialist country. Social democracy != socialism.

tallanvor 16y ago
It's all in how you define a term, but traditionally Norway is a very socialist country - The major businesses were owned by the state, and while that has changed, the government does still hold large stakes in telecom, oil, and transportation companies. Private businesses also generally have a much flatter hierarchy than you find in the US, and income distribution is much more equally. And, of course, the member parties of the ruling coalition consider themselves to be socialist parties.
- cromulent 16y ago
  Of course you can slice the definitions in different ways, but the common definition is that the capitalist ideal of all means of production being in private hands and socialism is the opposite of that - they are all in public hands. Norway is a mixed economy. I think that the USA and Norway are not at the poles of that continuum but much more close together, especially given the Fed's recent acquisitions.
  - tallanvor 16y ago
    Actually, I think the way the US and Norway handled the crisis helps to show how different they are. Norway stepped in much more quickly, even though the risk was much less compared to the US (Norway had already placed stricter controls on banks due to the crisis they had in the late 80's and early 90's). While the Fed did step in in the US, they were more concerned with pumping in money rather than trying to fix the underlying cause of the trouble - because, after all, telling the banks what to do would be "socialism", which is why there is still so much uncertainty in the US right now. Obviously not everything in Norway is perfect, but taking everything into account - the 3.1% unemployment rate just one example - I certainly have no desire to move back to the US anytime soon.
  - rprasad 16y ago
    Socialism allows for but disfavors private ownership. Communism requires public ownership. That is the practical difference between the two.
- brc 16y ago
  You're free to leave Norway whenever you like. You can own private property in Norway, and grow your business and keep at least half the profits. Socialist countries have state ownership, no private property, restrictions on freedoms. Norway is a social democracy. At any point the government could be voted out and replaced with one that changes all the laws. It's not a socialist country.
  - xlpz 16y ago
    Who exactly gets to define that only authoritarian regimes with freedom restrictions practice anything that can be properly described as socialism?
    - brc 16y ago
      I didn't. I said that a socialist country would have freedom restrictions in place. I didn't try and describe socialism as a construct, I described a country with a socialist government which referred to itself as such. I repeat, Norway is not a socialist country. I'm happy to be given an example of a socialist country in which you're free to leave and own private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries The joke here is that China and Vietnam are anything but socialist nowadays. China even has a property bubble, which must be turning old Mao around in his grave. But look down the list and you'll see a real who's who of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. And not many startup hotbeds.
      - xlpz 16y ago
        You are still saying the same thing. "A socialist country would have freedom restrictions in place". Who says that? Norway, and many other countries, have had socialdemocratic governments for a long time, who also define themselves as socialist (for instance, they belong to the socialist international). Why is an authoritarian regime describing itself as socialist actually socialist but a socialdemocratic government doing the same isn't? Honest question here, just trying to figure out how do you end up there.

It's all in how you define a term, but traditionally Norway is a very socialist country - The major businesses were owned by the state, and while that has changed, the government does still hold large stakes in telecom, oil, and transportation companies. Private businesses also generally have a much flatter hierarchy than you find in the US, and income distribution is much more equally. And, of course, the member parties of the ruling coalition consider themselves to be socialist parties.

cromulent 16y ago
Of course you can slice the definitions in different ways, but the common definition is that the capitalist ideal of all means of production being in private hands and socialism is the opposite of that - they are all in public hands. Norway is a mixed economy. I think that the USA and Norway are not at the poles of that continuum but much more close together, especially given the Fed's recent acquisitions.
- tallanvor 16y ago
  Actually, I think the way the US and Norway handled the crisis helps to show how different they are. Norway stepped in much more quickly, even though the risk was much less compared to the US (Norway had already placed stricter controls on banks due to the crisis they had in the late 80's and early 90's). While the Fed did step in in the US, they were more concerned with pumping in money rather than trying to fix the underlying cause of the trouble - because, after all, telling the banks what to do would be "socialism", which is why there is still so much uncertainty in the US right now. Obviously not everything in Norway is perfect, but taking everything into account - the 3.1% unemployment rate just one example - I certainly have no desire to move back to the US anytime soon.
- rprasad 16y ago
  Socialism allows for but disfavors private ownership. Communism requires public ownership. That is the practical difference between the two.
brc 16y ago
You're free to leave Norway whenever you like. You can own private property in Norway, and grow your business and keep at least half the profits. Socialist countries have state ownership, no private property, restrictions on freedoms. Norway is a social democracy. At any point the government could be voted out and replaced with one that changes all the laws. It's not a socialist country.
- xlpz 16y ago
  Who exactly gets to define that only authoritarian regimes with freedom restrictions practice anything that can be properly described as socialism?
  - brc 16y ago
    I didn't. I said that a socialist country would have freedom restrictions in place. I didn't try and describe socialism as a construct, I described a country with a socialist government which referred to itself as such. I repeat, Norway is not a socialist country. I'm happy to be given an example of a socialist country in which you're free to leave and own private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries The joke here is that China and Vietnam are anything but socialist nowadays. China even has a property bubble, which must be turning old Mao around in his grave. But look down the list and you'll see a real who's who of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. And not many startup hotbeds.
    - xlpz 16y ago
      You are still saying the same thing. "A socialist country would have freedom restrictions in place". Who says that? Norway, and many other countries, have had socialdemocratic governments for a long time, who also define themselves as socialist (for instance, they belong to the socialist international). Why is an authoritarian regime describing itself as socialist actually socialist but a socialdemocratic government doing the same isn't? Honest question here, just trying to figure out how do you end up there.