6 ms·

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack, on one side of wealth

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack, on one side of wealth, on another of votes. While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win. It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", the aristocrats are among us with at least as much power as any of the rest of us. The greater the wealth disparity, however, the more power they can purchase by bribing the poor politicians. Which in turn begs the masses to pay politicians well enough that corruption becomes at best unnecessary. The only remaining cure for greed is transparency, accountability, and journalism. Therefore it is in the wealthy elite's interest to lobby for laws that erode any established amounts of the aforementioned qualities, steadily inching the power structures towards secrecy, carte blanche, and censorship. Can you think of any government agency that has such powers? I'm thinking of several, and most of them are in the US. Capitalism is allergic to wealth redistribution, which is the true name for the action that begins to solve the issue. The only question is: How much? One practical example is speeding tickets. AFAIK in the US speeding tickets are flat fees. So a wealthy person barely cares about speeding in traffic. In Finland, a more socialist republic, speeding tickets are proportional to income. So a wealthy person speeding will feel the hurt. Every so often some asshole with a Ferrari gets a million dollar speeding ticket. (possibly exaggerated, don't recall exact amounts)

morceauxdebois 6y ago
Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.
- rjtavares 6y ago
  Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist". If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    It's a false dichotomy. Both can coexist.
    - hypertele-Xii 6y ago
      The central philosophy in capitalism is competition. The world is currently very acutely seeing the second and third order effects of such "winner takes all" philosophy, ranging from consumer-harming monopolies to environment-destroying profit-seeking. If we set socialism as an opposition to capitalism, it rises naturally to represent cooperation; The idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of creature comfort regardless of accumulated capital, and that in coming together to solve problems, rather than trying to one-up each other, problems can be solved more effectively and with less harm.
      - sbuttgereit 6y ago
        No, you've described the caricature of capitalism that those opposed to it repeat to themselves to help justify their opposition. The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production. That's not to say it's necessarily a straight line walk or that what is produced is necessarily pretty. Competition is a side effect that comes into play once you are producing something valuable to someone else willing to buy that something. It is a mechanism that keeps check on the bounds of prices and efficiency. The real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action. Socialist "cooperation" and "coming together to solve problems" are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not. Unless, of course, true socialist policy allows dissenters to opt-out of participation, in which case I withdraw my characterization. Assuming I'm right, I find the notion of "cooperate or else" far less appealing or moral than capitalism with all of the competition that comes with it. Finally socialism doesn't eliminate competition... it only moves it from the marketplace to the seat of government. There is no grand collective, there is no "public good": there are individuals with differing beliefs, interests, and objectives. Once you put sufficient power in the government: the most ambitious individuals will compete for privileged positions within political movements rather than businesses, political movements will compete with alternative political movements for the reigns of government. Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state; and no that's not necessarily a benefit to the poor, or the underprivileged, or any other banner of victimization that you might fly to justify that state. The inability of a government program to fail means that the real world effectiveness any given government program (assuming that it's even a "right program") is secondary to its ability to attract political support. In capitalism, the voluntary aspect allows for failure if the business isn't producing the product efficiently or it isn't producing something that someone else actually wants or needs.
- cies 6y ago
  Compared to the US, in terms of the US political dictionary it prolly is. But no: socialism by the most agreed on definitions in the rest of the world needs some sort of wealth cap that Finland has not.
- martin_a 6y ago
  I think he's Finnish himself, but "socialist" was probably a harsh word here.
- krysp 6y ago
  Seems like you and everyone in the replies to your comment may have misconstrued what the parent meant; if he's from Europe, socialist isn't a dirty word like the US. In most of Europe it's quite a positive thing to say your government is more socialist, or has more socialist policies
  - morceauxdebois 6y ago
    No, you are even more wrong. Social democracy is not socialism. The state doing stuff is not socialism. A functional health care system is not socialism. The bare minimum of being socialist is to want to transition away from a capitalist system which no country in Europe has any ambitions.
  - emptysongglass 6y ago
    It should be mentioned that Denmark, which has often been pointed to as an example of a successful socialist country is not socialist. The country's politicians vociferously protest against this label and going by Engels' own definition, the country is not at all socialist. It is extremely capitalist with classical hierarchies of business ownership. High tax, free healthcare and free schooling does not make a country even remotely socialist.
    - hypertele-Xii 6y ago
      So what does make a country even remotely socialist, in your opinion?
      - taffer 6y ago
        Workers owning the means of production.
        hypertele-Xii 6y ago
        That sounds a lot more socialist than just "remotely". According to Wikipedia, it's the defining characteristic of socialism.
- hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  Finland maintains a healthy distance to the west's extreme capitalism. Healthcare is free. Education is free (and mandatory). Housing is free. Water is free. Electricity is free. Internet is free. The government owns the only railroad. Many governments, including the current one, consist of majority Social Democratic Party. Convicted criminals can still vote. All males are drafted into the army. Newborns receive a free package of baby products. Taxes are among the highest in the world (wealth redistribution). There is a sizable political national-socialist sentiment (a little worrying even). I'll grant you, the communist-leaning powers did lose the civil war in 1918 though.
  - morceauxdebois 6y ago
    None of those are policies exclusive to a socialist system. But what do i know about Social Democracy, im just Swedish.
    - hypertele-Xii 6y ago
      Please indicate which of these policies are presented by the extremely capitalist US, which I compared Finland to.
    - cygx 6y ago
      But you do know that historically, 'Social Democratic' is just a name chosen by European socialist parties for themselves? The membership list[1] of the Party of European Socialists (known as Europeiska socialdemokratiska partiet in Swedish) reflects this to this day. It is of course true that a Social Democracy is not a fully socialist society, but that discussion was already had last century during the Revisionismusdebatt kicked off by Eduard Bernstein in 1896. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists#Member_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists#M...
      - zajio1am 6y ago
        Yes, but these parties use 'social democratic' after a split of socialist parties in 1920s into social democratic parties and communist parties. So no need to use 'socialist' instead of 'social democratic' unless you want to dogwhistle to communist supporters. Also note that this meaning of term 'socialist' is rather archaic (and not in opposition to term 'capitalist'). The modern meaning of 'socialism' is to describe economic system in countries of soviet communist bloc.
- pjc50 6y ago
  It hardly invalidates it, but it does point out how weird US political labelling is. The widespread use of "socialist" and "communist" for bits of extremely mild social democrat public policy. No wonder there are so many twitter tankies when the right has been spending years saying that communism == free healthcare.

morceauxdebois 6y ago

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

rjtavares 6y ago
Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist". If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.
- emteycz 6y ago
  It's a false dichotomy. Both can coexist.
  - hypertele-Xii 6y ago
    The central philosophy in capitalism is competition. The world is currently very acutely seeing the second and third order effects of such "winner takes all" philosophy, ranging from consumer-harming monopolies to environment-destroying profit-seeking. If we set socialism as an opposition to capitalism, it rises naturally to represent cooperation; The idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of creature comfort regardless of accumulated capital, and that in coming together to solve problems, rather than trying to one-up each other, problems can be solved more effectively and with less harm.
    - sbuttgereit 6y ago
      No, you've described the caricature of capitalism that those opposed to it repeat to themselves to help justify their opposition. The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production. That's not to say it's necessarily a straight line walk or that what is produced is necessarily pretty. Competition is a side effect that comes into play once you are producing something valuable to someone else willing to buy that something. It is a mechanism that keeps check on the bounds of prices and efficiency. The real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action. Socialist "cooperation" and "coming together to solve problems" are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not. Unless, of course, true socialist policy allows dissenters to opt-out of participation, in which case I withdraw my characterization. Assuming I'm right, I find the notion of "cooperate or else" far less appealing or moral than capitalism with all of the competition that comes with it. Finally socialism doesn't eliminate competition... it only moves it from the marketplace to the seat of government. There is no grand collective, there is no "public good": there are individuals with differing beliefs, interests, and objectives. Once you put sufficient power in the government: the most ambitious individuals will compete for privileged positions within political movements rather than businesses, political movements will compete with alternative political movements for the reigns of government. Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state; and no that's not necessarily a benefit to the poor, or the underprivileged, or any other banner of victimization that you might fly to justify that state. The inability of a government program to fail means that the real world effectiveness any given government program (assuming that it's even a "right program") is secondary to its ability to attract political support. In capitalism, the voluntary aspect allows for failure if the business isn't producing the product efficiently or it isn't producing something that someone else actually wants or needs.
cies 6y ago
Compared to the US, in terms of the US political dictionary it prolly is. But no: socialism by the most agreed on definitions in the rest of the world needs some sort of wealth cap that Finland has not.
martin_a 6y ago
I think he's Finnish himself, but "socialist" was probably a harsh word here.
krysp 6y ago
Seems like you and everyone in the replies to your comment may have misconstrued what the parent meant; if he's from Europe, socialist isn't a dirty word like the US. In most of Europe it's quite a positive thing to say your government is more socialist, or has more socialist policies
- morceauxdebois 6y ago
  No, you are even more wrong. Social democracy is not socialism. The state doing stuff is not socialism. A functional health care system is not socialism. The bare minimum of being socialist is to want to transition away from a capitalist system which no country in Europe has any ambitions.
- emptysongglass 6y ago
  It should be mentioned that Denmark, which has often been pointed to as an example of a successful socialist country is not socialist. The country's politicians vociferously protest against this label and going by Engels' own definition, the country is not at all socialist. It is extremely capitalist with classical hierarchies of business ownership. High tax, free healthcare and free schooling does not make a country even remotely socialist.
  - hypertele-Xii 6y ago
    So what does make a country even remotely socialist, in your opinion?
    - taffer 6y ago
      Workers owning the means of production.
      - hypertele-Xii 6y ago
        That sounds a lot more socialist than just "remotely". According to Wikipedia, it's the defining characteristic of socialism.
hypertele-Xii 6y ago
Finland maintains a healthy distance to the west's extreme capitalism. Healthcare is free. Education is free (and mandatory). Housing is free. Water is free. Electricity is free. Internet is free. The government owns the only railroad. Many governments, including the current one, consist of majority Social Democratic Party. Convicted criminals can still vote. All males are drafted into the army. Newborns receive a free package of baby products. Taxes are among the highest in the world (wealth redistribution). There is a sizable political national-socialist sentiment (a little worrying even). I'll grant you, the communist-leaning powers did lose the civil war in 1918 though.
- morceauxdebois 6y ago
  None of those are policies exclusive to a socialist system. But what do i know about Social Democracy, im just Swedish.
  - hypertele-Xii 6y ago
    Please indicate which of these policies are presented by the extremely capitalist US, which I compared Finland to.
  - cygx 6y ago
    But you do know that historically, 'Social Democratic' is just a name chosen by European socialist parties for themselves? The membership list[1] of the Party of European Socialists (known as Europeiska socialdemokratiska partiet in Swedish) reflects this to this day. It is of course true that a Social Democracy is not a fully socialist society, but that discussion was already had last century during the Revisionismusdebatt kicked off by Eduard Bernstein in 1896. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists#Member_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists#M...
    - zajio1am 6y ago
      Yes, but these parties use 'social democratic' after a split of socialist parties in 1920s into social democratic parties and communist parties. So no need to use 'socialist' instead of 'social democratic' unless you want to dogwhistle to communist supporters. Also note that this meaning of term 'socialist' is rather archaic (and not in opposition to term 'capitalist'). The modern meaning of 'socialism' is to describe economic system in countries of soviet communist bloc.
pjc50 6y ago
It hardly invalidates it, but it does point out how weird US political labelling is. The widespread use of "socialist" and "communist" for bits of extremely mild social democrat public policy. No wonder there are so many twitter tankies when the right has been spending years saying that communism == free healthcare.