5 ms·

> are the Nordics or most of Europe socialist? Absolutely not. They are primarily market based with a relatively large welfare state. How is that even a questi

> are the Nordics or most of Europe socialist? Absolutely not. They are primarily market based with a relatively large welfare state. How is that even a question?

croon 5y ago
Because that is what most "socialists" want, meaning your definition of socialism and theirs are probably very different.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Well, we could call that "socialism with Scandinavian characteristics" for the sake of clarity. Though I'm not sure if that's what most socialists understand socialism as.
- detaro 5y ago
  Is that what "socialists" want, or what people that get called "socialists" by detractors want?
  - croon 5y ago
    I'm going on anecdata more than anything, but I'd say likely both.
- zepto 5y ago
  Is it? The socialists I am aware of are openly anti-capitalist, and want to focus on oppression above anything else, placing race and gender based oppression at the top of a hierarchy to be countered. They are explicitly opposed to many aspects of the Scandinavian model which is largely market based, for example School Vouchers which are used in Sweden, would unthinkable to an American socialist.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    > School Vouchers which are used in Sweden That has been a disaster in Sweden. With increased segregation, corruption, and inflation in grades to please "customers".
    - zepto 5y ago
      They were introduced because the existing school system was in decline. The fact that they haven’t reversed the trend doesn’t mean they are the underlying cause. Regardless, the point is that Scandinavian countries are not “socialist” in the way leftist Americans think of socialism.
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        > They were introduced because the existing school system was in decline Not true at all. Why are you making shit up? They were introduced to "give choice". And marketed - by the right-wing government at that time btw - like small teacher-led "idea-based" companies or similar would be the primary result, rather than the large stock-market school corps that have been the natural result. > Regardless, the point is that Scandinavian countries are not “socialist” in the way leftist Americans think of socialism. Just because Scandinavia (Sweden in particular) too has suffered with a massive wave of neo-liberal privatizations the last 30 years or so doesn't mean that the former more "socialist" way was in any way shape or form worse than the corrupt mess that we have here now.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  Then the issue is with the self-described socialists who don't want socialism. Market based capitalism with wealth distribution and strong social safety nets is not the same thing as a society in which the means of production are communally owned. In fact, the two are in direct opposition of one another, and cannot coexist. I don't disagree with you that most "socialists" want what is essentially a government modeled on the Nordic states. But its highly problematic for those people to delude themselves into thinking that is socialism. I think it boils down to a bunch of lemmings who essentially want social democracy who don't realize a fraction of their comrades genuinely want to abolish private property and install an authoritarian government. At the very least it makes one doubt how seriously their loud opinion should be taken when those opinions are completely internally inconsistent.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Communal ownership of the means of production is not the definition of socialism. It's merely compatible with the actual definition, which is worker ownership of the means of production. Some socialists, such as Marx, argue that the logical endpoint of socialism is communal ownership of the means of production at some point in the future when the average worker produces more than their need.
    - bart_spoon 5y ago
      Worker-owned enterprises are something perfectly achievable now, in the existing free-market societies we currently have. The reason you don't see many is because they still require capital, and the majority people with capital aren't interested in giving it to companies that then give all ownership to the workers. So the issue becomes that for socialist-structured companies to become effective and commonplace extensive government intervention is required. At that point the line between "worker" and "communal" means of production becomes pretty thin. Like a large amount of socialist theory, there is a lot of verbiage and effort devoted to theoretical concepts that, when the rubber meets the road, boil down to irrelevance.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
atq2119 5y ago
That's not actually a contradiction. Market doesn't mean capitalism, and socialism doesn't mean non-market. Market socialism is a thing, and the form of socialism that most of the more thoughtful socialists prefer.

> are the Nordics or most of Europe socialist? Absolutely not. They are primarily market based with a relatively large welfare state. How is that even a question?

croon 5y ago

Because that is what most "socialists" want, meaning your definition of socialism and theirs are probably very different.

zozbot234 5y ago
Well, we could call that "socialism with Scandinavian characteristics" for the sake of clarity. Though I'm not sure if that's what most socialists understand socialism as.
detaro 5y ago
Is that what "socialists" want, or what people that get called "socialists" by detractors want?
- croon 5y ago
  I'm going on anecdata more than anything, but I'd say likely both.
zepto 5y ago
Is it? The socialists I am aware of are openly anti-capitalist, and want to focus on oppression above anything else, placing race and gender based oppression at the top of a hierarchy to be countered. They are explicitly opposed to many aspects of the Scandinavian model which is largely market based, for example School Vouchers which are used in Sweden, would unthinkable to an American socialist.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > School Vouchers which are used in Sweden That has been a disaster in Sweden. With increased segregation, corruption, and inflation in grades to please "customers".
  - zepto 5y ago
    They were introduced because the existing school system was in decline. The fact that they haven’t reversed the trend doesn’t mean they are the underlying cause. Regardless, the point is that Scandinavian countries are not “socialist” in the way leftist Americans think of socialism.
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      > They were introduced because the existing school system was in decline Not true at all. Why are you making shit up? They were introduced to "give choice". And marketed - by the right-wing government at that time btw - like small teacher-led "idea-based" companies or similar would be the primary result, rather than the large stock-market school corps that have been the natural result. > Regardless, the point is that Scandinavian countries are not “socialist” in the way leftist Americans think of socialism. Just because Scandinavia (Sweden in particular) too has suffered with a massive wave of neo-liberal privatizations the last 30 years or so doesn't mean that the former more "socialist" way was in any way shape or form worse than the corrupt mess that we have here now.
bart_spoon 5y ago
Then the issue is with the self-described socialists who don't want socialism. Market based capitalism with wealth distribution and strong social safety nets is not the same thing as a society in which the means of production are communally owned. In fact, the two are in direct opposition of one another, and cannot coexist. I don't disagree with you that most "socialists" want what is essentially a government modeled on the Nordic states. But its highly problematic for those people to delude themselves into thinking that is socialism. I think it boils down to a bunch of lemmings who essentially want social democracy who don't realize a fraction of their comrades genuinely want to abolish private property and install an authoritarian government. At the very least it makes one doubt how seriously their loud opinion should be taken when those opinions are completely internally inconsistent.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Communal ownership of the means of production is not the definition of socialism. It's merely compatible with the actual definition, which is worker ownership of the means of production. Some socialists, such as Marx, argue that the logical endpoint of socialism is communal ownership of the means of production at some point in the future when the average worker produces more than their need.
  - bart_spoon 5y ago
    Worker-owned enterprises are something perfectly achievable now, in the existing free-market societies we currently have. The reason you don't see many is because they still require capital, and the majority people with capital aren't interested in giving it to companies that then give all ownership to the workers. So the issue becomes that for socialist-structured companies to become effective and commonplace extensive government intervention is required. At that point the line between "worker" and "communal" means of production becomes pretty thin. Like a large amount of socialist theory, there is a lot of verbiage and effort devoted to theoretical concepts that, when the rubber meets the road, boil down to irrelevance.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago

atq2119 5y ago

That's not actually a contradiction. Market doesn't mean capitalism, and socialism doesn't mean non-market. Market socialism is a thing, and the form of socialism that most of the more thoughtful socialists prefer.