50 ms·

Why do you throw the word socialism about as if it is exactly the same as communism? The Nordic nations are socialist democracies and they’re regarded as some o

by rcarr 3y ago

Why do you throw the word socialism about as if it is exactly the same as communism? The Nordic nations are socialist democracies and they’re regarded as some of the best run and happiest places on earth, with a business friendly environment that allows for entrepreneurs to take risks because they know there is a social safety net to fall back on if it doesn’t work out. The left and right can be both right and wrong simultaneously. You’re meant to adapt policies for the contextual situation. In fact, this is the entire point of a democracy, to oscillate between opposing ideologies throughout time as the flaws of one become apparent to such an extent that the incumbent system starts showing weakness, disgruntling the populace to such an extent that they course correct the system by electing the opposing ideology.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> Why do you throw the word socialism about as if it is exactly the same as communism? Because I don't respect them enough to even make the distinction. I feel bad even saying the words "communist" and "socialist". I really don't want to give any legitimacy to ideas that caused misery, famine, oppression, genocide every time they were put in practice anywhere. I want those ideas to literally fade from people's minds instead of being studied as if they were serious subjects. I've had the privilege of reading posts written by citizens of formerly communist states here on HN. That's all the evidence I need. It's not pretty. > The Nordic nations are socialist democracies and they’re regarded as some of the best run and happiest places on earth, with a business friendly environment that allows for entrepreneurs to take risks because they know there is a social safety net to fall back on if it doesn’t work out. So what you're telling me is there's supposedly socialist nations in Europe right now that allow businesses to accumulate capital. Doesn't make any sense.
- rcarr 3y ago
  > So what you're telling me is there's supposedly socialist nations in Europe right now that allow businesses to accumulate capital. Doesn't make any sense. Yes. You're welcome to put your HN contrarian hat on but that is the generally agreed upon consensus. Left unchecked, free market capitalism turns into authoritarian feudalism which is pretty much what is happening around the world in Western nations right now. Left unchecked, socialism turns into communism and all the horrors that entails. Both are bad outcomes. When you are veering toward the extremes, you counter with policies from the opposing ideology. If not, you get a selfish, complacent and corrupt ruling class that ends up sliding into authoritarianism accompanied by "misery, famine, oppression and genocide" regardless of the ideological label you started out with. It is a frequent occurrence for Conservative governments across the globe to temporarily nationalise companies and/or industries, often times for years, if the private sector have been found to run them into the ground. Case in point: the UK conservatives nationalised several banks in the financial crisis and recently nationalised a substantial amount (almost half) of the UK rail network. The stance you are subscribing to is an extreme one.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    I doubt you have ever been to a Nordic country otherwise you would know they are some of the most free market capitalist nations on earth with strong social safety nets which has nothing in common with socialism or communism.
    - rcarr 3y ago
      Please enlighten me then as to how the “strong social safety net” exists without the socialism?
      - nec4b 3y ago
        I don't believe you want to be enlightened by me. I suggest you try to live for a while in a country that calls itself a socialist country and then move for a while to a country which calls it self a free market capitalist country with strong social safety net. I can promise you we'll see the difference after doing this.
        rcarr 3y ago
        I lived in the UK from 1997 - 2010 when the Labour Party was in power. Guess what, the world didn't end. People were pretty happy. It was good times. As I have said in previous comments, I believe that there should be a natural oscillation between socialist policies, which involve tax and nationalisation, and capitalist policies, which involve tax cuts and privatisation. Everything should be context dependent. I think the UK is a bit of a sham democracy because of FPTP but we have historically had a pretty decent mixture of the capitalist and the socialist. In fact, people are pretty pissed off here right now, precisely because the socialist element (nhs, transport, education) has been eroded in quality so much by the encumbent capitalist element that they are no longer functioning properly. As a result it is highly likely the Labour Party will win the next general election. If that were to happen, the world will not end and things will carry on as normal, just as it did in 1997. After a few terms pass, the ideological flaws of the Labour Party will manifest in their own problems, the populace will become angry with them and go on to re-elect the Conservative Party again. I will be happy when both of these things happen (the re-election of Labour and the re-election of the Conservative Party after that) because that is the natural way of things and means that the system is course correcting properly. If you have lived in a more extreme country that does not have proper democratic protections and has had an authoritarian socialist government then I'm sorry you've had to experience that. But there is not much difference between that and the horrors of an authoritarian capitalist society such as the Arabian nations which used slave labour to build its football stadiums. The problem is not the ideology. The ideology is simply a model that can be applied to a problem to see if it fits. The real problem is twofold. The first part being people who take ideologies to their extremes and refuse to compromise or adapt to context or, possibly even worse, those who don't care an iota about the ideology but will twist it (and anything else) for their own ends, abusing their positions simply for personal gain. The second part of the problem is weak political systems that do not have sufficient checks and balances to contain these zealots and/or self serving individuals.

by rcarr 3y ago

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> Why do you throw the word socialism about as if it is exactly the same as communism? Because I don't respect them enough to even make the distinction. I feel bad even saying the words "communist" and "socialist". I really don't want to give any legitimacy to ideas that caused misery, famine, oppression, genocide every time they were put in practice anywhere. I want those ideas to literally fade from people's minds instead of being studied as if they were serious subjects. I've had the privilege of reading posts written by citizens of formerly communist states here on HN. That's all the evidence I need. It's not pretty. > The Nordic nations are socialist democracies and they’re regarded as some of the best run and happiest places on earth, with a business friendly environment that allows for entrepreneurs to take risks because they know there is a social safety net to fall back on if it doesn’t work out. So what you're telling me is there's supposedly socialist nations in Europe right now that allow businesses to accumulate capital. Doesn't make any sense.

rcarr 3y ago
> So what you're telling me is there's supposedly socialist nations in Europe right now that allow businesses to accumulate capital. Doesn't make any sense. Yes. You're welcome to put your HN contrarian hat on but that is the generally agreed upon consensus. Left unchecked, free market capitalism turns into authoritarian feudalism which is pretty much what is happening around the world in Western nations right now. Left unchecked, socialism turns into communism and all the horrors that entails. Both are bad outcomes. When you are veering toward the extremes, you counter with policies from the opposing ideology. If not, you get a selfish, complacent and corrupt ruling class that ends up sliding into authoritarianism accompanied by "misery, famine, oppression and genocide" regardless of the ideological label you started out with. It is a frequent occurrence for Conservative governments across the globe to temporarily nationalise companies and/or industries, often times for years, if the private sector have been found to run them into the ground. Case in point: the UK conservatives nationalised several banks in the financial crisis and recently nationalised a substantial amount (almost half) of the UK rail network. The stance you are subscribing to is an extreme one.
- nec4b 3y ago
  I doubt you have ever been to a Nordic country otherwise you would know they are some of the most free market capitalist nations on earth with strong social safety nets which has nothing in common with socialism or communism.
  - rcarr 3y ago
    Please enlighten me then as to how the “strong social safety net” exists without the socialism?
    - nec4b 3y ago
      I don't believe you want to be enlightened by me. I suggest you try to live for a while in a country that calls itself a socialist country and then move for a while to a country which calls it self a free market capitalist country with strong social safety net. I can promise you we'll see the difference after doing this.
      - rcarr 3y ago
        I lived in the UK from 1997 - 2010 when the Labour Party was in power. Guess what, the world didn't end. People were pretty happy. It was good times. As I have said in previous comments, I believe that there should be a natural oscillation between socialist policies, which involve tax and nationalisation, and capitalist policies, which involve tax cuts and privatisation. Everything should be context dependent. I think the UK is a bit of a sham democracy because of FPTP but we have historically had a pretty decent mixture of the capitalist and the socialist. In fact, people are pretty pissed off here right now, precisely because the socialist element (nhs, transport, education) has been eroded in quality so much by the encumbent capitalist element that they are no longer functioning properly. As a result it is highly likely the Labour Party will win the next general election. If that were to happen, the world will not end and things will carry on as normal, just as it did in 1997. After a few terms pass, the ideological flaws of the Labour Party will manifest in their own problems, the populace will become angry with them and go on to re-elect the Conservative Party again. I will be happy when both of these things happen (the re-election of Labour and the re-election of the Conservative Party after that) because that is the natural way of things and means that the system is course correcting properly. If you have lived in a more extreme country that does not have proper democratic protections and has had an authoritarian socialist government then I'm sorry you've had to experience that. But there is not much difference between that and the horrors of an authoritarian capitalist society such as the Arabian nations which used slave labour to build its football stadiums. The problem is not the ideology. The ideology is simply a model that can be applied to a problem to see if it fits. The real problem is twofold. The first part being people who take ideologies to their extremes and refuse to compromise or adapt to context or, possibly even worse, those who don't care an iota about the ideology but will twist it (and anything else) for their own ends, abusing their positions simply for personal gain. The second part of the problem is weak political systems that do not have sufficient checks and balances to contain these zealots and/or self serving individuals.