5 ms·

> 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. Ye

by 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.
      - nec4b 3y ago
        >>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. I have and I kind of see where you coming from now. Because I would never use the word socialist for what you have in the UK, the word I would use is social. You make it sound socialist invented healthcare, transportation and education when all those things existed long before the first socialist was born. And yes ideology does matter a lot. There is a good reason why there wasn't a single successful socialist country in the world and there also a good reason why a lot of ex-socialist countries still have so many problems even after they nominally became capitalist. Value set and the ideology behind it really do matter.

by rcarr 3y ago

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.
    - nec4b 3y ago
      >>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. I have and I kind of see where you coming from now. Because I would never use the word socialist for what you have in the UK, the word I would use is social. You make it sound socialist invented healthcare, transportation and education when all those things existed long before the first socialist was born. And yes ideology does matter a lot. There is a good reason why there wasn't a single successful socialist country in the world and there also a good reason why a lot of ex-socialist countries still have so many problems even after they nominally became capitalist. Value set and the ideology behind it really do matter.