I want to talk about what I see as a bad faith argument from the right

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Scandinavians have all told Bernie to STFU, because they have market-based economies.

Can you tell me some things that Bernie wants that they're not already doing over there?

Not the point.

Having an immense welfare state doesn't change the market-based economic model....Strictly speaking, Scandinavia is not socialist.

More rightwing ignorance and lies about "socialism."

 

[toomuchtime_]

Right wingers regularly call the left socialist, but then when the left points to Scandinavia as an example of what they want it will often be said that "Oh, well they're not actually socialist. Try again." Oh, good, well then neither is Bernie, because there isn't a single thing he advocates for that they're not already doing over there. You can't call people like Bernie socialist and then point at Scandinavia and say "Not socialist!" You're defeating your own argument.

Bernie calls himself a socialist, but then insists he is a democratic socialist.

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production,[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2]

Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformistpolitics as a means to establish socialism.[3]"

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

The accepted definition of socialism is that the government takes over the means of production, and clearly that is also the aim of so called democratic socialists. Of course, claiming this takeover can be done while preserving freedom and democracy is a pipedream, since it has never happened before anywhere in the world. Clearly the Scandinavian countries are not socialist since they have not taken over the means of production, and it would appear your post is a bad faith argument from the left.

 

[hadit]

Ok, let's start with taxes. Left wants a more progressive tax structure, right? Raise taxes on the rich, right? Well, they don't do that in the Scandinavian countries, over there the tax base is far broader. Even people who earn below average income pay up to 60 percent in taxes.


Swedes' personal income tax can be as little as 29 per cent of their pay, but most people (anyone earning over £32,000) will pay between 49 and 60 per cent through a combination of local government and state income tax.

'If you start talking to someone in Britain, you can be fairly sure that they will end up saying that taxes are too high. In Sweden, you can't do the same,' he says. 'Most people trust the state to manage taxes well. There's a broad, deep faith that the money going into the welfare state will be employed usefully.'

Sweden: Where tax goes up to 60 per cent, and everybody's happy paying it


Is Bernie for a wealth tax? Or a death tax? Many of the Dems are. You don't find that over there either.

Do you trust our gov't to spend our tax dollars wisely? I sure as hell don't. Then there's this: they don't have a gov't imposed minimum wage. And they believe in being competitive globally, so they keep their corporate tax rates lower than ours.

Didja know that Sweden adopted a universal school choice system in the 1990s? According to a study published by the Institute for the Study of Labor, the expansion of private schooling and competition brought about by the Swedish free-market educational reforms “improved average educational performance both at the end of compulsory school and in the long run in terms of high school grades, university attendance, and years of schooling.”

No doubt there are other issues, but this is all I can think of at the moment.

Do you think Bernie is a socialist?

Do you think the Scandinavian countries are socialist?

If your answers to those two questions aren't the same then you really need to rethink some things.

Even if there are some very minor differences his major positions are the same. Whatever label you would give their way of doing things is the same label you should give Bernie.

I think you don't appreciate the various degrees of socialism. All systems on earth have socialism characteristics, there is a wide continuum. Too many are pretending to be capitalist while they over tax, apply regulations and forced payments you must make for the "flavor of the month" or "emergency of the day". Others covertly interfere and control companies while pretending to have little Crown corporations.

To me, you have to view other nations as being more or less socialist than America, the bigger the government and interference and controls in the lives of citizens, the more socialist they are.

Less is better.

We are rapidly approaching the point at which human labor will become obsolete. We see it happening already. It will only get worse. For order to be maintained something will have to be readjusted after there simply aren't enough jobs left. We're approaching a wall and we only have one way to turn. That's why conservatism will lose in the end.

Actually, conservatism allows the market and society to adapt and adjust to changes. Liberalism attempts to control and direct society, with disastrous results.

 

[hadit]

The Scandinavians have all told Bernie to STFU, because they have market-based economies.

Can you tell me some things that Bernie wants that they're not already doing over there?

Not the point.

Having an immense welfare state doesn't change the market-based economic model....Strictly speaking, Scandinavia is not socialist.

More rightwing ignorance and lies about "socialism."

Dude, you think all government is socialism. You have no standing to complain about someone else's definition of the term.

 

[task0778]

Ok, let's start with taxes. Left wants a more progressive tax structure, right? Raise taxes on the rich, right? Well, they don't do that in the Scandinavian countries, over there the tax base is far broader. Even people who earn below average income pay up to 60 percent in taxes.


Swedes' personal income tax can be as little as 29 per cent of their pay, but most people (anyone earning over £32,000) will pay between 49 and 60 per cent through a combination of local government and state income tax.

'If you start talking to someone in Britain, you can be fairly sure that they will end up saying that taxes are too high. In Sweden, you can't do the same,' he says. 'Most people trust the state to manage taxes well. There's a broad, deep faith that the money going into the welfare state will be employed usefully.'

Sweden: Where tax goes up to 60 per cent, and everybody's happy paying it


Is Bernie for a wealth tax? Or a death tax? Many of the Dems are. You don't find that over there either.

Do you trust our gov't to spend our tax dollars wisely? I sure as hell don't. Then there's this: they don't have a gov't imposed minimum wage. And they believe in being competitive globally, so they keep their corporate tax rates lower than ours.

Didja know that Sweden adopted a universal school choice system in the 1990s? According to a study published by the Institute for the Study of Labor, the expansion of private schooling and competition brought about by the Swedish free-market educational reforms “improved average educational performance both at the end of compulsory school and in the long run in terms of high school grades, university attendance, and years of schooling.”

No doubt there are other issues, but this is all I can think of at the moment.

Do you think Bernie is a socialist?

Do you think the Scandinavian countries are socialist?

If your answers to those two questions aren't the same then you really need to rethink some things.

Even if there are some very minor differences his major positions are the same. Whatever label you would give their way of doing things is the same label you should give Bernie.

Do you think Bernie is a socialist?

NO, although he says he is I think.

Do you think the Scandinavian countries are socialist?

NO, but Bernie wants to follow their example.

If your answers to those two questions aren't the same then you really need to rethink some things.

Maybe you should rethink a few things yourself. Do you really think those things I mentioned are very minor? Cuz I don't.

 

[Oddball]

The Scandinavians have all told Bernie to STFU, because they have market-based economies.

Can you tell me some things that Bernie wants that they're not already doing over there?

Not the point.

Having an immense welfare state doesn't change the market-based economic model....Strictly speaking, Scandinavia is not socialist.

More rightwing ignorance and lies about "socialism."

 

[Oddball]

It can all get very confusing when Republicans call everything communism/socialism.

It gets even more confusing when you moonbats preach about Schrodinger's socialism.

 

[harmonica]

Right wingers regularly call the left socialist, but then when the left points to Scandinavia as an example of what they want it will often be said that "Oh, well they're not actually socialist. Try again." Oh, good, well then neither is Bernie, because there isn't a single thing he advocates for that they're not already doing over there. You can't call people like Bernie socialist and then point at Scandinavia and say "Not socialist!" You're defeating your own argument.

what?? links? evidence?
........the Scandinavian countries have many times less the population than the US ---you can't compare them to the US = which blows your whole hypothesis out of the water

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is characterized by the Government owning all means of production, as well as farmland, mines and natural resources, and controlling the distribution of goods and all pricing; in exchange for this, the Government provides, universally and uniformly, a basket of goodies to meet the needs of the population.

When American politicians identify themselves as "Socialists," what they really want to do is to emulate the social democracies of Europe, which are basically CAPITALIST economies (private property, private farms, extensive entrepreneurial climate & relatively free markets), where government has taken upon itself (financed by the taxpayers) the burden of providing a large basket of goodies to the population, so that theoretically no one is homeless, starving, naked, or sick (for long).

So it's not a matter of Republicans calling these politicians (incorrectly) "socialists." This is what they incorrectly call themselves.

BTW Sweden and other often-mentioned countries are not Socialist, and their leaders bristle that such a characterization. If they did not have private property, large, successful private businesses, and relatively free markets, there would be no money to pay the taxes to pay for the large basket of goodies.

The folly of being an American Democrat/Socialist is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER PAY THE LEVEL OF TAXES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE BASKET OF GOODIES, not to mention that such a "risky scheme" would be unconstitutional. And in my opinion, we do not have a sufficiently-strong work ethic to sustain such a system. In other words, if you provide, for example, a guaranteed annual income, half the fucking population will try to sign up for it. Which is also a growing problem in Europe, especially with the new immigrant hordes.

we can raise the minimum wage to raise tax revenue.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Scandinavians have all told Bernie to STFU, because they have market-based economies.

Can you tell me some things that Bernie wants that they're not already doing over there?

They have 4 million people who want to be taxed at 60 percent. We don't .

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Socialism is characterized by the Government owning all means of production, as well as farmland, mines and natural resources, and controlling the distribution of goods and all pricing; in exchange for this, the Government provides, universally and uniformly, a basket of goodies to meet the needs of the population.

When American politicians identify themselves as "Socialists," what they really want to do is to emulate the social democracies of Europe, which are basically CAPITALIST economies (private property, private farms, extensive entrepreneurial climate & relatively free markets), where government has taken upon itself (financed by the taxpayers) the burden of providing a large basket of goodies to the population, so that theoretically no one is homeless, starving, naked, or sick (for long).

So it's not a matter of Republicans calling these politicians (incorrectly) "socialists." This is what they incorrectly call themselves.

BTW Sweden and other often-mentioned countries are not Socialist, and their leaders bristle that such a characterization. If they did not have private property, large, successful private businesses, and relatively free markets, there would be no money to pay the taxes to pay for the large basket of goodies.

The folly of being an American Democrat/Socialist is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER PAY THE LEVEL OF TAXES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE BASKET OF GOODIES, not to mention that such a "risky scheme" would be unconstitutional. And in my opinion, we do not have a sufficiently-strong work ethic to sustain such a system. In other words, if you provide, for example, a guaranteed annual income, half the fucking population will try to sign up for it. Which is also a growing problem in Europe, especially with the new immigrant hordes.

we can raise the minimum wage to raise tax revenue.

This is the equivalent of brilliant mind think such as food stamps grow the economy. The ignorance and stupidity is beyond astounding and growing.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is characterized by the Government owning all means of production, as well as farmland, mines and natural resources, and controlling the distribution of goods and all pricing; in exchange for this, the Government provides, universally and uniformly, a basket of goodies to meet the needs of the population.

When American politicians identify themselves as "Socialists," what they really want to do is to emulate the social democracies of Europe, which are basically CAPITALIST economies (private property, private farms, extensive entrepreneurial climate & relatively free markets), where government has taken upon itself (financed by the taxpayers) the burden of providing a large basket of goodies to the population, so that theoretically no one is homeless, starving, naked, or sick (for long).

So it's not a matter of Republicans calling these politicians (incorrectly) "socialists." This is what they incorrectly call themselves.

BTW Sweden and other often-mentioned countries are not Socialist, and their leaders bristle that such a characterization. If they did not have private property, large, successful private businesses, and relatively free markets, there would be no money to pay the taxes to pay for the large basket of goodies.

The folly of being an American Democrat/Socialist is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER PAY THE LEVEL OF TAXES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE BASKET OF GOODIES, not to mention that such a "risky scheme" would be unconstitutional. And in my opinion, we do not have a sufficiently-strong work ethic to sustain such a system. In other words, if you provide, for example, a guaranteed annual income, half the fucking population will try to sign up for it. Which is also a growing problem in Europe, especially with the new immigrant hordes.

we can raise the minimum wage to raise tax revenue.

This is the equivalent of brilliant mind think such as food stamps grow the economy. The ignorance and stupidity is beyond astounding and growing.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

only the right wing never gets the economic point.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Socialism is characterized by the Government owning all means of production, as well as farmland, mines and natural resources, and controlling the distribution of goods and all pricing; in exchange for this, the Government provides, universally and uniformly, a basket of goodies to meet the needs of the population.

When American politicians identify themselves as "Socialists," what they really want to do is to emulate the social democracies of Europe, which are basically CAPITALIST economies (private property, private farms, extensive entrepreneurial climate & relatively free markets), where government has taken upon itself (financed by the taxpayers) the burden of providing a large basket of goodies to the population, so that theoretically no one is homeless, starving, naked, or sick (for long).

So it's not a matter of Republicans calling these politicians (incorrectly) "socialists." This is what they incorrectly call themselves.

BTW Sweden and other often-mentioned countries are not Socialist, and their leaders bristle that such a characterization. If they did not have private property, large, successful private businesses, and relatively free markets, there would be no money to pay the taxes to pay for the large basket of goodies.

The folly of being an American Democrat/Socialist is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER PAY THE LEVEL OF TAXES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE BASKET OF GOODIES, not to mention that such a "risky scheme" would be unconstitutional. And in my opinion, we do not have a sufficiently-strong work ethic to sustain such a system. In other words, if you provide, for example, a guaranteed annual income, half the fucking population will try to sign up for it. Which is also a growing problem in Europe, especially with the new immigrant hordes.

we can raise the minimum wage to raise tax revenue.

This is the equivalent of brilliant mind think such as food stamps grow the economy. The ignorance and stupidity is beyond astounding and growing.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

only the right wing never gets the economic point.

Demand is not created by higher wages. Wow.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is characterized by the Government owning all means of production, as well as farmland, mines and natural resources, and controlling the distribution of goods and all pricing; in exchange for this, the Government provides, universally and uniformly, a basket of goodies to meet the needs of the population.

When American politicians identify themselves as "Socialists," what they really want to do is to emulate the social democracies of Europe, which are basically CAPITALIST economies (private property, private farms, extensive entrepreneurial climate & relatively free markets), where government has taken upon itself (financed by the taxpayers) the burden of providing a large basket of goodies to the population, so that theoretically no one is homeless, starving, naked, or sick (for long).

So it's not a matter of Republicans calling these politicians (incorrectly) "socialists." This is what they incorrectly call themselves.

BTW Sweden and other often-mentioned countries are not Socialist, and their leaders bristle that such a characterization. If they did not have private property, large, successful private businesses, and relatively free markets, there would be no money to pay the taxes to pay for the large basket of goodies.

The folly of being an American Democrat/Socialist is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER PAY THE LEVEL OF TAXES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE BASKET OF GOODIES, not to mention that such a "risky scheme" would be unconstitutional. And in my opinion, we do not have a sufficiently-strong work ethic to sustain such a system. In other words, if you provide, for example, a guaranteed annual income, half the fucking population will try to sign up for it. Which is also a growing problem in Europe, especially with the new immigrant hordes.

we can raise the minimum wage to raise tax revenue.

This is the equivalent of brilliant mind think such as food stamps grow the economy. The ignorance and stupidity is beyond astounding and growing.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

only the right wing never gets the economic point.

Demand is not created by higher wages. Wow.

the Poor tend to spend most of their income. we get the biggest bang for our buck, there. The law of large numbers can be harnessed to work for us.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Right wingers regularly call the left socialist, but then when the left points to Scandinavia as an example of what they want it will often be said that "Oh, well they're not actually socialist. Try again." Oh, good, well then neither is Bernie, because there isn't a single thing he advocates for that they're not already doing over there. You can't call people like Bernie socialist and then point at Scandinavia and say "Not socialist!" You're defeating your own argument.

Imagine the amount of free shit we could give our wetbacks, degenerates and bottom feeding beggars with these tax rates...SHIT, all we have to do is permit more theft from our best citizens....makes sense right?

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers regularly call the left socialist, but then when the left points to Scandinavia as an example of what they want it will often be said that "Oh, well they're not actually socialist. Try again." Oh, good, well then neither is Bernie, because there isn't a single thing he advocates for that they're not already doing over there. You can't call people like Bernie socialist and then point at Scandinavia and say "Not socialist!" You're defeating your own argument.

Imagine the amount of free shit we could give our wetbacks, degenerates and bottom feeding beggars with these tax rates...SHIT, all we have to do is permit more theft from our best citizens....makes sense right?

we have "under God" in our pledge; you must be morally Wrong; blessed are the Poor not the Richest who may not get into Heaven without a "social bailout".

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Scandinavians have all told Bernie to STFU, because they have market-based economies.

Socialism, properly defined, is ownership of the means of all production in the hands of The State.

If anyone is disingenuously saying "it's not real socialism", it's leftists when you point to its litany of total failures and abject despotism.

LOL, you're a lot like Trump. Using superlatives like abject despotism when it has no relationship to reality. What total failures? And do you have any idea on the definition of litany? I think not.