Learn what Socialism Is.

[hortysir]

I think I may have a very simple idea of socialism.

When Wolff describes it as transforming the market system mainly based on workers co-op, it does not seem like Capitalism died, but evolved into a workers Co-op dominated version of capitalism. It resolves the issue of profit where each worker is compensated for his work, but it does not seem to solve the problem of larger Co ops corps pooling money and influencing politicians to benefit specific Worker co op corporation.

Is there more to this philosophy? Such a philosophy does not lend itself to revolution. It seems like the process of transforming a non-worker/owner corp into a worker co op should be done at the grassroot in the business itself. There are already economic tools and methods that can do this making the idea of socialist taking over the government appear a little pointless.

Am I missing something? It does not appear to me that socialism is a leftist idea at all. The market can be fully deregulated and dominated by workers co-ops pushing it further to the right due to greed among the workers. What is keeping this scenario from becoming real in a socialistic economy?

Capitalism assumes capitalists exist to extract surplus value from the laborer, this scenario wouldn't happen under socialism.

The laborer is also a capitalist, looking to extract from the employer

 

[Socialist]

I think I may have a very simple idea of socialism.

When Wolff describes it as transforming the market system mainly based on workers co-op, it does not seem like Capitalism died, but evolved into a workers Co-op dominated version of capitalism. It resolves the issue of profit where each worker is compensated for his work, but it does not seem to solve the problem of larger Co ops corps pooling money and influencing politicians to benefit specific Worker co op corporation.

Is there more to this philosophy? Such a philosophy does not lend itself to revolution. It seems like the process of transforming a non-worker/owner corp into a worker co op should be done at the grassroot in the business itself. There are already economic tools and methods that can do this making the idea of socialist taking over the government appear a little pointless.

Am I missing something? It does not appear to me that socialism is a leftist idea at all. The market can be fully deregulated and dominated by workers co-ops pushing it further to the right due to greed among the workers. What is keeping this scenario from becoming real in a socialistic economy?

Capitalism assumes capitalists exist to extract surplus value from the laborer, this scenario wouldn't happen under socialism.

The laborer is also a capitalist, looking to extract from the employer

LOL. Capitalists own production, laborers rely on selling their labor to survive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Good Democrats actually love the US and want what's best for it.

too stupid!! Democrats hate American. That is why they spied for Stalin, thats why they elected Obama despite, Rev. God damn America, that's why they love Bernie Sanders who is an open communist, and that's why they love a living Constitution that they want to have communist meanings.

 

[amrchaos]

I think I may have a very simple idea of socialism.

When Wolff describes it as transforming the market system mainly based on workers co-op, it does not seem like Capitalism died, but evolved into a workers Co-op dominated version of capitalism. It resolves the issue of profit where each worker is compensated for his work, but it does not seem to solve the problem of larger Co ops corps pooling money and influencing politicians to benefit specific Worker co op corporation.

Is there more to this philosophy? Such a philosophy does not lend itself to revolution. It seems like the process of transforming a non-worker/owner corp into a worker co op should be done at the grassroot in the business itself. There are already economic tools and methods that can do this making the idea of socialist taking over the government appear a little pointless.

Am I missing something? It does not appear to me that socialism is a leftist idea at all. The market can be fully deregulated and dominated by workers co-ops pushing it further to the right due to greed among the workers. What is keeping this scenario from becoming real in a socialistic economy?

Capitalism assumes capitalists exist to extract surplus value from the laborer, this scenario wouldn't happen under socialism.

Yes, I understand the problem of the capitalist and how socialism resolves the problem of his existence. However, I don't think that socialism resolves the problem of the corporatists which is now identified by the worker co-ops.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

LOL. Capitalists own production, laborers rely on selling their labor to survive.

yes, everyone buys and sells to their best advantage so what is your point???

 

[amrchaos]

I think I may have a very simple idea of socialism.

When Wolff describes it as transforming the market system mainly based on workers co-op, it does not seem like Capitalism died, but evolved into a workers Co-op dominated version of capitalism. It resolves the issue of profit where each worker is compensated for his work, but it does not seem to solve the problem of larger Co ops corps pooling money and influencing politicians to benefit specific Worker co op corporation.

Is there more to this philosophy? Such a philosophy does not lend itself to revolution. It seems like the process of transforming a non-worker/owner corp into a worker co op should be done at the grassroot in the business itself. There are already economic tools and methods that can do this making the idea of socialist taking over the government appear a little pointless.

Am I missing something? It does not appear to me that socialism is a leftist idea at all. The market can be fully deregulated and dominated by workers co-ops pushing it further to the right due to greed among the workers. What is keeping this scenario from becoming real in a socialistic economy?

Capitalism assumes capitalists exist to extract surplus value from the laborer, this scenario wouldn't happen under socialism.

The laborer is also a capitalist, looking to extract from the employer

The laborer can be the owner as well. A lot of start ups begin this way.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Capitalism assumes capitalists exist to extract surplus value from the laborer, this scenario wouldn't happen under socialism.

100% stupid and Marxist of course. A capitalist must pay the highest wage possible or lose his employees to those who will pay the highest wage possible. Marx was perhaps justifiably stupid 200 years ago, but why are you still stupid today??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The laborer can be the owner as well. A lot of start ups begin this way.

yes in a free country you are free to switch from worker to owner but being an owner is tough since competition bids down your profit until it is near $0.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

LOL. Capitalists own production, laborers rely on selling their labor to survive.

Yes those with capital invest in things like inventory and brick and mortar store fronts.

They have much more invested and more to loose.

They get compensated thusly ...........

Survival is such a harsh way of stating things.

You mean laborers only have skills to sell to an employer??

What is your point??

The employer invested his money wisely while the laborer squandered theirs??

 

[amrchaos]

The laborer can be the owner as well. A lot of start ups begin this way.

yes in a free country you are free to switch from worker to owner but being an owner is tough since competition bids down your profit until it is near $0.

I mean they can be the exact same person/people. Also, in such a case, the owner/laborer may have access to a new market.

On the other hand, it is possible for the workers of a stock traded corporation to buy all the stocks and effectively become the owners themselves. The Business will then issue only bonds and ask for loans for needed revenue and pay it back from all the workers.

There are a lot of methods to obtain or maintain the socialist economic entity depending on the situation and structure of the business in question.

However, I don't think socialism solves all the problems we face. It seems like Corporatism and its influence on government is the next question that needs an answer.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Someone here should forward this to Debbie Wasserman....
She got the question twice and didn't have a clue.

I saw that. I think she had a clue but did not want to admit on nationwide TV that Democrats are socialists. The treasonous Bernie Sanders is at least honest about his treason!!. Wasserman is in effect a treasonous subverter!!

Our Founders tried to make liberalism illegal but failed so now this cancer is loose in America.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Socialism promotes mediocrity or even inferior products and goods.

When one understands that most of the money they make will go to the common good, they make no attempt to do more than the bare minimum.

In our case, capitalism promotes exceptionalism by conveying the harder the work the more you benefit from your labor!!

 

[Vigilante]

It's been explained by this man over 70 years ago.... hasn't changed since then...although assholes TRY to make excuses for it!

 

[amrchaos]

LOL. Capitalists own production, laborers rely on selling their labor to survive.

Yes those with capital invest in things like inventory and brick and mortar store fronts.

They have much more invested and more to loose.

They get compensated thusly ...........

Survival is such a harsh way of stating things.

You mean laborers only have skills to sell to an employer??

What is your point??

The employer invested his money wisely while the laborer squandered theirs??

Here is the thing, those investors can sell back their stocks to the workers--even at a profit, if the workers are willing to buy the stock. The investors 'ownership' is only important to him when he wishes to select a CEO or manage the company himself. If he choose to become the CEO, then he effectively becomes a worker himself! So there is the possibility of overcompensation due to over investment by a worker.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

However, I don't think socialism solves all the problems we face.

dear, name just one problem it solves?????????????

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Scandinavia is doing just fine. Thank you very much.

No it's not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It seems like Corporatism and its influence on government is the next question that needs an answer.

dear, corporatism is a stupid term and just means liberalism or socialist as in Obamacare.
Capitalism is when business and govt are separate.

Do you understand??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Here is the thing, those investors can see back their stocks to the workers--even at a profit, if the workers are willing to buy the stock. The investors 'ownership' is only important to him when he wishes to select a CEO or manage the company himself. If he choose to become the CEO, then he effectively becomes a worker himself! So there is the possibility of overcompensation due to over investment by a worker.

How does that work??

When all the stock has been purchased where is this mythical entity supposed to get more??

Just like in a law firm when all the associates have bought in and the firm is closed.

Before you can over invest there has to be something to invest in.

Simple charter rules limiting ownership percentages would be the easiest but not the only option.

Your point again??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Libs Debunked
Popular liberal talking points debunked

The Scandinavian Socialism Argument Debunked
145 Replies

A popular argument in support of high taxes is to bring up the success of the Scandinavian socialist system. Liberals like to point out that Scandinavia (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland) enjoys a strong economy and high standard of living despite high taxes and a cradle-to-grave welfare system.

If you talk to a liberal about Scandinavia, you’ll often see them make some variation of the following points:

• Scandinavian countries rank high in the UN Human Development Index
• Scandinavian countries rank among the top in various quality of life indexes
• Everyone gets free healthcare and education
• Scandinavia has low crime rates
• Scandinavia is a shining example of how successful socialism can be if implemented correctly
• Scandinavian countries rank well on happiness indexes

If only those stupid, gun-clinging, bible-thumping, mouth-breathing, inbred, bucktoothed, ignorant, racist, backwards redneck hick republicans would just get out of the way, the left could make life fair and equal for everyone. The large-government welfare state works in Scandinavia and it would work here too!

The problem is that the success of Scandinavian socialism is a myth. It’s false. It doesn’t work for them and it wouldn’t work for us.

Conservative Arguments
These are basic arguments against the “Scandinavian socialism success” talking point that liberals love to espouse. Use these arguments to quickly rebuke liberals in the course of conversation.

1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist
Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and protectionism.

Let’s look at a few key indicators of free enterprise in Scandinavia.

Denmark:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Finland:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, fiscal freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Iceland:

Iceland ranks a little lower than the US in most of these key indicators. It’s close, though. Remember also that Iceland has a smaller total population (320,000) than Wichita, KS.

Source

Norway:

Ranks higher than the US in trade freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Sweden:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

The overall point here is that Scandinavian countries have fairly capitalistic business environments. It is foolish to point to any Scandinavian country and call it an example of socialism working.

We can also look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. In the “capitalist” United States, government spending is equal to roughly 40% of the national GDP. In the “socialist” Norway, government spending is equal to roughly 46% of the national GDP. (Source.)

It is dishonest to compare Norway to the US and call one an example of successful socialism and the other an example of failed capitalism when both governments spend similar amounts of money on a percentage basis.

2. Scandinavia isn’t actually as prosperous as liberals like to claim
A study by Swedish group Timbro compared the GDP of various European Union nations to those of individual states in the United States. As stated by the study:

“If the EU were a part of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states?”

Denmark:

If Denmark were one of the US states, it would rank tenth among the poorest states for per capita GDP.

Finland:

Finland would come in fifth among the poorest if it were a US state.

Sweden:

Sweden would be the seventh-poorest as a state of the US.

Additionally, the study found that the United States as a whole ranks higher in economic output per person than every European Union nation except for the tax haven economy of Switzerland. Denmark, Sweden and Finland all ranked significantly lower than the United States. Norway was not included in the study as it is not a member of the EU.

Next, the study compared individual US states to various countries in the EU. Once again, individual states ranked higher in economic output per person than each EU country. Only Luxemburg ranked near the top. Most EU nations ranked alongside the poorest states in the US.

So, that does it for economic output. Next, the study took a look at private consumption. Once again, we find that the US as a whole outranks the entire EU, including those Scandinavian countries that are EU member nations.

The study also found several other interesting facts: those classified as “low income” in the US live better than those classified as low income in the EU – including Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The US also ranked higher in average dwelling space and domestic appliance ownership (clothes washers, dishwashers, radios, etc.).

3. Scandinavians have lower gross and disposable incomes
People in Scandinavia make less money before taxes and after taxes.

United States:

Average disposable income: 31,410 US Dollars

Average gross income: 42,028 US Dollars

Source

Norway:

Average disposable income: 25,224 US Dollars

Average gross income: 37,094 US Dollars

Source

Finland:

Average yearly income: 24,958 US Dollars

Source

Sweden:

Average yearly income: 22,387 US Dollars

Source

Denmark:

Average yearly income: 23,213 US Dollars

Source

Iceland:

Average yearly income: 22,387 US Dollars

Source

This completely destroys the point that liberals like to make about individuals living better in Scandinavia than they do in the United States. On top of that, Scandinavian countries have some of the highest costs of living in Europe.

4. But money isn’t everything! What about the poor?
It’s clear that the United States outranks Scandinavia in most economic indicators. Americans make more money. But, the ever-empathetic liberal may say that money isn’t everything. More important than how much money people make is how well a country takes care of its poor.

Your liberal friends may claim that the low poverty rates in Scandinavian countries show that its massive welfare systems are working as intended. What’s so bad about everyone making a little less money if we can make a dent in poverty? You know, it’s the old “the rich can afford to pay a little more” argument…

It’s almost impossible to compare poverty levels between the US and various Scandinavian countries due to differences in the definition of “poverty.” There are serious problems with how poverty is determined. For example, some countries only take current income into account and therefore count students and retired wealthy people among the poor.

But having said that, we can generally agree that Scandinavian countries have fairly low poverty levels. Does this mean that the high-tax, big-welfare system is better?

Nope.

First of all, it is quite a leap to point to tax rates or welfare programs as the single determinant of poverty or prosperity. For example, the extremely capitalistic country of Switzerland has a lower poverty rate than most Scandinavian countries. Switzerland is a unique example (international tax haven), but the point is that you cannot point to any one factor as the single determinant of poverty rates.

There is zero evidence anywhere in the world that high taxes reduce poverty. Just because a few countries with high taxes have low poverty rates does not mean high taxes are good. There are plenty of counter examples of countries with high taxes and high poverty rates and vice versa.

Look at the United States. The War on Poverty was declared nearly 50 years ago and has pumped roughly 7 trillion tax dollars into combating poverty. At current spending levels, we could just straight up give $27,000 a year to every poor person in the US and they’d be better off.

Look at what all that public spending has accomplished:

Source

High taxes do not help the poor; economic growth does.

We also have to take into account the massive immigrant population in the United States. In a country of 310 million people, 14.5% of the US population is foreign-born. Most other countries with high levels of immigration also have high levels of poverty. There are numerous studies that show high immigration rates actually do affect a country’s poverty rates.

Sweden is the only Scandinavian country with a foreign-born population comparable to the United States. However, poverty among immigrants in Sweden has been growing rapidly over the past few years. According to this study, immigrant children accounted for 65% of all poor children in Sweden in 2008. By comparison, only 5% of native Swedish children live in poverty.

According to that same study:

“The Swedish model appeared to produce amazing results as long as the country was completely homogeneous and full of Swedes. But the much admired welfare state was unable to deal with even moderate levels of ethnic diversity (still far below the levels of the United States) without a collapse in social outcomes.”

The conclusion we can draw from all this is that the Swedish system is not responsible for low poverty rates. Other factors, such as homogenous population and the industrious spirit of the Swedes, is responsible. If immigration and government spending continue unchecked in Sweden, the model will eventually become unsustainable.

Note: I got some help from this article in making this point.

5. Norway is backed by big oil
When liberals point to the per-capita GDP of Norway, they forget to mention that much of this is a result of big oil interests. Norway is the largest oil producer and exporter in all of Western Europe. Norway produces roughly 200 barrels of oil per person per year. That puts it at number 5 in the world for per capita oil production. (Source.)

The conclusion we can draw from this is that a significant portion of Norway’s per capita GDP is based on oil revenues. In other words, Norway is successful despite its government, not because of its government.

Incidentally, I find it funny that those same liberals who vehemently vilify big oil are happy to ignore that little fact when pointing to the success of Norway.

6. Scandinavians aren’t as happy as Americans
Liberals (and Scandinavians) love to claim that Scandinavian countries top various “happiness indexes.” They say that Scandinavians are so much happier and more content than Americans for a variety of reasons.

Let’s just ignore all the problems that come with trying to assign a number to “happiness.” Let’s ignore that there is no single definition for happiness. Let’s also ignore how easy it is for left-leaning organizations to manipulate these studies to show what they want to show. Let’s just forget all of that.

Instead, let’s look at suicide rates. Suicide rates are cold, hard numbers not subject to interpretation. You’re either dead by your own hand or not.

Every single Scandinavian country ranks higher than the United States in suicide rates. Every single country. Finland ranks 5th in the world for suicides per 100,000 people. By comparison, the United States ranks 18th.

Suicide rankings compared:

• Finland: 5th in the world
• Denmark: 11th in the world
• Sweden: 12th in the world
• Norway: 13th in the world
• Iceland: 15th in the world
• United States: 18th in the world

Source

Conclusion
In a conclusion based on facts and hard numbers, we can see that Scandinavia is not an example of successful socialism by any measure. It’s not a terrible place to live, but it’s clearly not the utopia that liberals love to make it out to be.

The above facts and figures prove that socialism did not make these countries great. These countries have small, homogenous populations, oil money and free markets. These countries do well despite high taxes, not because of high taxes.

Plus, if you look around the world at true socialisms, you’ll see massive failures. Historically, socialism (and other forms of collectivism) has always resulted in poverty, starvation and widespread death. Scandinavians are fortunate that they don’t yet live in an all-out socialism.

The Scandinavian Socialism Argument Debunked - The great liberal myth

 

[amrchaos]

i

It's been explained by this man over 70 years ago.... hasn't changed since then...although assholes TRY to make excuses for it!

I think Churchill is referring to State Capitalism. Those in control are corrupted by the immense power and tend to lose focus of their original goals. State Capitalism was suppose t be a stepping stone to socialism, but now it seems like an approach best avoided.