Socialism

[Rumblood]

As you see is not what it is. That's just government functions, as they have always been. Read what i quoted off wikipedia, again. Socialism, in general, prevents private property in means of production. No country in Europe is socialist, thankfully.

Word. You can't confuse what it means with what has thus far resulted from its (unfaithful) application.

[the real god emperor]

Thanks for showing your opinions guys One of the 8324732643264 questions in my mind flew away

@cmp well, lets say most socialst leaders

[Nightmare798]

@nightmare: funds collected by taxes have to be declared in the budget, like every goverment has to. Other income usually is aquired by all parties to make theire political campaigns being heard - call it advertisment - its fact that political parties need this or they go down the river.

There is a special state budget from which parties aquire finances for their advertising.

And guess what this budget is financed from?

[Kafein]

Scandinavian countries are "socialist" (here I'm using that word to mean the kind of socialism that those countries do) because they are rich, not the other way around. Belgium for example, is very socialist too, in that sense. But only because we were much richer before the oil crises, started borrowing to continue our stupid spending spree when the crises hit, then when things went back to ok end of the 90s we were again too stupid to pay back our debts and instead decided to spend more instead of less.

In that sense socialism is good as long as it doesn't put the country in peril due to the natural inability of politicians to grasp macroeconomy or to make long term decisions.


Now, strict communism and planned economy as in the one applied by the bolcheviks during the russian civil war, is a completely different beast. And it failed so miserably that Lenin (maybe the only intellectual of all the soviet leaders to come) backtracked and reintroduced some market economy in 1921. Why did it fail? Because it was an economic theory that didn't take into account the most basic thing about the economy : behavior and incentives. If as a peasant, the state allows you to keep 4 bags of grain for yourself and confiscates (or buys at state prices, which is basically the same) everything else you produced, what is the point of producing more than 4 bags? That's it. No sane person would work for nothing, I don't even think it's fair to call that greed.

[Eugen]

In times of campaigning I may have heard rumours that some parties use more money then there is in the budget... 

Still this is worth a own thread about corruption and maybe getting into community policy stuff thats way too far off the trail.

[[ptx]]

Can we agree to stop using the word "socialism" to mean moderate left-wing politics?

[Eugen]

or call it realworld moderate socialism and theoretical hardcore socialism (communism?) to make the difference.

[Nightmare798]

EDIT:
I believe econimic crises was provoked by antisocialist groups to bring down socialism by making people believe social systems cant be supported anymore becouse of "financial crises". Them greedy capitalists just dont want to pay up for social system anymore, they dont want to pay tax for theyre working class, they want to make more money and pay less to them who do the work. Thats just it. My true conspiracy theory.

Economic crisis comes from stagnation of market caused by low pay and high prices, so you are more or less right.

It is a cursed circle in which: people are paid less due to the attempt of employers to raise profits = they purchase less goods, less goods = lower profit = wages are cut and people lose jobs = lower pay = less purchased goods and so on.

The problem is that greed of employers are what cause their demise, because they as whole affect market, and the more they want to profit, the less they ultimately earn.

In times of campaigning I may have heard rumours that some parties use more money then there is in the budget...

Still this is worth a own thread about corruption and maybe getting into community policy stuff thats way too far off the trail.

Depending on their wealth and determination, campaign leaders may increase their campaign funds with their own money. That, and they could also make the state to release more funds for them, unofficially of course.

I just cant imagine what could make those who administer campaigning funds to release more money for certain group. One of posibilities is bribe or blackmailing.

[zagibu]

If as a peasant, the state allows you to keep 4 bags of grain for yourself and confiscates (or buys at state prices, which is basically the same) everything else you produced, what is the point of producing more than 4 bags? That's it. No sane person would work for nothing, I don't even think it's fair to call that greed.

It's not greed, it's ego-centrism. Why work for the greater good, when you have enough for yourself and can sit around on your fat ass instead? This is indeed one of the center points of failure in communism.

[Smithy]

This thread has been a good read.  Its interesting seeing European's views, as I've literally never discussed these types of things with anyone other than Americans.  Teeth pretty much hit the nail on the head though, when it comes to Democrats.  I personally don't favor them, but the entire political situation in the States is a bit absurd to me.

[larlek]

Visit Sweden or London and you can get a good look at Socialism at work.

[brunoII]

the real problem with socialism or communism is this:
are all my old friends with the ass of the other, but not with their own ...
then there will always be someone who imparts the rules and benefits of the sacrifices of others ..... happened in all regimens

[Xant]

The leftist policies practiced in Scandinavian countries are not socialist. Socialism is not communism, but neither is it what any country in Europe practices.

And, let's be honest here, Scandinavian countries do not owe their current prosperity to their wellfare programs. Norway has oil, whilst Sweden was one of the countries least affected by WW2, whereas it is pretty much the entire Eastern Europe that was forced into socialism after WW2.

And what about Finland, then? No oil, hugely affected by WW2.

[FleetFox]

That's because Russia is Communist 

That's because the unhappy ones swam to Florida, were imprisoned, or killed.

You seriously underestimate racism and natural resources. It would be a helluva more like pre-2011 Sudan than 1917 Russia.

Much truth in this.

That's because most socialists in America have no money to give (and are lazy to boot). I imagine it is similar in Europe.

Well sure, those that left Cuba or were killed were those who lost the most with the revolution, or that wanted to maintain the capitalist status Quo and exploitation by america ^^

Anyway I'm pretty sure we can all agree (at least I hope) that certain individuals can earn and accumulate so much wealth as immoral and quite frankly perverse. I mean right now the big meeting in Davos of the "World Elites": The top 85 of whom have the same amount of wealth than the bottom half of the Worlds total population. Pretty crazy really, and you can expect inequality to get even worse in our beloved free market system. Surely you don't have to be only left wing (socialist) to appreciate some of the shit that is put up with. I don't want to come across as really negative, but there isn't much hope things will change... Unless the banks fuck up again since they haven't changed their behaviour at all since 2008 which worries me deeply.

I would not be surprised if there is another financial crash in years to come, which will make countries like my Native Britain fucked ^^

[Teeth]

Pretty sure countries get rich first and then set up expensive welfare programs, not the other way around. Economic benefits of welfare programs are highly debatable in any case and if they exist, they will be long term to such an extent that no country is able to pay for them if they do not already have a high degree of prosperity.