Can socialism work in small and well-educated countries?

[armand61685]

I saw on yahoo and youtube a piece on how Denmark rated to be the world's most happy country. The country is completely socialist and most of the people enjoy high standard of living.

Could it be because the population is small, tightly-knit, more or less homogenus in ethnicity, and progressive-minded (regarding civil liberties, religious freedom, etc.) and well-educated (because of their free education)? I also read that Denmark has little political corruption and special interest. Basically, the whole country is a big community that works together.

Also, the taxes they probably incur apparently don't affect their standard of living and they have a trust in their government and vice versa.

Of course this means that they live in an extremely collective society in terms of economic worth and resources, but, they are, on average, supposedly the happiest people on earth

I lean libertarian, but does socialism work at this level? Is socialism just another style of society that can work just as much as libertarianism can, so long as the right ingredients are there?

Discuss

 

[kyleAF]

No, it can't.

They are currently riding the coattails of the market economy. There is no way for a price of a good to be determined in the absence of a market to set the price. How much should a #3 spring coil cost? You don't know, and neither does anyone else...until the market demonstrates the price through its allocation of capital and production / consumption processes. You may drastically over or under-value it, simply because you can't foresee every possible alternative use of it within industry.

Right now, they're seeing the prices of goods and capital that other markets are setting, and are able to model their system after it to some extent.

Now, it *may* be possible for a small-sized commune to get along well-enough, but once you get into the complexity of a modern economy, all bets are off. There's no way for all of the economic transactions to be predictable and manageable. A human does not have the capacity, nor does any supercomputer, even in theory.

Imagine the market as a naturally "controlled" chaotic environment consisting of literally trillions of individual decisions by the people every day. Now imagine trying to figure all that out by committee

We can't even figure out how to stick to the Constitution in the committee known as the U.S. Government...

 

[armand61685]

But isn't socialism a middle ground between capitalism and communism? Denmark still has markets for things, but their health care and education are socialized.

 

[Scott Wilson]

Slaves can be happy too.



Socialism is immoral because it uses force to take from one to give to another.

 

[NoxTwilight]

From what I got from the 60 minutes piece - it works well for them because most all people are at the same income level and their government doesn't waste billions on foreign involvement. They pay much higher taxes but they know where it is spent - on them.

 

[AceNZ]

Can socialism work in small and well-educated countries?

Socialism can work for a while, and people can be happy -- especially during times of economic growth. But eventually, as the profit motive is destroyed and wealth is redistributed or moved out of the country, the system begins to implode.

In Denmark, around 25% of the work force is employed by the government, and around 60% of the population depends on some form of government money. Income taxes are as high as 63%, and they have a 25% VAT (national sales tax). Around 76% of their workforce is employed in services, rather than real production. It's hard for me to believe a system like that can survive for long.

They do still seem to respect private property, so they aren't totally socialist (yet). In spite of confiscatory taxes, they are operating at least partially based on capitalism, and I'm sure that's what has saved them so far. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

 

[armand61685]

Slaves can be happy too.



Socialism is immoral because it uses force to take from one to give to another.

but what if the people willfully give it up, and in some cases, legislate the tax laws themselves? Doesn't sound like force...

 

[armand61685]

Socialism can work for a while, and people can be happy -- especially during times of economic growth. But eventually, as the profit motive is destroyed and wealth is redistributed or moved out of the country, the system begins to implode.

In Denmark, around 25% of the work force is employed by the government, and around 60% of the population depends on some form of government money. Income taxes are as high as 63%, and they have a 25% VAT (national sales tax). Around 76% of their workforce is employed in services, rather than real production. It's hard for me to believe a system like that can survive for long.

They do still seem to respect private property, so they aren't totally socialist (yet). In spite of confiscatory taxes, they are operating at least partially based on capitalism, and I'm sure that's what has saved them so far. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

Good answer

 

[Zavoi]

Certainly, a small, close-knit community can function as a socialistic society. As an extreme example, when you have a small family living in one building, rarely do they have to partition their residence into privately-owned parcels, sell food to each other on the free market, or enforce rules against nuisance. There's no reason why the people of Denmark shouldn't be happy in the manner they have chosen for themselves.

Is socialism just another style of society that can work just as much as libertarianism can, so long as the right ingredients are there?

As I see it, libertarianism and socialism (in the small commune style you mention) are not incompatible. Libertarianism is a system of political beliefs, while socialism is a system of social beliefs. If you and your friends want to form a kibbutz or commune under a libertarian political system, no one will stop you by force, as long as it is voluntary.

Problems arise when we forget about the distinction between politics and society. Thus, Temperance movements ended up supporting Prohibition, and charitable, well-intentioned individuals ended up supporting welfare statism. Just because I oppose drinking alcohol doesn't mean I need to force you not to drink alcohol. Just because Ron Paul supported giving a medal to Rosa Parks (with his own money) doesn't mean he had to force you to pay for it. Libertarianism is not a vision for society; on the contrary, it is characterized by its lack of such a vision.

Of course, personally, I doubt that a Danish-style society could work in such a large country as the United States, but freely interacting individuals will determine that, and I will make no moral judgement one way or the other.

 

[angelatc]

but what if the people willfully give it up, and in some cases, legislate the tax laws themselves? Doesn't sound like force...

Are you saying they had 100% of the voters turn out and vote to be socialist?

Because if one person didn't vote yes, then the system is using force to mae that person participate.

 

[jkm1864]

I work in the oil and gas industry offshore. I work with people all over the world sometimes. I have worked with people from Norway which is very similar to Denmark and they are miserable. The problem with Europe is the Tax system penalizes You for extra work. The movers and shakers bitch about the same things we bitch about ... Taxes ... Lazy Fucks ... Immigrants living on welfare .... basicly people that are MOOCHERS. I would say that article just polled people that were down right lazy and stupid while the people that didn't get polled were at work. Hey that poll is kind of like the US but I am educated and smart and I know the only reason in high taxation is so Banking JERKS can exploit the middle class with their evil Usury practises.

 

[jonahtrainer]

I saw on yahoo and youtube a piece on how Denmark rated to be the world's most happy country. The country is completely socialist and most of the people enjoy high standard of living.

Then why does Denmark face huge labor shortages because their young, educated and productive citizens leave?

Young Danes, often schooled abroad and inevitably fluent in English, are primed to quit Denmark for greener pastures. One reason is the income tax rate, which can reach 63 percent...a level that hits anyone making more than 360,000 Danish kroner, or about $70,000. That same tax rate underpins such effective income redistribution that Denmark is the most nearly equal society in the world, in that wealth is more evenly spread than anywhere else...

But today young Danes can easily choose not to pay for the system's upkeep, once they have siphoned off what they need. For starters, as citizens of the European Union they are entitled to work in any of the 27 EU countries.

Sorensen, who graduated from business school in Copenhagen, found himself earning the equivalent of more than $100,000 before he was 30 - and paying 63 percent of it in taxes. His work as a computer consultant for Deloitte also took him to Brussels, where he met the Spanish woman he would eventually marry.

But the high taxes, mixed with his wife's discomfort in Denmark, meant that a job offer in Qatar three years ago was all it took to pry him away from Copenhagen. Now, he is ensconced in Frankfurt, setting up a new business on the side and planning to pay no more than 25 percent of his income to the German state.

"When you are at 63 percent tax, you don't look forward to the evaluation with the boss to get a raise," Sorensen said. "You look for more vacation or a training course in the tropics - something that you get the full benefit of."

Two articles (One and Two) about Denmark.

Countries are just brands, like Coke or Pepsi, and when the cost outweighs the benefits and the sweet nectar of freedom is drained then just throw away the worthless can to be crushed, melted, reformed and refilled.

 

[Perry]

Any government can work but whether or not it is successful has little to do with education and more to do with the morals behind that government. Even a total dictatorship can work if the man behind the wheel is "good".
Men however are inherently flawed. This is why the less centralized the government you have the better.

 

[AceNZ]

Certainly, a small, close-knit community can function as a socialistic society. As an extreme example, when you have a small family living in one building, rarely do they have to partition their residence into privately-owned parcels, sell food to each other on the free market, or enforce rules against nuisance.

If I'm living with my family in a small building, then I am willing to voluntarily share my earnings with them. That's not socialism.

To extend your example, let's include your neighbor's house in your "community". The earnings of both families are required to be shared. But now your neighbor decides he doesn't want to work any more, so you're supporting him as well as your family. Your family doesn't eat as well. You begin to resent your neighbor. You are not giving voluntarily, you are being forced to "give" -- and in fact if you don't want to give (through taxes, for example), violence is used against you (you go to prison). That's socialism.

As I see it, libertarianism and socialism (in the small commune style you mention) are not incompatible. Libertarianism is a system of political beliefs, while socialism is a system of social beliefs. If you and your friends want to form a kibbutz or commune under a libertarian political system, no one will stop you by force, as long as it is voluntary.

I completely disagree. Libertarianism and socialism are completely incompatible. I don't see any distinction between political and social beliefs. If you and your friends join a kibbutz or a commune under a libertarian system, that's like saying "it's OK for me to steal from one neighbor, as long as my other neighbor doesn't steal from me". It's hypocritical and immoral.

Libertarianism is not a vision for society; on the contrary, it is characterized by its lack of such a vision.

Disagree. Libertarianism's vision for society is one of laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I saw on yahoo and youtube a piece on how Denmark rated to be the world's most happy country. The country is completely socialist and most of the people enjoy high standard of living.

Could it be because the population is small, tightly-knit, more or less homogenus in ethnicity, and progressive-minded (regarding civil liberties, religious freedom, etc.) and well-educated (because of their free education)? I also read that Denmark has little political corruption and special interest. Basically, the whole country is a big community that works together.

Also, the taxes they probably incur apparently don't affect their standard of living and they have a trust in their government and vice versa.

Of course this means that they live in an extremely collective society in terms of economic worth and resources, but, they are, on average, supposedly the happiest people on earth

I lean libertarian, but does socialism work at this level? Is socialism just another style of society that can work just as much as libertarianism can, so long as the right ingredients are there?

Discuss

Work? Statism is evil. So it just won't work. Besides, the socialism you're advocating for is involuntary, so it's pretty...communism. That's what you want, right? You should do some research on the USSR. It doesn't matter if your country is small, you are still imposing your political will on other people via statism. The socialism you want just makes matters worse. Why not just leave people the fuck alone? People can learn to live without government by impoving their own lives, not by spewing radical ideologies that turns people off whose livelihood benefits from the status quo. That's pretty much why libertarianism (even though CORRECT) has been stuck in its first five minutes since the days of Adam Smith, people just don't want it. The government is just a mafia. That's all it is. I hope you'll learn to access that, one day.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I saw on yahoo and youtube a piece on how Denmark rated to be the world's most happy country. The country is completely socialist and most of the people enjoy high standard of living.

Could it be because the population is small, tightly-knit, more or less homogenus in ethnicity, and progressive-minded (regarding civil liberties, religious freedom, etc.) and well-educated (because of their free education)? I also read that Denmark has little political corruption and special interest. Basically, the whole country is a big community that works together.

Also, the taxes they probably incur apparently don't affect their standard of living and they have a trust in their government and vice versa.

Of course this means that they live in an extremely collective society in terms of economic worth and resources, but, they are, on average, supposedly the happiest people on earth

I lean libertarian, but does socialism work at this level? Is socialism just another style of society that can work just as much as libertarianism can, so long as the right ingredients are there?

Discuss

Work? Statism is evil. So it just won't work. Besids, the socialism you're advocating for is involuntary, so it's pretty...communism. That's what you want, right? You should do some research on the USSR. It does'nt matter if your country is small, you are still imposing your political will on other people via statism. The socialism you want just makes matters worse. Why not just leave people the fuck alone? People can learn to live without government by impoving their own lives, not by spewing radical ideologies that threaten the livelihood of the statist elite that benefit from the status quo. That's pretty much why libertarianism (even though CORRECT) has been stuck in its first five minutes since the days of Adam Smith, people just don't want it. The government is just a mafia. That's all it is. I hope you'll learn to accept that, one day.

 

[Kludge]

 

[Acala]

Forgotten man

Remember the forgotten man.

The forgotten man is the one who has been robbed by socialism. And he may not even know it. He may not know why he can't find a job in the field he wants to work in. He may not know why he can't afford the things he wants or why they may not even be available. He may not know why he must wait in line for mediocre service. He may not know why he can't get ahead economically. He may not know why he lives in a tiny apartment. He may not know why his hard work and attempts at innovation are not just ignored but actually scorned. He may not know that he is treated like a child. He may not know that the lifeblood is slowly being drained out of his society. But it is.

 

[Truth Warrior]

If the Danes ( collectively ) are happy ( collectively ) and their ( collective ) system works for them ( collectively ), more power to them ( collectively ). It's none of our ( collective ) business.<IMHO ( individually ) >

 

[Pianist4Freedom]

Slaves can be happy too.
Socialism is immoral because it uses force to take from one to give to another.

What do you do though, when power becomes concentrated in a private company and they start to do immoral things? It seems to me there must be some circumstances where one must fight fire with fire, perhaps.