How do you explain prosperous nations that are built on socialism?

[pcosmar]

How do you explain prosperous nations that are built on socialism?

I don't.
There are NO nations "Built" on Socialism. There are some that are turned that way, but none built.

 

[LibForestPaul]

I would like to start here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html

Please dispute anything that is untrue so we can have a common ground to start with. This way as closets are opened and human rights skeletons start piling up like indian burial grounds we have an accurate definition of successful.

Wow lewrockwell article biggest bunch of pooh I have read in long time.

 

[Kludge]

Didn't you make a thread almost exactly the same as this about 4 months ago, RT? Or was that Rael?

 

[LibForestPaul]

Their utopia will be coming to an end like everone elses.

1. No spending on military. How great could their lives have been without the US protecting them from Russia. Yes, lets look at neighbors such as Latvia and Lithuania. Doing wonderful are they not? How much money did West Germany have to put into East Germany to bring the m up to Western standards. We should be sending bills to our Western "Allies".

2. Homogenous group...easier for clan mentality. Not too mention after war there was some communal spirit. Will this spirit persist, I doubt it.

3. United States - where would Sweden be if we did not include them in our post war industrial rebuilding of Europe?

 

[Varin]

Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism

Heh, not a pretty picture of my country:o. But you should keep in mind that the sterilization program was mostly active more than 50 years ago and that USA and many other countries had similar programs.

The ties between state and church were cut a couple of years ago. That the government was running the church is probably why so many Swedes are Atheist or non religious.

With the regard to unwed pregnancies I don´t see the problem. The important thing for the child should bee that the parents live together and raise the child together. As previously stated swedes are not religious many families live together without being married, even more have there first kids before being legally married. This kind of partnership is regulated by a special law (sambolagen) making it a lot like a regular marriage.

The more interesting number would bee number of kids living with both there parents thats 73% not the 44% that the article indicates.

http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/le0101_2002i04_br_le110sa0501.pdf

Further there are crazy people on the streets. You do see them every now and then. i know about at least two regulars here in Gotheburg.

Other than that I think the article makes some good points. Sweden did not turn really wealtharist/socialist until the sixties and seventies Sweden was then perhaps the richest country in the world and since then I´m pretty shore we have been on a relative decline.

It´s also correct on the Myrdals (have read some of there writings) they argued for sterilization programs and the governments involvement in raising all children.
Both were very influential in the social democratic party laying out the foundation for the Swedish wealthfare state.

I would say that they were both intelligent people who unlike most socialists saw the necessary consequences of there ideology and were prepared to accept them.

 

[Varin]

Their utopia will be coming to an end like everone elses.

1. No spending on military. How great could their lives have been without the US protecting them from Russia. Yes, lets look at neighbors such as Latvia and Lithuania. Doing wonderful are they not? How much money did West Germany have to put into East Germany to bring the m up to Western standards. We should be sending bills to our Western "Allies".

Sweden is neutral and not an allied, we are not a NATO member.

We have an army I served in it for over a year. We have troops in both Afghanistan, Kosovo and probably still some in diffrent African countries.

But otherwise I think you are almost right our dystopia not utopia will come to an end. There will bee an ever increasing parasitic population living of the work of an ever decreasing productive population.

 

[thasre]

One random thing I'm going to point out about the statistics regarding "higher standard of living" among other nations is that they are often deliberately skewed to make them look better (because the criteria have been set by statisticians hired by the governments being ranked).

For example, I read on the Cato website something about WHO rankings of health-care systems that said one of their criteria is that nations with "good" health-care systems have a lower range of percentages of people's income that people spend on health-care.

In other words, everyone in the country spends between, say, 5-10% of their income on health-care. The problem is that a country like the US may have very wealthy people only spending .001% of their income on health-care (because they aren't being forced to pay for others'), and other people who spend 40% of their income on their own (because they actually have higher health-costs and lower incomes). Why is it is "better" if wealthy people are forced to pay 10% of their income on health services they aren't using so that other people's health-care costs can be kept artificially low? And who gets to decide why that is a criteria for ranking health-care *performance*?

Or for another example, different countries have different standards for determining what counts as "infant mortality". Part of the reason the US has a higher infant mortality rate is because it includes deaths of premature infants. So if two babies are born 24 weeks into a pregnancy and one dies and one lives, the one that dies is counted in our infant mortality statistics. But if *both* babies were to die in a country like France, *neither* would be counted among their infant mortality rates.

In other words, these statistics are inflated to make socialistic countries look better than the competition... imagine that, governments monopolizing the systems that hold them accountable for shortcomings...

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[JoshLowry]

I don't know why you would want to compare those countries to the USA, we haven't had a free market here since around the Civil War times.

This.

Your post infers that the US doesn't do well compared to countries with socialism. I'd say we have plenty of it here.

 

[angelatc]

If you are an infant you are more likely to die in the US than in Cuba.

Even that figure is misleading. Our medical system is capable of keeping premature babies alive at early ages that Cuba won't even attempt to perform life saving measures on.

If a baby is born at 26 weeks and dies, they count it as a premature birth. We put it on life support and if it doesn't make it, we call it an infant death.

 

[angelatc]

Wow lewrockwell article biggest bunch of pooh I have read in long time.

Well, that's the worst rebuttal I've seen in a long time.

Add to that article that Sweden was teetering on an economic collapse and had to open the door to more capitalism in order to keep things running after this article was written.
.

The Sweden that the socialists here idolize died in the '90's. http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={7ADD7200-F22F-44A4-96FA-4CE8C056EB5E}&print=1&siteid=mktw

Sweden endured a deep financial crisis in the early '90s, with sluggish growth and high unemployment, but this provided an impetus to new approaches in fiscal policy. As a result, the central bank became independent and set a low inflation target of 2%. Centralized salary negotiations were abolished and the labor market developed into one of Europe's most flexible.

 

[Paulitician]

It's not socialism! Having a large welfare/nanny state is not socialism. Their economies are mixed just as the one in United States. They are capitalistic economies, they are not laissez-faire, they have some business freedom (obviously not absolute), they probably have heavy regulations, they have more redistribution of wealth than we do, heavier taxes etc., but they are still capitalistic. (Some people seem to think that if it doesn't fit their ideal, than it isn't capitalism--this is faulty thinking.) They're relatively more succesful at implementing these things while not driving their economies into the ground, but one has to ask if the individuals within those economies would not be better off with a more free economy. There are many reasons why I believe they'd of course be much better off. I'm not worried that these nations may be doing better than the United States (though, in general I don't believe they are), since the US is a freaking corporate state (it does not represent what I support). The US does not have a free market, and it generally favors the kleptocracy at the expense of everyone else. Anyway, that was my generalized rant. Later.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

Based on what standard? and/or formula? granted they are no Zimbabwae however you imply a standard of some sort.

 

[RevolutionSD]

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier. (NY Times)

In Denmark health care is free, education is free, the government will even pay students around $600 a month to go to school, and if you lose your job you get full unemployment for around 4 years before it goes to 80% of your pay. (this may have changed, but was true a few years ago at least). They also get at least a month of paid vacation a year (I think it's actually 5 weeks). Just try taking 5 weeks of vacation in America, much less get paid vacation.

So if socialist nations are bound to fail then why do they succeed?

I'm surprised you don't know this by now, with all your time spent in this movement.

Sweden/Norway have a huge oil deposit off their shore that has been pumping money into their systems for decades. They have done okay DESPITE socialism! If these countries had capitalism, they would be FAR better off.

And the vast majority of socialist countries are more similar to Venezuela- a few at the top with a lot of money, and many "equal" citizens just above poverty.

This is almost not even worth debating.

How can you make the case that having an elite group that monopolizes violence and steals half of people's money is a good or moral thing in ANY way?

 

[Rael]

Ahem?

Sweden's total population is less than 10 million people. Most of its immigrants are Finnish. Put that into perspective.

In other words , Finnish immigrants versus dirty Mexicans and other dangerous minorities?

 

[idiom]

Even that figure is misleading. Our medical system is capable of keeping premature babies alive at early ages that Cuba won't even attempt to perform life saving measures on.

If a baby is born at 26 weeks and dies, they count it as a premature birth. We put it on life support and if it doesn't make it, we call it an infant death.

Well, as long as the infants parents can pay.

 

[JoshLowry]

"Rational Thinker" you need to respond to some of these rebuttals or stop creating new threads.

 

[GBurr]

Sweden is more "successful" because they have not run into the moral traps that The U.S. has run into. The Swedish population is much less likely to abuse the system than Americans are. Sweden doesn't exploit their welfare system nearly as bad as the U.S.. There socialism is better because they choose to do better themselves.

As far as life expectancy goes that is once again a personal choice. People from Sweden don't eat supersized big macs and never exercise like the U.S. does.

Capitalism doesn't guarantee success. What Capitalism guarantees is the greatest potential for success. We don't even have real capitalism.

Ask yourself this. If there was a country that was 100% capitalist yet its people didn't work hard, didn't refrain from using force on others, and always tried to mooch off of someone else; would this country be successful. The answer is no.

I'm not saying that Americans are all slobs who don't work hard. I'm just saying that America has a higher percentage of slobs that don't work hard than Sweden.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Well, that's the worst rebuttal I've seen in a long time.

run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop,

(As an aside, O’Rourke notes that the US ambassador to Sweden at the time of his visit was Thomas Siebert. He was Bill Clinton’s roommate at Georgetown. O’Rourke also notes that Mrs. Siebert is a friend of Hillary Clinton. Americans can stop wondering where the most intelligent and courageous female politician ever known finds inspiration for her collectivist dreams.)

why Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia are much more akin to Hell on earth.

unlike the godless state to which American leftists aspire

I reiterate, biggest pile of pooh (propaganda and fallacies) I have read in some time.

If any who believe this article is the greates thing since sliced bread. Print it out, then go to any web-site regarding critical thinking and logical fallacies. Would be good exercise.

 

[jmlfod87]

So your rebuttal is you don't believe these sterilizations and lobodomies occured?

And BTW, all political essays are essentially propaganda.