You appear to be confusing socialism with Stalinist dictatorships. The two are not the same, or even vaguely similar.
Socialism
- Thread starter simon12
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
You appear to be confusing socialism with Stalinist dictatorships. The two are not the same, or even vaguely similar.
Saisonator
Landlord.
Neither Norway or any other country in Scandanavia are socialist. They do not nationalise their means of production. They are just higher tax, bigger state capitalist countries.
I think when compared to most countries in the world, America and Americans on average are doing very well.
simon12
Landlord.
Norway is a capitalist country with huge oil reserves and massive tax that pays for its citizens to get healthcare in Sweden as there system isn't up to the job.
ElvisIsBeer
Member
Capitalism hasn't that history then?
johnnyboy1965
Landlord.
Did anyone see that experiment that some person did on the New York underground. He put up a peg board and pinned some dollar notes to it.
Underneath he placed a sign saying "Take what you need, give what you can"
After x amount hours there was more money than when the experiment started.
This is how life should be.
Im sure its on Youtube somewhere.
Underneath he placed a sign saying "Take what you need, give what you can"
After x amount hours there was more money than when the experiment started.
This is how life should be.
Im sure its on Youtube somewhere.
![BREWING THERMOMETER STICKERS ACCURATELY MONITOR FERMENTING BEER & WINE LIQUID TEMPERATURES 5PCS HOME BREW SPIRITS WINE LCD ADHESIVE [US]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/311DDjo2X3L._SL500_.jpg)
Oneflewover
Landlord.
....as is unfettered capitalism. I doubt anyone on here is advocating either.
Dutto
Landlord.
Oh dear! Another knee-jerk reaction that isn't backed up by the facts.
The total population of Venezuela is 32.15 million whereas, according to a 2015 census (carried out by the US Government's Census Bureau), there are 43.1 million Americans living below the poverty line; which equates 13.5% of the population.
References:
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/venezuela-population/
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
Dutto
Landlord.
Boy, you are really on a roll.
"The cabinet of Stefan Löfven is the present Government of Sweden. It is a coalition cabinet consisting of two parties: the Social Democrats and the Green Party. The cabinet was installed on 3 October 2014, following the 2014 general election."
I think you will find that:
A) Sweden is part of "Scandinavia".
B) The Social Democrats are "Socialists". (The clue is in the name!) :thumb::thumb:
Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Löfven_Cabinet
(Sorry, but I didn't bother looking anywhere else.)
PS
You may find this link interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Due to his initials, Clement Attlee (the leader of the Labour Party when they nationalised many of the public utilities and instigated the NHS) is the first person on the Notable Social Democrats list. Enjoy! :thumb:
IainM
Landlord.
There are many different flavours of socialism, some favour state ownership, others prefer organisations to be owned by their workers as cooperatives, others prefer communal ownership separate from the state, some accept private ownership conditional upon tight regulation by social institutions. There are very few people who advocate complete state ownership of everything. At least, I've never met any. I have met a few that go full whack in the opposite direction, and want complete privatisation and surrender to market forces. They scare me.
Most people, and I'd say all reasonable people, want some balance with different degrees of social ownership and control over different areas. I was with a bunch of Swedes last night, as well as the token Brit (me), Hungarian, Pole, Dane and a few Israelis, and this topic came up. The discussion revolved around things like the government monopoly of alcohol sales in Sweden, and whether that particularly hard-line version of socialism was suitable for that particular sector. "It helps prevent social problems" and "the government have no right to choose how and when I poison myself" were both brought up, and ultimately it is up to the individual to weigh up the issues and make a decision. Personally, I wouldn't like to see that introduced in the UK even though I'm quite sympathetic to socialist arguments, this was just going too far.
However, things that didn't crop up, were other hard-line socialist positions which are accepted as obvious, such as the idea that the state should have complete ownership and control over the police, the millitary, the judicial system. Nobody questioned that there should be communal ownership, or at least very tight regulation of, things like prisons, refuse collection and disposal, what drugs can be sold for which conditions, national grids, gas infrastructure, power plants, roads, education, tax collection, and even health care. Sure, you can argue away about bus, rail, alcohol, swimming pools and sports facilities, whether the state should invest in high-speed internet connections for everyone or just let ISPs connect profit-making towns and cities and leave everyone in rural areas with dial-up connections, blah blah blah. I know where I stand on those issues and I accept that other people have different opinions that are equally valid. However, on the core, essential sectors of our economy that underpin our fundamental rights, almost everyone is a socialist whether they like to admit it or not.
Most people, and I'd say all reasonable people, want some balance with different degrees of social ownership and control over different areas. I was with a bunch of Swedes last night, as well as the token Brit (me), Hungarian, Pole, Dane and a few Israelis, and this topic came up. The discussion revolved around things like the government monopoly of alcohol sales in Sweden, and whether that particularly hard-line version of socialism was suitable for that particular sector. "It helps prevent social problems" and "the government have no right to choose how and when I poison myself" were both brought up, and ultimately it is up to the individual to weigh up the issues and make a decision. Personally, I wouldn't like to see that introduced in the UK even though I'm quite sympathetic to socialist arguments, this was just going too far.
However, things that didn't crop up, were other hard-line socialist positions which are accepted as obvious, such as the idea that the state should have complete ownership and control over the police, the millitary, the judicial system. Nobody questioned that there should be communal ownership, or at least very tight regulation of, things like prisons, refuse collection and disposal, what drugs can be sold for which conditions, national grids, gas infrastructure, power plants, roads, education, tax collection, and even health care. Sure, you can argue away about bus, rail, alcohol, swimming pools and sports facilities, whether the state should invest in high-speed internet connections for everyone or just let ISPs connect profit-making towns and cities and leave everyone in rural areas with dial-up connections, blah blah blah. I know where I stand on those issues and I accept that other people have different opinions that are equally valid. However, on the core, essential sectors of our economy that underpin our fundamental rights, almost everyone is a socialist whether they like to admit it or not.
Saisonator
Landlord.
Social Democrats, didn't we have the SDP some years ago, liberals weren't they
I think you getting social democracy and socialism mixed up, the clue is in the words :)
Saisonator
Landlord.
Rediculous non arguement.
Poverty levels are calculated relative to the average income.
Poor people in the US would be better off than the middle classes in Venezuela who are literally struggling to find enough food to survive.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-food-shortages-economic-crisis-a7595081.html
https://youtu.be/CCIdm3cM6zQ
It depresses me that there are otherwise intelligent people who believe that authoritarian political systems are somehow compassionate and fluffy, and that people with these views are, if the polls are to be believed, close grabbing the reigns of power and unleashing their self righteous bully boys to right perceived wrongs.
Beam me up Hayek, we haven't learnt from history. So very depressing.
Beam me up Hayek, we haven't learnt from history. So very depressing.
Oneflewover
Landlord.
It is interesting that political views seems to be particularly polarised at present. A few years ago, particularly under the Blair government, the 2 main political parties were fighting over the middle ground; the 'third way'. In my opinion the increased support for left wing politics is a direct result of the governing party moving further to the right. Of course the I'll-judged snap general election was a chastening experience for those within the tory party who lean further toward the right.....
Dutto
Landlord.
Social Democrats, didn't we have the SDP some years ago, liberals weren't they
I think you getting social democracy and socialism mixed up, the clue is in the words :)
A perfect example of misinformation. Thank you. Now here are the facts!
The "Gang of Four" (Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins, Bill Rodgers and David Owen were ALL moderate Labour Party members (ALL of whom had served as Labour MP's) who thought that the Labour Party had swung too far to the left and was becoming Marxist.
Obviously, leaving the Labour Party and failing to get their much maligned Social Democratic Party off the ground they eventually merged with the then almost defunct Liberal Party to form todays Liberal Democratic Party. (The Liberal Democratic Party hit their high-point in the 2010 election when they achieved 57 seats. The LDP Leader (Nick Clegg) took his MPs into a coalition with the Conservative Party and the British Public responded by reducing the number of Liberal Democrat MPs to 8 five years later.)
In all honesty, when the "Gang of Four" split from the Labour Party it was very much moving towards Marxism and away from the ideas on which it had been formed.
I firmly believe the saying "For evil to prevail all good people have to do is nothing." so I have stayed faithful to the Labour Party.
With regard to me mixing up "social democracy and socialism" I refer you to a statement made over twenty years ago when the Labour Party re-defined its stance on socialism by re-wording Clause IV of its constitution.
It effectively rejected the communistic side of socialism by removing all references to public, direct worker or municipal ownership of the means of production. The Labour Party stated:
B]"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that, by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create, for each of us, the means to realise our true potential, and, for all of us, a community in which power, wealth, and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few"[/B]
I stand by that statement. Please read through the full Clause IV below and tell me which part of it is disagreeable to you. :thumb:
http://www.labourcounts.com/clausefour.htm
PS
Back in 1979 the Foreign Secretary was David Owen and the people I was working with in Iran were in the middle of a revolution.
I walked into work one morning to an icy silence from the Operations Staff of the Gas Plant I was helping to commission. This was so unusual that I took one of the Supervisors to one side and asked him what I had done to cause such a response.
"Your government says that it supports the Shah." was his reply.
Apparently, David Owen had been on the BBC World Service to tell the world that the UK government fully supported one of the most corrupt regimes that the world has ever seen.
Boris is not alone in making stupid statements about Iran!
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)
If there was increased support for left wing politics there would have been a Corbyn led governent in place after the GE, with a substantial majority. There isn't. In spite of a disastrous election campaign the Conservative are still in power albeit propped up by the DUP. Nonetheless they still have more seats than any other party. I suggest that had the Labour Party been more centrist and not been pushed further left by Momentum and similar political groups they would have won the GE. I believe that many people are wary of the left, especially folks like me, who have been round the block a few times. And to be clear I have voted Labour in the past but would certainly not vote for the current lot.
And finally I don't detect any shift in the Conservatives to the right. I am puzzled why you believe this to be the case.
druid
Junior Member
I had to laugh my rearend off at the statement that only 13% of the US live under the poverty level. Im not looking to start a fight as I am really enjoying the differing views put forward here. The allowance and acceptance of such differing views can only be seen as a true and accepting democracy. Thank you everyone for restoring some semblance of acceptance and commonality to an otherwise polarized and paranoid world. Beer anyone?
Oneflewover
Landlord.
Hi Terry. Not sure of the logic in your statement re increased support for left wing politics. Labour won more seats in 2017 than in 2015, going from approx 30% to 40% of seats, allied to an increasingly left wing position.
I do agree with your conclusion that labour would have done better in the last GE had they moved to the middle ground, but I believe that this would have been because they would have offered an alternative to an increasingly right wing tory party for middle ground voters.
finally, politically (not fiscally) driven austerity, the proposed dementia tax, increase in free schools, universal credit, etc all point to a move to the right from the tories. Of course they had to rein in some of their plans following the election result. Plus they've got loonies like Jacob rees mogg etc in their number!
I do understand the point you make about the current labour party and not feeling able to vote for them though, and I am aware of what happened in the 70s
Am right in thinking that political party names don't necessarily reflect their left or right wing leanings or beliefs... The National Socialist German Workers' Party was very much right wing and I'm not sure many socialist views would be shared today.
