Conspiracy Theory There actually are people (State and non-State actors) who ARE brainwashing you, and most of you don't actually know it's happening.

[ferball]

I wouldn't say Norway is the best illustration of a 'socialist' country. Certainly there's a stronger element of welfare than many other countries, but to try to stretch that to use it as an example of a socialist country is taking it a bit far. It's still fundamentally a capitalist country with private ownership and such things, just a well regulated form.

Socialism also involves state or community ownership of resources and Norway owns 2/3 of the gas resources it has access to.

It doesn't mean there is no such things as private property or IP.

 

[Kwality]

No, name a Socialist State (means of production owned and controlled by the State) that was not also a tyrannical shithole.

Just one will do.

Here are recent ones:

Cuba.
The USSR and its constituent counties.
North Korea.
Maoist China.
Cambodia.
Vietnam.

Give me one State (Socialist) where you think it's all roses.

Vietnam turning 50 for the birthday ballot generation & the different versions of that period of my life see 'brainwashing' on all sides.
I didnt win that ballot, but some mates were not that lucky:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/in...r/news-story/3156c7e72d590d3fb8d37537f6fa2af7

IF this is just history to you, dont buy the brainwashing on all sides, try to understand why there is more than one version of events, as challenging as that is for many here.

 

[Malifice]

Socialism also involves state or community ownership of resources and Norway owns 2/3 of the gas resources it has access to.

Norway is Socialist now?

It's not; it's a liberal-democratic constitutional parliamentary monarchy, with a mixed (primarily capitalist) economy.

A very similar system to what we have here in Australia.

By the standards of ordinary people pre and post Castro, socialism worked and capitalism didn't.

No, it didnt work. Compared to the progress in Cuba leading up to Castro, and the progress of neighbors in Latin America that embraced capitalism Cuba did not work.

Cuba's capital, Havana, was a glittering and dynamic city. In the early part of the century the country's economy, fueled by the sale of sugar to the United States, had grown dramatically. Cuba ranked fifth in the hemisphere in per capita income, third in life expectancy, second in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, first in the number of television sets per inhabitant. The literacy rate, 76%, was the fourth highest in Latin America. Cuba ranked 11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita. Many private clinics and hospitals provided services for the poor. Cuba's income distribution compared favorably with that of other Latin American societies. A thriving middle class held the promise of prosperity and social mobility.

Pre-Castro Cuba | American Experience | PBS

Castro (and Socialism) turned Cuba into a complete tyrannical shithole. Which is why this happened:

The Cuban exodus is the mass emigration of Cubans from the island of Cuba after the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Throughout the exodus, millions of Cubans from diverse social positions within Cuban society emigrated within various emigration waves, due to political repression and disillusionment with life in Cuba.[1][2][3]

Cuban exodus - Wikipedia

 

[ferball]

Norway has a government that has majority ownership and control of its most important resources yet it isn't an authoritarian nightmare. That makes my point about socialism and your brainwashing for me.

As far as Cuba goes and leaving aside that if anyone posted anything from a source like the Russian verian of PBS you'd be all over them for it, even that PBS stuff points out how divided pre Castro Cuba was.

We're not talking about Cuba before Batista's coup either, in the very early 20th century things weren't as bad as they were by 1959. But after the US/Mafia backed coup in the early 50s things got considerably worse. Its not good enough to point out that the middle class were well off. The shocking disparity between people in Havana and poor Cuban cane cutters who had no hopes of a better life for themselves and especially for their kids is what drove that revolution.

But in all of those communist (not socialist) countries you point out except N Korea and maybe Cambodia, revolutions were driven from extreme poverty. Communist uprisings don't happen in countries where workers get paid fairly (because of unions, every advance working people have made comes off the back of unions however bloated they end up eventually) and where education and healthcare are available to everyone communist style revolutions don't happen.

In states where socialism and communism happen under a proper democratic framework they are successful. Kerala is an example. (Nothing take note.)

 

[owen87]

Socialism also involves state or community ownership of resources and Norway owns 2/3 of the gas resources it has access to.

It doesn't mean there is no such things as private property or IP.

It seems like you're taking a small example of what is a 'socialist' government policy, and using that to call the whole country an example of socialism.

What you seem to be advocating for sounds a lot more like well-regulated capitalism than it does socialism.

 

[CD Xbow]

It seems like you're taking a small example of what is a 'socialist' government policy, and using that to call the whole country an example of socialism.

What you seem to be advocating for sounds a lot more like well-regulated capitalism than it does socialism.

Well regulated capitalism snuggles up closely to socialism and together they probably provide the best chance of good conditions for most folks.

 

[Malifice]

Norway has a government that has majority ownership and control of its most important resources yet it isn't an authoritarian nightmare.

Norway is not a socialist country.

I can (as a Norwegian citizen) freely invent and manufacture my product, in Norway, and sell it for profit. I can freely train in whatever career I want to, and freely choose what job to work in, and how much I get paid for my labor. I can buy an investment property and rent it out to others for profit. I can invest in shares and in the market, pooling my capital with other investors.

That is not socialism.

Norway itself does not claim to be a socialist country. It is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, with liberal-democrat/ social-liberal political parties in the majority, and with a mixed (primarily capitalist) economy.

It that manner, it is very similar to Australia.

As far as Cuba goes and leaving aside that if anyone posted anything from a source like the Russian verian of PBS you'd be all over them for it, even that PBS stuff points out how divided pre Castro Cuba was.

Dude, by any metric Cuba went downhill fast post Castro. Literally millions of people were persecuted and fled the regime.

In states where socialism and communism happen under a proper democratic framework they are successful.

No, they are not, and socialism and communism are literally at odds with democracy (and liberalism). That's why every single Marxist State has literally outlawed other political parties at the first opportunity, persecuted literally massive swathes of its population (the bourgeois) via purges, gulags, killing fields and worse.

In a Marxist State, would I be allowed to incorporate a company, and sell my products that I made for profit? Would I be allowed to own private property, such as an investment apartment, and rent it out for profit? Would I be allowed to even own my own property and land at all? Could I open up a hotel, or rent out a room in my apartment? What If I wanted to speak out about this Marxist tyranny, and advocate for its abolishment, and the creation of a liberal State, with a Free Market economy in its place?

Yes or No?

The answer is 'No, and I would be shipped off to the gulags, imprisoned, or shot for even trying'.

If you want to live in a commune, go live in a commune with other like-minded socialists. There is literally nothing stopping you. I encourage you to. Just don't sit there and advocate a State that compels me to do so, on pain of imprisonment or the State stripping me of private property and shipping me off to the Gulags or the Killing fields.

If you want 'socialism' you can have it right now, here in Australia. Just dont hold a gun to my head and tell me I have to play along with it or else.

 

[Malifice]

It seems like you're taking a small example of what is a 'socialist' government policy, and using that to call the whole country an example of socialism.

What you seem to be advocating for sounds a lot more like well-regulated capitalism than it does socialism.

He's conflating socialism (State control and ownership of the means of production, with private property outlawed, freedom of association ended, the market controlled exclusively by the State, and other parties outlawed) with 20th century social liberalism (regulated free market, private property ownership, freedom of association, limited State ownership of essential services).

They're wildly different things.

 

[ferball]

It seems like you're taking a small example of what is a 'socialist' government policy, and using that to call the whole country an example of socialism.

What you seem to be advocating for sounds a lot more like well-regulated capitalism than it does socialism.

One thing i hear alot is that any regulation of capitalism is a form of socialism. Personally I think markets and some state control of resources and production are reasonable. Any extreme is will fail to work imo. Someone once told me, many years ago, that a bird can't fly without its left and right wings working together and the same applies to society. I think they were right.

 

[ferball]

Well regulated capitalism snuggles up closely to socialism and together they probably provide the best chance of good conditions for most folks.

Yeah, this.

 

[ferball]

He's conflating socialism (State control and ownership of the means of production, with private property outlawed, freedom of association ended, the market controlled exclusively by the State, and other parties outlawed) with 20th century social liberalism (regulated free market, private property ownership, freedom of association, limited State ownership of essential services).

They're wildly different things.

No you're conflating socialism with Authoritarian Communism or "the dictatorship of the proletariat".

That's because you can't see the difference between Authoritarian Communism and Socialism.

Because that situation you've described has only happened in states where Authoritarian Communism was practiced. Even in places like Kerala where democratically elected Commies formed government that stuff didn't happen.

Meanwhile in a country like Australia there were anti association laws that are ostensibly aimed at bikie gangs but could have been applied to anyone on the whim of government and right now every state has anti protest laws that would have been considered insane 25 years ago.

 

[Malifice]

No you're conflating socialism with Authoritarian Communism or "the dictatorship of the proletariat".

No, I'm not.

I know what socialism is. It's control and ownership of the means of production by the State. If you literally (right now) Google Socialism, that's what you get. Repeatedly. From hundreds of different websites:

what is socialism - Google Search

It is an economic (and political) theory that states that to a large degree (or in many cases wholly) all private property and the means of production should be owned and controlled by the State.

The thing you think is 'socialism' (what Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Norway etc practice) is Social liberalism:

Social liberalism[a] (German: Sozialliberalismus, Spanish: socioliberalismo, Dutch: Sociaalliberalisme) is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses social justice and the expansion of civil and political rights. It is economically based on the social market economy and views the common good as harmonious with the individual's freedom. Social liberals overlap with social democrats in accepting economic intervention more than other liberals; its importance is considered auxiliary compared to social democrats.[11] Ideologies that emphasize its economic policy include welfare liberalism,[12] New Deal liberalism in the United States,[13] and Keynesian liberalism. The world has widely adopted social liberal policies.

Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centre to centre-left, although there are deviations from these positions to both the political left or right. Addressing economic and social issues, such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care and education using government intervention, while emphasizing individual rights and autonomy are expectations under a social liberal government.[18][19][20] In modern political discourse, social liberalism is associated with progressivism,[21][22][23] a left-liberalism contrasted to the right-leaning neoliberalism,[24] and combines support for a mixed economy with cultural liberalism.[25]

Social liberalism - Wikipedia

Social liberalism is very different to Socialism. They're incompatible with each other.

To give you some context in Germany in the 1920s and 30s there were 3 broad competing political ideologies. The far-Left Socialists (politically represented by the KPD), the centrist Liberals (comprised of the left leaning social liberals, and the right leaning economic libertarians of the SPD and Centre Party) and the far-Right National Socialists (Nazis).

All three were at war with the other, but on occasion the Liberals and the Socialists (as ANTIFA) allied against the Nazis (and on one notable occasion the Socialists allied with the Nazis against the Liberals).

Of course, when the Nazis were defeated, the Liberals and the Socialists would have proceeded to fight it out again, because those two ideologies (liberalism and socialism) are incompatible with each other. An event that ultimately did happen not only in Germany (East v West), but also throughout the entire world via the Cold war.

Antifaschistische Aktion - Wikipedia

The above is still the case with ANTIFA, although modern ANTIFA is not just Marxists and Socialists, it's also comprised of a broad church of all types of Anti-Fascists (Greens, Liberals, non-aligned etc). As a Liberal, I'm happy to align myself with the Socialists and Marxists to fight the bigger evil (the Fascists).

But after the Fascists, the Socialists are nearly as bad. They're well-meaning but deluded individuals happy to constantly ignore the failings of Socialism, and the repeated tyrannical shitholes it's created, and to strip freedoms from the very people they seek to protect, and hand those powers over the supposedly 'well meaning' State.

* the government telling me what to do.

Again ferball stop and read the above. You're conflating two very different political and economic models that far from being the same, are actually in opposition to each other.

 

[ferball]

Seems as tho the only definition of socialism you'll allow people to hold is one from straight up marxism.

How very authoritarian of you.

 

[Malifice]

Seems as tho the only definition of socialism you'll allow people to hold is one from straight up marxism.

How very authoritarian of you.

Well no, Im literally using the one you provided above, plus the one from the actual dictionary.

The thing you keep calling 'socialism' (Norway's political and economic model) is Social liberalism, a totally different doctrine, that is actually incompatible with socialism.

It has (at its core) a free-market economy where things are bought and sold (and labor is exchanged) for profit, alongside private property and freedom of association. In order to be a Socialist State, you kind of need an absence of those things, along with all the government controls that come along with it.

They actually have a socialist party with a few seats in their Parliament too, but their two major parties are Social liberals and Democratic liberals (very similar variants of liberalism).

You're not the only one that conflates 'liberalism' with 'socialism'. Its a common * up in the USA as well (with lefties effectively called 'liberals' even when they're full-blown Marxists and vice versa with liberal ideas being conflated with 'socialism'), but they're wildly different ideas and doctrines.

As a liberal, we believe in a regulated free market economy, where people can freely choose what they want to do with their labor, including profiting from it. We believe in freedom of association, and the right to own private property (including land, houses, business, hotels and factories) and to earn profit from that property. We assert that a State that owns and controls everything, will always eventually become a tyranny, because power corrupts.

This is in direct opposition to socialism which literally states the exact opposite should be the case, promising some kind of utopia when the State own and control everything to disperse everything evenly among everyone.

The only thing liberals and socialists agree on broadly, is that in a Socialist State, the bourgeoise will be oppressed, and eradicated (in one way or another, often via gulags or killing fields, or at a bare minimum via legally having property stripped from them, denied the ability to generate profit, or freely own property, form liberal free market political parties, and will generally be persecuted by the State).

Socialists of course see that as a positive.

 

[owen87]

Seems as tho the only definition of socialism you'll allow people to hold is one from straight up marxism.

How very authoritarian of you.

I don't think the make up your own definition of words thing works all that well when trying to use words to convey your ideas though. So isn't the fallback position going to the actual definition of words?

 

[ferball]

Norway is known as a social democracy and in fact the term originated from Scandanavian countries.

There's a thing called the Nordic Model and it refers to how those countries functioned. In fact you can compare social liberalism, as practised by Sweden since 2010 and Norway which retains its state ownership of gas, transport, healthcare etc etc plus a whole heap of industries that would be owned by private interests in Australia, the US or other nations you'd define as social liberal democracies.

Since that period of time Sweden has seen the highest growth of inequality among any OECD nations.

See i'm not the one making up definitions to suit my arguments here.

 

[ferball]

The State’s direct ownership comprises companies where the State’s ownership is managed directly by a ministry. This currently includes 69 companies.

What the state owns

The State’s direct ownership comprises companies where the State’s ownership is managed directly by a ministry. This currently includes 69 companies.

www.regjeringen.no

From a google search "What is socialism?"

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So not by elements of the community but the community as a whole which in this case is a democratic government.

 

[ferball]

Here's another example of the conflict between forms of socialism not defined by the most boring Marx brother and capitalism.

 

[ferball]

Here's UN recognition of socialism among first nations people and indigenous communities worldwide.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/04/Indigenous-Peoples-Collective-Rights-to-Lands-Territories-Resources.pdf

 

[Malifice]

The State’s direct ownership comprises companies where the State’s ownership is managed directly by a ministry. This currently includes 69 companies.

What the state owns

The State’s direct ownership comprises companies where the State’s ownership is managed directly by a ministry. This currently includes 69 companies.

www.regjeringen.no

So not by elements of the community but the community as a whole which in this case is a democratic government.

Just because the State owns some industry, or regulates some industry, that doesnt make the State socialist.

The USA owns some industry and regulates all industry and trade:

State-owned enterprises of the United States - Wikipedia

Australia owns some industry as well. Many Hospitals and much of the Health care system is State owned and operated, and individual States own things like Transportation and Energy (to some degree).

State-owned enterprises of Australia - Wikipedia

Are you saying that makes Australia and the USA 'Socialist' countries?

From a google search "What is socialism?"

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

That's MY point!

In Norway the means of production, distribution, and exchange are NOT owned or regulated by the community as a whole (the State).

Barring a few industries here or there, the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in private hands, and operated for profit.

 

[Malifice]

Nordic Countries Aren’t Actually Socialist​

Nordic Countries Aren’t Actually Socialist

Global media (especially in the US) likes to portray Norway and Scandinavia as socialist. But “cuddly capitalism” is a much more accurate term. Let's take a look at the truth of the Nordic model.

Scandinavian 'Socialism': The Truth of the Nordic Model

Scandinavian “socialism” does not exist, except in the Marxian imagination of radical progressives. It is a chimera wrapped in an illusion inside a dream.

In fact, the economies of Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries are not socialist but capitalist. They depend on the free market to generate the funds that make their extensive welfare system possible.

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

One of the great delusions of our day is that Scandinavian countries are “socialist” and so America should be socialist too.

Don’t Call Scandinavian Countries ‘Socialist’ | Lawrence W. Reed

As the American left embraces a platform that continues to look more and more like a socialist’s dream, it is common for those on the right to counter with the example of Venezuela as the nightmare of socialism in reality. A common response from the left is that socialism (or democratic socialism) works just fine in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.

The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

Norway is not socialist ferball. Stop claiming it is.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Here's UN recognition of socialism among first nations people and indigenous communities worldwide.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/04/Indigenous-Peoples-Collective-Rights-to-Lands-Territories-Resources.pdf

Fantasyland stuff

 

[Malifice]

Here's UN recognition of socialism among first nations people and indigenous communities worldwide.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/04/Indigenous-Peoples-Collective-Rights-to-Lands-Territories-Resources.pdf

That's not socialism dude. It's a recognition of what we in Australia call Native title (Mabo etc).

Are you saying Native Title is 'socialism'? I mean surely by that argument any State or Commonwealth land owned by the Crown is 'socialism'.

In Australia, nearly 40 percent of the country is owned by the State, and 60 percent lies in private hands:

Revealed: Australia's biggest private landowners

 

[ferball]

That's not socialism dude. It's a recognition of what we in Australia call Native title (Mabo etc).

Are you saying Native Title is 'socialism'? I mean surely by that argument any State or Commonwealth land owned by the Crown is 'socialism'.

In Australia, nearly 40 percent of the country is owned by the State, and 60 percent lies in private hands:

Revealed: Australia's biggest private landowners

Land is a means of production isn't it.

And yes obviously native title is socialism, even the watered down version that came with the Australian Native Title act in 1994. There was a point earlier upthread where you seemed to accept that idea, even tho your framing of it wasn't really that great (ie the chief banging you on the head with an axe if you did your own thing.)

That's my point and has been since I brought this up. You've been brainwashed into a narrow definition of socialism that only includes shitful authoritarian states.

You struggle to see the beneficial possibilities that community or state (a democratic state or equivalent obviously) ownership of resources and some industries provide.

 

[ferball]

Just because the State owns some industry, or regulates some industry, that doesnt make the State socialist.

Socialism is not wholly dependent on a state. Winstanley's Diggers practised socialism and they were about as close to a proper anarchist community as anything the UK has seen since 1066 at least.

The USA owns some industry and regulates all industry and trade:

State-owned enterprises of the United States - Wikipedia

Australia owns some industry as well. Many Hospitals and much of the Health care system is State owned and operated, and individual States own things like Transportation and Energy (to some degree).

State-owned enterprises of Australia - Wikipedia

Are you saying that makes Australia and the USA 'Socialist' countries?

I'm saying these things are socialism and so the US and Australia have mixed economies where market principles and socialist ones mix (to varying degrees) in an attempt to provide what they think is the best society.

That's MY point!

In Norway the means of production, distribution, and exchange are NOT owned or regulated by the community as a whole (the State).

Barring a few industries here or there, the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in private hands, and operated for profit.

There is no rule about using the term socialism that says everything has to be owned and controlled by the state. That's the sort of authoritarian communism we see in the countries you keep objecting to. That may be your definition but it isn't a universally accepted one and i would suggest the reason its your definition is the brainwashing I keep referring to.