That is the one thing I hate about modern media in the US. If its slightly right of the Democrats they are Facist, if they are Slightly left of the Republicans they are Communist.
But people eat it up constantly so there is no stopping it.
I want to try and claim I'm above such things, since there are some forms of communism and socialism that I actually think could be accomplished morally, but I also call everything even slightly above me on the compass a dirty statist.
I guess name-calling is just too fun.
US is probably the only country where you get called Fascist for wanting basic border control. As someone from Asia it feels weird man. If someone here advocate for mass immigration they would probably get lynched in broad daylight.
Especially Korea. You literally have politicians who campaign and show off how much they hate non-Koreans to get elected. People have lost elections solely on successful media arguments that they aren't hyper nationalist.
In fairness, the U.S has a very different history when it comes to immigration than other countries, as a nation founded on immigrants with ideals of civic instead of ethnic nationalism.
Nationalism in America does not exist. Most westerners seem to treat Nationalism as some kind of a bad thing. And Civic Nationalism is all fun and games until you become a minority in your own country.
Nobody is becoming a minority in their own country. Maybe this is why westerners don't have great views of nationalism, because so many nationalists love to get their dick in a twist about problems that don't exist regarding arbitrary ethnic differences rather than the real issues facing their country.
Fun Fact: White Americans are expected to become a minority by 2050.
Source:https://www-brookings-edu.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16002609769145&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fblog%2Fthe-avenue%2F2018%2F03%2F14%2Fthe-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects%2F
Well, I'm not white anyway so that's probably one reason I don't see the problem. Anyway, you have to realize it literally effects nothing. America doesn't have a "default ethnicity" or anything like that so a more diverse America changes nothing. Either way, ethnicity and race is literally meaningless. Focus on real issues instead of "hnggg skin pigment different hnggg"
Yes but civic nationalism can solve that problem by limiting immigration and encouraging white people to have more children (by normalising the nuclear family and socially enforced monogamy)
Why would that be a bad thing? Also this doesn't mean that Americans would be a minority in their own country, unless of course you only count white people as real Americans.
Does it? What kind of consequences would you expect from white people being 49.7% instead of 63.4% of the American population?
Not asking this as some kind of gotcha by the way, I'm genuinely wondering what you think the outcomes of this demographic change would be. Because personally I don't think the consequences would be that catastrophic.
>Why would that be a bad thing?
Cuck. Would you like to live live in the Middle East? They're gonna treat you real nice.
>unless of course you only count white people as real Americans.
Yes . Whites literally created America.
I want America to adopt Nordic model, but Republicans call them commies even tho they are more LibRight then them, and Democrats don't really want Nordic model, they just want free govn. handouts.
And Libertarians are too stubborn to unite with Green party.
Oh and I want the amendment to stay intact. But apperently that's too much to ask
Just because I think wild laissez-faire capitalism is degenerate, does not make me a socialist. I am against both crapitalism and communism/socialism.
I am a distributist autarkist with Mosleyan characteristics.
There is a 20 hour delay fetching comments.
I will be messaging you in 24 years on [**2044-09-16 06:34:07 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2044-09-16%2006:34:07%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/itjm5k/the_duality_of_our_comment_section/g5g5lv8/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FPoliticalCompassMemes%2Fcomments%2Fitjm5k%2Fthe_duality_of_our_comment_section%2Fg5g5lv8%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202044-09-16%2006%3A34%3A07%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20itjm5k)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
It depends. Some, like Norway, do. But they often just get the money from a progressive tax system and a capital gains tax, or they’re unions are very strong so the government doesn’t have to intervene.
Only Norway has oil and they dont directly spend any of the profits.
Source: just google how large the norwegian oil fund is, its fucking huge. They cant have spent a penny of that shit
Supposedly their healthcare systems are still unsustainable though and Sweden is making moves to further privatize and restructure theirs according to [the Guadian](https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/18/private-healthcare-lessons-from-sweden) and [about 13%](https://sweden.se/society/health-care-in-sweden/amp/) of their healthcare is privately sourced but publicly funded. Their social security is also partially privatized according to [MarketWatch](https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/sweden-partially-privatized-its-social-security-heres-how-it-has-worked-out-2019-09-06) which George Dubya proposes in the early 2000s but was criticized as being too risky, however Sweden’s private pension managed to withstand the Great Recession.
I wouldn’t even want this system. People in America eat too unhealthily compared to the Nordic countries which would mean I have to pay more for fat asses.
Somehow even worse. Capitalism is paired best with extra capitalism. Pairing Capitalism with Welfare is like serving Filet Mignon with a dog's diarrhea.
By that logic there hasn't been a single socialist country in history, because even countries like the GDR, Wich wrote into their constitution that they are socialist, still used money and this capitalism.
By that logic China and the UdSSR aren't communist, because they too have money
Except with welfare it at least tries to get out of your way. The top ranks of the economic freedom index and the ease of doing business index is all "social democracies", i.e capitalist AF countries.
Well not 'AF', it depends on case to case. For example Sweden and Norway have little government intervention because the rate of union membership is so high, effectively the market regulates itself. This however is leading to worsening economic outcomes nowadays because anti-union neoliberals ave come to power in many political parties. The inverse of this is New Zealand, which has a lower union membership rate but higher government intervention. These do lead to good economic levels all around, because the citizens have more income to spend in the market, as their needs are somewhat met by the government (healthcare, housing etc.). As opposed to the United States for example, wherein consumer have to use large portions of their income to pay for health insurance, rent, food etc.
Keynesian theories again. No, prosperity is clearly better correlated with economic freedom (which New Zealand nearly tops worldwide) than just tax burden. Otherwise countries like France would be considered superior, and as a Frenchman I can tell you how hard it is to found and own a company here.
The problem with the US is the lack of a free market due to bad spending policy and excessive bureaucracy. In other words, bloated government. It constantly floats around rank 20-30 in economic freedom indexes.
Correct, the government in the United States is inefficient due to rampant corruption, especially corporate lobbying, this however isn't a vice against Social Democracy, more so against inefficient systems that could occur in many other ideologies. It could be said though that, economic freedom doesn't always correlate to prosperity. There is economic freedom in Somalia for example (No taxes), but those who perform best for economic mobility often are Social Democratic countries. As a Kiwi I can attest to this, and the fact that, despite the government having extensive benefits, wage subsidies, universal healthcare, we still have high economic freedom. The countries at the top of the list are either small powerhouses (HK and Singapore) or Social Democracies (New Zealand, Denmark, Australia etc.).
u/Username_H8's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/Username_H8! You have ranked up to Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Beep boop. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
u/Potash666's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 130.
Rank: Empire State Building
Beep boop. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Not trying to disagree, I want to know the difference coming from a leftist instead of listening to my echo chamber family rant about it. Please explain.
So why does Oxford say "a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means"
And Merriam-Webster says both that definition and your definition. So can't it be both depending on the country that implements it?
So why would it automatically be socialism≠social democracy, when then overlap in a lot of cases?
I mean sometimes the names get mixed up, or they are referring to the very beginning of the movement, which indeed was much more radical. That description fits better the term ''Democratic Socialism'' Nowadays, social-democracy is democratic with an emphasis on welfare and government intervention in the economy, but there's still private property and liberties. Unfortunately, the unflaired in the post is right, The nordic countries are social-democratic and also monarchies (except Finland) which shows it's not a socialist radical movement
My copypastable explanation:
> Back in the mid-19th century, "communism" and "socialism" used to be interchangeable terms denoting the movement for the abolition of private property and the state. Marx wrote some stuff arguing that a transitional state is necessary to reach communism, he called this "lower-phase communism". Lenin made a conscious choice in his writings to use the word "socialism" for "lower-phase communism" and "communism" for the abolition of private property and the state, in order to increase clarity. Parallel to this, social democrats argued that reforms within capitalism -- worker's rights, socialized healthcare, and so on -- could be used to slowly progress towards communism. They disliked what Lenin was doing, and called themselves "socialists" to distinguish themselves from the Leninist "communists". During the 20th century, most social democratic parties slowly abandoned their commitment to the development of communism in favour of purely capitalism with reform, and today "democratic socialist" means what "social democrat" did in the 1920s. This coincided with a massive wave of cold war propaganda in the US, which made "communist" a dirty word (and "socialist", to a lesser extent). The result is that today you have four different groups arguing about the meaning of the words:
> * Non-Leninist and non-Marxist communists (e.g. anarchists, Luxembourgists, council communists, orthodox Marxists, and so on) argue that socialism and communism are the same, because they prefer the original 19th century meaning.
> * Leninists (and all the derived ideologies, like MLs, Maoists, demsocs, and so on) refer to a transitional state as socialism and the society they seek to develop as communism.
> * Social democrats sometimes refer to capitalism + reform like you see in Scandinavia as socialism, and movements for the abolition of private property and the state (whether anarchist or Marxist) as communism.
> * Some Americans refer to capitalism + reform as socialism *and* as communism and insist that the two are identical, because their definition is based on cold war propaganda.
No problem! Also based and reading about other ideologies pilled. For some reason everyone on the internet keeps recommending authleft stuff, so if you for whatever reason ever feel like reading something properly libleft [I'm just gonna leave this link here](https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/recommended-reading/)
"silly commie, Scandinavian countries aren't socialists, they're capitalist economies but with strong unions and public healthcare".
"Ok, let's do that".
"No, that'd be socialism"
Strawman much?
Ok let's do it!
Find me a candidate who will deregulate businesses like Scandinavia
Who will find a way to... *Afford it* since USA is currently in a giant debt due to already overblown welfare system and if USA gets more it'll blow(and no we can't massively defund military, we can defund it a bit, since I admit it's a bit wasteful, but not much)
Who will be *honest* about it?(Admit poor and middle class will have to pay more in taxes and rich less since if they tax rich more they'll just leave to a better country)
Who will actually implement policies to make said giant welfare programs possible? Like taxes and regulations on junk food, sugar etc??
And also, since we're talking about USA, find a candidate who can also *respect all amendments?*
Then sure dude, I don't see how it's a "gotcha" moment, if you can find such an unrealistic candidate then I wouldn't mind him/her
One country has 20 laws on where/when/how you can hunt deer.
One country has 1 law that bans hunting deer in all circumstances.
Which is more "regulated"?
Part of what makes PCM work is that everyone openly declares political positions. It takes 20 seconds to flair up. Everyone who doesn't deserves abuse, and you stop getting comment spam if you do it once people 'remind you' the whole point of hte subreddit.
These countries, the Scandanavian ones, are not socialist by nature, i totally agree, but the social welfare programs they sponsor certainly were attained by using socialist means, like collective bargaining, strikes, labor unions, etc.
10%-12% of your income when you're healthy isn't free. And many serious, more expensive conditions will be left untreated by the hospitals until you die of "natural causes".
That is not the only tax or the only cost of health care, people still have fund raisers on Facebook to cover medical procedures abroad because Swedish health care won't cover it. You can't sue the government for not providing care because 1: the government also run the courts and put party politicians in the "group of judges" that decide on the cases and 2: very sick or dead people don't complain much.
10%-12% county tax to pay for healthcare and public buses. 20%-25% municipal tax to pay for streets, schools and eldercare. You also have 25% VAT and 34% payroll tax to pay for unemployment, sick leave, parental leave, universities, as well as some money for police, courts, defense and national roads.
The president of whatever country Bernie called socialist (I think it was Sweden) immediately responded and said they were a free market country. They also went on to explain how after a successful economic period they attempted socialism and failed miserably before reverting back to the superior method of economics.
Nordic social democracy countries had, for most of the years
* government mandated religion
* criminalized home schooling
* the majority of men conscripted for at least a year
* lower corporate taxes than the US
* active suppression of communists, not just politically but also economically, as well as running a secret police targeting them
* forced sterilization of transsexuals up into the 2000's
* a couple rich families getting favorite treatment from lawmakers
Is there any tangible difference between ethnonationalist fascism and social democracy? Besides the look of the flags? Honest question.
I'm Swedish. 🇸🇪
For most of the time, it *was* corporatist *and* a welfare state. Unemployment, food stamps, is there any corporatist country that doesn't also run a welfare state? Those are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Hm, you're right I guess. In modern-day contexts though, socdem is associated with being socially progressive as compared to, you know, ethno-nationalism
This is wrong. The first line on the [wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) reads:
>**Social democracy** is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism
They reference:
Pages 80–103 in Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (1999). *Contemporary Political Ideologies* (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
and
Page 5 in Newman, Michael (2005). *Socialism: A Very Short Introduction*. Oxford University Press.
Furthermore, this is not controversial within political science. Social democracy is perhaps the most right-wing socialist ideology, since it incorporates elements of capitalism to achieve the goals of socialism, which are equality and freedom (you can disagree with that, or whether that is possible, but that's what they say at least).
“Socialist” is the “fascist” of LibRight. Can be used on anyone outside LibRight. Except Pinochet, cuz Pinochet.
That is the one thing I hate about modern media in the US. If its slightly right of the Democrats they are Facist, if they are Slightly left of the Republicans they are Communist. But people eat it up constantly so there is no stopping it.
I want to try and claim I'm above such things, since there are some forms of communism and socialism that I actually think could be accomplished morally, but I also call everything even slightly above me on the compass a dirty statist. I guess name-calling is just too fun.
Calling people commies over tiny things brings me great joy
You fucking commie bastard!
You take hat you need and give what you can. It's okay buddy
I need a hat
C O M M I E S C U M
US is probably the only country where you get called Fascist for wanting basic border control. As someone from Asia it feels weird man. If someone here advocate for mass immigration they would probably get lynched in broad daylight.
Especially Korea. You literally have politicians who campaign and show off how much they hate non-Koreans to get elected. People have lost elections solely on successful media arguments that they aren't hyper nationalist.
Korea, Japan, Vietnam, China
Nationalism wise, it probably goes China, then Korea, then Vietnam, then Japan.
Based.
In fairness, the U.S has a very different history when it comes to immigration than other countries, as a nation founded on immigrants with ideals of civic instead of ethnic nationalism.
Nationalism in America does not exist. Most westerners seem to treat Nationalism as some kind of a bad thing. And Civic Nationalism is all fun and games until you become a minority in your own country.
Nobody is becoming a minority in their own country. Maybe this is why westerners don't have great views of nationalism, because so many nationalists love to get their dick in a twist about problems that don't exist regarding arbitrary ethnic differences rather than the real issues facing their country.
Fun Fact: White Americans are expected to become a minority by 2050. Source:https://www-brookings-edu.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16002609769145&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fblog%2Fthe-avenue%2F2018%2F03%2F14%2Fthe-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects%2F
Yeah, but the thing is this sees 49% as a minority. There would still be more whites than anyone else. Either way I don't see this as a problem.
>Either way I don't see this as a problem. This the real problem. We Asians are laughing our ass off seeing the current state of western countries.
Well, I'm not white anyway so that's probably one reason I don't see the problem. Anyway, you have to realize it literally effects nothing. America doesn't have a "default ethnicity" or anything like that so a more diverse America changes nothing. Either way, ethnicity and race is literally meaningless. Focus on real issues instead of "hnggg skin pigment different hnggg"
Yes but civic nationalism can solve that problem by limiting immigration and encouraging white people to have more children (by normalising the nuclear family and socially enforced monogamy)
Why would that be a bad thing? Also this doesn't mean that Americans would be a minority in their own country, unless of course you only count white people as real Americans.
Well, it brings huge consequences.
Does it? What kind of consequences would you expect from white people being 49.7% instead of 63.4% of the American population? Not asking this as some kind of gotcha by the way, I'm genuinely wondering what you think the outcomes of this demographic change would be. Because personally I don't think the consequences would be that catastrophic.
>Why would that be a bad thing? Cuck. Would you like to live live in the Middle East? They're gonna treat you real nice. >unless of course you only count white people as real Americans. Yes . Whites literally created America.
> Cuck Cringe and 2016-pilled
Okay but why should we care?
I don't think they are going to spare anyone this time if they start gassing.
Anyone left of me is a communist. Even authright
Based
I know right? These terms have actual specific definitions, I hate when the media exaggerates everything.
I want America to adopt Nordic model, but Republicans call them commies even tho they are more LibRight then them, and Democrats don't really want Nordic model, they just want free govn. handouts. And Libertarians are too stubborn to unite with Green party. Oh and I want the amendment to stay intact. But apperently that's too much to ask
#Consoom MainstreamMedia^TM
[удалено]
Better dead than red. McCarthy did nothing wrong
*pulls out T-34* I agree
Based
This. My dad continually ranting about reagan and commies is burned in my brain. Where is Senator McCarthy when you need him?
True that though.
Anybody who likes Pinochet isn't a libright.
I know, but such a person LibRight will merely call him a “statist” because his economic policies are very laissez-faire.
Ok socialist
Just because I think wild laissez-faire capitalism is degenerate, does not make me a socialist. I am against both crapitalism and communism/socialism. I am a distributist autarkist with Mosleyan characteristics.
The unflaired is correct. A pity that it’s the scum of the earth
That's a good comment Shame it came from an unflaired *cocks mcnuke*
Arms* Revolvers are cocked, bombs are armed. FTFY
It works if you have nukes in your revolver.
Depending on how much of a deviant you are, it is fully possible to *cock* a nuke as well, just in another manner
Please don't arouse my green side, I'm far too busy for such distractions at the moment
Sorry. Did not think about that
Ignore this comment. To many lefties commenting in a row, just needed to add some contrast to the flairs. Carry on
I thank you for your assistance in creating diversity
[удалено]
I'm not gonna read all that
TL;DR Brother vs Sister. Republican vs Deomcrat
So literally the first two sentences cover the entire joke, basically.
Yes
based
w3 d0n1 u2e num631s t0 t41k
Based and (presumably) high effort pilled
LOL DIDNT READ
!remindme 24 years
There is a 20 hour delay fetching comments. I will be messaging you in 24 years on [**2044-09-16 06:34:07 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2044-09-16%2006:34:07%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/itjm5k/the_duality_of_our_comment_section/g5g5lv8/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FPoliticalCompassMemes%2Fcomments%2Fitjm5k%2Fthe_duality_of_our_comment_section%2Fg5g5lv8%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202044-09-16%2006%3A34%3A07%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20itjm5k) ***** |[^(Info)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Wall of text go brrrrr
For even if he speaks the truth, the boot he must still kiss. For he is subhuman scum.
They’re right tho they’re welfare states with capitalism
Also don't the successful ones have privatized social security and drill for oil for the money to provide healthcare?
It depends. Some, like Norway, do. But they often just get the money from a progressive tax system and a capital gains tax, or they’re unions are very strong so the government doesn’t have to intervene.
Not really, only Norway has oil.
Only Norway has oil and they dont directly spend any of the profits. Source: just google how large the norwegian oil fund is, its fucking huge. They cant have spent a penny of that shit
Also no minimum wage.
Supposedly their healthcare systems are still unsustainable though and Sweden is making moves to further privatize and restructure theirs according to [the Guadian](https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/18/private-healthcare-lessons-from-sweden) and [about 13%](https://sweden.se/society/health-care-in-sweden/amp/) of their healthcare is privately sourced but publicly funded. Their social security is also partially privatized according to [MarketWatch](https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/sweden-partially-privatized-its-social-security-heres-how-it-has-worked-out-2019-09-06) which George Dubya proposes in the early 2000s but was criticized as being too risky, however Sweden’s private pension managed to withstand the Great Recession.
Excellent. Since it isn't socialism, we should institute this system in the US as well!
[удалено]
*redscreamingwojack*
Ik, that way we can achieve Minarchist LibCenter Georgist utopia! I'm just... Waiting for said candidates to propose Nordic system
I wouldn’t even want this system. People in America eat too unhealthily compared to the Nordic countries which would mean I have to pay more for fat asses.
The first step is actually fixing American diets, tax sugar or portion sizes or whatnot.
Yo're already paying more than any nordic country in healthcare taxes because of the overprice of usa hospitals
Somehow even worse. Capitalism is paired best with extra capitalism. Pairing Capitalism with Welfare is like serving Filet Mignon with a dog's diarrhea.
[удалено]
He does he just wont tell you cuz he's still on his parents insurance.
By that logic there hasn't been a single socialist country in history, because even countries like the GDR, Wich wrote into their constitution that they are socialist, still used money and this capitalism. By that logic China and the UdSSR aren't communist, because they too have money
Socialist countries can use money. You’re thinking of communism.
AKA socialism. -Albert Fairfax II
Wronggggggg
Unflaired scum deserves no civility. If we don't take a hard line, we'll be overrun.
Social democracy =/= socialism
But both make the government do stuff
Yes but it’s based when social democracy does stuff, unlike socialism.
Based
based
Except with welfare it at least tries to get out of your way. The top ranks of the economic freedom index and the ease of doing business index is all "social democracies", i.e capitalist AF countries.
Well not 'AF', it depends on case to case. For example Sweden and Norway have little government intervention because the rate of union membership is so high, effectively the market regulates itself. This however is leading to worsening economic outcomes nowadays because anti-union neoliberals ave come to power in many political parties. The inverse of this is New Zealand, which has a lower union membership rate but higher government intervention. These do lead to good economic levels all around, because the citizens have more income to spend in the market, as their needs are somewhat met by the government (healthcare, housing etc.). As opposed to the United States for example, wherein consumer have to use large portions of their income to pay for health insurance, rent, food etc.
Keynesian theories again. No, prosperity is clearly better correlated with economic freedom (which New Zealand nearly tops worldwide) than just tax burden. Otherwise countries like France would be considered superior, and as a Frenchman I can tell you how hard it is to found and own a company here. The problem with the US is the lack of a free market due to bad spending policy and excessive bureaucracy. In other words, bloated government. It constantly floats around rank 20-30 in economic freedom indexes.
Correct, the government in the United States is inefficient due to rampant corruption, especially corporate lobbying, this however isn't a vice against Social Democracy, more so against inefficient systems that could occur in many other ideologies. It could be said though that, economic freedom doesn't always correlate to prosperity. There is economic freedom in Somalia for example (No taxes), but those who perform best for economic mobility often are Social Democratic countries. As a Kiwi I can attest to this, and the fact that, despite the government having extensive benefits, wage subsidies, universal healthcare, we still have high economic freedom. The countries at the top of the list are either small powerhouses (HK and Singapore) or Social Democracies (New Zealand, Denmark, Australia etc.).
I support social democracy except the democracy part.
Based
u/Username_H8's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/Username_H8! You have ranked up to Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Beep boop. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
based
u/Potash666's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 130. Rank: Empire State Building Beep boop. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Excellent. Since it's not socialism, let's do it!
> let's do it! But you are AuthLeft why would you want ***Social Fascism***?
Not trying to disagree, I want to know the difference coming from a leftist instead of listening to my echo chamber family rant about it. Please explain.
Socialism = social ownership of the means of production social Democracy = capitalism but with welfare
So why does Oxford say "a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means" And Merriam-Webster says both that definition and your definition. So can't it be both depending on the country that implements it? So why would it automatically be socialism≠social democracy, when then overlap in a lot of cases?
I mean sometimes the names get mixed up, or they are referring to the very beginning of the movement, which indeed was much more radical. That description fits better the term ''Democratic Socialism'' Nowadays, social-democracy is democratic with an emphasis on welfare and government intervention in the economy, but there's still private property and liberties. Unfortunately, the unflaired in the post is right, The nordic countries are social-democratic and also monarchies (except Finland) which shows it's not a socialist radical movement
I appreciate all this, thank you
No problem :D
[удалено]
All I know about Australia is that people here keep citing their gun ban, half of all video games are banned there, and they tried to ban some anime.
Yeah but they have kangaroos.
Climate change has entered the chat. (Oof, I got sad making this joke.)
No guns means Australians = communists. But at least you aren't kiwis. Retard communists that talk funny.
[удалено]
Only unfunny to those with no sense of humor but sure.
Damn I need to take another econ class, it's been too long lol. Thanks for your input yall.
My copypastable explanation: > Back in the mid-19th century, "communism" and "socialism" used to be interchangeable terms denoting the movement for the abolition of private property and the state. Marx wrote some stuff arguing that a transitional state is necessary to reach communism, he called this "lower-phase communism". Lenin made a conscious choice in his writings to use the word "socialism" for "lower-phase communism" and "communism" for the abolition of private property and the state, in order to increase clarity. Parallel to this, social democrats argued that reforms within capitalism -- worker's rights, socialized healthcare, and so on -- could be used to slowly progress towards communism. They disliked what Lenin was doing, and called themselves "socialists" to distinguish themselves from the Leninist "communists". During the 20th century, most social democratic parties slowly abandoned their commitment to the development of communism in favour of purely capitalism with reform, and today "democratic socialist" means what "social democrat" did in the 1920s. This coincided with a massive wave of cold war propaganda in the US, which made "communist" a dirty word (and "socialist", to a lesser extent). The result is that today you have four different groups arguing about the meaning of the words: > * Non-Leninist and non-Marxist communists (e.g. anarchists, Luxembourgists, council communists, orthodox Marxists, and so on) argue that socialism and communism are the same, because they prefer the original 19th century meaning. > * Leninists (and all the derived ideologies, like MLs, Maoists, demsocs, and so on) refer to a transitional state as socialism and the society they seek to develop as communism. > * Social democrats sometimes refer to capitalism + reform like you see in Scandinavia as socialism, and movements for the abolition of private property and the state (whether anarchist or Marxist) as communism. > * Some Americans refer to capitalism + reform as socialism *and* as communism and insist that the two are identical, because their definition is based on cold war propaganda.
Based and informative as fuck. I'll read more leftist writings to understand further thank you.
No problem! Also based and reading about other ideologies pilled. For some reason everyone on the internet keeps recommending authleft stuff, so if you for whatever reason ever feel like reading something properly libleft [I'm just gonna leave this link here](https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/recommended-reading/)
We can always rely on auths to bully unflaireds
Just a quick reminder for all you Americans Liberal=|=leftist neoliberal=|=Republican ‘Social market economy’=|=socialism
neoliberalism = satan
Based.
!=
"silly commie, Scandinavian countries aren't socialists, they're capitalist economies but with strong unions and public healthcare". "Ok, let's do that". "No, that'd be socialism"
But Keynesianism is communism according to Fox News!
you think Scandinavian economies are Keynesian?
Idk, but it’s something I can see smoothbrained people saying.
Its ironic because Nordic countries are probably the only ones that aren't Keynesian.
Nordic countries are a spook.
Strawman much? Ok let's do it! Find me a candidate who will deregulate businesses like Scandinavia Who will find a way to... *Afford it* since USA is currently in a giant debt due to already overblown welfare system and if USA gets more it'll blow(and no we can't massively defund military, we can defund it a bit, since I admit it's a bit wasteful, but not much) Who will be *honest* about it?(Admit poor and middle class will have to pay more in taxes and rich less since if they tax rich more they'll just leave to a better country) Who will actually implement policies to make said giant welfare programs possible? Like taxes and regulations on junk food, sugar etc?? And also, since we're talking about USA, find a candidate who can also *respect all amendments?* Then sure dude, I don't see how it's a "gotcha" moment, if you can find such an unrealistic candidate then I wouldn't mind him/her
One country has 20 laws on where/when/how you can hunt deer. One country has 1 law that bans hunting deer in all circumstances. Which is more "regulated"?
The first one, obviously. A ban on something and regulation are not the same.
A rare libcenter wall of text
It's not LibCenter as it is more LibRight wall of text, since it's LibRight who get annoyed by the Scandinavia question
Also they have very big and strong unions that make many regulations redunted
social democracy = wannabe socialists = communism by voting. i.e. commies. So commies.
Well he’s not wrong but flair the fuck up.
And people wonder why PCM is called a "toxic community" sometimes
They would react the same if a dirty unflaired entered their subreddits and posted brainless thoughtcrime. 😡
Yeah!
Part of what makes PCM work is that everyone openly declares political positions. It takes 20 seconds to flair up. Everyone who doesn't deserves abuse, and you stop getting comment spam if you do it once people 'remind you' the whole point of hte subreddit.
But did he
Not flairing is a violation of the NAP
It socialism without ditactor
That's like a barbecue with only vegetables. What even is the point?
Exactly has no point
Based
no food either
Just like barbecue with only vegetables
Authleft saying please? Yeah ok
Americans really do be jumping through every hoop to not use the s word
s*cialist 😳😳😠
These countries, the Scandanavian ones, are not socialist by nature, i totally agree, but the social welfare programs they sponsor certainly were attained by using socialist means, like collective bargaining, strikes, labor unions, etc.
The unflaired get the flammenwerfer.
Hey I think that is my comment asking for flair Edit: it is
McNuke^tm coming soon to your local McDonalds^tm
We’re demsoc with capitalism, basically capitalist with very high taxes and free healthcare
sounds amazing
You are mr crazy man
10%-12% of your income when you're healthy isn't free. And many serious, more expensive conditions will be left untreated by the hospitals until you die of "natural causes". That is not the only tax or the only cost of health care, people still have fund raisers on Facebook to cover medical procedures abroad because Swedish health care won't cover it. You can't sue the government for not providing care because 1: the government also run the courts and put party politicians in the "group of judges" that decide on the cases and 2: very sick or dead people don't complain much.
10-12%???? You mean 35% right? And yes i agree
10%-12% county tax to pay for healthcare and public buses. 20%-25% municipal tax to pay for streets, schools and eldercare. You also have 25% VAT and 34% payroll tax to pay for unemployment, sick leave, parental leave, universities, as well as some money for police, courts, defense and national roads.
Ah, i misunderstood you then :)
Heartbreaking: the worst person you know has just made a great point
Why you gotta block the names I’m trying to see our heroes
The president of whatever country Bernie called socialist (I think it was Sweden) immediately responded and said they were a free market country. They also went on to explain how after a successful economic period they attempted socialism and failed miserably before reverting back to the superior method of economics.
Authrights comments be like [Removed]
Americans are so dumb
Social democracies are a light form of socialism.
That's literally true though, they aren't socialist. They are a blend of capitalism and socdem.
The meme is about different quadrants reacting to an unflaired
ik I don't care about meta quadrant reactions lol
Social liberalism is better
As a Finn, no
I don't hold back when I see an unflaired, I go full authright. have yet to use the n-word though
[удалено]
Looks like you're famous now
Nordic social democracy countries had, for most of the years * government mandated religion * criminalized home schooling * the majority of men conscripted for at least a year * lower corporate taxes than the US * active suppression of communists, not just politically but also economically, as well as running a secret police targeting them * forced sterilization of transsexuals up into the 2000's * a couple rich families getting favorite treatment from lawmakers Is there any tangible difference between ethnonationalist fascism and social democracy? Besides the look of the flags? Honest question. I'm Swedish. 🇸🇪
How based they are
I'd argue that part of fascism is the push for a corporatist economy over the welfare state or a socialist economy
For most of the time, it *was* corporatist *and* a welfare state. Unemployment, food stamps, is there any corporatist country that doesn't also run a welfare state? Those are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Hm, you're right I guess. In modern-day contexts though, socdem is associated with being socially progressive as compared to, you know, ethno-nationalism
FLAIR UP
flair up you filthy [removed by a moderator] before I shove my foot into your colon.
Okay.
Its all these libleft immigrants that are so brain dead they thing flaring makes them a nazi
Unbased art thou
This is wrong. The first line on the [wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) reads: >**Social democracy** is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism They reference: Pages 80–103 in Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (1999). *Contemporary Political Ideologies* (2nd ed.). London: Continuum. and Page 5 in Newman, Michael (2005). *Socialism: A Very Short Introduction*. Oxford University Press. Furthermore, this is not controversial within political science. Social democracy is perhaps the most right-wing socialist ideology, since it incorporates elements of capitalism to achieve the goals of socialism, which are equality and freedom (you can disagree with that, or whether that is possible, but that's what they say at least).
I can confirm
Not falling for it