What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

A good example.

 

No. Capitalism=Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

 

yes, so if govt owns and operates, the people don't and therefore there is no democracy.

 

Wrong of course, when the govt owns it they make competition illegal since competition is seen as wasteful. Why have 2 car companies and two car factories when one big one is more efficient.

 

Democracy is not about ownership of the means of production. Democracy is a system where the people elect their leaders.

 

Correct. Pure socialism means government monopoly in everything. Nordic countries are not socialist, but they do have some examples of it, like "System Bolaget" in Sweden and "Alko" in Finland, which are government owned and operated retail stores which sell hard liquor. They are the only retail stores which are allowed to sell hard liquor. It is more about their alcohol policy than socialism, but they are socialist nonetheless. Other than that Nordic countries have free market economies with taxpayer funded social services (heath care, education etc).

 

SOCIALISM IS ABOUT CONTROLLING PEOPLE AND YOU CAN’T CONTROL PEOPLE WITHOUT VIOLENCE:

Even Swedish Socialism was Violent.

But there’s also a neglected dark side to the Swedish welfare model that its “democratic socialist” admirers seldom mention. That same welfare system developed in explicit conjunction with a violent and coercive eugenics policy, intended to ensure its fiscal solvency and prevent abuses of its programs by persons who were deemed genetically “unfit” by the state.

 

The key being PROFIT. That's the differentiator.

 

Irrelevant. Capitalism is profit-driven enterprise. Profits made, wages paid for labour, etc.

 

Incorrect. Socialism was already defined here.

The other error is your notion that Sweden is "democratic socialist". They are not, they are a social democracy.

 

Private ownership, and private profits.

 

Socialism is an economic model. You're talking about politics.

A Govt can 'monopolise' capitalism OR socialism.

 

Irrelevant. The differentiator is PROFIT, not who owns it.

 

Correct.



Few subjects are more taboo among self-described socialists than the historical track record of socialism in action.

Bernie Sanders recently bristled at the suggestion of any commonality between the government of Venezuela and his own platform, even though less than a decade ago he was touting the country along with other leftist governments in South America as exemplars of the “American dream.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scoffed at the suggestion that she advocates for the system used in historical failed socialists states, claiming no linkage with these violent Socialist forebears, claiming instead that they are promoting “democratic socialism” a Scandinavian-style welfare state, modeled after the economy of Sweden.

There are many problems with this comparison. Sweden’s government has actually been trending away from the centrally planned economic approach favored by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez. The country reined in public spending with a system of budget caps in the 1990s, scrapped its wealth tax in 2007, and has generally followed a path of privatization and deregulation over the past two decades.

There’s also a neglected dark side to the Swedish welfare model that its “democratic socialist” admirers seldom mention. That same welfare system developed in explicit conjunction with a violent and coercive eugenics policy, intended to ensure its fiscal solvency and prevent abuses of its programs by persons who were deemed genetically “unfit” by the state.

Both policies trace their modern origins to the 1930s with the political ascendance of the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SDP). Swedish premier Per Albin Hansson organized his government around a principle he dubbed “folkhemmet,” roughly translated as “the people’s home.” This new philosophy sought to bring private industry into economic and political partnership with the state, subject to socially progressive regulatory guidance as an alternative to a more rigid centrally planned approach, as seen under Soviet socialism.

The folkhemmet platform would dominate Swedish politics until the 1970s, overseeing the design and implementation of the welfare state that Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and other “democratic socialists” celebrate today.

SDP’s programs created new economic strains on the government. They imposed unprecedented expenses on the public treasury. In addition, Sweden was experiencing a declining birth rate, which portended fiscal insolvency as an aging population left the workforce and became public pensioners. If 1930s birth rate trends continued, the population of the elderly would surpass the income-generating workforce by mid-century, eventually resulting in the fiscal collapse of the entire system.

A state-ordered natalist policy was instituted to boost the birth rate. This also incentivized the poorer classes to reproduce — and at a faster rate than the wealthy. If new births disproportionately came from the lower classes, it was feared, they could become additional drains on the public treasury by becoming lifelong dependents on the very same welfare state.

So the SDP government consciously paired its new welfare policies with a complementary system of eugenic laws — intended to prevent or dissuade “unfit” persons from reproducing. These included a compulsory sterilization program and a much larger “voluntary” sterilization program targeting behavioral considerations. The government was able to induce lower-class citizens to submit to the procedure by using the suasion and levers of the new welfare state itself.

The “voluntary” measures went far beyond involuntary sterilization, which was restricted by law to explicit eugenic reasons. As a 1997 study of the program documented, government officials used submission to “voluntary” sterilization as a condition for release from mental institutions and public hospitals, for continued access to certain forms of public housing, and even marriage licensing among the poor. In total, an estimated 63,000 Swedes were sterilized between the 1930s and the expiration of the main eugenic law in 1976.

We want none of that bullshit here. Our system of a Constitutional LIMITED government in charge of a few listed tasks, and all other powers reserved for the States and The People is a better system for us.

 

socialist monopolies could be profit driven too. Capitalism is about free consumers shopping with their own money and free businesses competing for customers on basis of price and quality.

 

how??? you clean forgot to say. I wonder why??

 

wrong as I said capitalism is when businesses are privately owned and compete for free customers against other businesses on basis of price and quality

 

But who cares about Sweden? It has typical European big liberal govt, while Europe has twice our population but the same GDP. France is typical. It has the same GDP per capita as Arkansas about our poorest state, and the middle class and poor are rioting in the streets weekly because they cant make ends meet financially..

 

Great point! Rank by GDP per capita:

1 Luxembourg 105,863
2 Switzerland 80,637
3 New York 78,354
4 Delaware 77,931
5 Massachusetts 77,433
6 Norway 75,389
7 North Dakota 73,214
8 Connecticut 72,929
9 Alaska 71,155
10 Iceland 70,248
11 California 69,984
12 Washington 69,478
13 Wyoming 68,806
14 Ireland 68,710
15 New Jersey 66,157
16 Maryland 65,426
17 Illinois 64,083
18 Nebraska 63,852
19 Minnesota 63,608
20 Colorado 61,862
21 Hawaii 61,696
22 Qatar 61,024
23 Texas 60,878
24 Iowa 60,673
25 Virginia 60,470
26 New Hampshire 60,321
- United States 59,792
27 Pennsylvania 58,828
28 Singapore 57,713
29 Oregon 57,706
30 South Dakota 57,690
31 Denmark 56,630
32 Rhode Island 56,282
33 Wisconsin 56,078
34 Ohio 55,890
35 Australia 55,692
36 Kansas 54,276
37 Utah 54,249
38 Indiana 54,141
39 Georgia (U.S. state) 53,758
40 Nevada 53,167
41 North Carolina 53,050
42 Sweden 52,925

 

That would be a wildly misleading comparison given the fact that many former Eastern block countries have very low GDP per capita. West Europe and US compare more or less evenly, some higher and some lower than US. Some US Southern red States are way below West European levels.

 

By monopolising? You peeps were discussing totalitarianism, remember.

 

Yes, and no. Capitalism is an economic model, not a social model.

 

the society like on the star trek enterprise would be an example of socialism

 

Socialism can only work when you have 100% participation. How do you plan to get that?

 

I think the violence is kicking them out of society, the Amish do this all the time