What is Socialism?

[Starlight]

Sparko, instead of posting silly pictures, why don't you spend some time actually learning about socialism so your posts aren't so embarrassing?

[Sparko]

Sparko, instead of posting silly pictures, why don't you spend some time actually learning about socialism so your posts aren't so embarrassing?

I already know what I need to about socialism. It is a vampire living off of capitalism. It destroys people and leaves empty husks behind. It is a parasite. When it runs out of other people's money, it collapses. And under socialism, everyone is equal. Equally poor and miserable.





If you love socialism so much why don't you move to a socialist country?

[Sparko]

socialsmgym.jpg

[Sparko]

50879355_2057489337631725_8135479833212747776_n.jpg

[Sparko]

[One Bad Pig]

Venezuelans are short?



(seriously, it looks like a strategically placed shot to show barren shelves, misrepresenting the actual store; I see stuff on either side, and the top row is quite full)

[Sparko]

[thanks to Desertberean]

[Leonhard]

I'm just gonna copy paste my answer from Facebook.

"So this is a bit complicated, and I think he's oversimplifying, but he's largely right (at least in regards to Sweden). Denmark and Norway have slightly different stories.

If you wanna learn more about it I suggest reading the Wikipedia article on The Scandinavian Model, which gives a good "wet your feet" description of how it all works.

Here's my short over-simplifying description.

The Scandinavian countries aren't socialist countries. He's right on that. Just ask the socialists overhere whether they think these countries are socialists.

They have comprehensive welfare programs, they have collective bargaining, they have a lot of practices which are considered 'socialist', but government does not own the means of production and there's a very free market capitalism.

Believe it or not, starting a business is cheaper in Denmark, as the employer doesn't have to pay for health insurance, and there's a low corporate tax.

Privatisation is a complicated matter as well, as the danish government uses collective bargaining in a way the US doesn't. A criticism of Obamacare was that by forcing people to have insurances, companies would just increase the premiums. Which was true. However in Scandinavia the governments will put down, by analysing how much medical companies make, a reasonable price for their services and put the bids out for competitors.

As for the claim that there was an economic decline in the seventies and eighties, that's a truth with modification, considering there was an oil crisis around that time as well.

My point on tweb was always, aside from little jabs, to point out that having universal healthcare wasn't socialism.

I cannot confirm what he says about a 67% tax-rate on poor people. If that's the case, its not income tax, because that's 32% in Sweden for low-income families and 37% in Denmark.

Thanks to a new employment that God graced me with, as a consultant, I now earn enough to put me in the bracket that pays 50+% (though only of income above a certain line).

I hope that clears up things."

[Sparko]

I'm just gonna copy paste my answer from Facebook.

"So this is a bit complicated, and I think he's simplifying, but he's largely right (at least in regards to Sweden). Denmark and Norway have slightly different stories.

If you wanna learn more about it I suggest reading the Wikipedia article on The Scandinavian Model, which gives a good "wet your feet" description of how it all owrks.

Here's my short over-simplifying description.

The Scandinavian countries aren't socialist countries. He's right on that. Just ask the socialists overhere whether they think these countries are socialists.

They have comprehensive welfare programs, they have collective bargaining, they have a lot of practices which are considered 'socialist', but government does not own the means of production and there's a very free market capitalism.

Believe it or not, starting a business is cheaper in Denmark, as the employer doesn't have to pay for health insurance, and there's a low corporate tax.

Privatisation is a complicated matter as well, as the danish government uses collective bargaining in a way the US doesn't. A criticism of Obamacare was that by forcing people to have insurances, companies would just increase the premiums. Which was true. However in Scandinavia the governments will put down, by analysing how much medical companies make, a reasonable price for their services and put the bids out for competitors.

As for the claim that there was an economic decline in the seventies and eighties, that's a truth with modification, considering there was an oil crisis around that time as well.

My point on tweb was always, aside from little jabs, to point out that having universal healthcare wasn't socialism.

I cannot confirm what he says about a 67% tax-rate on poor people. If that's the case, its not income tax, because that's 32% in Sweden for low-income families and 37% in Denmark.

Thanks to a new employment that God graced me with, as a consultant, I now earn enough to put me in the bracket that pays 50+% (though only of income above a certain line).

I hope that clears up things."

Thanks. so it looks to me like the more actual socialistic Sweden got, the worse their economy got, and the more they privatized industries, schools and such, the better off they were.

I don't know how you can stand to work knowing over half of what you earn is taken by the government. And you are nowhere close to wealthy are you? All of the socialists over here keep promising free stuff that the wealthy will pay for and the average Joe's will benefit from. If the average Joe is paying 50% of their already low income, that isn't helping them at all. It makes them poorer.

[Leonhard]

And you are nowhere close to wealthy are you? All of the socialists over here keep promising free stuff that the wealthy will pay for and the average Joe's will benefit from. If the average Joe is paying 50% of their already low income, that isn't helping them at all. It makes them poorer.

Not wealthy, but doing rather well. The top bracket is only for income that's above a certain line. So I have a low tax rate on most of my income, and for a small amount of my income there's a higher tax-rate. I'd have to earn twice as much before more than half of my income would be taxed at 50%.

[Leonhard]

As I clarified to Sparko you have to be the top 8% earning bracket to pay top-rate tax, and it's only of the income you earn above that. I think in fact this is very similar to what you have in the US.

[Sparko]

Not wealthy, but doing rather well. The top bracket is only for income that's above a certain line. So I have a low tax rate on most of my income, and for a small amount of my income there's a higher tax-rate. I'd have to earn twice as much before more than half of my income would be taxed at 50%.

That is similar to the way the US income tax works.

They just lowered all of the tax brackets. The highest used to be 47%, but is now 36%, but it is the same as you say, each bracket covers a certain amount of income, so you pay 10% on your first $10K, then 12% on $10-40K, etc.

tax brackets.jpg

I think that Denmark hits that highest bracket on a lot lower income than in the USA.

[Starlight]

They have comprehensive welfare programs, they have collective bargaining, they have a lot of practices which are considered 'socialist', but government does not own the means of production and there's a very free market capitalism.

The rest of your answer seemed okay, but this sentence seems to have a few problems.

The government owning the means of production doesn't equal socialism, you can have either one without the other. Nor is socialism the opposite of the free market, you can perfectly reasonably have both.

Also, I think you're downplaying a bit the "they have collective bargaining, they have a lot of practices which are considered 'socialist'" bit, which is kind of a rather key point. For this reason a lot of commentators describe the Scandinavian model as a "mixed" economy incorporating elements of both capitalism and socialism.

Thanks. so it looks to me like the more actual socialistic Sweden got, the worse their economy got, and the more they privatized industries, schools and such, the better off they were.

Not remotely the correct lesson to draw.

Instead, imagine for a moment that there might be an optimal mix of socialistic and capitalistic ideas. Let's say for the sake of argument that present day Denmark, the happiest country in the world according to survey data, currently has the optimal mix, and it seems to have government tax revenues of ~50% of GNP so essentially its economy is 50% government & 50% private (I'm simplifying the complexities of how capitalist and socialist elements mix in Scandinavian economies for the purpose of just talking about a single number here for the purposes of this thought experiment).

If that is the optimal mix, then any country that strays too far to either side of that will experience less than optimal outcomes. Clearly the US would be vastly more capitalist than that, and so would have worse outcomes because of that. But, equally, if a country went too far to the socialist side of that we could again expect sub-optimal outcomes. So Sweden's history of tilting too far onto the socialist side of that balance and then its more recent correction back to near to Denmark's mix, could thus teach the lesson not that "adding more capitalism into the mix always improves things" but instead could teach the lesson "there is an optimal mix of the two, Sweden swayed too far to the socialism side of the balance, and has since corrected it".

[Sparko]

The rest of your answer seemed okay, but this sentence seems to have a few problems.

The government owning the means of production doesn't equal socialism, you can have either one without the other. Nor is socialism the opposite of the free market, you can perfectly reasonably have both.

Also, I think you're downplaying a bit the "they have collective bargaining, they have a lot of practices which are considered 'socialist'" bit, which is kind of a rather key point. For this reason a lot of commentators describe the Scandinavian model as a "mixed" economy incorporating elements of both capitalism and socialism.


Not remotely the correct lesson to draw.

Instead, imagine for a moment that there might be an optimal mix of socialistic and capitalistic ideas. Let's say for the sake of argument that present day Denmark, the happiest country in the world according to survey data, currently has the optimal mix, and it seems to have government tax revenues of ~50% of GNP so essentially its economy is 50% government & 50% private (I'm simplifying the complexities of how capitalist and socialist elements mix in Scandinavian economies for the purpose of just talking about a single number here for the purposes of this thought experiment).

If that is the optimal mix, then any country that strays too far to either side of that will experience less than optimal outcomes. Clearly the US would be vastly more capitalist than that, and so would have worse outcomes because of that. But, equally, if a country went too far to the socialist side of that we could again expect sub-optimal outcomes. So Sweden's history of tilting too far onto the socialist side of that balance and then its more recent correction back to near to Denmark's mix, could thus teach the lesson not that "adding more capitalism into the mix always improves things" but instead could teach the lesson "there is an optimal mix of the two, Sweden swayed too far to the socialism side of the balance, and has since corrected it".

The government owning the means of production is probably THE key characteristic of a socialist government, Star.

And the USA being the greatest power on earth didn't come from an optimal mix of socialism. It came from the freedom associated with capitalism, and being able to be in control of your own life, free to succeed or fail on your own merits. Socialism is a parasite. All it does is leach off of success. It is a way to consolidate power in the government by making the people dependent on the government for their jobs, their homes, and their products. Once the government has gotten that power (in the name of the people of course) then the totalitarianism is in effect. Because people who are successful resent having their money and property taken away, and the poor find out that they are no better off than before. So the only way to keep everyone in line is with a totalitarian regime. This has happened in every socialist country that ever existed.

So far Scandinavian countries are actually free market countries with a lot of social programs, and they are barely maintaining that by taxing the middle class to death. The promise of just taxing the wealthy so that the poor and middle class can have more free stuff didn't work out there, just like it won't here. Once the social programs take effect, even the poor and middle class will end up being taxed for it at an exorbitant rate.

I would rather have to pay for such programs out of my own pocket, that way I have a choice on what services I need and want, rather than having the government take 50%+ of my income to pay for other people and things I don't need.

[Sparko]

Meanwhile, Back in Venezuela:

Venezuelans Are Marked With Numbers To Stand In Line At Government Supermarkets
It's hard to get a sense of what a food shortage is like unless you've lived through one, but this tidbit from Venezuela serves as a chilling illustration.

The lines to get into government supermarkets are so long that people mark their arms with their place in line. It's not a permanent tattoo — just a pen — but the point is to make sure that the long lines stay as orderly as possible.

It looks like this:

The Road to Serfdom game in Venezuela just got real -- human tattooing for food privileges pic.twitter.com/ceKJycftOK— TakingHayekSeriously (@FriedrichHayek) March 9, 2014

According to a source familiar with what's going on, this number-scribbling takes place outside large cities like Caracas, and it doesn't happen in private supermarkets. However, private supermarkets can set a limit to the number of items a person can buy. For example: You can only pick up 4 liters of milk, 2 liters of oil, 2 kilos of sugar etc.

And that's if the market even has those items.

People also have numbers on their ID cards, which decide which days they can even get in line to shop at supermarkets like San Cristobal's Bicentenario, according to AFP.

Protests taking place all over the country aren't helping either. Demonstrators have been building barricades, which are slowing the flow of goods from place to place.

From AFP:

Armando Mirando, vice president of the Tachira State Bakeries Association, told AFP that San Cristobal could run out of bread by Tuesday...

"We already had shortages before and now nothing is arriving," Mirando said after addressing a "peace conference" organized by the government to end the protests but shunned by the opposition as a sham.

Most shops and restaurants are closed in the city of 260,000 people.

On Friday, Maduro got on TV and said that smuggling food into the country is more profitable than selling cocaine.


People line up to buy food at a supermarket in San Cristobal, about 410 miles (660 km) southwest of Caracas, February 27, 2014. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Pope Francis called on Wednesday for an end to violence in Venezuela that has killed at least 13 people and urged politicians to take the lead in calming the nation's worst unrest in a decade

https://www.businessinsider.com/vene...or-food-2014-3