Socialism Vs Capitalism

[TexanManWithPlans]

Norway.jpg

[Cypress]

Norway is More "Socialist" than either Venezuela or communist China.

Norwegian workers are heavily protected, with 70 percent of workers covered by union contracts, and over a third directly employed by the government. The Norwegian state operates a gigantic sovereign wealth fund, and its financial assets total 331 percent of its GDP (as compared to an American figure of 25 percent).

Meanwhile, its state-owned enterprises are worth 87 percent of GDP.

Of all the domestic wealth in Norway, the government owns 59 percent, and fully three-quarters of the non-home wealth (as most Norwegians own their home).

Reliable statistics on the Venezuelan economy are hard to come by, but Norway is unquestionably more socialist than Venezuela according to the above definition.

Indeed, it is considerably more socialist than supposedly-communist China, where only 31 percent of national wealth is owned by the state.

Norway is not some destitute hellscape. Indeed, not only are Norwegian stores well-stocked with toilet paper, it is actually considerably more wealthy than the U.S., with a GDP of over $70,000 per person. Even when you correct for the moderately large oil sector (which accounts for a bit less than a quarter of its exports), it still has a cutting-edge, ultra-productive economy — far from some petro-state living off oil rents like Dubai.

Socially, it routinely ranks as the happiest (2017) or second-happiest (2018) country in the world. The rest of the Nordics are also usually among the top five as well — even more remarkable when you factor in the phenomenon of seasonal affective disorder and the extreme northerly position of the Scandinavian peninsula.

On a snapshot of other quality-of-life measures, Norway boasts:

A life expectancy of 81.7 years.
An infant mortality rate of two per 1,000 live births.
A murder rate of 0.51 per 100,000.
An incarceration rate of 74 per 100,000.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/29...out-socialism/

.

[archives]

Get ready, if they respond, you are going to get a lot of Venezuela in the next few exchanges

No nation is one or the other, every country has a mixed economy, the US has been part socialistic since the 19th Century, the whole right wing conspiracy regarding socialism is absurd

[PoliTalker]

Hello Michael_Panetta,

Norway.jpg

Actually, both nations have elements of capitalism and socialism.

The right simply cannot allow it to be said that America had socialism back when they thought America 'was' great. (as if it was not a great country in 2016.) When was it they thought America 'was' great?

Most people who answer that question talk about the 1950's.

And we had lots of socialism going on. Right alongside our capitalism. Social security was up and running just fine then. Capitalism was far better for the worker then, not as great for the super-rich. An average family could live on one income and have a vacation every year. We had mandated overtime pay over 40 hours per week, and a government mandated minimum wage. And the highest tax rate was over 90%. We used the money to build an interstate highway system, hospitals, airports, and we also sent a man to the moon. All because we taxed the rich more. Then Reagan came along and slashed taxes and all of that stuff from before just faded away.

But the rich got fabulously richer.

Back in the 1950's executives earned about 15-20 times what the average worker earned. Now it's hundreds. Some executives earn 400 times the average worker pay. Not the minimum, mind you. The AVERAGE. That includes all the employees from the top to the bottom. Average. Multiply by 400 to get the executive pay. Now, I know these people are good at what they do, but ya know what? All those other workers are too. There's just something wrong with so much greed. I can understand top people getting top pay. Yeah. The 15-20 times the average, back when America 'was' great? Yeah. That was fine. But now, the pure greed is just embarrassing. Maybe these people are good at what they do but the reality is that they are the few who are at the top of a system that rewards people at the top way too much, and doesn't equitably distribute wealth according to contribution to society.

As the comparison between The USA and Norway indicates in so many categories, clearly people have it better in Norway than in the USA. We don't make sure everybody is OK here. We write people off. We don't care about them. The only thing we want to make sure they have is no abortions. If every life is so precious before the moment of birth what the heck happens to all that caring at the point of birth? That makes no sense to want to force them into a world where they have little opportunity at having a nice life, and do little to nothing to help them enjoy a good life after birth.

It's like: "We care about them, we care about them, oh, we care so much about them," right up until birth; the magic moment; and then it's: "Get lost, you're on your own." "And by the way we are not hiring, and we don't want your kind around here."

[Celticguy]

Us unfettered cspitalism ? Someone is on crack.

[Lightbringer]

Uh...Norway is not Democratic Socialist. If they were they would not have a Parliament, or for that matter a King.

[CFM]

Norway.jpg

If all the things you claim are free under socialism actually are, why are taxes higher?

[CFM]

Us unfettered cspitalism ? Someone is on crack.

He thinks things are free yet the personal tax rate is higher.

[CFM]

Get ready, if they respond, you are going to get a lot of Venezuela in the next few exchanges

No nation is one or the other, every country has a mixed economy, the US has been part socialistic since the 19th Century, the whole right wing conspiracy regarding socialism is absurd

Thinking things like education, healthcare, etc. are free is absurd. If all the things you idiots that support socialism thought were free actually were, the tax rate would be way lower.

[Iolo/Penderyn]

The key question, always and everywhere, is to what degree the capitalists have weakened or destroyed the power of the trades unions. Socialism is control by working people in the interests of the whole human race, capitalism is a system of exploitation that will finish us all off quite soon. Meanwhile it is undoubtedly better to have some bits of the economy under some degree of democratic control for some of the time.

[Yakuda]

Norway.jpg

Can you show eveidence that either economic philosophy is the cause of those things listed? This should be good.

[Yakuda]

The key question, always and everywhere, is to what degree the capitalists have weakened or destroyed the power of the trades unions. Socialism is control by working people in the interests of the whole human race, capitalism is a system of exploitation that will finish us all off quite soon. Meanwhile it is undoubtedly better to have some bits of the economy under some degree of democratic control for some of the time.

Where has socialism worked best?

[PoliTalker]

Hello Penderyn,

The key question, always and everywhere, is to what degree the capitalists have weakened or destroyed the power of the trades unions. Socialism is control by working people in the interests of the whole human race, capitalism is a system of exploitation that will finish us all off quite soon. Meanwhile it is undoubtedly better to have some bits of the economy under some degree of democratic control for some of the time.

There is a different model for a sort of democratic capitalism. A worker-owned cooperative is sort of like if a union bought a company, and then the workers actually jointly own the company. Then the workers elect the people who are running the company and making the decisions which affect the workers.

Sort of a socialistic capitalism.

Maybe a corporate charter should only be issued for a set duration, say 20 years, after which the company would revert to become a worker cooperative.

It's the for-profit corporations that last and last which accrue so much power they become harmful to society.

In capitalism everyone is in competition. But humans and start ups have a hard time competing with a much more powerful corporation. Every financial entity grows more powerful the longer it lasts. Humans accrue wealth and often get to a point where they have so much wealth they don't have to work any more. But that takes decades. And then they die. If they have children and pass their wealth on to their progeny, those children have a head start over other humans who inherit nothing and have to start from scratch. That's most people.

Corporations don't have the problem of dying. They can build power for as long as they exist. They have the ability to build much more power than any human could.

If corporations were limited by law to a set duration, and then they either get dissolved or revert to worker ownership, then that would help level the playing field for most humans who have to start from scratch with nothing.

[Iolo/Penderyn]

Hello Penderyn,



There is a different model for a sort of democratic capitalism. A worker-owned cooperative is sort of like if a union bought a company and then the workers actually jointly own the company. Then the workers elect the people who are running the company and making the decisions which affect the workers.

Sort of a socialistic capitalism.

Yes, it's possible, but without very strong backing from somewhere (i.e. the unions) it's very, very vulnerable.

[archives]

Where has socialism worked best?

Where has socialism been universally applied, even Cuba and China always had elements of capitalism

You keep missing the point, no nation, no nation’s economic system, is based solely on one or the other, they are all mixed economies, to portray it as a dichotomy, a choice between one or the other, is erroneous