Democratic Socialism explained

[xxxCTHULHUxxx]

Democratic Socialism seem to work great for countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Norway and Denmark though. The rich pay higher percentage of tax, so the social differences are minimal. Yet they are capitalist states built on welfare, so you can still work your way to the top like in any other capitalist state. However the big difference is that there is much more support for the average person.

The problem is that none of those countries have any group of people migrating to their territories and living off of their socialized system. In America we have huge immigration issues. Is the answer to not allow people to migrate to the United States? I say no. The answer is to create a world that has enough jobs to fulfill the populace. Back to your point is the fact that if we changed to a welfare state then eventually their would not be enough people at the top to pay for all the people at the bottom. If you look at the percentages you will find that the statistics do not add up. Just another case where on paper socialism sounds good but when you apply it to our country you quickly see that it has no lasting value due to the wealthy being unable to maintain the mass of people living off of the system...

 

[Kainzo]

Whatever happened to the idea that everyone was created equally?

example: at my work, I am faster/more efficient than my coworkers, therefore my case load is zero, 90% of the time. Instead of praising me for this, they throw more work on me because "you're better at it".

I don't get any extra pay, I don't get a pat on the back, I get more work because my coworkers suck at what they do.

Carry the slack so everyone looks good. It's fluff and there's no spot for it in a capitalist society.

http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

It saddens me to see good men carrying the weight of those who are just lazy.

 

[j2gay]

The question is entirely on topic. The fact of the matter is that the so called "benefits" of democratic socialism you are reporting are actually not. Any system that takes away form those who produce "makers" and gives to those who do not "takers" is inherently dishonest. It takes away much of the incentive to be productive and makes it easier to be unproductive. As if those who move the world needed any further impediment. such systems may bring some of the bottom up, but they do so at the expense of bringing not only those at the top but also those at the middle down. There is less disparity in these systems because there is less prosperity.
You claim to compare it to capitalist countries. I assume you mean America. Despite what you see reported in the modern media America is not a capitalist country, nor has it been for some 150 years. A fact to which it owes much of its current woes.

 

[j2gay]

Whatever happened to the idea that everyone was created equally?

example: at my work, I am faster/more efficient than my coworkers, therefore my case load is zero, 90% of the time. Instead of praising me for this, they throw more work on me because "you're better at it".

I don't get any extra pay, I don't get a pat on the back, I get more work because my coworkers suck at what they do.

Carry the slack so everyone looks good. It's fluff and there's no spot for it in a capitalist society.

http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

It saddens me to see good men carrying the weight of those who are just lazy.

I know your pain sir. Are you perhaps familiar with the works of Ayn Rand? If your answer be no, it is never to late.

 

[Fjordsen]

The problem is that none of those countries have any group of people migrating to their territories and living off of their socialized system. In America we have huge immigration issues. Is the answer to not allow people to migrate to the United States? I say no. The answer is to create a world that has enough jobs to fulfill the populace. Back to your point is the fact that if we changed to a welfare state then eventually their would not be enough people at the top to pay for all the people at the bottom. If you look at the percentages you will find that the statistics do not add up. Just another case where on paper socialism sounds good but when you apply it to our country you quickly see that it has no lasting value due to the wealthy being unable to maintain the mass of people living off of the system...

Before 1960, norway barely had any migration. Now in 2013, over 11% of the population is not ethnically norwegian. The difference would be that we have systems to educate and putting immigrants to work. As long as immigrants are willing to integrate, they usually end up on the same level as any average norwegian in less than a generation.

I think the US would benefit from making rich people (Rich, not middle class) pay more taxes, if you earn 10 million dollars a year, you sure as hell can live of 5 million dollars if others can live on less than 100 000 dollars.

 

[leftovers5]

Before 1960, norway barely had any migration. Now in 2013, over 11% of the population is not ethnically norwegian. The difference would be that we have systems to educate and putting immigrants to work. As long as immigrants are willing to integrate, they usually end up on the same level as any average norwegian in less than a generation.

I think the US would benefit from making rich people (Rich, not middle class) pay more taxes, if you earn 10 million dollars a year, you sure as hell can live of 5 million dollars if others can live on less than 100 000 dollars.

Why should we penalize the people that achieve the most? That's counter-intuitive.

 

[leftovers5]

I know your pain sir. Are you perhaps familiar with the works of Ayn Rand? If your answer be no, it is never to late.

Atlas Shrugged + The Fountainhead are good books.

 

[j2gay]

Atlas Shrugged + The Fountainhead are good books.

They are, but not her best.

 

[leftovers5]

Yet Social Democratic countries have the best living standards in the world and less social differences than in pure capitalist countries.

Could you define social differences? Part of that reason is that these self proclaimed Social Democratic countries face an entirely different set of challenges to overcome than countries like the United States, Chile, etc.The United States is nearing a plurality nation while Norway is a homogeneous society and it is impossible to impose socialist reason upon a set of groups (whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc.) that is inherently different culturally, ethnically, and economically.

 

[Fjordsen]

Why should we penalize the people that achieve the most? That's counter-intuitive.

Because helping pay for the education and healthcare for the lower classes gives a more educated society which benefits a country in the long run. They are still much richer than the middle class after taxes, so it's not really penalizing. 5 millions instead of 10 millions a year is still a fortune.

But of course, my belief is that social programs paid of tax money benefits everyone in the long run. Your belief is that your current system is more beneficial to society. We have different beliefs and different experiences, and each system depends on the culture of the country aswell. The fact that the welfare state has worked for Norway the last 70 years makes us more willing to pay high taxes to keep it that way, while you americans have your ways of doing things. Our societies are different aswell as you have long traditions of migration to your country with lots of different ethnical groups while it's only been relevant in Norway the last 50 years.

 

[lioIIoil]

Because helping pay for the education and healthcare for the lower classes gives a more educated society which benefits a country in the long run. They are still much richer than the middle class after taxes, so it's not really penalizing. 5 millions instead of 10 millions a year is still a fortune.

But of course, my belief is that social programs paid of tax money benefits everyone in the long run. Your belief is that your current system is more beneficial to society. We have different beliefs and different experiences, and each system depends on the culture of the country aswell. The fact that the welfare state has worked for Norway the last 70 years makes us more willing to pay high taxes to keep it that way, while you americans have your ways of doing things. Our societies are different aswell as you have long traditions of migration to your country with lots of different ethnical groups while it's only been relevant in Norway the last 50 years.

Don't you think it would be better for education to be run by private schools? In the US private schools give the same or better education but at a much lower cost. This is because government never efficient with money. It would end up costing everyone less money with taxes.

 

[Fjordsen]

Don't you think it would be better for education to be run by private schools? In the US private schools give the same or better education but at a much lower cost. This is because government never efficient with money. It would end up costing everyone less money with taxes.

I am for more privatization of schools. The state covers 90% of private education, so it's an option avaiable for anybody here in Norway, as long as your grades are good enough that is. One problem is that the best schools often lacks space for all the students applying to join, so that's why I want the state to allow building of more private schools. With the non-socialist parties getting more spots in the parliament than the socialists this autumn's election, i'll probably see more privatization here in Norway the next 4 years.

 

[xxxCTHULHUxxx]

EtKenn's post = "Before 1960, norway barely had any migration. Now in 2013, over 11% of the population is not ethnically norwegian. The difference would be that we have systems to educate and putting immigrants to work. As long as immigrants are willing to integrate, they usually end up on the same level as any average norwegian in less than a generation.

I think the US would benefit from making rich people (Rich, not middle class) pay more taxes, if you earn 10 million dollars a year, you sure as hell can live of 5 million dollars if others can live on less than 100 000 dollars."

Once again look up and learn about a thing called "social mobility". Next look at the actual numbers and statistics so you can realize why a socialist system cannot and will not work in the United States. Also the Tax rate for anyone making more than 100,0000 a year is at minimum 35% and in many cases over 50%

The population of norway is what 5 million? trust me if it was a utopia of opportunity the population would be 10 times that. Currently the population of the United States is over 360 million and the amount of employed vs jobless is the major issue. Once again it all comes down to jobs.

Sorry but this will be my final post dealing with this debate. You have good ideas and ideals but statistically if you understood the differences between our countries you would figure out what I have stated over and over too many times.

 

[Diavolo1988]

It is very true that it would be completely impossible to turn the US into a socialist country because of a billion different reasons. However, there are some things that work in socialist countries that could benefit the US, like having the government own all the hospitals, remove the health insurance concept, and give people help when they are dying, for free. Paying for this could be done by having those people who already have much more money than they could ever spend, actually pay a little taxes.

It is not like some people could freeload off the rich, since being poor would still suck, it just would suck a bit less.

If this change was made, the US had had to be even more strict on immigration though.

 

[EvilThor]

Pure capitalism is not really the best solution (from my point of view), since it is much more vulnerable to financial breakdowns, than democratic socialistic countries.

This is because people who do stuff for the sole reason of earning money tend to only think of what's best for their own part, and that leads to some really powerful big companies witch got far too much controll over the local society and the country's financial future, and is driven by a desire to earn more money.

Of course, I'm not saying that socialism would work extremely well in every culture all over the world, cause socialism needs the people in the country to have a will to pay their taxes, to get what they paid back, in free healthcare, infrastructure, educated children, help when they grow old and so on..

 

[Diavolo1988]

The only conclusion I can draw is that the more cynical and greedy the people in a country is, the bigger chance the country turns to shit. If you have social democracy things can be good if the amount of greedy cynics is extremely low (otherwise it turns to shit, see Greece for more details on shit in this context). In more capitalism controlled countries more people can be cynic greedy assholes without the country turning to shit, making it a safer bet in the long run, however the average man will not have it that great as in a working socialist democratic country.