Why are socialist Scandinavian countries the happiest in the world?

[Questerr]

Those nations, specifically Denmark, keep telling Bernie they are not socialist. That is because they are primarily capitalistic nations with most of the means of production and distribution privately owned. That is the standard economic definition of socialism (public ownership).

In recent years the term has been distorted to include social welfare programs. Today, both sides use socialism in that manner as conservatives use it to attack liberal programs and liberals use it to defend social programs. But socialist nations (China, Cuba, North Korea) do not have extensive social welfare systems while some capitalist nations (Scandinavian) have extensive social welfare systems but private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

The problem is that in America, if you advocate the kind of programs and policies the Scandinavian countries have, the Right will call you a socialist.

You don't get to have it both ways. If the Right is going to call those policies socialist, then the Left gets to use those countries as examples of socialist countries.

 

[soylentgreen]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

Just making the point that n korea calls itself a democratic republic and not a socialist state like the others

 

[soylentgreen]

Those nations, specifically Denmark, keep telling Bernie they are not socialist. That is because they are primarily capitalistic nations with most of the means of production and distribution privately owned. That is the standard economic definition of socialism (public ownership).

In recent years the term has been distorted to include social welfare programs. Today, both sides use socialism in that manner as conservatives use it to attack liberal programs and liberals use it to defend social programs. But socialist nations (China, Cuba, North Korea) do not have extensive social welfare systems while some capitalist nations (Scandinavian) have extensive social welfare systems but private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Again, please learn how to read. N.Korea is a democratic republic. They do not call themselves socialists. You do only because the words socialists and dictatorships cannot be separated in your own mind.

 

[soylentgreen]

But since the communist party must have absolute power, how can you avoid totalitarianism under Marxist communism?

The communist party of russia did not follow marxist thinking. They instead created an elitist ruling class which is not marxism.

 

[Gator]

The problem is that in America, if you advocate the kind of programs and policies the Scandinavian countries have, the Right will call you a socialist.

You don't get to have it both ways. If the Right is going to call those policies socialist, then the Left gets to use those countries as examples of socialist countries.

So both are misapplying the entire concept. Based on your reasoning if the right calls those policies communism then the left should call Scandinavian countries communist.

By calling those countries socialist they are doing a disservice both to economics and Scandinavia. As the old cliché says, "two wrongs don't make a right." They should try to make the situation better, not worse (which is obviously asking too much of politics today).

 

[mrdeltoid]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:



So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

"The Danes apparently have grown weary of Sen. Bernie Sanders insulting their country. Denmark is not a socialist nation, says its prime minister. It has a "market economy."
Denmark Tells Bernie Sanders It's Had Enough Of His 'Socialist' Slurs | Investor's Business Daily

"First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair."

Where as Denmark bristles when being referred to as a "socialist country", they, along with most of the nordic countries are Democratic/capitalists. Iceland comes closest to being a "socialist country".
To answer your question, when I think of socialism, I think of countries like China, and Cuba, and the government controlling the economy.

 

[Questerr]

So both are misapplying the entire concept. Based on your reasoning if the right calls those policies communism then the left should call Scandinavian countries communist.

By calling those countries socialist they are doing a disservice both to economics and Scandinavia. As the old cliché says, "two wrongs don't make a right." They should try to make the situation better, not worse (which is obviously asking too much of politics today).

Yep. Force the Right to own their words. If they want to constantly call policies like those found in Scandinavia socialist, then they can't cry foul when the Left uses those countries as examples of successful socialist countries.

Simple solution: The Right can stop claiming anything left of Ayn Rand to be socialist.

 

[bongsaway]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:



So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

What's amazing is those countries are also cold. Cold and happy, must be something to it?

The buffoons who sound off on here are only repeating what they've been taught to say and keep on voting against their own best interests. Most even refuse to wear a mask to show everyone their level of stupidity.

 

[charliebrown]

When you are give 50% or more of your income to a government for your happiness, I would call this both socialist and ludicrous.

 

[soylentgreen]

But Sweden is not a 'socialist' country. Very little of industry or commerce is state owned. 'Welfare capitalist' is a more accurate description - and much of this welfare is delivered by companies. The same is true of the other Nordic countries.

(Btw the Scandinavian peninsula is a geographic term. It comprises only Norway and Sweden).

The idea that it must be state owned is always a problem. Not because it is a bad idea but because americans can only see it in the sense of thinking up really stupid ways of doing it.

Correct to say very little is state owned. But it is also correct to say that much of it is state regulated. And in some cases those regulations are imposed by the businesses themselves.

And yes the governments of these countries cannot just produce wealth out of thin air. They are reliant upon creating an environment where business can flourish and produce the wealth needed to run the infrastructure of the country.

Good socialist policies produce an environment where good business practices flourish. Where as the greed and ineptitude that flourishes in america simply produces profit at the expense and detriment of the people.

 

[soylentgreen]

First off, the concept of totalitarianism was developed to represent Italian Fascism's ideal conception of the state. As Mussolini put it: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". Whilst comparisons between Fascism,Nazism and Communism were part of the conversation in the 1930's, both Nazis and Communists denied they were equivalent. So Nazis believed they were "Ayran socialists" and were opposed to the "Jewish Socialism" of Bolshevism/communism. The Communists supported Socialism as the rule of the working class, but considered Fascism as the terrorist rule of finance capital as the most reactionary section of the capitalist class. Only after the second world war did the conversation change and references to Soviet "Totalitarianism" become more commonplace. But it had nothing to do with Marxist theory.

To put it laymen's terms, the Soviets thought of themselves more as a "tyranny by majority" in which the working class, constituting the majority of the population, would exercise it's power to deprive the exploiting minority of capitalists of their property and liberties to the extent they believed they were capable of a counter-revolution. So they would claim they were *more* democratic than the United States by eliminating the rule of wealthy plutocrats who would frustrate the will of the people. This is why they felt comfortable naming countries like East Germany, the "German Democratic Republic" or North Korea, the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". They believed they were a democratic movement in which the people asserted their rights to become self-governing and depriving capitalists of control of the economy, the state and society.

So they would argue that the Press cannot be free if it is privately owned by the capitalist class and used merely as a propaganda tool for getting people to buy stuff. The press is only free when the "working people" themselves own the press. As the Communist Party believed they represented the people and the Soviet Union was a people's state, "freedom of the press" meant that the state owned and controlled the newspapers- not "capitalists".

When it comes to the abuses of power such as labour camps in the gulag and purging the communist party, the Soviets would have argued that this was "democratic" violence by the people in defence of the people's power against its enemies (much like the reign of terror in the french revolution). This is why they referred to such individuals as "enemies of the people".

If anything the Soviets would have claimed they were fighting for freedom and democracy against the "fascist" military-industrial complex in the United States, with it's racial segregation, international wars of aggression, suppression of progressive groups in the McCarthy era and under Nixon.

Make of it what you will, but those who claim Marxism was totalitarian usually do so by downplaying the ideological differences between Nazism and Communism or ignoring them all together. The totalitarian model focuses on the abuses, but oversimplifies the situation in the Cold War and was never an accurate model of how the Soviets behaved either in foreign relations or in domestic affairs as they shifted from relatively more liberal times (such as Khrushchev or Gorbachev) to more hard-line periods (such as under Brezhnev).

This isn't the same as saying the Soviets were the "good guys", but even if you think they were the villains, there was an elaborate effort to justify their behaviour to themselves, their own people and the rest of the world that went beyond crude propaganda. You can't understand why they were so successful and effective without admitting they knew how to inspire people to the cause, even if it was folly in the end. The totalitarian model is so rigid, that it makes communism doomed to fail- so it cannot explain why it spread so far and so fast in the space of a century.

Reading through that you could replace the word russian with american and it would still work.

And a knowledge of history would explain quite adequately why marx/engels ideology spread so rapidly. Throughout europe revolution was happening both in action and in writitng. The elite ruling classes of these countries were oppresssive and people were fighting it. Marx / engels just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right words to inspire the revolutions that were occuring.

 

[Gator]

The communist party of russia did not follow marxist thinking. They instead created an elitist ruling class which is not marxism.

The same applies to Cuba and North Korea. When discussing communism and socialism it is more useful to describe what exists in practice rather than Marxist theory.

Most nations of the world have been authoritarian. I can't think of any communist nations which were not previously strongly authoritarian with little freedom or democratic institutions. It was more the culture of that country than communism.

 

[gdgyva]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:



So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

just one question

do you think you can really compare Sweden, Norway, or any of those countries to the USA?

Sweden (/ˈswiː.dən/; Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] (About this soundlisten)), officially the Kingdom of Sweden (Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] (About this soundlisten)), is a Nordic country in Northern Europe.[18] It borders Norway to the west and north, Finland to the east, and is connected to Denmark in the southwest by a bridge-tunnel across the Öresund Strait. At 450,295 square kilometres (173,860 sq mi), Sweden is the largest country in Northern Europe, the third-largest country in the European Union and the fifth largest country in Europe by area. The capital city is Stockholm. Sweden has a total population of 10.3 million[9] of which 2.6 million have a foreign background.[19] Persons with foreign backgrounds are defined as persons who are foreign born, or born in Sweden with foreign born parents.[20] It has a low population density of 22 inhabitants per square kilometre (57/sq mi) and the highest urban concentration is in the central and southern half of the country.

Sweden is part of the geographical area of Fennoscandia. The climate is in general mild for its northerly latitude due to significant maritime influence. In spite of the high latitude, Sweden often has warm continental summers, being located in between the North Atlantic, the Baltic Sea and the vast Eurasian Russian landmass. The general climate and environment vary significantly from the south and north due to the vast latitudal difference, and much of Sweden has reliably cold and snowy winters. Southern Sweden is predominantly agricultural, while the north is heavily forested and includes a portion of the Scandinavian Mountains.

Sweden - Wikipedia

working out a system for less than the population of Texas sounds a lot easier than working out systems for the USA

And one other major point....please tell me what percentage of their GDP do they commit to defense? And how many immigrants/refugees are allowed into their county on an annual basis?

Those may be some startling differences between us just to start

 

[soylentgreen]

The same applies to Cuba and North Korea. When discussing communism and socialism it is more useful to describe what exists in practice rather than Marxist theory.

Most nations of the world have been authoritarian. I can't think of any communist nations which were not previously strongly authoritarian with little freedom or democratic institutions. It was more the culture of that country than communism.

I agree about cuba but not n korea. They do not call themselves communist or even socialists. They call themselves a democratic republic. The only reason you call cuba a communist country is not because it practices communism but only because it calls itself a communist country. So to be consistent then you should call n korea a democratic republic. Not because it is a democratic republic but because it calls itself a democratic republic.

And no, When discussing communism there is no such thing as exists. No country is communist or has ever been communist. When discussing socialist on this site at least, it is all about hitting a brick wall of cliches that americans do not even comprehend but will use any way.

 

[Simpletruther]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:



So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

Is Sweden even socialist?

How Sweden Overcame Socialism - WSJ

Several sources depict Sweden as suffering Reston under socialism for s couple decades till 1991, when free market reforms began to turn things around.

 

[ataraxia]

You are not correct. Liberals do not have the view of the Scandinavian countries in mind. Maybe the useful idiots do but the intellectuals do not.

...

And again no democrat is even proposing to copy Norway’s economic model which is a freer market. Let alone create a socially conservative society where drinking and drug use are heavily discouraged and working is encouraged and single motherhood discouraged.

So what is this all about?

Why Bernie Sanders Is Adopting a Nordic-Style Approach - The Atlantic

Bernie Sanders Wants A Scandinavian-Model Social Insurance System. Sure, Why Not? (For Retirement Anyway)

 

[ataraxia]

"The Danes apparently have grown weary of Sen. Bernie Sanders insulting their country. Denmark is not a socialist nation, says its prime minister. It has a "market economy."
Denmark Tells Bernie Sanders It's Had Enough Of His 'Socialist' Slurs | Investor's Business Daily

"First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair."

Where as Denmark bristles when being referred to as a "socialist country", they, along with most of the nordic countries are Democratic/capitalists. Iceland comes closest to being a "socialist country".
To answer your question, when I think of socialism, I think of countries like China, and Cuba, and the government controlling the economy.

So that may be the problem: how the word "socialism" is used and understood, or at least MISunderstood, these days. Doesn't matter what you call it. If the word "socialism" bothers you so much and brings to mind countries like China and Cuba, we can call it something else, like "The Nordic model".

"I feel that the 'American Dream' can be achieved best in the Nordic countries, where every child no matter their background or the background of their families can become anything, because we have a very good education system. We have a good health-care and social welfare system that allows anybody to become anything. This is probably one of the reasons why Finland gets ranked the happiest country in the world."
-Sanna Marin, prime minister of Finland

 

[ataraxia]

When you are give 50% or more of your income to a government for your happiness, I would call this both socialist and ludicrous.

So most Americans are already giving 50% or more of their income just to their private healthcare insurance.

 

[Thoreau72]

The country that comes to mind when I hear "Bernie" is Cuba.

No country comes to mind when I hear "socialism." Should one?

The Cubans are doing far better under socialism than they were under Batista.

 

[ataraxia]

Is Sweden even socialist?

How Sweden Overcame Socialism - WSJ

Several sources depict Sweden as suffering Reston under socialism for s couple decades till 1991, when free market reforms began to turn things around.

Maybe. This high ranking of Scandinavian countries in the happy metric has only been mostly in the last decade or so. The weather hasn't changed much in such a short period of time. It probably has to do with other things.

Many Swedes themselves still think of themselves as a social Democracy. Most social democracies today still have an active free market system. Most of these "socialist" programs are just for the protection of the basic human rights of their citizens, like the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and healthcare. Everything else is as corporate and free market as the US. Heck, IKEA and Volvo all come from there. Conversely, here in the US, we already have many of those social programs. If the name "social" bothers you so much, we can start calling it something else. Whatever it is they are doing there, it seems to be working OK- at least better than what we have here.

Who knew that protecting the basic human rights of its citizens, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from back in 1948

 

[ataraxia]

just one question

do you think you can really compare Sweden, Norway, or any of those countries to the USA?

Sweden (/ˈswiː.dən/; Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] (About this soundlisten)), officially the Kingdom of Sweden (Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] (About this soundlisten)), is a Nordic country in Northern Europe.[18] It borders Norway to the west and north, Finland to the east, and is connected to Denmark in the southwest by a bridge-tunnel across the Öresund Strait. At 450,295 square kilometres (173,860 sq mi), Sweden is the largest country in Northern Europe, the third-largest country in the European Union and the fifth largest country in Europe by area. The capital city is Stockholm. Sweden has a total population of 10.3 million[9] of which 2.6 million have a foreign background.[19] Persons with foreign backgrounds are defined as persons who are foreign born, or born in Sweden with foreign born parents.[20] It has a low population density of 22 inhabitants per square kilometre (57/sq mi) and the highest urban concentration is in the central and southern half of the country.

Sweden is part of the geographical area of Fennoscandia. The climate is in general mild for its northerly latitude due to significant maritime influence. In spite of the high latitude, Sweden often has warm continental summers, being located in between the North Atlantic, the Baltic Sea and the vast Eurasian Russian landmass. The general climate and environment vary significantly from the south and north due to the vast latitudal difference, and much of Sweden has reliably cold and snowy winters. Southern Sweden is predominantly agricultural, while the north is heavily forested and includes a portion of the Scandinavian Mountains.

Sweden - Wikipedia

working out a system for less than the population of Texas sounds a lot easier than working out systems for the USA

And one other major point....please tell me what percentage of their GDP do they commit to defense? And how many immigrants/refugees are allowed into their county on an annual basis?

Those may be some startling differences between us just to start

Some of these issues are discussed in the OP article:

"Dispelling some myths:

Weather, smallness, homogeneity, and suicides - Dispelling four myths contradicting the idea of Nordic happiness
Before turning to what we see as the most probable explanations for Nordic happiness, we will dispel some myths that challenge Nordic happiness by discussing a few factors sometimes raised in popular press that in fact don’t have much to do with Nordic happiness.

First, it is true that the Nordic countries do not have the pleasant tropical weather that popular images often associate with happiness; rather, the Nordic winter tends to be long, dark, and cold. It is true that people account for changes in weather in their evaluations of life satisfaction, with too hot, too cold, and too rainy weather decreasing life satisfaction. However, effect sizes for changes in weather tend to be small, and are complicated by people’s expectations and seasonal patterns. For example, people in the tropics are found to be happier during winter but less happy during spring, as compared to people in more temperate zones.[6] Average weather is something people adapt to and thus typically doesn’t much affect the life satisfaction of those used to a given weather. Accordingly, although the warming of the weather due to climate change could slightly increase the life satisfaction of people living in cold countries such as the Nordic countries,[7] based on current evidence, weather probably doesn’t play a major role in increasing or decreasing Nordic happiness."
The Nordic Exceptionalism: What Explains Why the Nordic Countries Are Constantly Among the Happiest in the World | The World Happiness Report

 

[Michael Cole]

The Cubans are doing far better under socialism than they were under Batista.

I work with two refugees. They disagree. I'm sticking with them.

 

[Thoreau72]

I work with two refugees. They disagree. I'm sticking with them.

I'm talking about the people of Cuba, not refugees who fled the island.

 

[CimpleMan]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:



So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

Unfortunately, when discussing "Socialism" we often end up debating the meaning or definition of the word instead of the idea of improving Capitalism to allow for more to benefit from the Ideals of Capitalism.

If we can't get past current definitions it's going to be tough to improve what we have currently.

 

[Gator]

I agree about cuba but not n korea. They do not call themselves communist or even socialists. They call themselves a democratic republic. The only reason you call cuba a communist country is not because it practices communism but only because it calls itself a communist country. So to be consistent then you should call n korea a democratic republic. Not because it is a democratic republic but because it calls itself a democratic republic.

And no, When discussing communism there is no such thing as exists. No country is communist or has ever been communist. When discussing socialist on this site at least, it is all about hitting a brick wall of cliches that americans do not even comprehend but will use any way.

Communist nations have certain common features--socialist economy, one-party rule by Communist Party, and they identify as communist (not necessarily their official name). Some, such as China and Vietnam, have introduced more private ownership and market principles in their economy. Even Cuba now allows some private business activity.

Those are the nations we call communist and they describe previously communist nations (Soviet Union, Eastern bloc) although they all had many variations. No country was ever communist in that they met the Marxist ideal of government withering away, but they all fit into a category we can identify as communist. I think their authoritarian/totalitarian character was more of a historical and cultural feature than communist.