larkin

What is so bad about socialism?
This is an answer to the question, "What's so bad about fascism?"

Unsub

The "bad" thing about socialism is that it focuses on promoting the group as a whole instead of the individual as in capitalism, so it all comes down to what kind of society the people that live in it prefer.

As a norwegian from arguably the most successful social democracy in the world I consider myself closer to socialism than to capitalism.

Chancellor

To start with; what is socialism?

I would say basically; I am probably closer to libertarian socialism than to libertarian capitalism. But I am closer to libertarian capitalism than to state socialism, which is the system which since Bismarck's days socialism is nearby used as a synonyme for.

Essentially, nothing is wrong with socialism, but instating any sort of utopia by the state; that is, by force and by enforcing uniformity throughout all society after the ideal state of the rulers, whatever kind of government that state is ruled after, is already in the mind an intellectual rapture of individual liberty and dignity. It is a form of utopia-thinking which already before the mind's eye ostensibly demands my obedience to the "correct" vision of how the world should be - voluntary or through force.

From a purely philosophical perspective, I reject the validity of the state and of anyone assuming the role of prophet and proclaiming the one true just and righteous image of what the future should be for anyone but himself/herself.

I do believe there should be a safety net. To start with there must be courts, prisons, some sort of policing, and probably some sort of armed forces (if you're not living on Iceland). Laws, however, should rest solely on the regulating coercion, and the protection of the state apparatus. Then there must be publicly funded primary schools (not necessarily publicly operated, though in my personal view there should be a multitude of public and private schools). Further to this minimal state I believe there should be higher education accessible to everyone (through full/partial government funding, and government-guaranteed loans and scholarships). Further to that, I believe in universal health insurance, though preferably not a health insurance; there should be a multitude of options, with government ensuring universal coverage. Within this framework, I believe individuals should have the right to pursue whatever lives they see fit, and the building of utopias should left for them to build through mutual consent and agreement.

From a more practical perspective, I believe in the welfare state, but I also believe the reorientation towards a more market-based approach largely seen in the 1970s and 80s - New Zealand would be the ideal example - is basically correct. Sweden held more firmly onto a big and bloated government throughout these decades and both saw its GDP rolled back - in the 1960s, we were one of the ten largest economies in the world - and a growing public debt which ultimately saw deep cut downs in the until then arguably most successful social democratic system in the world, whereas taxes was further raised. France, and most of the big continental powers are right now in the same situation, and I believe we will in the long run need reforms towards a free, more market-based society. The role of the state cannot be fundamentally diminished, but the two terms can, and should never be treated as the same. Freedom must always be more than the right to elect one's leaders and have the right to argue against their policies.

Sokar Rostau

The biggest problem with socialism is that far too many equate it with Stalinism. Virtually every country in the Western world, and others besides, are socialist to one degree or another, including America, and the states that are arguably the most socialist also happen to frequently top the lists for quality of life and per capita income.

Socialism =/= Communism and Communism =/= Stalinism. Stalinism is a form of communism and communism is a form of socialism, but they are not the same thing.

Fireatwill

Socialism is public ownership of capital.

Whats wrong with public ownership of capital?

Chancellor

First, what is the public? If the public is the sum of everyone, then is not all capital is publicly owned?

Secondly, what is ownership? Do I own the property of the Swedish government? Does the average citizen of Cuba own the capital possessed by the Cuban government? Where is the threshold located, and why?

Etcetera.

Apicius

Wikipedia labels Norway a "a prosperous capitalist featuring a combination of activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors."

Also, "Cost of living is about 90% higher in Norway than in the United States and 50% higher than the United Kingdom"

It is good though, that Norway seems to have the sense not to incur massive public debt. Perhaps this is due the significant petroleum resources that account for 45% of total exports.

So your living expenses are almost twice than if you lived in the U.S., despite being one of the biggest (socialiised) oil producing countries in the wotld.

Um, what was the question again?

HamBoiBaker

promoting the group isn't bad. people have been doing that for ages. The worst examples are like North Korea where the gov has so much control over the population and the things that went on in the Soviet Union and East Germany.

Apicius

Promoting the group? Or controlling the group?

Unsub

Well, Norway is not a socialistic country, but our government own a lot of companies that compete in the private sector all around the world and have stakes in many more. However the ideology behind our government is a social democracy where the produce of the people is supposed to benefit the people, despite this a lot of companies have been privatized in the last years.

And living cost is not really relevant, the important part is purchasing power where we score very high. Even if it costs almost the double to live in Norway compared to the US, our minimum wage is about 3-4times higher.