Are their any real socialist countries that arent poor or Authoritarian?

[Kirby101]

Same for me pretty much, and the other thing is also that even though the message board format seems a bit old hat these days compared to newer social media platforms, I still do appreciate the ability to have a more extensive and nuanced discussion about these topics rather than having everything devolving into memes and like farming. Especially when it comes to something like socialism, trying to oversimplify the ideas is exactly the reason why so many Americans completely misunderstand the concept. Obviously everyone would rather be rich and free than poor and oppressed, but it's silly to believe that this is something that just comes down to choosing the right economic system. We wouldn't accept a comic supervillain who just went around murdering and enslaving people for no discernible reason when he would be much better off just being a hero instead, so why do we think that painting entire countries with that brush is somehow reasonable?

That pretty much describes The Joker.

[Zelena]

That pretty much describes The Joker.

We know the reason: he’s crazy.

[Zelena]

Eh, I suppose that like most people, posting online is more just like a matter of self-gratification for writing something you thought was intelligent and deep, regardless of whether anyone else appreciates it. Besides, the reason I got hooked on this forum in the first place is because there was always a lot of discussion on sociopolitical topics and not just the usual arguments over continuity and feats.

I read your long post. Well, to my capacity: English isn’t my language. Strange that American people tend to forget that social progress that has been accomplished by hard-lines strikes and social movements…

I read “Being Red” a while ago, the autobiography of Howard Fast, American communist, the author of Spartacus and found very interesting.

[inisideguy]

I have read all of these posts. And many are interesting. I don't really understand the premise though. If you ask 50 people their definition of socialism you will get 50 different answers. I mean most Americans are not even aware they are dealing with socialistic policies when talking about public schools. Lets alone a million other issues.

[PwrdOn]

I have read all of these posts. And many are interesting. I don't really understand the premise though. If you ask 50 people their definition of socialism you will get 50 different answers. I mean most Americans are not even aware they are dealing with socialistic policies when talking about public schools. Lets alone a million other issues.

It's a common meme these days that socialists will try to deflect criticism of communist regimes by arguing that these countries are "not really socialist" and that we should instead be looking to countries like Denmark and Norway as a model. The problem though is that these countries are avowedly NOT socialist in any respect, and as anyone living there would tell you, are instead primarily market economies supplemented by a large public sector. But then again, so is pretty much every country these days, including the USA, it's just that our government spending prioritizes different things. And perhaps more importantly, the Scandinavian model was a product of their specific geographical and historical context and would fail miserably if it were copied anywhere else. But that isn't as much of an obstacle as the right wing makes it out to be, it just means that we can strive to do even better and build a socioeconomic system that plays to our strengths and leverages the advantages that we have.

[Kirby101]

Actually, most of us who talk about Social Democracies, not Socialist countries, talk about ALL of Europe as well as some Asian democracies when pointing out how offering Healtcare to everyone and a reasonable social safety net.
The US lags behind much of the World in providing basic needs to it's citizens, and a large segment that desperately need those service routinely vote against them.

[inisideguy]

It's a common meme these days that socialists will try to deflect criticism of communist regimes by arguing that these countries are "not really socialist" and that we should instead be looking to countries like Denmark and Norway as a model. The problem though is that these countries are avowedly NOT socialist in any respect, and as anyone living there would tell you, are instead primarily market economies supplemented by a large public sector. But then again, so is pretty much every country these days, including the USA, it's just that our government spending prioritizes different things. And perhaps more importantly, the Scandinavian model was a product of their specific geographical and historical context and would fail miserably if it were copied anywhere else. But that isn't as much of an obstacle as the right wing makes it out to be, it just means that we can strive to do even better and build a socioeconomic system that plays to our strengths and leverages the advantages that we have.

I have never seen anyone in the mainstream left advocate for communism in recent times. I don't even understand the idea. Heck there are what 2 communist countries? China isn't communist and neither is Vietnam. I guess Cuba and North Korea? What I see and hear all the time is the right trying to tie the left pushing for more socialistic policies and trying to equate that with Communism.

[PwrdOn]

Actually, most of us who talk about Social Democracies, not Socialist countries, talk about ALL of Europe as well as some Asian democracies when pointing out how offering Healtcare to everyone and a reasonable social safety net.
The US lags behind much of the World in providing basic needs to it's citizens, and a large segment that desperately need those service routinely vote against them.

What people always misunderstand about European welfare states is that they are NOT rooted in any commitment to social justice or equality but rather more a project of economic nationalism. As smaller countries whose glory days are largely behind them, they need to treat their citizens as a limited resource to be nurtured and developed and make the necessary investments to ensure that. We have no need to do this in the US, because we can always rely on immigration to fill the gaps in the labor force, and free ride off of the investments that their home countries have made in educating and training them. So if we were to implement a strong social safety net in America, it would not be out of some pressing concern for national survival but rather a deliberate move toward redistributive and corrective justice for past mistakes, an argument that wouldn't go over any better in Europe, or god forbid, Japan or Korea, than it would here. After just the mere suggestion that their benefits be extended to new migrants that are not "their people" brings out the most violent xenophobia in all of these supposedly more enlightened countries.

So if the European welfare state model doesn't have a chance of succeeding in the US, which has the built-in advantages of already being rich and isn't under any threat of foreign invasion, what hope do impoverished third world nations have of building a successfully functioning society without taking some drastic steps that their enemies have every incentive to paint in the worst possible light?

I have never seen anyone in the mainstream left advocate for communism in recent times. I don't even understand the idea. Heck there are what 2 communist countries? China isn't communist and neither is Vietnam. I guess Cuba and North Korea? What I see and hear all the time is the right trying to tie the left pushing for more socialistic policies and trying to equate that with Communism.

I mean it's fairly straightforward as far as I'm concerned. Just keeping America basically as it is now but just with better healthcare isn't going to work, there are way too many inherent contradictions in how our society is structured to sustain that. The first step is simply to get people to understand that all of the things we like about America and our lifestyle here ultimately spring from the same source as all of the problems that are dragging us down. So either we commit to righting these injustices, knowing that it will require a substantial sacrifice in quality of life for many of us to achieve, or we can just sit back and let our society continue to devolve. There's no third option where we can just do a couple minor tweaks here and there and make everything better without any short term pain. This is why "democratic socialism" doesn't really work, nobody is going to vote for a candidate that tells them that THEY are the problem and that that their lives need to get worse in order for society to get better, but ultimately if that's the reality we face then we are only setting ourselves up for disaster if we continue to pretend otherwise.

[inisideguy]

What people always misunderstand about European welfare states is that they are NOT rooted in any commitment to social justice or equality but rather more a project of economic nationalism. As smaller countries whose glory days are largely behind them, they need to treat their citizens as a limited resource to be nurtured and developed and make the necessary investments to ensure that. We have no need to do this in the US, because we can always rely on immigration to fill the gaps in the labor force, and free ride off of the investments that their home countries have made in educating and training them. So if we were to implement a strong social safety net in America, it would not be out of some pressing concern for national survival but rather a deliberate move toward redistributive and corrective justice for past mistakes, an argument that wouldn't go over any better in Europe, or god forbid, Japan or Korea, than it would here. After just the mere suggestion that their benefits be extended to new migrants that are not "their people" brings out the most violent xenophobia in all of these supposedly more enlightened countries.

So if the European welfare state model doesn't have a chance of succeeding in the US, which has the built-in advantages of already being rich and isn't under any threat of foreign invasion, what hope do impoverished third world nations have of building a successfully functioning society without taking some drastic steps that their enemies have every incentive to paint in the worst possible light?



I mean it's fairly straightforward as far as I'm concerned. Just keeping America basically as it is now but just with better healthcare isn't going to work, there are way too many inherent contradictions in how our society is structured to sustain that. The first step is simply to get people to understand that all of the things we like about America and our lifestyle here ultimately spring from the same source as all of the problems that are dragging us down. So either we commit to righting these injustices, knowing that it will require a substantial sacrifice in quality of life for many of us to achieve, or we can just sit back and let our society continue to devolve. There's no third option where we can just do a couple minor tweaks here and there and make everything better without any short term pain. This is why "democratic socialism" doesn't really work, nobody is going to vote for a candidate that tells them that THEY are the problem and that that their lives need to get worse in order for society to get better, but ultimately if that's the reality we face then we are only setting ourselves up for disaster if we continue to pretend otherwise.

Sorry I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

[DrNewGod]

Eh, I suppose that like most people, posting online is more just like a matter of self-gratification for writing something you thought was intelligent and deep, regardless of whether anyone else appreciates it. Besides, the reason I got hooked on this forum in the first place is because there was always a lot of discussion on sociopolitical topics and not just the usual arguments over continuity and feats.

I'm prone to it myself. Mine is lack of self-awareness; I actually appreciate your efforts to elevate conversation, even when I disagree with your stances. (to be clear, on this one, I don't disagree)

[foxley]

So if the European welfare state model doesn't have a chance of succeeding in the US, which has the built-in advantages of already being rich and isn't under any threat of foreign invasion, what hope do impoverished third world nations have of building a successfully functioning society without taking some drastic steps that their enemies have every incentive to paint in the worst possible light?

So America doesn't need affordable healthcare because the country is rich?

So what does that mean? That being sick is God's punishment on people for having the temerity of being poor? If they truly cared about their health they'd become rich?

One again, for all of my country's faults, I'm glad I live in Australia.

[CSTowle]

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) he's saying that we won't accept it. Not that it wouldn't work. I used to wonder why myself, why in the strongest/richest/most chest-beatingest awesome country on Earth could we not take care of the poor or fully fund education or not have imprisonment rates and death sentences that put us in the company of dictatorships or have health care or any of the other benchmarks of a developed society folks in the "first world" take for granted outside of the US (though we can sure as **** fund a military). As I grew up I realized why. In Switzerland they're OK with taking care of other Swiss folk, in Germany they want to take care of other Germans, etc., etc.

In America they've convinced the working poor white folk and even the unemployed white folk in need of said assistance that those programs go mostly to help the "other". By other I mean black and brown folk. A lot of those folks will take less than they believe they deserve if it means they deprive those folk of any of their hard-earned money (or state-provided money in the case of the unemployed), out of spite. It's also why money for prisons is never objected to, harsher sentences are always a political winner (ask a younger Joe Biden), why a failed war on drugs continues, and the only interest in mental health the right has is when the discussion of gun control comes up. Honestly I'd imagine the country would probably more closely resemble Canada or Western Europe as far as health care and the like if not for our issues with race. You can already see the impact millions of refugees from the Middle East and Africa are having on those attitudes among native Europeans. There's a reason right-wing, night-fascist groups are on the rise.

[DrNewGod]

So America doesn't need affordable healthcare because the country is rich?

So what does that mean? That being sick is God's punishment on people for having the temerity of being poor? If they truly cared about their health they'd become rich?

One again, for all of my country's faults, I'm glad I live in Australia.

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) he's saying that we won't accept it. Not that it wouldn't work. I used to wonder why myself, why in the strongest/richest/most chest-beatingest awesome country on Earth could we not take care of the poor or fully fund education or not have imprisonment rates and death sentences that put us in the company of dictatorships or have health care or any of the other benchmarks of a developed society folks in the "first world" take for granted outside of the US (though we can sure as **** fund a military). As I grew up I realized why. In Switzerland they're OK with taking care of other Swiss folk, in Germany they want to take care of other Germans, etc., etc.

In America they've convinced the working poor white folk and even the unemployed white folk in need of said assistance that those programs go mostly to help the "other". By other I mean black and brown folk. A lot of those folks will take less than they believe they deserve if it means they deprive those folk of any of their hard-earned money (or state-provided money in the case of the unemployed), out of spite. It's also why money for prisons is never objected to, harsher sentences are always a political winner (ask a younger Joe Biden), why a failed war on drugs continues, and the only interest in mental health the right has is when the discussion of gun control comes up. Honestly I'd imagine the country would probably more closely resemble Canada or Western Europe as far as health care and the like if not for our issues with race. You can already see the impact millions of refugees from the Middle East and Africa are having on those attitudes among native Europeans. There's a reason right-wing, night-fascist groups are on the rise.

CSTowle covers it pretty well. Our racism works against making rational decisions about the good of the whole. Further, some elements of the US cling tightly to a myth of self-sufficiency that's baked into our colonialist DNA: immigrants coming here, eschewing the stewardship of aristocrats, conquering the land (and eradicating its pesky former inhabitants), and doing it all with their own hands and skills. If you weren't strong enough to survive, you weren't good enough to be part of the narrative anyway, except maybe as a noble sacrifice to the US civilization that got built over your forgotten grave.

As for poverty and poor health as God's Punishment, there's a good size protestant sect - known as prosperity gospel - that thinks exactly that. If you're right with god, you'll be rich, and if you aren't you deserve a miserable existence. Hucksters like Joel Olsteen have made a mint off that schtick. The chumps at the bottom of that pyramid are banking that they're going to get showered with riches if they just pray a little harder.

[Pinsir]

From my general understanding as to why the US doesn't have healthcare or a stronger welfare system is because of anti-black racism. There is a pretty famous quote by Lee Atwater, Nixon's campaign advisor and brain behind the Southern strategy;

You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-word, N-word, N-word." By 1968, you can't say "N-word" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-word, N-word."

So cutting social programs (or not creating them) is basically just a way to hurt black people, even if white people will also get hurt too.

[PwrdOn]

It doesn't really help that the supposed liberals in this country keep trying to tell us that there is a conflict between economic and social progress, so that we're forced to choose between half-baked fiscal policies that eschew addressing structural problems in favor of just throwing more money into the fire, and meaningless token gestures toward racial equality that have no meaningful benefits for anyone, and ultimately compromise by settling for neither because the alternative is a resetting the clock back to 1850.