1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice

World Politics thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Erotic Adventures of S, Aug 1, 2017.

  1. kinetique

    kinetique High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    562
    [Obligatory reminder that Socialism is more than having healthcare and higher taxes]
     
  2. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,591
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    Additional reminder that what works in a nearly entirely homogenous country with a total population that's half of the NYC metro area is not necessarily a recipe for what's gonna work in a diverse country of 300+ mln people. @Darth_Revan US can't figure out universal IDs, but you wanna copy Sweden's social programs? Some social policies make sense, but full-on socialism has been a bad idea everywhere it's been tried. It's a tired argument, but Venezuela. And still there are articles like this WashPo piece claiming that Venezuela doesn't prove anything about socialism, when it's a perfect example of socialism.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018
  3. Silirt

    Silirt Seventh Year DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2018
    Messages:
    269
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    Jesus Christ this tired bullshit about Nordic Model countries being Socialist when they're all mixed economies and the vast majority of the property is privately owned. You have to have no idea of what Socialism is when you can't tell the difference between that and a mixed economy with a sizeable welfare state funded by taxation(read: North Sea oil). I suspect part of this is due to boomers knee-jerking everything slightly to the economic left of center into the Socialism/Communism category.
     
  4. Nazgus

    Nazgus Minister of Magic

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,261
    Location:
    USA
    I was under the impression that that was socialism until this semester when my history class defined it, so I don't blame most people for being under the impression that wanting social programs of any kind is being socialist. I don't know that there's really a lot of actually socialist countries left in the world.

    Worth clarifying at this point that my previous comment about Latin America was meant in the more modern understanding of socialist programs in a capitalist society.
     
  5. kinetique

    kinetique High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    562
    Your definition is objectively wrong then, Venezuela is the poster child for a socialist regime in Latin America and they tick an awful lot of boxes, with the most important by far being the command economy. Comparing the Nordic model with its almost entirely free market and extensive free trade to Socialism is just absurd.

    Moreover the realities of running a welfare state on nations that aren't tiny, ethnically homogeneous and resource rich is unproven and almost certainly not possible yet. Overwhelming corruption, a large and diverse population, insane crime rates etc don't make a good starting point to try the Nordic model on for size.
     
  6. Nazgus

    Nazgus Minister of Magic

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,261
    Location:
    USA
    I'm not particularly knowledgable about Venezuela beyond "they put all their eggs in the oil basket and then starved to death", so I'll say "cool" to your assessment about them being socialist and move on. Not sure what what about my post says I have an incorrect definition for socialism. All I said was that there's not a lot of socialist countries in the world, which I'm reasonably sure is true?

    Kind of annoying to keep clarifying the same comment, but I meant that even coming from a place like Mexico that isn't socialist, the extensive government (mis)managed social programs and accompanying corruption have left most emigrants with a very poor impression of the sort of social programs Democrats tend to push. We're also generally very religious, so if Republicans stopped being racist assholes they could probably get a lot of Latinos on their side.
     
  7. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,591
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    This seems to be a trend especially with young Americans: they think socialism and communism just haven't been tried properly, that if there are 2 people in a room, then the one with 10 dollars must have stolen from the one with 2 dollars, and should have 4 of his dollars redistributed to the other guy, that capitalism and the notion of private property are the devil and the foundation of evil American. They cry for the Middle East, meanwhile American citizens in the Territories can't vote.

    @Nazgus I think he was referring to defining socialism as simply the presence of social programs.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018
  8. Invictus

    Invictus Totally Sirius

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,499
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Basically this. The average Latino immigrant is more socially conservative than his 'white counterpart' aka someone in the same social-economic conditions, he is usually a lot more distrustful of the State due to either personal or family-related experience and he really, really dislikes taxes. Perfect Republican material if the GOP stuck its head outside its own dog-whistling white ass.

    All Nordic countries are capitalists, some deeply so. Some, like Norway and Denmark are much more so, than, say, Sweden, who used to be also significantly more capitalist until economic reforms in the 90s happened.

    But the key thing is, none of the Nordic countries have the state performing economic activity (with the single exception of Statoil, which is run almost identically to a private company). That's the thing, none of them are socialist, because... they freaking control the means of production and they also don't intend to do so. It's basic like that.
     
  9. Imariel

    Imariel Death Eater DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Stockholm
    Indeed, Scandinavia is primarily run as supervised/regulated market economies with well developed social security. We do however have some, actually quite a few state owned companies, though they're run specifically by separate organisations except from ownership and explicitly to guarantee the populace public goods where the market can't find ways to turn a profit, i.e. they're not offering that public good.

    That said, Sweden in particular is in the process of making the current level of welfare, healthcare etc untenable due to costs of migration. Not sure that's the argument you were going for.
     
  10. Invictus

    Invictus Totally Sirius

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,499
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    I disagree. Numbers shows that Sweden need those immigrants to keep up any kind of advanced welfare system. The problem is too heavy of a taxation and regulation allied with hypertrophy of the state in trying to offer too much.

    What's happening is that in some places, meaning it's a localized problem, social services are being strained due to much demand, caused by sudden influxes of immigrants. But those are punctual, local problems whose effects are much more midiatic and social than actually economically harmful in a macro scale. The Swedish State isn't being unable to provide services because of immigrants except in very specific, and again, local cases. It's unable to provide services because it's trying to offer too much without an economy or populational pyramid that can back it up.

    The Swedish governement has consistently overextended itself, overburdened their citizens, done terrible economic reforms that limited a thriving and successful market economy, while taking unnecessary ideological steps. The 'feminist snow cleaning' is a minor example, but one that illustrates well the kind of thing Swedish Government seems to like doing more and more once in a while.

    You can argue that immigrants are a social problem, and that you can't just demand people to accept open borders policies while consistently ignoring local issues.
     
  11. Imariel

    Imariel Death Eater DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Stockholm
    Yeah, no. What numbers show is that a changing distribution in amount of workers compared to amount of non-workers due to age impacts the system due to the fact that the social security regarding pensions is constructed in a way that doesn't allow for a changed ratio.

    Furthermore, what the numbers show, is that migration to Sweden is a large net negative due to failed integration - which tends to be, in the national perspective, attributed to lack of incentives to work. An immigrant which doesn't come on a work visa, i.e. the immigrant which is usually designated as a 'qualifed worker', makes little more than the standard wellfare when he or she starts working - in some cases even less. Thus, they choose (sensibly from a individual perspective I might add) not to work.

    This are generalizations naturally, but as a 'standard' contemporary studies puts the average cost at 74,000 SEK per individual and year. As I said this is a generalization with the average cost between migration between different areas varying wildly aswell, up to 100,000 SEK per individual and year between Jugoslavia/Iran and Iraq/Somalia. Study in swedish.

    Except the strain is not localized, it's throughout the country. Take healthcare(source in Swedish again, apologies but couldn't find official statistics in english) for example, which shows that the wait times vary, sure. But it also shows that all areas are failing to adhere to the legal standard nowadays. And yes, the problems stem from an influx of people who generally is a net cost and we don't have the infrastructure or resources to keep the state of the wellfare and the previous levels. This is throughout most if not all social programs, healthcare, housing, social security etc. I'd go autist and link each and everyone but I really c.b.a.

    Yes, the Swedish tendency of conformity has led to peculiar political decisions. Influx of migration into a wellfare state without checks and regulation as to how it would impact said system is one of them. As the author of the first mentioned study says, accepting asylum seekers has been and will continue to be a net financial loss for Sweden - that is not why we take them in, that is for humanitarian reasons. We do however, if we wish to keep our welfare systems, have to adjust the amount we can take in in relation to our resources.
     
  12. Invictus

    Invictus Totally Sirius

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,499
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Interesting, mostly because what I found seems to run counter to that.

    source.

    They do seem to agree that many immigrants incur in a net loss due to a lack of integration, and thus being able to only hold low skilled jobs, which are not in demand at all in Sweden.

    source.

    Also, you really should try to find English sources for the stuff you post. Here's a neat summary of the study by the author.

    I do have to point out that the study seems to ignore the effect of a boost of the population regarding consuming, not taking that in account as net benefit brought by immigrants.

    So let me correct myself. Sweden doesn't need refugees necessarily, and they can and do have harmful effects to the economy if not properly integrated and prepared to the job market. But Sweden badly needs immigrants to keep it's welfare system afloat.

    Menawhile, Sweden keeps raising taxes and suffocating business hoping to try to plug in these self inflicted holes. Social pyramid in Sweden is a ticking bomb if the country ever stops being a big net receiver of immigrants.
     
  13. Imariel

    Imariel Death Eater DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Stockholm
    The problem with finding snippets and articles and extrapolating parts of it and thinking you've understood the broad strokes is that you rarely have. Let's look at the sources you linked.

    Chiefly the 'summary of the study' is from 2016 and referencing some of the authors other work from 2008-2015, the study I linked is his most recent one published in March 2018 and is the one that contains the information that was relevant to the discussion.

    As for the article the main source of information is one official responsible for forecasting in a nationally widely criticized agency, whose argument seems to boil down to:
    • Low skilled immigrants has higher unemployment
    • The swedish economy has little to no need of low skilled immigration
    • Education is "part of" the solution
    • "We still need these people"
    The main point he's making is based around the shifting demographics in regards to age and how, primarily, our pension system is constructed, which I adressed above. It's not that the mass immigration leads to a lack of integration, though it also does, it's that a large part of the migration consists of low skilled individuals, which leads to no jobs, which naturally leads to a lack of integration. Especially considering that wellfare provides almost parity to above parity in income depending on your family constellation.

    The article is also 2 years old. As to why that matters you wouldn't know unless you had intimate knowledge of the scene of our national politics. The national discussion 2-4 years ago was at the point you're at right now, since then it has evolved due to the economic strain the big wave of migration has resulted in. There is a reason almost all current national political discussion on the subject is revolving around "making the EU take their fair share" etc. (See I can link english stuff too).


    The reason I didn't link english versions is that there were none readily available as stated above, and I don't really have the time nor inclination to verify translations to counter arguments based on inane articles and guesstimation. I don't say this as an insult, though it could be viewed as such.

    The study specifically views how migration impacts state finances, which includes tax revenue from raised consumption. If you view GDP a larger population will always lead to growth - if you however view GDP growth per capita it'll tell you a different story entirely. As for your conclusion, still no.
    See first sentence of this post.
     
  14. Invictus

    Invictus Totally Sirius

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,499
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Seems classic foreign misinformation then, based on shallow articles. Thanks for the correction, and while I could take it as an insult, it's still the truth, so being offended by it wouldn't change the truth regardless.

    Edit: Just clarifying my point, If there’s one thing this election and recent developments taught me, is that people don’t have any idea what goes on on other countries that aren't the US (and we know what goes on the US because its both the beacon which guides the Western World and its media obsessively records each and everything it happens there, in no small part due to the fact apparently all of the US seem to be in endless campaign mode). And people, and specially foreign nespapwers opinions are often poorly researched and mal-informed and based on third hand information much more than actual fact check, while foregoing any nuances.

    It’s hard not to opinate, specially if you think yourself well informed. But the truth is, 90% of the time, you can’t really know what’s going on till you're there and knows whats going on the ground. It's easy to remember when they're talking about my country, but harder when speaking about other countries. So yeah, this obviously seems one of those cases where foreign press has a narrative they're defending, which is simplistic and wholly out of focus on the real problem and I believed it. Thanks for clarifying.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018
  15. Eilyfe

    Eilyfe Headmaster

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,172
    Gender:
    Male
    I've always viewed Socialism as the government taking resources (taxes) from the people to then distribute services (health care system, etc.) back to them; wheras Communism is this taken to the extreme -- the government taking everything and distributing it how it sees fit under the thin veneer of providing equality to everyone. Going with these definitions, my stance is yay to Socialism; nay to Communism.

    From the way this thread reads, I guess those definitions aren't true? Asking for clarification, since this is what I usually come across when talking with people about related issues (which happens quite rarely, to be fair).
     
  16. Lindsey

    Lindsey Headmaster

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,029
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Seattle, WA

    Yours is the definition I hear for those who are supportive of Socialism. For those who are not, I often hear it more in a Communistic angle where the state takes means of production by force for the 'well being of everyone' (aka those in power).

    This handy table is how I tend to think of Socialism Vs Capitalism Vs Communism.

    upload_2018-10-29_14-48-40.png
     
  17. Nazgus

    Nazgus Minister of Magic

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,261
    Location:
    USA
    Yeap. What most people refer to as Communism is the actual definition of socialism. Precisely, it is:
    I wouldn't feel bad though, I think most people have your impression.

    The problem comes from the fact that we spent the Cold War calling everything leftist socialist since it was such an easy way to score political points, so now people think you can be a socialist capitalist which is a complete contradiction of terms. What most people think of as socialist is more having social programs in a capitalist society. Not actually socialism.
     
  18. Silirt

    Silirt Seventh Year DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2018
    Messages:
    269
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    Marxists define Socialism as a system that abolishes private property. A good example would be any country in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They define Communism as a stateless, classless society that hasn't taken place yet. Don't hold your breath on that one. Marxist philosophy is based on historical determinism, which says the Communist stage can only come after the Socialist stage, and the labor theory of value. It is incorrect to say that goods and services are valued in terms of how useful they are to people in a Marxist system, they're valued by how much labor is put into them. This is the source of their confusion about exploitation. Marx told them that their labor was worth more than they were being paid for it... because labor is the source of all value... because labor is required to produce some things that are of value... and he knows how much they're worth because of how much labor went into them... so basically if you dig a trench across Asia that no one wanted or needed, you've still created value.
    The reason there are virtually no Socialist countries left in the world is because that's what happens when you try to base an economic system on Marx's memery.
     
  19. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    966
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    Terms evolve over time, and Americans tend to use 'socialism' with a 'little s' as shorthand for "social democratic political liberalism with a robust welfare state, moderate taxation, and a strictly regulated mixed economy." Because it's shorter, so sue us.

    'Big-S' 'Socialism' is a term relegated to textbooks for Political Theory 101 and history channel specials about Stalin. And Fox, for when they want to scare geriatrics into voting.
     
  20. cucio

    cucio Second Year

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    57
    High Score:
    0
    In some European countries the word Socialism is used as a shorthand for Social Democracy. Many center-left political parties call themselves socialist (PS in France, PS in Portugal, PSOE in Spain, PASOK in Greece...) and they don't advocate social ownership of the means of production.

    Edit: ninja'd
     
Loading...