Really? When it rains in Washington, they pull their umbrellas out in Stockholm.

It's not as good as it used to be in Sweden. Neoliberalism has infected it. It's still better than a lot of countries though.

I second that unfettered capitalism it's always a failure

If you ease the exploitation of domestic workers (which is inevitably the aim of friendlier capitalism) all you do is spread that exploitation internationally. Let’s not perpetuate the system of exploitation to others, and instead find a way to outright end it.

`Bravo!!

Unfortunately, being a crook seems to be prerequisite to being a politician. We need Statesmen, and the closest I can remember to that in my lifetime, was Eisenhower.

@Condor5 being a lawyer is now the prerequisite . the ability to argue black is white and win and then the next day argue the reverse and win !

@markdevenish 9/10 of the time lawyer=crook. Same difference.

Bull shit. Where is the expoitation in a grocery store? That is capitalism.

@jwd45244 The big grocery chains screw the producers down on price to maximise their profits, where possible pay their workers less than a living wage and then expect the taxpayer to subsidise the farmers and provide benefits to the workers so they can continue to survive to maximise the profits of the big chains.

That is where the exploitation is!

@Kimba

Thank you. I appreciate your comment.

Some people's selfishness is disgusting.

A resource based economy based on a true hierarchical socialistic democracy could? be better..

They are totally incompatible. One is a system of private control over resources, production, and distribution. The other is labor democratically controlling resources, production, and distribution. One is a system designed to have wealth accumulate at the top through the exploitation of the labor force. The other is designed to end all exploitation of the labor force.

Look at the USSR. That was an attempt to mix capitalism and socialism out of necessity, and that ended horribly.

@Prescott I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism, which is a common misconception among Americans due to Cold War propaganda.

@Kohelath no, there is no meaningful distinction between the two. This imagined difference is a relic of the Cold War and the many red scares. Lenin, Marx, Engels and many other leftist theorists wrote extensively on this and the two terms are interchangeable. It’s the post WW2 world that feels like a distinction needs to be made to separate the two. Communist became the name of the groups trying to usher in communism, but before that they called themselves socialists.

I don’t think socialists should be scared of the “C” word. It’s the goal of every subsect of socialism, so embrace it. That’s my point.

@Prescott Socialism has a number of definitions. I'm talking about #2

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
   communism, Bolshevism;
   radicalism, militancy;
   progressivism, social democracy;
   labourism;
   Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
   antonyms: conservatism

2. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
   synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
   communism, Bolshevism;
   radicalism, militancy;
   progressivism, social democracy;
   labourism;
   Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
   antonyms: conservatism

3. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

@Kohelath the one that says communism is a synonym? I’m very well versed in socialism/communism. I know what it is, and I could probably even breakdown more subsects if leftist tendencies than you realize exists. Even in the somewhat adequate definitions you produced the point is conceded that the two are the same thing.

@Prescott there is quite a real difference between a socialistic policy (such as public reading) enacted by a democratic socialist government with a capitalist financial system, & communism. Perhaps you're letting your fantastic array of knowledge get in the way.

@Kohelath I see the confusion here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what democratic socialism is. You seem to fall into the camp of “public services = socialism” and the more public services we have the more socialister we are. You cannot mix socialism and capitalism. One is private ownership of production, the other is public ownership of production. Trying to mix that is like being half pregnant.

It would seem that you don’t understand what democratic socialism is. It’s not some idealistic mixture of incompatible systems, it’s a specific subsection of leftist thought. Democratic socialism is merely a tendency that wants no more private control over production and resources, wants democratic control in the workplace by the workers, and wants to abolish class distinctions. The only way that democratic socialists differ from other branches of socialism is that DS seeks to usher in socialism by using the existing political system.

@Prescott I think that what I mean has been made clear enough.

"Some countries have adopted aspects of socialism. The United Kingdom provides basic needs like healthcare to everyone regardless of their time or effort at work. In the U.S., welfare and the public education system are a form of socialism."

Read more: The Difference Between Communism and Socialism - Video | Investopedia [investopedia.com]
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

@Kohelath exactly, you subscribe to the ignorant idea that gov programs are socialist. Got it.

@Prescott "aspects of Socialism" are not equivalent to Socialism. You're conflating what I'm saying. Go in peace.

@Kohelath I’m not conflating anything. Other than democratic control over the means of production, the abolition of class distinctions, and the abolition of the state there are no aspects of socialism. This is nothing more than the tired ignorant trope that gov programs = socialism which couldn’t be more wrong.

Humanity has always corrupted everything they've ever put their hands on. There's nothing "current" about it.
It's just more of the same.

It doesn’t neglect poverty, it necessitates poverty.

Why do we need to penalize "laziness"? Bill Gates is famous for preferring "lazy" employees as they find the most economical way to get things done.

"Lazy" is a particularly nasty hold over from puritanical bullshit. Is a writer "lazy" because they'd rather write than mow the lawn? Does it make them less lazy objectively if their writing earns them enough money to pay someone else to mow?

People will seek out and pursue their own avocations given enough time and education. We should be supporting people in pursuing those avocations rather than judging people. We have plenty of resources and most work can be automated these days. Instead of judging others we should be finding ways to support everyone.

Manual laborors should be as respected and mental laborors and all should have enough to live on. I'm sick to death of this hierarchical" I'm better than you because "blank". How about we move toward a more supportive, creative society and value everyone for what they do instead of being judgey assholes?

'Penalising laziness' is a distressingly vague term. A lot of people think folks with disabilities are 'lazy.'

You have this backwards. Socialism is a worker's movement. It's centered around a large, global work force to counter huge concentrations of privately owned capital.

Capitalism rewards laziness. Someone else has to have capital for you to borrow or earn. You have to work to get it, and they just have to own it.

Think of it like the bank. You borrow from the bank to start a business. They charge you interest. They literally get paid for just having money. That's laziness built into the system.

Capitalism does not necessarily reward hard work and innovation. Most of those that are poor or middle class work their asses off for a smaller and smaller slice of the pie while the owners sit back and reap the rewards of the hard workers. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that you don't work either. You just get a fair proportion for your work.

[en.wikipedia.org]

"Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws."

@Piece2YourPuzzle As an English teacher, I tell students to not use wikipedia as a primary soursce.

Do people not read the fact that I acknowledged "oversimplification" or the part about not overanalyzing?

@Piece2YourPuzzle, @memorylikeasieve I did not define laziness, and frankly, and bewildered that I would have to. If someone is ill, disabled, suffering depression or some other legitimate issue that would prevent them from contributing to society, they are not lazy, I am referring to the aspect of society where select individuals choose to not participate by contributing to the greater good. If they want to create literature or art, that counts. Unfortunately, there are those individuals who want to sit on their ass, watch Jerry Springer, and drink beer or use drugs, instead of working. Those people are a burden on everyone else. In a "perfect" world, EVERYONE would have a job and do what they can to help. The catch is what is that job and how are they compensated? Who decides what job an individual is assigned? Do a janitor and a heart surgeon deserve the same ? Can that janitor ever attain a better position? Which "ism" offers the solution? Do any? Damn, I feel like I need to write an essay just to put a minor dent in this issue.

@WhiteShark1964 Using Wikipedia as a source for what I did isn't detrimental to what I was getting across. It's a well known quote from Karl Marx in an informal conversation. Maybe you will accept the quote from here: [philpapers.org]

Or maybe you can ask a history or political science teacher to lend you a textbook

@WhiteShark1964 You can't open up a conversation and then put limitations on the responses. It's not like you opened up a conversation about socialism and I started talking about basketball. Socialism does punish laziness actually. Maybe you didn't read the links I posted. Answers to some of your questions are in them.

No. Humanity is born with a drive to survive. When you introduce systems that corrupt intrinsic motivations that is when your corrupted motivations further corrupt the system itself. NOT the other way around.

Eye roll.

I guess the tent cities must be the socialist part.

@Ellatynemouth yeah probably, also social security, roads, schools, parks, police, fire, the CIA & FBI along with the entire military, the EPA, basic sanitation, the post office, Medicare & Medicaid, congress has entirely socialized healthcare but the rest of us don't, the jails that are going more and more privatized getting statistically worse while starting to turn into profiteering revolving doors for inmates, PBS, Welfare, and food/housing assistance, oh and corporate bailouts. Eye roll while driving over a bridge for added irony.

@mattersauce

All the homeless people and tent cities. And the poverty and inequality do not make the US a socialist country. Look to Sweden for something closer.

The US is a shit hole for many. Especially those who work but still need to claim government assistance because their wages are so shit.

@Ellatynemouth Yeah, you may notice in my first post I didn't say we were socialist but I said that we have some socialist programs. I proved that as well with a list of items. You're correct that Sweden is more socialist, and that many who work still need assistance. None of what you said is either on topic or contradictory to what I posted.

so is jism

@btroje I think jism is less prone to creating schisms than some of the -isms addressed in this post. I could be wrong.

You win!

@bigpawbullets
I know ! LOL

Or in a guy the P spot

@jwd45244
I am not into guys !

You do know of course that the standard of living in some socialist European countries has surpassed, by far that of the U.S.A.? "What we have going..." is and has been fading for years.

@dahermit Yes. I do.

so disagree . you should travel more

@SilverDollarJedi, @markdevenish - like I said, closer than you may want to admit. Government interference in the market is not "free market capitalism." And to assume I support Trump is simply stupid (do you understand what a tariff is?). Let me guess - you think the socialism of Venezuela isn't "real" socialism, right?

The definition of capitalism.. Root word Capitalize. Meaning "To take advantage of"...

and how a few societies in northern europe operate day to day. but for how long they can hold out from the short sighted and narrow minded is the question

Socialism does provide motivation for production. Just not as greedily as capitalism. Capitalism promotes excess and greed and inequality. Socialism promotes need being fulfilled. You work with the collective, you get. Also, with modern technology, automation would work wonders for socialism.

[struggle.ws]

"Despite the limitations of the Industrial revolution in Spain, it demonstrated clearly that the working class are perfectly capable of running factories, workshops and public services without bosses or managers dictating to them. It proved that anarchist methods of organising, with decisions made from the bottom up, can work effectivly in large scale industry involving the coordination of thousands of workers across many different cities and towns. The revolution also gives us a glimpse of the creative and constructive power of ordinary people once they have some control over their lives. The Spanish working class not only kept production going throughout the war but in many cases managed to increase production. They improved working conditions and created new techniques and processes in their workplaces. They created, out of nothing, a war industry without which the war against fascism could not have been fought. The revolution also showed that without the competition bred by capitalism, industry can be run in a much more rational manner. Finally it demonstrated how the organised working class inspired by a great ideal have the power to transform society."

[deleonism.org]