The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism working

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I think he make a lot of good points and I pretty much agree with him. The Scandinavian countries aren't doing well because of big government, but because of economic freedom, with the big government actually getting in the way and preventing more economic growth.

What do the defenders of the Nordic model have to say in the defense of their system?

Not too different from the standard conservative response. First there's the claim that big government "absolutely destroys" any form of economic progress and when evidence is thrown in their face proving them wrong (time and time again) it quickly becomes "Y-YEAH WELL IT TURNS OUT THAT'S NOT TRUE. THEY'RE BETTER OFF FOR... REASONS. GOVERNMENT MAKES IT WORSE" *sticks fingers in ears*

The fact of the matter is the U.S. has lower taxes and [/i]more[/i] emphasis on private industry and economic freedom than the scandinavian countries. Scandinavia is doing better with less of this supposed Economic "Freedom" than America. The Nordic Model is working just fine.

Witty Name Here:

The fact of the matter is the U.S. has lower taxes and [/i]more[/i] emphasis on private industry and economic freedom than the scandinavian countries. Scandinavia is doing better with less of this supposed Economic "Freedom" than America. The Nordic Model is working just fine.

I guess you must have ignored all of the parts in the video where he talked about how economic freedom and taxes in Scandinavia are often better then in the US. In fact, considering that the video is more then 15 min long and its not even 15 min since I created the thread you probably just stopped watching the video the moment you heard something you did not like and decided to rant about how he is wrong without listening to anything he said.

Could we get a written rundown of the points, rather than having to watch the video?

I don't see how this video is worth discussing as it's full of twisted data, nonsensical points and outright lies.

Pretty much like how obvious propaganda has nothing of value to discuss.

hakkarin:

I guess you must have ignored all of the parts in the video where he talked about how economic freedom and taxes in Scandinavia are often better then in the US. In fact, considering that the video is more then 15 long and its not even 15 min since I created the thread you probably just stopped watching the video the moment you heard something you did not like and decided to rant about how he is wrong without listening to anything he said.

Didn't finish watching the video because it's -immediately- easy to see the B.S.

Sweden has a 22% corporate tax rate

Individual tax rate is a min of 28.89% and max of 57%

Finally the payroll tax is generally 31.42%

Compare that to the U.S. where the tax rates barely even approach that until we reach the federal level. That's not even counting the sheer number of loopholes that corporations use to their benefit. Hell, the only scandinavian countries that rank ahead of the U.S. in supposed "economic freedom" are Denmark and Estonia

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Besides, there's the fact he's trying to compare "economic freedom" in the U.S. to Scandinavian Countries. He's comparing a single a country to to four or five. That's like trying to compare america to the entirety of Asia and use that to claim corrupt governments and sweatshops are excellent for the common people!

I noticed how he basically tried to reappropriate typically Scandinavian policies in the early minutes of the video as having a large extent of "economic freedom", a point I can't remember right-wingers ever having made about those particular countries.
But fine, sure. Copy their policies then. Call it Freedomarianism if it makes you feel better. I really don't care about the label.
If high taxes, high social spending, a structured healthcare system, governmental intervention for the sake of improved equality of opportunity/vertical mobility etc. are now going to be rechristened as a right-wing ideology, I can dig it.
Guess I'm a right-winger now, too.

Witty Name Here:

Didn't finish watching the video because it's -immediately- easy to see the B.S.

The credibility of your criticism is little if you admit you did in fact not watch the whole thing.

Witty Name Here:

Sweden has a 22% corporate tax rate

In Iceland its 15%, and in the US its 36%. Scandinavia does not tax its corporations as much as the US does, even if taxes on income are higher.

MrPeanut:
I don't see how this video is worth discussing as it's full of twisted data, nonsensical points and outright lies.

Pretty much like how obvious propaganda has nothing of value to discuss.

What are those lies?

hakkarin:
What do the defenders of the Nordic model have to say in the defense of their system?

I'd imagine that they'd point out that, regardless of how it compares in terms of economic freedom or government competency, the 'Scandinavian model' countries are typically judged to be the global best in a whole bunch of league tables.

On to the actual video.

In intro calls the scandinaivan model 'socialism'. Derp.

Gets worse from then on because he's equating welfare with socialism. Since this isn't true, points A and B immediately unravel. Point C remains to be discussed.

Case A - he's talking about growth rates, which is fine. But the time period he's discussing is from 1960 onwards, which is rather unfortunate because it's entirely untrue that the OECD states have retained the same 'size of government' throughout that period. Even an 'average size of government' estimate is going to be hopelessly flawed because a number of OECD states joined well after 1960, and include many post-communist states. Even the consistent members have varied the 'size of the state' hugely over that time. Moving on.

Again states that economic freedom begets higher GDP. This isn't controversial, but has no bearing on welfare or the scandinavian model.

Then moving away from OECD to presumably include all nations with regard to economic freedom quartiles. Seems a bit disingenuous to move goalposts like that, but again, it isn't controversial that dictatorships in the third world have lower economic output than capitalistic democracies. Still no bearing on welfare.

He's actually overestimated life expectancies for the poor, but that's probably due to the report he's citing, which doesn't include data for all countries (I checked). Fair enough.
But wait; using that data to claim "having a big government is a 20 year death sentence" is absurd. So his factual error is excusable, his point is willfully misrepresentative. Or idiotic. Or both.

He actually just called big government a carcinogen? Ah, this takes me back:

Not too much to argue about his subsequent charts[1] though I vehemently disagree with his assertions (for example Swedish growth between 1870 and 1930 would have been as much to do with the industrial revolution as anything else).

Until we get to the 'declining gdp as % of oecd average' chart. It looks bad - looks like Sweden is in a decline. But consider the values - % of OECD average. That means that an increase of productivity elsewhere in the OECD (or even new members joining) will fuck up the figures even if Sweden had stayed entirely constant. In fact, given that Sweden is one of the smaller members of the OECD, it's likely that other member changes[2] would have more of an effect on the shape of that graph that it's own domestic policies. That graph is worthless for the point that he's making.

"-mutant-fascist-semi-socialist welfare-". Sorry, lost it.

Let me know if you really want a critique of the rest of the video, but I think my point is made. Nothing he says actually demonstrates that welfare is bad, he doesn't know what socialism is, if anything he's inadvertantly shown that you can have economic freedom with large government. Which somehow I doubt was his intention.

[1] And not to be too cheap, but the quality of the ones I've mentioned in more detail doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of his work
[2] Say, the dissolution of the USSR and Warsaw Pact, or resurgent Japan in the 80's, or the reunification of Germany

hakkarin:

Witty Name Here:

Didn't finish watching the video because it's -immediately- easy to see the B.S.

The credibility of your criticism is little if you admit you did in fact not watch the whole thing.

--said the man who ignored the evidence against him.

Really now, if you're going to say "YOU'RE WRONG! YOU LACK CREDIBILITY!" Prove it. Use data, actual facts. With objective reasoning, if you're correct you should be able to prove me wrong.

Oh, here's another funfact! Him and libertarians like him try to use the fact that the U.S. technically has a higher tax rate on the rich than the scandinavian countries... ignoring the fact that tax is barely paid thanks in part to loopholes. In fact corporate taxes collected made up only a mere 1.3 percent of the GDP in the U.S. in 2010

Compare that to other OECD countries where corporate tax revenues made up about 2.8% of their combined GDPs. Corporations are literally paying double there than what they do here.

...And those countries are far better off for it.

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/04/bernie_sanders_is_right_and_the_tax_foundation_is_wrong_the_us_has_very_low_corporate_income_taxes.php#.Uv-jwvldX_F

While there is some debate about whther or not Finland should be counted as part of Scandinavia (we have this tine bit of land that is, technically, part of Scandinavian peninsula), but...
As i 30+ year old citizen of Finland, i can say that the Scandinavian "socialism", is working just great, at least for me.

nyysjan:
While there is some debate about whther or not Finland should be counted as part of Scandinavia (we have this tine bit of land that is, technically, part of Scandinavian peninsula), but...
As i 30+ year old citizen of Finland, i can say that the Scandinavian "socialism", is working just great, at least for me.

B-But you aren't "free" to lose all your money to a stroke of bad luck and end up on the streets where everyone will refer to you as a "lazy bum" who's only homeless because you're either "too dumb or too stupid" to get a job!

You don't even have insurance companies cancelling any aid because of "pre-existing conditions"!

H-HOW CAN YOU LIVE IN SUCH A DICTATORSHIP?!

Witty Name Here:

--said the man who ignored the evidence against him.

Really now, if you're going to say "YOU'RE WRONG! YOU LACK CREDIBILITY!" Prove it. Use data, actual facts. With objective reasoning, if you're correct you should be able to prove me wrong.

Oh, here's another funfact! Him and libertarians like him try to use the fact that the U.S. technically has a higher tax rate on the rich than the scandinavian countries... ignoring the fact that tax is barely paid thanks in part to loopholes. In fact corporate taxes collected made up only a mere 1.3 percent of the GDP in the U.S. in 2010

Compare that to other OECD countries where corporate tax revenues made up about 2.8% of their combined GDPs. Corporations are literally paying double there than what they do here.

...And those countries are far better off for it.

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/04/bernie_sanders_is_right_and_the_tax_foundation_is_wrong_the_us_has_very_low_corporate_income_taxes.php#.Uv-jwvldX_F

Yeah overlooking deductions and loopholes is a huge mistake. To make an illustration in Belgium corporate taxes are at 33.99% (which hurts small businesses) but due to an absurd tax policy which allows corporations to deduct a fictional interest on capital from their taxable income and other loopholes/deductions huge multinationals like Exxon Mobil and Ab Inbev manage to pay respectively 0 and 0.0004% in taxes. (and they aren't the only ones, GDF Suez, Solvay and others big companies barely pay anything in corporate tax. On average big companies pay 10% tax which is far from our 33.99% tax rate)

hakkarin:

In Iceland its 15%, and in the US its 36%. Scandinavia does not tax its corporations as much as the US does, even if taxes on income are higher.

Well thank you for fixing your post after the whole... y'know, "not going to answer a single point in it and just say your opinion doesn't count" thing.

Regardless, as I said earlier the sheer breadth of corporate tax loopholes leaves the actual amount corporations pay much lower.

You want a good example of how it works? Take the wages of people who work in restaurants. On average it's rather low, in fact some might even imagine it as being pretty crappy... the fact of the matter is it's allowed to be so low because we have such a "tipping" culture here in america that tips employees receive make up the difference.

So if we were to compare the wages of restaurant employees in countries without much of a tipping culture and see the fact they have relatively normal wages compared to other professions, does that suddenly mean people who work in restaurants are criminally underpaid here in america?

generals3:

Yeah overlooking deductions and loopholes is a huge mistake. To make an illustration in Belgium corporate taxes are at 33.99% (which hurts small businesses) but due to an absurd tax policy which allows corporations to deduct a fictional interest on capital from their taxable income and other loopholes/deductions huge multinationals like Exxon Mobil and Ab Inbev manage to pay respectively 0 and 0.0004% in taxes. (and they aren't the only ones, GDF Suez, Solvay and others big companies barely pay anything in corporate tax. On average big companies pay 10% tax which is far from our 33.99% tax rate)

Heh, to be honest I like to call such things the "vampire fallacy".

A while back a study was done (mostly as a joke) on Halloween to disprove the existence of vampires. It used numbers to prove that even if a vampire bit a single person every year, and the person they bit became a vampire themselves, then by modern times the world would be quite literally overrun by vampires.

Now, I'm a bit of a skeptic and disbelieve in any of the bloodsuckers actually existing, yet the study depends entirely on the fact that every vampire would bite a person and every person who is bitten by a vampire becomes a vampire themselves. It's sort of like all those zombie movies that ignore the fact that most people wouldn't walk up to the bloody and rotting man groaning and act like there was nothing wrong with him. Or that spreading an infection (even if it is 100% fatal) by biting is a global threat (after all the world hasn't been destroyed by rabies)

hakkarin:
In Iceland its 15%, and in the US its 36%. Scandinavia does not tax its corporations as much as the US does, even if taxes on income are higher.

I would be extremely surprised if any US corporation pays a 36% tax rate. Hell, I'd be surprised if many paid as much as the 22% they pay in Sweden since there are so many tax credits, deductions, and loop holes in the US that not only does the 36% rate not really mean anything, but companies like GE can post a profit and get a tax refund in the billions.

Basing any argument of which country taxes more based on percentage alone is not only pointless, it's misleading.

You are looking at it the wrong way as you are looking at economic growth and GNP. Neither of these is any measure of how well of the people are. Access to welfare and free health care are indicators and Scandinavian countries are miles ahead there. On the other hand there are incredibly rich countries, with small governments, where people live in squalor (Arabian Emirates, USA)

nyysjan:
While there is some debate about whther or not Finland should be counted as part of Scandinavia (we have this tine bit of land that is, technically, part of Scandinavian peninsula), but...
As i 30+ year old citizen of Finland, i can say that the Scandinavian "socialism", is working just great, at least for me.

But what will happen if you have a heart attack or need an urgent medical treatment? You won't be free to go into 6 figures of debt!

Even though I am a grad student, I am still covered by my parents' insurance. However, there is still a $300 deductible on medication I need to take, and I have to get a refill every month. I have to work a second job just to afford the medicine I need to be functional in my life, on top of my first job and responsibilities in school. How in the hell is that economic freedom?

Also, welfare and socialism are different things. Socialism implies public ownership of everything, welfare means that the government pays to help you.

nyysjan:
While there is some debate about whther or not Finland should be counted as part of Scandinavia (we have this tine bit of land that is, technically, part of Scandinavian peninsula), but...
As i 30+ year old citizen of Finland, i can say that the Scandinavian "socialism", is working just great, at least for me.

Yay! A fellow Finn. And yes, I agree completely with you.

renegade7:
Also, welfare and socialism are different things. Socialism implies public ownership of everything, welfare means that the government pays to help you.

Most people I deal with can't handle that level of hair-splitting economic nuance. If it vaguely involves the government in a non-military manner, it's Socialism. With a capital S because it's a dogma and all Socialists (also capitalized) think identically.

renegade7:
I have to work a second job just to afford the medicine I need to be functional in my life, on top of my first job and responsibilities in school. How in the hell is that economic freedom?

It's freedom because it's your problem and not somebody else's. When you want to make your problem somebody else's problem, you are taking away their freedom. I saw an article once where a man desiring treatment of cancer was described as evil for wanting to rob others in his selfish quest to live forever in the comment thread. Moral outrage over other people surviving or even wanting to survive is a thing, horribly enough.

The corporate tax rate figures need to account for deductions or it's pointless to discuss. The effective tax rate in the US for corporations is about 12%.

Karthak:

nyysjan:
While there is some debate about whther or not Finland should be counted as part of Scandinavia (we have this tine bit of land that is, technically, part of Scandinavian peninsula), but...
As i 30+ year old citizen of Finland, i can say that the Scandinavian "socialism", is working just great, at least for me.

Yay! A fellow Finn. And yes, I agree completely with you.

Speaking as a norwegian I must say I agree with these finns.

Veylon:

renegade7:
Also, welfare and socialism are different things. Socialism implies public ownership of everything, welfare means that the government pays to help you.

Most people I deal with can't handle that level of hair-splitting economic nuance. If it vaguely involves the government in a non-military manner, it's Socialism. With a capital S because it's a dogma and all Socialists (also capitalized) think identically.

Clearly socialists are the Borg.

Veylon:

renegade7:
I have to work a second job just to afford the medicine I need to be functional in my life, on top of my first job and responsibilities in school. How in the hell is that economic freedom?

It's freedom because it's your problem and not somebody else's. When you want to make your problem somebody else's problem, you are taking away their freedom. I saw an article once where a man desiring treatment of cancer was described as evil for wanting to rob others in his selfish quest to live forever in the comment thread. Moral outrage over other people surviving or even wanting to survive is a thing, horribly enough.

It gets funny when the same problems hits the very people who's outraging about it as they scramble to start excusing it... justifying why they're totally not like those others...

Halyah:
It gets funny when the same problems hits the very people who's outraging about it as they scramble to start excusing it... justifying why they're totally not like those others...

Yeah. Haven't run across that one yet. My fun has to come from saying I like socialized medicine and having them awkwardly untangle themselves from a line of conversation wherein I was cornered into admitting that Obamacare is Socialism. For all that they fear and/or despise Socialists, they very rarely seem to have much to say to those who openly self-identify as such.

Veylon:

Halyah:
It gets funny when the same problems hits the very people who's outraging about it as they scramble to start excusing it... justifying why they're totally not like those others...

Yeah. Haven't run across that one yet. My fun has to come from saying I like socialized medicine and having them awkwardly untangle themselves from a line of conversation wherein I was cornered into admitting that Obamacare is Socialism. For all that they fear and/or despise Socialists, they very rarely seem to have much to say to those who openly self-identify as such.

How many of them can even tell the difference between socialism and communism? I see a lot of people, especially from the USA due to its history, mix the two together a lot(even people I see as highly intelligent).

Though I haven't seen that one myself... must be fun to watch.

Veylon:

Yeah. Haven't run across that one yet. My fun has to come from saying I like socialized medicine and having them awkwardly untangle themselves from a line of conversation wherein I was cornered into admitting that Obamacare is Socialism. For all that they fear and/or despise Socialists, they very rarely seem to have much to say to those who openly self-identify as such.

That's because they don't even know what do they fear. They've been indoctrinated into "socialism/communism = bad" and that's all. As soon as somebody doesn't follow the same way of thinking, they can't argue why something is bad just by virtue of being linked to socialism.

MrPeanut:
I don't see how this video is worth discussing as it's full of twisted data, nonsensical points and outright lies.

Pretty much like how obvious propaganda has nothing of value to discuss.

Good job providing examples! I see you've been taking some debate lessons from Democrats!

Provide examples, sir. Otherwise, your shallow arguments get nowhere and add nothing to the discussion.

Qvar:

Veylon:

Yeah. Haven't run across that one yet. My fun has to come from saying I like socialized medicine and having them awkwardly untangle themselves from a line of conversation wherein I was cornered into admitting that Obamacare is Socialism. For all that they fear and/or despise Socialists, they very rarely seem to have much to say to those who openly self-identify as such.

That's because they don't even know what do they fear. They've been indoctrinated into "socialism/communism = bad" and that's all. As soon as somebody doesn't follow the same way of thinking, they can't argue why something is bad just by virtue of being linked to socialism.

No, I think the 20th century taught us that Communism was bad. Socialism is just a lesser form of it. And "democratic socialism" is a lesser form of that. Plot it on a spectrum. Free market capitalism at one end, communism/fascism (both terrible and extremes that always seem to lead to the same thing, i.e. massive human rights abuses) on the other.

Big_Willie_Styles:

No, I think the 20th century taught us that Communism was bad. Socialism is just a lesser form of it. And "democratic socialism" is a lesser form of that. Plot it on a spectrum. Free market capitalism at one end, communism/fascism (both terrible and extremes that always seem to lead to the same thing, i.e. massive human rights abuses) on the other.

I'm fairly sure that everybody agrees that mass killings, Stasi style secret services, and general rights restrictions is a bad thing, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with the communism as an economic system. Which I assume is what everybody is debating here, aren't we?

Unless you really think that, as I joked before, having a "socialist" healthcare system will somehow magically turn your country into a gulag-loving terror state.

Qvar:
I'm fairly sure that everybody agrees that mass killings, Stasi style secret services, and general rights restrictions is a bad thing, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with the communism as an economic system. Which I assume is what everybody is debating here, aren't we?

Unless you really think that, as I joked before, having a "socialist" healthcare system will somehow magically turn your country into a gulag-loving terror state.

Communism as an economic system cannot work. That's been proven too. Because the communist economic system leads to the totalitarianism that killed millions of people. The deaths are a direct consequence of the government trying to keep a hold on failed central planning.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Communism as an economic system cannot work. That's been proven too. Because the communist economic system leads to the totalitarianism that killed millions of people. The deaths are a direct consequence of the government trying to keep a hold on failed central planning.

Communist Cuba has yet to kill millions of people. Also we aren't discussing communism, it was about socialism in Scandinavia countries. Do you have any real information? I can't watch video (bad internet) but so far Onecatch has done a quick breakdown and refute.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Communism as an economic system cannot work. That's been proven too. Because the communist economic system leads to the totalitarianism that killed millions of people. The deaths are a direct consequence of the government trying to keep a hold on failed central planning.

Nono, it was caused by mad men being mad. Plenty of market loving leaders did horrible things. Think of the South in the US which fought with all their blood to preserve the free market combined with free labor which allowed to make lots of $$$. Now you may argue that they broke one rule of the free market, but that would still put it very far away from communists and much closer to capitalists.

And I also find it funny you tried to lump fascists and communists in the same basket. Apart from their totalitarian political system and their use of cheap populism to gain support of the na´ve vulgus they're nothing alike, mainly on the economic spectrum. Communism and socialism take control for the sake of the people. Fascists believe in capitalism with safeguards (government intervention) to ensure the capitalist economy serves the best interest of the nation.

generals3:
Nono, it was caused by mad men being mad. Plenty of market loving leaders did horrible things. Think of the South in the US which fought with all their blood to preserve the free market combined with free labor which allowed to make lots of $$$. Now you may argue that they broke one rule of the free market, but that would still put it very far away from communists and much closer to capitalists.

And I also find it funny you tried to lump fascists and communists in the same basket. Apart from their totalitarian political system and their use of cheap populism to gain support of the na´ve vulgus they're nothing alike, mainly on the economic spectrum. Communism and socialism take control for the sake of the people. Fascists believe in capitalism with safeguards (government intervention) to ensure the capitalist economy serves the best interest of the nation.

Slave labor is not in any way close to free market capitalism. Because there's no liberty in such a system. Which is why you can't confuse the Chinese system with capitalism. Because they have slave labor camps and massive restrictions on basic liberties.

Central planning cannot work. It is logically impossible to do. Because in order to mimic the actions of spontaneous order, the people behind the central planning would need all information in the world and constantly and immediately change as the circumstances did in exactly the correct way. It is why it doesn't work. Because no one person or group of people can have the perfect information that a spontaneous order system of thousands/millions/billions of people does.

No, fascists do not agree with capitalism. Because government intervention into the marketplace is not free market capitalism. It is an arbitrary distortion of the marketplace. And the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If we judged theories of government on their intentions, we'd be pounding our heads into the wall. Because good intentions don't equate to good results.

"For the people" is such a haggered threadbare talking point when discussing communism and socialism. It doesn't work out that way and never has, quite frankly.

We call the National Socialist party fascists for some reason. Why is that? Why does a group that literally has socialist in their title a fascist regime exactly? Is it because the results and methods of both groups end up being very similar? I think so.

Big_Willie_Styles:

MrPeanut:
I don't see how this video is worth discussing as it's full of twisted data, nonsensical points and outright lies.

Pretty much like how obvious propaganda has nothing of value to discuss.

Good job providing examples! I see you've been taking some debate lessons from Democrats!

Provide examples, sir. Otherwise, your shallow arguments get nowhere and add nothing to the discussion.

It's funny because that's what everyone consistently says to you every time you make a claim.

Also, slave labor is the capitalist's wet dream, and labor conditions that practically amounted to slavery is directly responsible for the rise of socialism, communism, unions and worker's rights, you know, all those things you libertarians want to get rid of to get back to the good ol' days of Gilded Age Capitalism with hollow arguments about what kind of paradise will magically be created by doing so because everyone was so obviously so much better off back then that the vast majority of people actually living at the time fought to change it by introducing and supporting ideals such as socialism, communism, unions and worker's rights?

Yeah, I still don't understand how that computes to libertarians.

Big_Willie_Styles:

No, fascists do not agree with capitalism.

But they did believe in a capitalistic basis. Again, much closer to capitalists than communists.

Because government intervention into the marketplace is not free market capitalism.

It wasn't a pure form no, but there was strong favor towards holding a capitalistic basis.

"For the people" is such a haggered threadbare talking point when discussing communism and socialism. It doesn't work out that way and never has, quite frankly.

We call the National Socialist party fascists for some reason. Why is that?

Because a lot of people think Fascists and Nazi's were exactly the same. And also because Hitler was ordered to infiltrate the German Socialist party under orders of the army which wanted to keep leftists in check. And because afterwards he saw an opportunity and hijacked the party.

Why does a group that literally has socialist in their title a fascist regime exactly? Is it because the results and methods of both groups end up being very similar? I think so.

Not at all.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Slave labor is not in any way close to free market capitalism. Because there's no liberty in such a system. Which is why you can't confuse the Chinese system with capitalism. Because they have slave labor camps and massive restrictions on basic liberties.

Capitalism, as an economic system, contains absolutely no assurances against state abuses. You can't just exclude any states that abuse people from the capitalist label-- If you can exclude those, I could just as easily argue that communist states shouldn't be totalitarian, and therefore, no totalitarian states are really communist.

Big_Willie_Styles:

We call the National Socialist party fascists for some reason. Why is that? Why does a group that literally has socialist in their title a fascist regime exactly? Is it because the results and methods of both groups end up being very similar? I think so.

The Nazis viciously attacked the Socialists and Communists, of course (as did the Italian and Spanish fascists). Certain early Nazis were left-wingers, most notably the Strasser brothers, but they were assassinated for that very reason.

generals3:
snip

The Nazis were strongly anti-capitalist. There was little "capitalist basis." There was a nationalist basis, but that doesn't change anything.

Silvanus:
snip

Capitalism is about freedom to do what you want (within reason, as murder conflicts with liberty) and the liberty to ensure that. Without one of those two components, the capitalistic structure starts to break down. On the other hand, communism is complete government control of various things like prices and trade. That requires increasingly arbitrary actions to "keep" the system "functioning."

They still flew under the banner of socialism though. So, your argument boils down to "They called themselves socialists but they weren't real socialists"? Isn't that the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here