[Julian658]

The Right has been calling the liberal democracies of Europe socialist, or communist, or both for roughly half a century.

The way I look at it is that the old meaning has the government owning the means of production. Which no developed country does.

And the new meaning, at least on this side of the pond, is just a country with strong social programs, like Denmark.

I would avoid the word entirely if you know who wasn't trying to imply European liberal democracies were commies every few days.

That's old, dumb, propaganda. Which is why he keeps doing it.

To call the Nordic nations socialists is wrong. I bet the left does it more often to attract converts looking for the easy life where everything is provided.

The corporate tax in Denmark is 22%. In America the tax is 21% down from 35% in 2107. We know that once the left is in charge the American corporate tax will go back up to perhaps more than 35%.

The World Bank has published its annual “Ease of Doing Business” index. The index highlights that Denmark is among the countries in the world, where it is easiest to start a business. Denmark is the easiest place for business in Europe.

https://www.copcap.com/news/denmark-is- ... -in-europe


https://investindk.com/insights/world-b ... c%20sector.

[late]

To call the Nordic nations socialists is wrong.

That's what I keep having to tell you.

In a few days, you'll repeat your propaganda again, and this will all start over.

[Pants-of-dog]

But was Cuba socialist in 1959? IIRC, it only formally became socialist in the 1960s.

How so?

[wat0n]

How so?

Private property was nationalized from 1960 onwards, wasn't it?

[Julian658]

That's what I keep having to tell you.

In a few days, you'll repeat your propaganda again, and this will all start over.

You are finally getting educated and you call it propaganda? You had no idea Denmark was more capitalist than America. You learned something new. Be happy!

[MadMonk]

You are finally getting educated and you call it propaganda? You had no idea Denmark was more capitalist than America. You learned something new. Be happy!

Sorry, the United States still have Denmark beat as far as free-market Capitalism is concerned.

In 2018, the United States raised 1.1 percent of GDP from the corporate income tax, below the OECD average of 3.0 percent. Denmark and Sweden raised a share similar to the OECD average, at 2.9 percent and 3.0 percent of GDP, respectively. Norway is the exception with corporate revenue equal to 6.0 percent of GDP. Norway is situated on large reserves of oil and charges companies a corporate income tax rate of 78 percent on extractive activities.

The taxation of capital income (capital gains and dividends) in Scandinavian countries is similar to the United States, with the exception of Denmark. Denmark’s top tax rate on dividends and capital gains is close to the highest in the OECD at 42 percent.

Norway’s (31.7 percent) and Sweden’s (30 percent) capital gains taxes and dividends taxes are more in line with the United States. The United States taxes dividends and capital gains at 29.3 percent and 23.8 percent, respectively.

Source

[Julian658]

Sorry, the United States still have Denmark beat as far as free-market Capitalism is concerned.





Source

Thank you for the education. Honestly I just googled to educate tovarish late who assumed Denmark was a socialist nation. One of the references I saw stated Denmark was the easiest place in Europe to do business.

[Pants-of-dog]

Private property was nationalized from 1960 onwards, wasn't it?

Does that mean the revolution was not socialist?

[late]

You are finally getting educated and you call it propaganda?

I've been to Denmark, and it may have been before you were born.

You are a persistent troll, but then that's what you are paid to do.

I'll remind you, the next time, and we both know there will be a next time.

[wat0n]

Does that mean the revolution was not socialist?

Not necessarily, it only means they hadn't implanted socialism at the time.

[Potemkin]

Does that mean the revolution was not socialist?

Socialism doesn't magically appear at the stroke of midnight on the day the revolution happens. It has to be built. And even getting to the point where you can start to build it takes some doing. As Stalin pointed out, a revolution is not the end of the process; it is merely the beginning. A socialist revolution is the necessary precondition for socialism, but it is not itself socialism.

[wat0n]

Socialism doesn't magically appear at the stroke of midnight on the day the revolution happens. It has to be built. And even getting to the point where you can start to build it takes some doing. As Stalin pointed out, a revolution is not the end of the process; it is merely the beginning. A socialist revolution is the necessary precondition for socialism, but it is not itself socialism.

Indeed, and furthermore no revolution gets to achieve its ultimate goal automatically even the successful ones. In fact, revolutions don't really end up succeeding in their initially stated goals but in practice end up making compromises as the new revolutionary elite learns how being an elite works like.

Normally, when the revolution begins the new government is more moderate than what most revolutionaries want and when it ends the new government is also not as radical as how most revolutionaries wanted it to be, even if they may have been in power in between, exercised their own terror in the most radical way and even when this last government that ends the revolution is headed by the same radicals that were advocating for and practicing the Terror before.

In the USSR, the Soviets didn't manage to completely change Russian culture or ethnic and religious consciousness, instead, they eventually coopted them. It's why Stalin would appeal to patriotic concepts like Mother Russia even though this would go squarely against Marxian concepts on the matter of nationalism, or why the Russian Orthodox Church was allowed to still exist even during the Soviet era.

[Julian658]

Socialism doesn't magically appear at the stroke of midnight on the day the revolution happens. It has to be built. And even getting to the point where you can start to build it takes some doing. As Stalin pointed out, a revolution is not the end of the process; it is merely the beginning. A socialist revolution is the necessary precondition for socialism, but it is not itself socialism.

Because socialism failed everywhere the marxists always say "that was not socialism". The truth is socialism is an Utopia, it is a bit like heaven. That is why you guys tend to sound religious.

What gets in the way of socialism is the imperfect condition of humans. As long as mankind is imperfect there cannot be socialism.

I do not give up on socialism. However, socialism will not happen after a revolution. Socialism will happen after capitalism has nowhere else to go. There will come a time when wealth is redundant and available to all thanks to capitalism. At that point we will have socialism.

[Potemkin]

Indeed, and furthermore no revolution gets to achieve its ultimate goal automatically even the successful ones. In fact, revolutions don't really end up succeeding in their initially stated goals but in practice end up making compromises as the new revolutionary elite learns how being an elite works like.

Normally, when the revolution begins the new government is more moderate than what most revolutionaries want and when it ends the new government is also not as radical as how most revolutionaries wanted it to be, even if they may have been in power in between, exercised their own terror in the most radical way and even when this last government that ends the revolution is headed by the same radicals that were advocating for and practicing the Terror before.

In the USSR, the Soviets didn't manage to completely change Russian culture or ethnic and religious consciousness, instead, they eventually coopted them. It's why Stalin would appeal to patriotic concepts like Mother Russia even though this would go squarely against Marxian concepts on the matter of nationalism, or why the Russian Orthodox Church was allowed to still exist even during the Soviet era.

Precisely right. Not even the most bloodthirsty state terrorism can entirely eradicate the elements of social reality which push back against the revolutionaries' attempts to change the world. At best, it can buy some time by keeping the revolutionary regime in power. The regime must still compromise with those elements. It is as easy and as tempting to be an armchair revolutionary as it is to be an armchair general, and just as pointless and futile.

[Julian658]

I've been to Denmark, and it may have been before you were born.

You are a persistent troll, but then that's what you are paid to do.

I'll remind you, the next time, and we both know there will be a next time.

Tovarish late: I will be more than happy to educate you.

[late]

Tovarish late: I will be more than happy to educate you.

What you do is propaganda, kid, kinda the opposite of education...

[Pants-of-dog]

Socialism doesn't magically appear at the stroke of midnight on the day the revolution happens. It has to be built.

Exactly.

And the moment when it is “built” depends on how you define socialism, but the point is that socialism is something that requires time to create. And even after we get to whatever we decide is “built” we still need to keep working because it still will not actually he done even if we check off all the boxes for the definition.

And even getting to the point where you can start to build it takes some doing. As Stalin pointed out, a revolution is not the end of the process; it is merely the beginning. A socialist revolution is the necessary precondition for socialism, but it is not itself socialism.

Stalin was not entirely correct. The revolution itself is not even the beginning. It is more like the end of the beginning and the beginning of the next phase.

Cuba did not magically become socialist at the end of the revolution either. For the revolution to be successful, many socialist things had to be implemented as the revolution developed. Every fighting force needs a supply line, and as the Cubans created that, they were also creating the socialist experiment as they went. So, by the time the revolution successfully ended, there was already a lot of work done in terms of implementing socialism on a practical level.

Now, maybe Stalin defines things one way and me another and we are both right ir not, but the point is that the revolution itself was an example of grassroots socialism in action, like the Zapatistas today. And this grassroots socialism was necessarily democratic since it relied solely on the will of the people.

[late]

Exactly.

And the moment when it is “built” depends on how you define socialism, but the point is that socialism is something that requires time to create. And even after we get to whatever we decide is “built” we still need to keep working because it still will not actually he done even if we check off all the boxes for the definition.



Stalin was not entirely correct. The revolution itself is not even the beginning. It is more like the end of the beginning and the beginning of the next phase.

Cuba did not magically become socialist at the end of the revolution either. For the revolution to be successful, many socialist things had to be implemented as the revolution developed. Every fighting force needs a supply line, and as the Cubans created that, they were also creating the socialist experiment as they went. So, by the time the revolution successfully ended, there was already a lot of work done in terms of implementing socialism on a practical level.

Now, maybe Stalin defines things one way and me another and we are both right ir not, but the point is that the revolution itself was an example of grassroots socialism in action, like the Zapatistas today. And this grassroots socialism was necessarily democratic since it relied solely on the will of the people.

Revolutions have a nasty habit of turning out badly.

Winding up with a dictator is a dandy example of things turning out badly..

Marx, and the other economists of his era, were reacting to the industrial age. Cuba is agrarian.

One of the many problems I have with that damn word is that it is essentially meaningless.

[wat0n]

Now, maybe Stalin defines things one way and me another and we are both right ir not, but the point is that the revolution itself was an example of grassroots socialism in action, like the Zapatistas today. And this grassroots socialism was necessarily democratic since it relied solely on the will of the people.

Are you serious?

[blackjack21]

I think it has to do with more of this type of problem dealt with in this movie with the lead being played by Michael Douglas. In Falling Down.

That's Michael Douglas' favorite of all the films he did. Great film!

@blackjack21 does believe the white non liberal men who are not meterosexuals are being given their marching papers. And he is not liking it at all.

That's not quite it. I do think the Washington establishment is blaming the long term adverse effects of their policies on white people generally, when it's their policies that are causing the problems. As I've said before, most whites were not slave holders at all. Many were not much better off than slaves themselves. Hence, I think most of the white supremacy rhetoric is pure bunk. At best, you have some colonial powers and some fringe Nazi types that think that sort of thing these days, but they are quite small in number these days. Clearly the South had segregation, but that has been over for 60 years now too.

Frankly, I don't think there was any sort of magic "switch" that you seem to believe that racists all left the Democrats and joined the Republicans who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The trend of blacks voting for the Democrats started in the early 1930s when Roosevelt came to power and started the welfare state. For economically oppressed blacks, a social security check was often more money than they had seen when working. They didn't start voting as a majority bloc for the Democrats until the early 1960s. Even at that point, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote The Negro Family: The Case For National Action describing the disintegration of black families. I would repeat again that I think you should read some Thomas Sowell too. The Democrats have long understood that their policies were destroying black families. It's been 55 years since that was written, and the problems got predictably worse. They did not want to listen, because it was at this time they were introducing the "Sexual Revolution" and no-fault divorce laws, drug culture, etc.

Moynihan's report was also denying that the problem was purely economic, which is something neither Marxist materialists or welfare statists wanted to hear.

Listen to some gangsta rap for edification. No white person could write music like that and not have the entire political, academic and media factions working feverishly to destroy them. Yet, black people do this all the time, and the media, politicians and academics do not care. Why? They are wholesale frauds. BLM is a fraud. Concern about racism is a fraud.

Got to leave the reptilian as a political system as something that has outgrown our societies.

It's not purely reptilian. The mammalian brain is where you get emotions like hatred. That's in the amygdala. It's not trivial to change that sort of thing.

However, it's why I find CRISPR cas9 technology fascinating. We literally could change skin color now. How would you respond to that? What if people developed a CRISPR solutions for changing skin color? Would you be for that?

For me the socialism is a leap forward.

Yes, but most societies that adopt it end up abandoning it, and often because it destroys economic incentive. Look at what happened to Venezuela. Cuba has relatively insignificant natural resources. Venezuela is still on top of oil, and hiring all the "socialist" types into PDVSA has destroyed the oil company effectively.

Britain ultimately privatized steel, coal, airlines, etc. because they became uncompetitive. Post war Britain had a lot of state-run businesses. The National Health Service is one of the few remaining.

Sowell is a black conservative I don't care about his blackness. I won't ever be like him. He is a conservative.

Sowell isn't a conservative. He's a libertarian. He was also a devout Marxist, but abandoned it because he required empirical evidence.

For me to agree I would have to think that capitalism is logical and stable and that poverty goes away with what?

Capitalism is definitely logical. It's not stable. So what you're looking for is stability then? That's the fundamental value?

Answer me this BJ? @blackjack21 how does one eradicate the issue with poverty like the dude who worked for Mercedes Benz factory? Who worried about it?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The war on poverty ain't over.

Lack of socialism isn't the cause of poverty. A lot of it is drug addiction, alcoholism and mental illness. As Jordan Petersen says, both the liberals and conservatives are wrong. Liberals think you can educate anyone to do anything, and conservatives think you can kick someone in the ass enough to get them to do anything. Yet, 10% of the population is going to be useless in an information society, because their IQs are too low. So do we look for inherited intelligence traits and use technologies like CRISPR to improve IQs among the poor? What about reasonably intelligent people who end up homeless?

Now, that's someone you can probably help with social welfare. That's not what most homelessness looks like.

You tell all those evicted people how they under a pandemic are going to be housed, fed, and vaccinated, and re-employed or how they are going to make a decent living again?

Biden tells them to learn to code. If you can go three thousand feet into a coal mine, you can learn to code? Really? Why can't Biden code?

Even @blackjack21 loves buying shares in his own field employer. He has skin in the job. LOL. But he doesn't want that for other workers in other businesses?

Where did I ever say that? I'm all for ESOPs.

See, I just think you don't know enough about capital. It's one thing to say the workers own the means of production if that's your hot dog stand. If it's a hospital or a refinery, you're talking about something that is capital intensive. Running a hot dog stand isn't capital intensive. Running a hospital is capital intensive. So you'll need much more capital than the workers can afford, or you will end up with a very primitive hospital.

The only ones winning in that scenario are shareholders who are looking for fast and quick dividends. Most citizens in the USA don't own stocks at all or shares of random companies and even those get ripped off according to the ones designing the algorithms Wat0n on Wall Street.

That's why voters need to get smarter about who they vote for. The only president since Reagan to use tariffs to stop some of that was Trump.