Are Nordic countries really socialist?

[yardwork]

Interesting article in Forbes. I've often thought that the label "socialist" is widely misunderstood in the U.S.

Would we have more success electing officials and passing laws that expand the safety net if we didn't use the word "socialist?"

This article suggests that the Nordic nations aren't even socialist:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/amp/

[Voltaire2]

1. If it makes you feel better to label whatever

they are doing “not socialism”, that’s fine.

[yardwork]

5. Just to clarify, I didn't write the article. I posted it here for discussion.

I'm asking some questions in my OP.

[hack89]

47. They do capitalism very well

They understand it is the only way to generate the wealth needed to fund a proper social safety net.

[SunSeeker]

64. Yep. nt

[Cha]

65. Whatever "makes you feel better".

[ck4829]

2. Now let's turn our attention to conservatives who call Obama and school shooting survivors socialist

Weird how we never want to talk about them.

[stevenleser]

49. What makes you think we never want to talk about them? nt

[NurseJackie]

3. I think many like to use that word for ...

Would we have more success electing officials and passing laws that expand the safety net if we didn't use the word "socialist?"

I think many like to use that word for vanity-purposes and other self-serving purposes. I also believe that there are many who prefer it for the "shock value" (so to speak) of it. There's a certain inflammatory aspect to it that says "hey everyone, look at me" with a subtle "I think I'm purer than you"message.

What I'm trying to say is that I agree with what the article says and the facts presented and how it helps to illustrate that the "socialist" label (as you note) widely misunderstood and misused. That's the danger of unfettered pride mixed with an incomplete understanding. The human mind just "fills in" the missing pieces of the picture (whether accurate or not) that help to create or complete the image of how they believe they should appear in a mirror, even if that's not the same image that everyone else actually sees.

[yardwork]

6. "I think I'm purer than you" is a message we've all heard.

Is that message helping us win elections? I think it is not.

Good post. Lots to think about in your post.

[NurseJackie]

38. You're correct, it's a liability...

Is that message helping us win elections?

You're correct, it's a liability. It's NOT helping us to win elections. It's NOT helping to attract new voters and new support. It's NOT motivating voters.

Well... to be entirely accurate... it's NOT motivating the voters we WANT to be motivated. Unfortunately it IS motivating the paranoid RW voters and other like-minded low-information individuals who make twisted associations and who vote against Democrats and who vote against their own bests interests.

All I'm saying is the we know for a fact that this is a self-destructive label but the vanity and pridefulness of some (and a desire to draw attention to themselves and to be seen as "different" or "smarter" or "better" and "pure'') serves no good purpose when looking at the immediate needs of regaining control. It's an offshoot of the "all or nothing" way of thinking. It's a subset of the "destroy the party to rebuild the party" way of thinking. Both of those philosophies are fatally flawed and dangerous. Both of those philosophies cause more harm that will take years to recover from.

[brush]

13. Agreed. The "shock value" and "hey look at me" is strong in some circles.

It's the whole "I'm different" conceit, but if you label yourself with a word that has a strong, negative connotation, you're starting off already behind, IMO that's not the smartest thing to do.

Not everyone, including many potential voters, don't know that there are many socialist aspect already operating in our society—so when you have to try to continually explain that to voters you're already in a hole.

Just be a Democrat and work within the party to get enough Democrats elected to have the power to implement your policies.

Repugs love being able to run against and label their opponent "a red, a socialist, commie, nazi".

We know that from when Sarah Palin and her rally crowds were shouting all those words at O when she was the repug VP candidate. Repugs have gutted education so much that their base doesn't know enough to know the difference between a nazi and a socialist.

[yardwork]

22. I agree!

"Just be a Democrat and work within the party to get enough Democrats elected to have the power to implement your policies."

[George II]

4. Not only aren't they "socialist", but they're tiny countries (population-wise).....

....with populations that are homogeneous, virtually all of one racial background.

[ck4829]

8. Exactly. It's harder for capitalists to divide people there than here

Here in the US it's much easier for the capitalists to divide people... poor white people pitted against poor black people, private sector pitted against the public sector, etc.; all to ensure we don't get government services, to make sure we are not united against them, and you know what, it's probably for their amusement too.

[yardwork]

10. And I see the opposite! Capitalism in its pure form is focused only on profits.

Racism is bad for business.

[ck4829]

11. Is it?

There used to be a whole industry based off of buying and selling people right here in the US.

There was another agrarian sector that profited off the free labor of black people.

The KKK at one point wasn't people living out in the middle of nowhere with "economic anxiety" but at it's height was the local business, religious, and government leaders.

Jim Crow and things like "whites only" restaurants weren't ended by business leaders but by people marginalized by them.

And then there is the whole practice of redlining.

And today, one can find both "Black Lives Matter" and the thought terminating cliche "All Lives Matter" merchandise as well as Confederate flag paraphernalia for sale.

I see it as more of a mixed bag, racism is bad for business but only if we let it be bad for business.

[yardwork]

15. I agree. It can go either way.

[George II]

14. Capitalism has very little to do with the divisions you're talking about. Those are intrinsic....

....problems that exist in a large, non-homogeneous population spread over thousands of miles of different geography, climates, etc.

[Blue_true]

53. I read once a few years back.

That once the nonwhite population in a country that was formerly almost all white reached 15%, racism became a social issue. Below 15%, the dominant group slow absorbs the much smaller group.

A case in point are Blacks in America. The percentage of Blacks in America has remained at around 12%, even with immigrants from Africa included in that number. The percentage of native Blacks (families going back 6 or more decades), has actually decreased dramatically from around 13% in 1960. Part of the decrease is due to the Hispanic population growing, but a large part is absorption of native Blacks by larger populations, basically wiping out racial identification after two generations.

As the Nordic countries have gotten more immigrants from Africa and the Middleeast, the number of racist incidents there and the rise in public profile of extreme right political parties have increased significantly.

[yardwork]

9. That gets at an underlying issue in the U.S. - racism.

In response to civil rights laws, racist whites responded by limiting the concept of "public" - moving us away from the idea of a shared common good.

Promoting socialism will never work in the U.S. until we address the pervasive, systemic racism - aimed in particular at African Americans - in our society and economy.

Personally, I believe that capitalism - as expressed by corporations - is actually one solution. Note how corporations, who are required to deliver profits to their share holders - have become less tolerant of bigoted laws and practices. It's bad for business.

[Blue_true]

50. You make a good point.

The combined population of all the Nordic countries would work out to around 10% of the USA population. And they are well educated by comparison to us. The biggest problem in the US is ignorance, we have people working for $9 per hour in a dead end job in Florida saying that California sucks, when in fact California's problem is an over abundance of economic success that has driven up real estate prices as more people try to squeeze in there.

[Willie Pep]

7. "Socialism" is a term that has come to mean whatever people want it to mean.

Historically the actually-existing socialists states combined public ownership of the means of production with central planning. There were some differences between how these different countries organized their economies (for example some allowed more room for markets to play a role in their economies) but they all had those basic elements. Other forms of socialism like libertarian socialism are more theoretical since I don't think there have been any large-scale modern examples to analyze.

The Nordic countries are still capitalist but they have, for example, way stronger unions than we do and they bargain on an industrial level and not firm by firm like we do here. I doubt American businesses would want to import the Nordic labor model to this country since it would give American workers more power than they have now. I also believe that some of the Nordic countries have a good number of state-owned enterprises but it varies from country to country I think. Norway I believe has more SOEs than other Nordic countries and most of them are successfully run.

I don't think the Nordic countries are socialist but Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are really social democrats or New Deal liberals. They aren't calling for a Soviet-style economy. I am not sure if the Nordic model can be replicated here or even if we want to copy what they do anyway but we can learn some lessons from what they do right.

[brer cat]

17. "'Socialism' is a term that has come to mean whatever people want it to mean."

Which is why and how it is going to be used against the Democratic Party if a segment of the Party insists on using it for self-identification. Dividing the Party doesn't make us stronger; it just gives ammunition to our enemy.

[Willie Pep]

31. I think the negative connotations are decreasing.

Particularly among young people hence the popularity of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez among the young. Millennials and Gen Z didn't grow up under the shadow of the USSR and the Cold War so they have less hang-ups about the term "socialism" which I think they take to mean some kind of egalitarian mixed economy like the Nordic model.

But I agree that the term can hurt us in some areas. I am a big believer in the importance of having the right candidates for the right parts of the country. Somebody like Ocasio-Cortez is a good fit for her district but not for say Conor Lamb's district.

[brer cat]

35. It has already come up in the GA gubernatorial campaign.

From Kemp's victory speech after the republican primary: “Do you really want a governor who’s bought and paid for by liberal billionaires and out-of-state socialists?"

[moondust]

40. Yep.

Maybe the "Democratic Socialists" should have gone with "Social Democrats" instead because it is somewhat harder to demonize without the word "socialist" in the name. The radical right has been conflating "socialists" and "communists" for the better part of a century.

[brush]

45. Yes. Your post is such a no-brainer I just don't get why the democratic...

Last edited Sun Aug 5, 2018, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

socialists don't get it?

Or maybe they do and have an intended agenda.

[GulfCoast66]

51. I think the leaders do get it.

Last edited Sun Aug 5, 2018, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Granted, most people call themselves democratic socialist because it’s the hot thing to do right now.

But I think the leaders of the movement do actually want businesses to be owned by their workers rather than Capitalist. We even have a few posters on DU who are honest enough to admit that that is what they want. I disagree with them but respect their honesty.

Everyone here always says that Bernie only wants us to be like the Nordic countries. I have heard him tout those systems but have not heard him say that workers should not own the means of production.

He is a smart man and knows the definitions of words. When he calls himself a socialist I am going to respect him enough to take him at his word.

[brush]

57. IMO, not that smart to label oneself as such since the word has...

such negative connotations in this country.

No chance to win a general, presidential election if all th repugs have to do is yell "commie, pinko rat, commie, pinko rat" over and over and over again.

[GulfCoast66]

59. Well, I disagree with you. Honesty is respectable.

I hope if he runs again someone will ask him. Is he truly a Socialist and would he ultimately like to see the state(workers) own the means of production. Not tomorrow but eventually.

I do not like the guy, but i think he is honest and I suspect he would not deny that is his goal.

At which point he would stand no chance in the Democratic Primary.

Because it is not only Republicans who are not in favor of socialism. Neither are Democrats.

I am daily shocked at the number of DU members telling us that Bernie is not a real socialist just a Nordic kind of guy. To me they are disrespecting him in a major way. He calls himself a socialist. He is 70 years old and came to age when there were a whole lot of Trotsky socialist fans. I choose to believe him.

[brush]

66. Why do you say you disagree with me when we both agree he can't win?

[GulfCoast66]

67. Oh, I only disagree with your not that smart label.

Other than that I agree with you.

He is honest. To win he would have to deny what he truly believes.

In my opinion he calls himself a socialist be cause he is a socialist. I get amused at DU members continually trying to explain that Bernie is not really what he calls himself.

[brush]

69. Yes, you're right. He's been an avowed socialist for years. I still don't think it was smart...

ok, maybe I should say "realistic", for him to think he was going to get the Dem nomination, much less win the general election as a self-avowed socialist.

He was true to himself though I guess.

[brush]

42. Good info. The lesson needing to be learned here is "socialism"...

"Democratic socialist" and even the phrase "Social Democrat" all have a negative connotation to many and leave candidates touting themselves in those veins vulnerable to repug opponents who won't hesitate to label them reds, nazis, commies, pinkos and on and on.

I'm betting they've even got scripted talking points stored on computer files from 2016 as they didn't have to deploy them when Sanders didn't get the Dem nomination.

[betsuni]

12. K&R

[Wounded Bear]

16. Libertarian propaganda...

One line stuck out for me when I first read it:

Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

Yep, all of us "leftists" just love us some Castro, Noriega, and Madura.

Meh.

[GulfCoast66]

20. Generally I agree

But even in my short time here I have seen DU members defending Castro, Chavez and even Madura.

Admittedly less since 2016.

[DFW]

18. As my friends in Sweden say: "inte alls!"

In other words, "not at all!" I speak Swedish and visit Scandinavia regularly, though less frequently in the last 15 years.

N/S/DK are market economies with a strong streak of social conscience (see the film "Ådalen '31" if you can find it).

See also the film "Luftslottet Som Sprängdes" for one astute Swede's take on corruption there (the author mysteriously died at age 50, by the way, and his widow and friends vehemently dispute the official "natural causes" explanation).

There has not yet been a purely "socialist" country that didn't have to oppress its people in order to keep them in line. That hardly describes the countries of Scandinavia.

Alla har rätt till egna åsikter, men inte till egna fakta........

[yardwork]

24. Thank you for that information.

[DFW]

25. I met my first Swedish friends in 1969

First visited in 1970, started learning the language in college that same year. It turns out that Swedish is really easy to learn if your native language is another Germanic language (like English). I was reading Strindberg without needing a dictionary within two years. We read Ture Sventon (don't bother with the Wikipedia translation--it is gibberish!) stories before the end of the first year in college. He is sort of a Swedish Fearless Fosdick (different kind of humor, though--not as dark as Al Capp's) who has trouble pronouncing an "s," and calls his favorite pastries (semlor) "temlor." They were very funny, and our wise Swedish professor gave them to us because she realized that having fun made us learn her language twice as fast. She was right, too.

I first visited Sweden in 1970, knowing none of the language at all. I went back a year later and blew my Swedish friends away, suddenly being able to converse normally. "How did you do THAT?" they asked, although any kid in Sweden who has had their first year of English in school can converse well enough to make us ask exactly the same thing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. There are a few linguists who think English isn't a west Germanic language,

but is instead a north Germanic, i.e., Scandinavian, language because the syntaxes of those languages, especially word order and relative lack of inflection (except for Icelandic, which is insanely inflected), are more like English than like German. Norwegians, and probably also Swedes, generally find English fairly easy to learn as well. I'm learning Norwegian and have .found the grammar to be pretty simple, and they don't stick their verbs at the end of a long sentence like the Germans which is nice. In the class I'm taking we are reading some of those dark Scandinavian murder mysteries, which makes the learning process easier and more fun. I have learned a lot of vocabulary relating to criminal procedure, forensics, and autopsies.


Alle har rett til sine egne meninger, men ikke til sine egne fakta.

[DFW]

30. I agree with them

The large influx of French words from the centuries-long Norman occupation didn't change the basic structure of the language, just the vocabulary.

Icelandic is the old, un-modernized version of what was to become the modern Scandinavian languages. I can make out some of it, but it is like someone who knows only modern Italian trying to read classical Latin.

Norwegian has some spelling differences with Swedish and Danish, but is essentially the same language. I can converse with Norwegians using my Swedish and they using their Norsk, and we understand over 90% without having to ask for clarifications.

[Garrett78]

19. No, they aren't. As I've posted repeatedly...

Democratic Socialists who promote the Nordic Model are doing a disservice to their own cause by falsely associating Social Democracy with socialism. They would do well to label themselves Social Democrats and to educate themselves.

[DFW]

26. Shhhh! What are you trying to do here?

"They would do well to label themselves Social Democrats and to educate themselves."

What's with this common sense routine?

[brush]

43. It would be even better for them to label themselves Democrats...

and work to get enough Democrats elected to gain enough power to implement their social democratic policies (different only in degrees from the Democratic Party platform).

Also they won't leave themselves vulnerable to labeled "commie, pinko rats".

Don't laugh. It'll be brushed off from unused, but stored repug talking points from 2016 that weren't deployed because Sanders didn't win the Dem nomination.

[GulfCoast66]

21. The ones I know do not claim they are socialist

Nor want to be.

What they are is decent and compassionate to their fellow citizens.

We would be much more like them except too many white folks can’t fathom having people of color getting as much government assistance as white people.

Southern and Midwest Whites loved them some big government till that big government began helping people of color.

[yardwork]

23. Exactly.

[d_r]

27. In my view

Labels like "socialism" and "communism" and "capitalism" aren't real things. They aren't objective things like a rock or water, they are things that people made up and only exist because we agree about what they mean. When the industrial revolution happened, there was easy to get to energy and natural resources that built wealth. These terms came from ways of distributing that wealth and didn't really make sense before that time. I think we are getting to the point where we are after that time and the labels aren't really meaningful in terms of best ways to move forward. The best way to love forward is some sort of hybrid combination of things that used to go into the various labels.

[Garrett78]

33. Social constructs, though, have real consequences.

Along with those -isms, money, government, nation states with their arbitrary borders, gender, religion and race are other examples of social constructs. But they've become ingrained.

Sometimes it's worth the effort to deconstruct. Other times it isn't.

In the case of Democratic Socialists who promote Social Democracy (the Nordic Model), I think they would have been much better off labeling themselves Social Democrats. Talk about all the benefits of the Nordic Model instead of conflating it with something it isn't. They've confused themselves and others, doing a disservice to their own cause.

[d_r]

34. What i mean to say is

I think it is time for a new social construction, a new idea a new construct. And getting the idea out that old forms are outdated.

[Garrett78]

37. I get it. And as I said...

...sometimes deconstruction and reconstruction are worthwhile (as in the case of race and gender). I just don't think socialism is one of those cases.

I think the efforts to conflate the Nordic Model with socialism (or the effort to redefine socialism as anything publicly funded, such as roads and police) displays ignorance and only serves to hurt the reasonable/understandable effort to promote the Nordic Model. There's much to like about the Nordic Model. Why confuse/conflate it with something as misunderstood and polarizing as socialism? Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Of course, it's not necessarily intentional. I think many of the Democratic Socialists themselves simply don't know any better.

[brush]

44. Good points. Their naivete in describing themselves as socialists, though well meaning...

is labeling themselves with an easily maligned self-description.

Can't imagine repugs not licking their chops at running against a socialist. And that hurts not only that particular candidate but also the Democratic Party.

[Garrett78]

46. You would think a US Senator would know better, but...

...it would seem Sanders doesn't see the problems with conflating Social Democracy and socialism. If he and others would call themselves Social Democrats or just plain Democrats (within the big tent) and stop minimizing the role racism plays in Republican success (feeding into the right wing talking point about 'identity politics'), we would all be much better off. They aren't helping their cause and it's staggering that they don't see that.

Again, promoting the Nordic Model is fine. Doing so while conflating it with something that it isn't, something that is extremely polarizing and misunderstood, is one of the all-time gaffes (to put it nicely).

[Blue_true]

58. Bernie's history is more of a socialist than social democrat.

Although as Mayor of Burlington Vermont, he did the later, social democracy and he grew that city as well as made it richer. But he has babbled with people like the guy in Nicaragua, Ortega, and other south and Central America totalitarian leftists and he made a trip to the Soviet Union.

I believe that what Bernie wants today is more like what he did as Mayor in Vermont, social democracy where capitalism was blended with social activism by government to make people's lives there better and more prosperous. And I believe that is what Ocasio-Cortez wants, but I am not sure because of the terminology that her and Bernie are using.

[brush]

70. Yes. K&R

[CentralMass]

29. They practice Social Capitalism.

"Social Capitalism
The Nordic community – Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland – practice a form of capitalism known as Social Capitalism. This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level. The four characteristics of Nordic Capitalism are:

· A commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade. Most of the production and distribution system is in private hands.

· The government supports individual autonomy and social mobility. It support its citizens in developing a healthy lifestyle free of hard drugs and alcohol and positive on exercise and nutritious eating. The government greatly supports preserving the environment and clean air and water. "

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59f2c98ce4b06ae9067ab7bc

[marylandblue]

32. It's a mixed economy, like all modern economies

The only thing to argue about is the degree of mixing, bit it's easier to call everyone on your left "socialist" and everyone on your right, RWNJs.

[mitch96]

36. I think it's interesting that these countries are some of the most "happy" people

When surveyed...
I guess when you don't have to worry about health care or education a big weight comes off your chest... For that they have some of the highest taxes around...
m

https://tinyurl.com/yaen6x7f
http://time.com/4706590/scandinavia-world-happiness-report-nordics/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-39331314

[Major Nikon]

39. Is any country really capitalist?

Dipshit author.

[ProfessorPlum]

41. excellent question. it blows the whole dumb argument up

[Blue_true]

48. The article, if you read it closely, was a hit job on ALL progressives.

The author of the article is trying to portray us as wild eyed economic lunatics marching fife and drum behind Bernie off a cliff. Reality is something else, even here on DU, there is vast distaste for the use of the term socialist, that it is idiotic and does not accurately portray what the people using it claim that they want. Maybe people that use the Nordic countries as good examples of socialism should slow the hell down and read up on how the Nordic country economies work and how they manage their social benefit networks.

[yardwork]

72. Well, it is Forbes, so....

[brooklynite]

52. All of the nordic countries have capitalist economies with social services

The correct phrase is "Social Democratic", not "Democratic Socialist".

[Xolodno]

54. Forbes lost me....

...when years ago they had an author, in describing Microsoft's monopoly at the time, confused the Economic Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns vs. the theory of Returns to Scale.

Forbes prints what some people want to hear.

[Xolodno]

55. Extra side note;

The Nordic Countries are Socialist by preponderance of the government affecting control of the factors of production. Granted it isn't out right ownership, but via regulation and nationalization of industries for the public well being. Some want to ditch the label and say no it's just "regulated capitalism" witch in itself is an oxymoron.

For me, whatever. It doesn't matter what you want to call it, just get there already.

But with that said, we've had the "Red Scare" since the 1920's, and fully understand that the dirty word "Socialism" will never be fully embraced, so, alternative explanations will be embraced. Which is also a weakness, the fascist portion of the country will always call you on it.

In my opinion, we need to start calling the GOP policies for what they are, fascist policies that resemble the policies under Adolf Hitler.

[Blue_true]

60. This drives me insane.

You are wrong. The only Nordic country that even remotely owns an industry is Norway, which has a large foot in the North Sea oil industry there, but even there, production is a private affair.

Please name industries or companies in Sweden, Finland and Norway that the government owns and operate. I will gladly stand corrected if you do.

[Xolodno]

80. I didn't say the government owns anything...

...I stated "government affecting control of the factors of production". Ownership has nothing to do with it.

Everyone assumes Socialism = Government Ownership. And it's wrong. Again, you are looking for a "pure" definition, there isn't one. You can have government ownership of some industries and guess what? Still be capitalist. It's not do they do A-B-C then they are socialist or capitalist. It's by preponderance of the overall economy of government regulation, ownership, services provided and how they provide.

There is no simple "catch-all" view.

[Wounded Bear]

68. You are conflating "socialism" with regulated capitalism...

Virtually all western democracies regulate industries to fight against the ravages of pure capitalism, which tends to morph eventually into fascism, where corporate interests have control over government, something that Americans have been fighting since the late 19th Century.

[Xolodno]

81. Enough "regulated capitalism"...

...and you have socialism.

I'll state it again, you could have government ownership of an entire industry...and it can still be called capitalism. For example, if the government owned the auto industry, but was full free market on everything else with no to little regulation...guess what, its capitalist.

Likewise, if government doesn't own jack shit in the private sector, but heavily regulates the private sector, thereby, affecting control of the factors of production via law and regulation, then its socialist.

Everyone looks for a simple easy way to describe the differences between capitalism vs. socialism, guess what? There isn't.

But if it consoles you, the USA isn't socialist. We walked away from that path when we embraced Monetarism Capitalism almost 40 years ago. Too bad Keynesian Capitalism has never been given an honest shot.

[Wounded Bear]

82. So, you're right and I'm wrong...

OK, I'll try to remember that going forward.

[Xolodno]

83. Well...

I am an economist. And work at a multi billion dollar company in job that involve a lot of economic principles...but hey, as all economists, used to being "told" how economics work by everyone else and how I don't know anything. So what else is new...

[Turbineguy]

56. Well, maybe

only there, they call it "happy".

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. They are Social Democracies

That is the accurate term, and not the same thing as Democratic Socialism.

[spin]

62. A little socialism can be a good thing as we see in the Nordic countries. ...

An excess of socialism can lead to Venezuela.

[SunSeeker]

63. K & R

[melman]

71. Author's bio

Jefferey Dorfman

"I am a professor of economics at The University of Georgia and consultant on economic issues to a variety of corporations and local governments. Taking a generally free market, libertarian perspective, I use economics as the lens to analyze government policies from the local to the international level. I have a particular focus on government policies that strive to redistribute income or wealth either openly or in indirect ways. A lot of those thoughts are collected in my e-book, Ending the Era of the Free Lunch."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/#2baea81b651a


From Amazon:

Jefferey Dorfman - Ending the Era of the Free Lunch

"More and more, governments in America (and Europe) are passing out free benefits that would shock us if we stopped and thought about when it became the role of government to do that. For example, medical care, school nutrition programs, mortgage subsidies, corporate welfare programs, farm subsidies, and countless smaller federal, state, and local programs. You can even get a free cell phone and service now. This proliferation of government benefits is responsible for a considerable amount of the growth in the size of government."
https://www.amazon.com/Ending-Free-Lunch-Jeffrey-Dorfman-ebook/dp/B006TO6T1A


Great source!

[yardwork]

73. The author's point of view is pretty transparent, but where are his facts wrong?

[JCanete]

75. Seems like all over the place...like lefties love for Castro and Madura...and when it

comes to the core issue at play, literally conceding that "yes, these nations have nationalized education and healthcare...BUT...those things can be done without interfering in the markets "MORE THAN IS REQUIRED." Well what the fuck does that mean? It really just means "we choose to not call this socialism because these nations are successful and we don't want to attribute that to socialism."

"Socialism can take the form of the government controlling or interfering with free markets....green energy anyone?" So if that's the writer's own metric, every nation has socialist aspects. Where is the Laissez Faire nation?

[yardwork]

76. So you disagree with his opinions, I get that.

There are numerous posts in this thread from well-informed people who agree that it is incorrect to state or imply that the Nordic countries have socialist economies. They don't. People who say they do are conflating small "s" socialism - meaning generous safety net programs funded by taxes on a strong economy - with nations where the government owns the industries.

[JCanete]

77. I don't just disagree. He literally contradicts himself by defining socialism the way he has in the

quote I gave you. And here you are justifying the use of socialism in reference to small -s socialism of funding generous safety net programs, so even as you rail against the term as incorrect you are allowing for different interpretations of the word in your own usage. Democratic socialists aren't the ones conflating these things. They have been clear about their platform, which is in line with your small-s socialism.

Besides, what is considered infrastructure or necessary components is all a matter of agreement. Car manufacture, the case could be made, is a matter of infrastructure. Health insurance could certainly be considered that way if one wanted to make the case, the same as roads. Health Care should not be chiefly relegated to for-profit industries. The internet...etc. also fall into the prevue of infrastructure.

The question is always about where the line is negotiated, or point to me a truly capitalistic nation among first world countries. I asked before, why does that term get no heat even though it doesn't truly represent us?

And as to whether or not these safetynet programs exist by virtue of econimic wealth rather than as a healthy perpetuator of that econoomic wealth, I would say that's well off the mark. That these nations do well while supporting these sorts of programs proves that this doesn't put them at an international disadvantage for doing so.

[yardwork]

78. I'm railing?

[JCanete]

79. How about contributing to a railing against the term. Also, you've indicated agreement with this

article, even asking where this person was wrong. Well I told you. Comments on that?

[JCanete]

74. They are mixed economies, just like ours. Are we really Capitalist? That label seems to be

palatable to people even though it hardly fits every aspect of our economy. haha.."sorry Bernie Bros,"...now there's a term I haven't heard in....now I'm wholly ready to trust this reporting.

[JHan]

84. Edit: They're actually quite capitalist in some respects. I guess it's a hybrid BUT

Hybrid in terms of them retaining collectivist policies through the years. They experimented with socialism but a State with social welfare programmes doesn't mean it's "Socialist".

And that's the misconception many have I think. Scandinavian countries gained wealth through trade, and they've returned to "free" trade in a big way. Their social programs have shrunk a bit since the 90's but only a bit. The concept of social welfare in Europe really began in the Prussian welfare state, with the Sozialpolitiker and then Otto Von Bismark adopted the concept, but not to support socialism - he was vehemently against it, preferring the existing economic system then. His motive was to appease the working class, so they would not be enticed by the opposition which wanted a socialist economy. His reforms have survived - when it comes to healthcare, the Netherlands and Germany( and France and Belgium) all still use the Bismarck model.

There's also an association with taxation and socialism which is also misguided. Socialism did not invent taxation - taxation has existed since forever throughout human civilization. Socialism is about the redistribution of ownership, regulating capitalism is traditionally called liberalism.

EDIT: Originally I said good article ( it is for the most part) but this dig is unnecessary:

"Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). "

Why say this when the biggest benefactor of Government subsidies is the fossil fuel industry. Why single out green energy? And Government will need to be involved when it comes to adopting new energy models and getting rid of the old.