General Discussion

Diclotican

(5,095 posts)

83. Honeycombe8

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:03 AM

Nov 2012

Honeycombe8

Dear you - Sweden IS part of Scandinavia - the word Scandinavia is short for Sverige, Danmark and Norge.. Aka Sweden, Denmark and Norway..

We doesn't have a socialistic system by far - it is a long time since our governments have had the balls to play hard with big money - and where the STATE had directly control over large parts of the economical life.. We have a social-democratic system, where the private and public sector share the economy - in Denmark and Sweden they have maybe more of a private sector system - in Norway we have chosen a more "public sector" system - where the State own more than it does in Sweden and Denmark, and have a more direct control over what we have of industry - and the State own most of Stateoil... our oil company who is one of the biggest contributors to our current wealth.. Owned BY the STATE for the STATE and therefore - for the pepole of Norway - And by the way - we have also one of the largers invest founds in the world - in November we even beat Duai's invest found in economical terms...

Diclotican

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

204 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Not Socialism?: The Right�s red-baiting has been far too effective [View all] marmar Nov 2012 OP

K&R PETRUS Nov 2012 #1

You may have read this article, but here is Einstein's take on socialism. white_wolf Nov 2012 #2

Brilliant. Thank you so much! n/t OneGrassRoot Nov 2012 #49

That was effing amazing. n/t Whovian Nov 2012 #161

What does that mean? David__77 Nov 2012 #3

And like we used to have--at least more than now. truebluegreen Nov 2012 #61

The Democrats are so Right, the GOP can only go Left leftstreet Nov 2012 #4

+1. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #31

Socialism crushes individual initiative - that is why. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #5

Yes, SS and Medicare recipients lack motivation leftstreet Nov 2012 #7

That is why Sweden is a place where there is no creativity nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #9

Sweden is not socialist. Private property is still respected there. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #15

No, it is a social democracy with a mixed economy nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #44

A social democracy is not "socialism". banned from Kos Nov 2012 #51

Who said it was? You did. nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #58

Heritage Definition Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #96

Thank you! "state-capitalism" - that's what has lots of people confused. nt patrice Nov 2012 #119

Sweden has a capitalist economic system, with some social programs. Just like the U.S. Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #16

You used the word "communes." Hissyspit Nov 2012 #20

Communism is a GOVERNMENT. Socialism is an economic system. Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #30

Ok, here is your assignment nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #39

Here is your assignment: look up the definition of socialism, then look up Denmark.... Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #43

Alas I know nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #45

Honeycombe8 Diclotican Nov 2012 #83

wait, you said sweden was capitalist...now i'm really confused... HiPointDem Nov 2012 #85

A co-op is no way in hell capitalist eridani Nov 2012 #66

"Getting paid according to how much time you put is no way in hell a "wage."...??? BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #122

They are to fairly allocate 100% of the income to those who work to generate it eridani Nov 2012 #154

some people's time is more valuable others. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #164

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 100% of the take goes to workers, and only workers eridani Nov 2012 #176

those that own the production equipment deserve a cut of the proceeds. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #187

I don't think so. Why should anyone get to own anyone else's means of production? eridani Nov 2012 #190

to compare factory machinery to human slavery is just plain ludicrous. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #193

They got the capital by taking surplus value from workers eridani Nov 2012 #194

how do you know how they got the capital...? BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #195

Then he owns his own means of production. Why should he own other people's? n/t eridani Nov 2012 #196

he may own his own means of production- but he needs labor to make it work... BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #198

Or he could invite other people to become co-owners eridani Nov 2012 #200

Exactly- by means of an IPO. If people want to be co-owners they can buy stock in the "company"... BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #201

Members of our species have been breathing for 100K years, minimum eridani Nov 2012 #202

civilization takes time. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #203

If they got more of the money that they are responsible for generating, they'd have plenty eridani Nov 2012 #204

Communism is anarchy tama Nov 2012 #179

Thank you for a ray of reality here. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #22

Well, we'll go to our room without supper now Hissyspit Nov 2012 #90

It s a mixed economy with a very strong government sector nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #37

You really need to learn the definitions of economic and political terms, nadin. Sweden Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #47

They are a social democracy nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #48

Honeycomb8 Diclotican Nov 2012 #65

Wait, you do live there nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #69

nadinbrzezinski Diclotican Nov 2012 #73

Utter nonsense. Selling on ebay has exactly jackshit to do with capitalism eridani Nov 2012 #63

i think you're confused. yeah, sweden is capitalist. the rest... HiPointDem Nov 2012 #84

Free market capitalism is the core of the Swedish economy. hack89 Nov 2012 #91

Every time I read one of your post it becomes more and more clear why you were banned from Kos. white_wolf Nov 2012 #11

It is plainly obious. Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #97

Tell that to Volvo, Saab and Mercedes Benz. All companies that succeed in socialist countries Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #12

Germany is socialist? This is laughable. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #19

Yes, merkel is from a Conservative party nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #40

You just agreed with me. Germany is not socialist! banned from Kos Nov 2012 #46

I did? Where? By any standard definition, it is nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #70

Germany is most definitely a Social Democracy Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #57

Lol, again, you have no clue what Socialism is. sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #81

Denmark has a capitalistic economic system, like Sweden. It has a liberal trading Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #23

It is a mixed economy nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #41

Honeycombe8 Diclotican Nov 2012 #78

denmark ain't a socialist country. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #87

Profits don't go to artists/inventors under capitalism PETRUS Nov 2012 #14

Artists who are the creators own the copyrights of their work. Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #25

Onliy sometimes. PETRUS Nov 2012 #29

Yes, if I write a song, I file for the copyright. Unless I sell it or give it away. Period. nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #34

okay... PETRUS Nov 2012 #36

If you write a song while you're working for X Inc. and your job involves songwriting in any way gollygee Nov 2012 #127

Only if you're not an independent artist, but EMPLOYED by the co. or your CONTRACT Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #175

What about the Michael J. and Paul M. dispute? YOHABLO Nov 2012 #77

Written like someone who has no motivation beyond acquisition. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #17

Wow, ignorant, stereotyped and absolutist. Hissyspit Nov 2012 #18

In what way? nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #26

yeah, there were no writers in communist countries & if there were, their books HiPointDem Nov 2012 #33

The very best books are written for profit? maddiemom Nov 2012 #72

sarcasm indicator broken? it's the other poster you should be talking to, not me. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #82

HiPointDem Diclotican Nov 2012 #178

saecasm detector needs adjustment HiPointDem Nov 2012 #183

Hey Diclotican Nov 2012 #185

I'd rather this country have socialism and everybody Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #53

Japan does not have single-payer Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #192

So much bullshit, so little time. rug Nov 2012 #64

Probably to better effect than arguing with one who is blinded by Randian horseshit. nt patrice Nov 2012 #88

It depends on the person or persons tavalon Nov 2012 #68

You are confusing your terms. Socialism will not take away your sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #80

What is the point of doing anything that has no intrinsic motivation? That's what you're saying, patrice Nov 2012 #86

There are many reasons to write a book even IF "the profit is not yours" Ken Burch Nov 2012 #93

Capitalism crushes all individual initiative that is not based upon FEAR. nt patrice Nov 2012 #116

That is SUCH horse sh*t! BarackTheVote Nov 2012 #191

you have a very limited imagination indeed if you think profit quinnox Nov 2012 #197

They KNOW it's a viable alternative Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #6

'So they fight it with the most vehement propaganda, designed to misrepresent' marmar Nov 2012 #8

Yup nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #10

I saw that Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #13

As i've said countless times before... Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #35

Let's do it. Jack Sprat Nov 2012 #21

As I have said here many times.. sendero Nov 2012 #24

We have some social programs in the U.S. What you mean is that people will want Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #27

That is exactly what I mean... sendero Nov 2012 #59

We Already Have Socialism To An Extent... WillyT Nov 2012 #28

In other words we have a mixed mode economy. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #38

Yes... But... WillyT Nov 2012 #54

People have all different ideas in their heads about what socialism means, so limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #32

I'm always surprised by the resistance to move more left. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #42

"I'm always surprised by the resistance to move more left". Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #56

The problem is that they're calling only the most extreme, radical form of Capitalism gollygee Nov 2012 #50

Harry Truman quote about Socialism redwhiteblue Nov 2012 #52

redwhiteblue Diclotican Nov 2012 #74

ONE PROBLEM JEFF9K Nov 2012 #55

America isnt an economic system sigmasix Nov 2012 #60

I'm in. Diyames Nov 2012 #62

If he won't listen to us, he would do well to emulate FDR and LBJ tavalon Nov 2012 #67

Looking over the thread, I'm seeing two different definitions of socialism eridani Nov 2012 #71

This War Horse Nov 2012 #95

Do you think government ownership is an essential trait of Socialism? without it, without government patrice Nov 2012 #110

Absolutely not. The anarchists of the 19th century opposing Marx-- eridani Nov 2012 #136

Thank you!! Trying to explain that down-thread & to refute the notion that profit for profit's sake patrice Nov 2012 #158

No. It's a very common definition, prob. THE most common, War Horse Nov 2012 #170

The search I just did didn't think that they are. & Prob is people can conceive of NO patrice Nov 2012 #171

I think you pretty much nailed it there War Horse Nov 2012 #173

It's frustrating because THAT's how things are now for the 1% & Socialist principles try to patrice Nov 2012 #174

According to the original definition, no. According to Harry Truman, yes. n/t eridani Nov 2012 #177

Quite true. Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #98

Harry Truman would definitely agree n/t eridani Nov 2012 #149

social economics and social politics often gets confused. NuttyFluffers Nov 2012 #165

One major issue to be overcome in these discussion is the conflation of politcal & economic theories Snarkoleptic Nov 2012 #75

K&R! hrmjustin Nov 2012 #76

On some things, I'll take a socialistic stance. For the most part, socialism is crap nt RomneyLies Nov 2012 #79

Would you care to be more precise about exactly how that is so? Or shall we just take your patrice Nov 2012 #89

Socialust roads, fire departments, and police are cool. Socialist farms and factories sucks. nt RomneyLies Nov 2012 #94

I'm honestly interested in why those things suck. Which ones are you referring to? China? patrice Nov 2012 #100

Socialism is government owning and administering the means of production RomneyLies Nov 2012 #101

So what you oppose is government ownership? Is Mondragon Socialism? patrice Nov 2012 #103

Nope, Mondragon is free enterprise. It's a cooperative, but the government does not own and... RomneyLies Nov 2012 #108

So Mondragon is Capitalism? patrice Nov 2012 #109

Yes. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #112

Wrong. Those who do the work DECIDE all of that. The profits are the workers' NOT a capitalist's. patrice Nov 2012 #113

The decision is private in a private corporation, ergo, it is capitalistic. nt RomneyLies Nov 2012 #141

Fail: There are MANY private entities that are not capitalistic. Private entities in which profit is patrice Nov 2012 #148

Profit is NEVER the sole goal in ANY corporation RomneyLies Nov 2012 #150

Any OPTIONAL secondary goals are served ONLY by profit. Look at our Capitalist history. How can patrice Nov 2012 #153

The profits are based upon SOCIAL principles & processes, not the idiosyncracies of Capitalism. patrice Nov 2012 #117

Just because they make a profit doesn't mean that they are Capitalists. nt patrice Nov 2012 #118

What Capitalists has "social welfare and Insurance" as the 2nd & 3rd objectives of FINANCE, link: patrice Nov 2012 #123

It is still capitalistic RomneyLies Nov 2012 #125

You mistake the natue of Capitalism. It's SOLE objective is profit. The purpose of profit at Mondrag patrice Nov 2012 #129

Well, if you redefine terms they can mean whatever you want RomneyLies Nov 2012 #132

And you don't get that that applies to you too? Who died & made you God? patrice Nov 2012 #134

I am not the one who is redefining any terms, YOU ARE. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #135

Me? Tell me that profit is not the SOLE motive of Capitalism. You are the one redefining here. patrice Nov 2012 #140

Profit does not enter into the definition, you are adding it to the equation RomneyLies Nov 2012 #143

Try to tear yourself away from other support and think. Tell me now, logically, that there'd be such patrice Nov 2012 #152

You reject that there'd be no such thing as Capitalism without profit for profit's sake alone? patrice Nov 2012 #138

I reject that it enters into the definition of capitalism RomneyLies Nov 2012 #144

Oh! hoh! That's rich! Perhaps you'd like to discuss the definition of "is". :-)))))) nt patrice Nov 2012 #159

Profit for profit's sake alone is clearly proven in the Capitalist financial history of the USA. nt patrice Nov 2012 #130

That is a redefinitiion of Capitalism. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #139

LOGIC: HOW can Capitalism even survive unless profit is it's SOLE motive? Please answer. patrice Nov 2012 #142

LOGIC: If profit is the SOLE motive, an enterprise WILL NOT SURVIVE. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #145

NONE of those other goals would be goals at all without profit. PROFIT first always, otherwise the patrice Nov 2012 #155

What kind of Capitalist allows WORKER-directed Research? patrice Nov 2012 #126

What kind of Capitalist allows WORKERS to manage & guide their own education & training? patrice Nov 2012 #128

Any can. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #133

YOU are limiting the entire, REAL LIFE, discussion to an entry in a dictionary. nt patrice Nov 2012 #160

Come on, own up, you're a "Libertarian" aren't you. nt patrice Nov 2012 #162

So what you oppose is government ownership, i.e. government as CAPITALISM. Me too. nt patrice Nov 2012 #114

Then by definition, you oppose Socialism. nt RomneyLies Nov 2012 #137

You are wrong - and - you are narrow-minded & refuse to at least recognize that FACT. patrice Nov 2012 #157

Anarchists are socialists and don't think the government should exist at all. white_wolf Nov 2012 #146

My definition of socialism is the ONLY defintion of socialism RomneyLies Nov 2012 #147

So we should just ignore all the anarchist writers and theorists because you say they don't count? white_wolf Nov 2012 #151

How can anyone who does not identify with a set of values define them? You may HYPOTHESIZE patrice Nov 2012 #156

For the most part, capitalism is crap. Hissyspit Nov 2012 #92

So, If I Am To Understand... WiffenPoof Nov 2012 #99

I really don't like it when Social Democrats are called "Socialists" War Horse Nov 2012 #102

Well, one thing they are doing is assuming that old saw about government owning the means of patrice Nov 2012 #105

Many European Social Democratic parties tama Nov 2012 #180

"Socialism" means different things to different people. gulliver Nov 2012 #104

True! and yet, there must be some essential trait in common that makes it all Socialism, otherwise patrice Nov 2012 #107

Rec. n/t Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #106

I Like John Lennon's Defintion Of Socialism DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #111

+++1! patrice Nov 2012 #115

credit for Obama's re-election is not "owed" to any one group or demographic over others. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #120

"Am I my brother's keeper?" - Socialism says "yes". Capitalism says "Fuck you." Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #121

Full-on socialism woulf be just as bad as full-on capitalism. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #124

Agreed. Socialistic/workers'-profit-sharing for the necessities. Capitalism for everything else. patrice Nov 2012 #131

You asked everything else tama Nov 2012 #181

Just talking about the USA & what's doable, compared to 0 change. Perhaps I should point patrice Nov 2012 #182

I don't think tama Nov 2012 #184

Name one great country populated by anti-socialists. Old and In the Way Nov 2012 #163

Why Not Indeed colsohlibgal Nov 2012 #166

Right on! Health & cognitive benefits from reduced stress = more EFFICIENT economies at patrice Nov 2012 #172

Less GDP tama Nov 2012 #186

Could you explain that please? nt patrice Nov 2012 #188

Why TPTB tama Nov 2012 #189

Post removed Post removed Nov 2012 #167

Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin Nov 2012 #168

This message was self-deleted by its author uppityperson Nov 2012 #169

Democrats are not a socialist party, they are center-left davidn3600 Nov 2012 #199