http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/49400811/Nipo-peiling:_23_zetels_voor_SP.html?p=2,1

The Socialist Party, that is the hardcore socialist party, not the regular PVDA (comparable to the British labour) is rising in the polls. They went from 8 to 23 seats in parlement if elections would be held right now.

Have people finally realized the truth? That everything good has been thrown away?

Socialist economies are very good at distributing wealth equally, but not very good at creating wealth.

Socialist uprisings start by seizing the surplus from the people who created it (not necessarily by the sweat of their brows but by their skills at managing a market economy) and who appear to be hoarding it, and distributing it among the people who believe that it was created by the sweat of their brows. Eventually the command economy, like all government enterprises, fails to maintain the level of prosperity and the workers once again become dissatisfied. The leaders begin to make compromises with the capitalists and the cycle starts anew.

Periods of social upheaval always create opportunities for graft and corruption, so the people who come out on top are strongly selected for their opportunism and greed rather than their scruples. Both socialist and free-market economies, when heavily regulated, create powerful people with little loyalty to their consituents, and this aberration is surely a much larger factor in the resulting poverty and inequity than the choice of economic system.

If free-market economies had more people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (even though he is an utter moron when it comes to understanding the principles of software engineering he clearly is a man of reasonably good spirit), the workers would not feel so downtrodden and they would have not reason to agitate for socialism.

I enter exhibit no1.

Finland.

Economy doing fairly well. The most socialist country you can probably find.

- high tax
- national healthcare
- free education/excellent education
- extensive social benefit system, including for instance high rent subsidies, high child benefits, free/almost free high quality daycare, unemployment benefits.
- wages are close together. Excesses are minimalized.

Of course there are things wrong with socialist finland: it's too cold.

This leads me now to the following conclusion:

There is a rift between theory and practice in the negative thinking concerning socialism that is prevalent in the western world.

All very good, but lots of people care about me, me, me.

Socialism works in small homogeneous populations. They function like one big extended family. It doesn't work in big countries comprised of diverse groups who have no natural reason to care about each other.

Still, I'd like to see even Finland fifty years from now, to see whether it's exhausted its capital, leveled the creativity out of its people and made them lazy.

Socialism works in small homogeneous populations. They function like one big extended family. It doesn't work in big countries comprised of diverse groups who have no natural reason to care about each other.

Still, I'd like to see even Finland fifty years from now, to see whether it's exhausted its capital, leveled the creativity out of its people and made them lazy.

Agree. The petri dish has only been labeled and set aside. Call us when it gets hairy.

Still, I'd like to see even Finland fifty years from now, to see whether it's exhausted its capital, leveled the creativity out of its people and made them lazy.

You mean like in the USA? How long did you have to make a decent society again? How is it working out for you? And how is it working out for the unfortunate? Not very good is it?

I don't have any problem with socialism if it takes place within a democratic framework. If people want to screw themselves, they should have that right.

What doesn't sit well with me is the long history that socialism has had of being forced on the masses that it screws, by the small number of egg-heads who do the screwing.

I guess I'm all for political masturbation, but not so much the rape.

And capitalism is not forced upon the masses?

You mean like in the USA? How long did you have to make a decent society again? How is it working out for you? And how is it working out for the unfortunate? Not very good is it?"Again"? After what? I don't get the reference. You may have to bear in mind that we Americans have no sense of history so if you're talking about something that happened before my grandparents' time I probably don't know what you mean. :)

As for how it's working out, we have our ups and downs like all countries. Once we got our race problem more or less sorted out (which was arguably caused by going to war to free our slaves rather than letting it happen more slowly and more peacefully and then marrying them the way the rest of the hemisphere did it), life was pretty good here up until the last few years. "Socialist" China decided to experiment with capitalism and it is such a huge success that they're taking our jobs away.

Still, our "unfortunates" must not be too badly off since their biggest health problem is obesity. America's poor families live in larger apartments than middle class people in Finland, and they all have cars, microwave ovens, cell phones, and color satellite TV.

The world's socialists should all voluntarily gather into one place.

The world's socialists should all voluntarily gather into one place.
Preferably someplace they actually own title to by lawful means, not someplace they've "requisitioned" to fulfill an otherwise impossible irrational need.

The world's socialists should all voluntarily gather into one place.


The marianas trench?

Seriously though, ever notice that capitalist countries have to build walls to keep people out, and immigrants will risk life and limb and leave their native lands in an effort to get in?

Meanwhile, communist countries have to build walls to keep people in, and emmigrants risk life and limb in efforts to escape? I'm thinking of the Soviet Union, the mass exodus after the US left Vietnam, Cuban refugees, East Berliners, to only name a few.

But people like spuriousmonkey and other elitists who have never set foot in a communist country think that capitalism is satan, and socialism the cure-all. Funny when you think of the historical flow of willing people over these two types of walls.


And no, spurious, capitalism is forced on nobody. Civil wars were waged to win the right to freely engage in capitalism. And if you want to opt-out, sit still and collect welfare. Or move. Or make money and donate as much as you can to those that are poorer than you. There is nobody forcing anyone to accept capitalist ideals, or engage in a consumer-oriented economy, or be materialistic. I say this from experience, having lived a simple life for many years on a tiny sailboat with no toilet, shower, or power. I also have a co-worker who lives like a hermit in the mountains, with no power or running water who refuses to go into resturaunts and grows his own food. He has some of the same philosophies that you seem to have and he lives accordingly. I don't presume to know too much about you, but the fact that you are online a lot is one obvious difference I see between his devotion to these ideals and your own.

mr g;

ownership of land is the enemy of true socialism. if an individual owns land, they effectively steal it from all who come after them, the state must regulate land use, rather than sell it.

The marianas trench?

Seriously though, ever notice that capitalist countries have to build walls to keep people out, and immigrants will risk life and limb and leave their native lands in an effort to get in?

Meanwhile, communist countries have to build walls to keep people in, and emmigrants risk life and limb in efforts to escape? I'm thinking of the Soviet Union, the mass exodus after the US left Vietnam, Cuban refugees, East Berliners, to only name a few.

But people like spuriousmonkey and other elitists who have never set foot in a communist country think that capitalism is satan, and socialism the cure-all. Funny when you think of the historical flow of willing people over these two types of walls.


And no, spurious, capitalism is forced on nobody. Civil wars were waged to win the right to freely engage in capitalism. And if you want to opt-out, sit still and collect welfare. Or move. Or make money and donate as much as you can to those that are poorer than you. There is nobody forcing anyone to accept capitalist ideals, or engage in a consumer-oriented economy, or be materialistic. I say this from experience, having lived a simple life for many years on a tiny sailboat with no toilet, shower, or power. I also have a co-worker who lives like a hermit in the mountains, with no power or running water who refuses to go into resturaunts and grows his own food. He has some of the same philosophies that you seem to have and he lives accordingly. I don't presume to know too much about you, but the fact that you are online a lot is one obvious difference I see between his devotion to these ideals and your own.

hello! knock knock!

Anyone home?

I live in a socialist nation. Could we stop it with the platitudes please?

Still, our "unfortunates" must not be too badly off since their biggest health problem is obesity. America's poor families live in larger apartments than middle class people in Finland, and they all have cars, microwave ovens, cell phones, and color satellite TV.

You are a bad salesperson. I have seen how poor people live in the USA.

People in Finland don't need huge appartments to feel good. They just need a apartment size they need for living. Image is nothing.

Even poor people in Finland have a sauna. And a piece of forest. blabla..

all pointless..

This is no discussion.

.... they all have cars, microwave ovens, cell phones, and color satellite TV.
And having lots of stuff automatically means you are happier....?

And having lots of stuff automatically means you are happier....?

Not really, but if you can afford those things, it means you have a place to sleep and enough to feed yourself with. It is hard to measure poverty by taking "happy polls", or by measuring caloric intake. Which is why an index like PPP is used, or you look at the possession of durable goods.

Then again, if you ask most people the world over, they will say that they prefer to own luxurious items rather than living in clay huts where they slowly starve, but have "nice bonds" with their extended family. Usually the only people that are anti-materialists are the rich princes of the world, like Siddhartha, and all the trust-fund hippies that don't even know what being poor feels like. And nobody should take their false Buddhism seriously.

You are a bad salesperson. I have seen how poor people live in the USA.I'm sure you're talking about the people living in the streets, something foreigners love to make a big deal out of. They are not living in the street because they are poor. They are living in the street because they are crazy and they are poor because they are crazy. Fifty years ago we felt that we had an obligation to care for them like we do for children, and we kept them in institutions where they had food, bathtubs, doctors, TV, visits from their families, and friends to play games or argue with.

Then somewhere along the way it was decided that even these people have a "right" to choose their own lifestyle--a "right" that we don't even grant to children, many of whom are much more competent than they are--and we made institutionalization voluntary. A lot of them chose the "freedom" to live in the streets and spend their days shouting biblical quotations at people. My wife used to be a social worker and was sad because many of them could actually qualify for welfare benefits, but they don't have enough self-discipline to come into an office for an interview and fill out the forms.

I don't know how I feel about this. If it were me, I'd probably rather be outdoors. If it were my wife, I couldn't stand to see her locked up but I also couldn't stand to see her wander off into the street. I'd probably end up turning our home into an "institution" that she couldn't run away from. At least she'd have her pets. But that's easy to say. Many crazy people have caring families but they don't have the skill, resources, or temperament to do what amounts to imprisonment at home.

These are the people that foreign reporters always focus on because they love to make America look bad, and they're a tiny fraction of America's poor.Even poor people in Finland have a sauna.People who think it's refreshing to run out of a steam-filled room and jump directly into a snow bank are not people I will ever choose as role models for a pleasant life.And a piece of forest. I hope they enjoy it while it lasts. If Finland becomes as successful and prosperous as the USA and people start emigrating there to have a better life, it will get crowded and its forests will be turned into housing tracts and shopping malls just like every other country.

If Finland becomes as successful and prosperous as the USA and people start emigrating there to have a better life, it will get crowded and its forests will be turned into housing tracts and shopping malls just like every other country.
Immigration to Finland is small-scale but growing. What's your definition of 'successful'?

Howabout 'owns the world'? ;)

In that case, assuming the common definition of 'owns', America is unsuccessful. ;)

You take me too literally.
Howabout something more akin to 'becomes a primary controling power on the international stage in economic, military, and cultural fields'.

I'm sure you're talking about the people living in the streets, something foreigners love to make a big deal out of. They are not living in the street because they are poor. They are living in the street because they are crazy and they are poor because they are crazy. Fifty years ago we felt that we had an obligation to care for them like we do for children, and we kept them in institutions where they had food, bathtubs, doctors, TV, visits from their families, and friends to play games or argue with.

Then somewhere along the way it was decided that even these people have a "right" to choose their own lifestyle--a "right" that we don't even grant to children, many of whom are much more competent than they are--and we made institutionalization voluntary. A lot of them chose the "freedom" to live in the streets and spend their days shouting biblical quotations at people. My wife used to be a social worker and was sad because many of them could actually qualify for welfare benefits, but they don't have enough self-discipline to come into an office for an interview and fill out the forms.

I don't know how I feel about this. If it were me, I'd probably rather be outdoors. If it were my wife, I couldn't stand to see her locked up but I also couldn't stand to see her wander off into the street. I'd probably end up turning our home into an "institution" that she couldn't run away from. At least she'd have her pets. But that's easy to say. Many crazy people have caring families but they don't have the skill, resources, or temperament to do what amounts to imprisonment at home.

These are the people that foreign reporters always focus on because they love to make America look bad, and they're a tiny fraction of America's poor.People who think it's refreshing to run out of a steam-filled room and jump directly into a snow bank are not people I will ever choose as role models for a pleasant life.I hope they enjoy it while it lasts. If Finland becomes as successful and prosperous as the USA and people start emigrating there to have a better life, it will get crowded and its forests will be turned into housing tracts and shopping malls just like every other country.

Didn't I suggest that this line of reasoning is not a discussion?

And no I am not referring to the people in the street. Not that americans still notice those people.

In that case, assuming the common definition of 'owns', America is unsuccessful. ;)
hasn't it occured to you that the american people do not want to rule the world?

Immigration to Finland is small-scale but growing. What's your definition of 'successful'?

'The Myth of socialism being soft'
Actually, people like to equate socialism with soft immigration rules. In real life Finland has one the strictest immigration policies in Europe. That's because they approach this problem from a socialist viewpoint.

Socialism is about building a stable society where there is a fair chance for everyone to lead a prosperous and happy life. Where excesses that destabilize an equal society are frowned upon. Such as excessive differences between the rich and the poor.

Immigration rules are strict in Finland because they don't want economic refugees. Recently there was a discussion on newer stricter rules. What they want is that real political refugees have an opportunity to come, and deter economic refugees at the same time.

An anecdote. There was an american exchange student at the university. She was caught stealing from the people she worked with. The police put her on the next plane back to the USA.

Socialist are not softies. Socialists are realists.


Socialism the right system for every nation?

It's also not suprising that the more social democracies of scandinavia are more democratic than the USA. The USA is stricly aiming at creating elite groups within their society. Of course you hear all the time the propaganda on freedom, equality etc., but their society is not a reflection of their 'ideals'.

I think this is why a nation based on socialist values such as Finland is so succesful on a human level. There is an ideal of a democratic equal society and the social infrastructure is actually a reflection of this.

Socialism will never work in the USA. The american mind is too far down the road of me, myself and I. Ironically Gorbatchov brought down the soviet system because he wanted to turn the closed dictatorial socialist doctrine of the Soviet union into a democratic open socialist system. He didn't realize the consequences of his actions. The whole system only worked because it was not open. And the walls came down. Unintentionally.

Introduction of socialism in the USA will also fail. It can be tried, but it will only result in a switch of political systems, probably ending up in a totalitarian fascist state, or something else that comes natural to the american mindset. ;)

One seems to think I care if the world turns into socialist world. I do not. You do whatever you want in the USA. As long as you don't try force the rest of the world to do the same.

The Dutch reaction to anti-socialist movements.

The original article shows that in the Netherlands a reaction is brewing to the insistant american-style influence on their society. A part of the population is starting to realize that the things previous generations fought for are being lost. Such as Union influence. Such as equality. Such as dignity.

And this social reaction I find most interesting.

hasn't it occured to you that the american people do not want to rule the world?

I actually think they don't. Most americans I met just want to lead a decent life.

But I am not sure about the 'forces' that control the american government. They certainly want to control the world. And isn't having control the same as ruling?

i believe if you compare countries they should be similar in size and population.
for example britain with japan, not britain and russia, china or even the US.

Size is irrelevant.

History is more revealing.

But I am not sure about the 'forces' that control the american government.
the "forces" that control the US government is the national security apparatus, and it is in dire need of good people, mainly because they cannot connect up with the ones they stumble across.

a little known fact is that the producer of "americas most wanted" was murdered because he was too close to powerful people.

Size is irrelevant.

you cannot possibly believe that spurious. you, as a scientist, know better.
our history isn't much different than other countries.

I'm not interested in a USA-Finland comparison. We did that already in other threads.

Keep on topic please. Just post in 'spuriousmonkey and the USA' or something if you want to discuss this topic. I will oblige you there.

I actually think they don't. Most americans I met just want to lead a decent life.

But I am not sure about the 'forces' that control the american government. They certainly want to control the world. And isn't having control the same as ruling?

Hmm, interesting comment. But in our system of government, the "rulers" can only "rule" for a limited time ....then they have to be re-elected by the people in a free election.

So ...how can they be what you've implied without the consent of the people? Can you explain that to me?

Baron Max

I don't think anyone believes president Bush in charge of the US.

I don't think anyone believes president Bush in charge of the US.
or that he was actually elected in 2000