Socialist utopia

[Faiyez]

What country today is the closest approximation to the ideal and values of social equality?

[☎need4naiim☎]

"Socialist Utopia"??? What is it?

It is one of the Dystopias, just like Corporatism, Digitalism, Globalism, Communism, Totalitarianism, Fascism.

[nokia ringtone]

Anoi Hidalgo님이 먼저 게시:

North Korea

More like a communist dystopia.

[Ulfrinn]

Faiyez님이 먼저 게시:

MrNewell123님이 먼저 게시:

The Scandinavian system seems pretty good. And very nice people. As compared to those in our more capitalist systems, where everyone seems miserable and hates everyone.

Norway? Or Denmark?

From my seat Iceland seems pretty utopic.

None of them are remotely close to socialist.

[Rio]

not a clue, the closest I can think of is the mouse utopia

[Ulfrinn]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that safety nets are NOT socialism. Socialism is an economic system, specifically, one where the means of production is publicly (government) owned. So your factories, farms, energy, for example are not privately owned. Communism is a step further in that the means of distribution, meaning stores, restaurants, etc are also government owned. None of this has anything to do with safety nets, welfare, healthcare, etc.

And the reason those economic models always turn to dictatorships is simple. While you may thing you can evenly distribute property, you cannot evenly distribute labor because people do not just work for free of their own volition. They need a reason to do the jobs people don't want to do, like collecting trash, digging ditches, unclogging sewers. There are only two ways to get someone to do a job they wouldn't otherwise do. The capitalist method is to pay them more than anyone else, and the socialist method is to put a gun to their head.

[Talby]

oldirty`님이 먼저 게시:

Faiyez님이 먼저 게시:

Socialism and capitalism are both coexisting in modern societies.

This is impossible, they are fundamentally different.

What you are looking for is what currently exists as "Social democracy". They have nothing to do with socialism as oppsoed to "democratic socialism" which does.

As stated by mrnewell123, scandinavia is very well into social democracy. Western europe generally has a lot in place to protect workers and keep capitalism in balance. But its far from the "Nordic model", a term worth googleing if you are interested.
Picking a country is very difficult, too much goes into it.

Sorry for being nitpicky about terminology, but it really does matter. Most people learn this words through propaganda from political agendas which destroys a more scientific discourse.

Technically Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are constitutional monarchies, while Finland and Iceland are republics. Social democracy is just a term to make communism "acceptable"...

[Rio]

Ulfrinn님이 먼저 게시:

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that safety nets are NOT socialism. Socialism is an economic system, specifically, one where the means of production is publicly (government) owned. So your factories, farms, energy, for example are not privately owned. Communism is a step further in that the means of distribution, meaning stores, restaurants, etc are also government owned. None of this has anything to do with safety nets, welfare, healthcare, etc.

And the reason those economic models always turn to dictatorships is simple. While you may thing you can evenly distribute property, you cannot evenly distribute labor because people do not just work for free of their own volition. They need a reason to do the jobs people don't want to do, like collecting trash, digging ditches, unclogging sewers. There are only two ways to get someone to do a job they wouldn't otherwise do. The capitalist method is to pay them more than anyone else, and the socialist method is to put a gun to their head.

China owns just what it thinks are critical, rather than all the means of production.

[blacksunchaos]

Where have the workers taken over the means of production? European welfare capitalism isn't 'socialism'.

[abcd]

switzerland, but it's at the expense of everyone else.

its harsh legal penalties do little to stop corruptions as well; largely only concentrating them.

[MistuhG]

A graveyard would probably be the closest thing.
'True equality' finally achieved, just like they wanted.

[☎need4naiim☎]

MistuhG님이 먼저 게시:

A graveyard would probably be the closest thing.
'True equality' finally achieved, just like they wanted.

Maybe that's why both Stalin and Mao killed millions of people IN their own country.

*rolling eyes*

[GunsForBucks]

China probably thinks it is.

But it is twisted by greed into just another form of slavery. Trading of freedom for peace and calling it democracy.

Keeping people so oppressed they only have each other to take down to get ahead and be allowed to have children.

They often preach Peace and Free Market.

At the cost of freedom and helping monopolies control markets.

If they pushed money down by 99% tax on profits over 1,000,000 and forced the richest people to invest in themselves and society, they would be ideal.

But money is power. Like here they need to strangle the population so they don't threaten their positions.

[oldirty`]

Ulfrinn님이 먼저 게시:

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that safety nets are NOT socialism. Socialism is an economic system, specifically, one where the means of production is publicly (government) owned. So your factories, farms, energy, for example are not privately owned. Communism is a step further in that the means of distribution, meaning stores, restaurants, etc are also government owned. None of this has anything to do with safety nets, welfare, healthcare, etc.

And the reason those economic models always turn to dictatorships is simple. While you may thing you can evenly distribute property, you cannot evenly distribute labor because people do not just work for free of their own volition. They need a reason to do the jobs people don't want to do, like collecting trash, digging ditches, unclogging sewers. There are only two ways to get someone to do a job they wouldn't otherwise do. The capitalist method is to pay them more than anyone else, and the socialist method is to put a gun to their head.

Very good post. Although capitalism also puts a gun to peoples head indirectly. Lots of jobs suck and get payed bad while others dont and get payed very well.

[Faiyez]

Talby님이 먼저 게시:

oldirty`님이 먼저 게시:

This is impossible, they are fundamentally different.

What you are looking for is what currently exists as "Social democracy". They have nothing to do with socialism as oppsoed to "democratic socialism" which does.

As stated by mrnewell123, scandinavia is very well into social democracy. Western europe generally has a lot in place to protect workers and keep capitalism in balance. But its far from the "Nordic model", a term worth googleing if you are interested.
Picking a country is very difficult, too much goes into it.

Sorry for being nitpicky about terminology, but it really does matter. Most people learn this words through propaganda from political agendas which destroys a more scientific discourse.

Technically Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are constitutional monarchies, while Finland and Iceland are republics. Social democracy is just a term to make communism "acceptable"...

See, it doesn't matter what you prefer to call it. Whatever Norway, etc. have done seems the most desirable in a society.

I don't know why some users are scrambling to distance Nordics and their social policies from their clearly socialist inspirations and ideas that were started by socialists.

[abcd]

Faiyez님이 먼저 게시:

Talby님이 먼저 게시:

Technically Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are constitutional monarchies, while Finland and Iceland are republics. Social democracy is just a term to make communism "acceptable"...

See, it doesn't matter what you prefer to call it. Whatever Norway, etc. have done seems the most desirable in a society.

I don't know why some users are scrambling to distance Nordics and their social policies from their clearly socialist inspirations and ideas that were started by socialists.

because the nords are also hyper-capitalistic and their 'socialism' comes at the expense of all other states. often knowingly so.

kind of like switzerland.