Marxist professor on modern socialism

[Starlight]

You guys still believe that socialism, or anything remotely progressive is equal to Communist regimes?

Didn't we have a discussion about this, where you called the Scandinavian model capitalistic and redefined Social Democratic welfare states as entirely within free market capitalism?

It's the loop where they say "socialism bad, big government bad", and then someone points out to them that social democratic Denmark has the "biggest" government / highest taxes in the OECD and is the least corrupt and happiest country, and then they descend into incoherent babbling.

They're sure that any country that is at all progressive or socialist must be bad, so they're confused about how to classify all the successful progressive countries. They prefer an edited version of the world where the only countries are the US and the USSR. Other countries confuse them.

[Mountain Man]

You guys still believe that socialism, or anything remotely progressive is equal to Communist regimes?

Didn't we have a discussion about this, where you called the Scandinavian model capitalistic and redefined Social Democratic welfare states as entirely within free market capitalism?

As I recall, the last time we discussed this, people kept citing examples of "socialist" governments that were, in fact, supported by free market capitalist economies.

[Starlight]

people kept citing examples of "socialist" governments that were, in fact, supported by free market capitalist economies.

As the OP makes clear, "socialism" is not the opposite of the "free market". There's no problem with having a free market in a socialist society, and as the resident socialist, I support free markets (within reason with appropriate regulations). Socialism is the opposite of "capitalism" which is about the structure of businesses (where rich business owners get richer by exploiting their workers).

And the situation gets confused when people start using "socialism" to refer to the government running some social welfare programs to help the poor or provide medicare care etc.

And since you guys seem to love calling Venezuela "socialist" (it's actually capitalist), you should have no problem accepting that Denmark / Norway / etc are "socialist" given those are actually far closer to socialism (they are "social democratic mixed-market economies" where 'mixed' refers to a mix of socialist and capitalist elements).

[rogue06]

As I recall, the last time we discussed this, people kept citing examples of "socialist" governments that were, in fact, supported by free market capitalist economies.

Might also been the time when starlight kept trying to change the definition of Democratic Socialist

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah "everywhere" it's been tried, sure.

Once you go full socialist, dead bodies tend to pile up.

About 18,000 people die in the US per year due to a lack of universal healthcare coverage. How's that for a mass grave?

Did you know the USSR was the first country to introduce universal healthcare in the world?

And how many mass graves did they produce in the process?

My country of NZ which was historically a very left-leaning democracy was 2nd. That was over 75 years ago. "Capitalist" America is 75 years behind the more left-leaning countries and its citizens are still dying en masse per year as a result.

[lilpixieofterror]

As the OP makes clear, "socialism" is not the opposite of the "free market". There's no problem with having a free market in a socialist society, and as the resident socialist, I support free markets (within reason with appropriate regulations). Socialism is the opposite of "capitalism" which is about the structure of businesses (where rich business owners get richer by exploiting their workers).

And the situation gets confused when people start using "socialism" to refer to the government running some social welfare programs to help the poor or provide medicare care etc.

And since you guys seem to love calling Venezuela "socialist" (it's actually capitalist), you should have no problem accepting that Denmark / Norway / etc are "socialist" given those are actually far closer to socialism (they are "social democratic mixed-market economies" where 'mixed' refers to a mix of socialist and capitalist elements).

[lilpixieofterror]

You guys still believe that socialism, or anything remotely progressive is equal to Communist regimes?

Didn't we have a discussion about this, where you called the Scandinavian model capitalistic and redefined Social Democratic welfare states as entirely within free market capitalism?

Dabbling in socialism and going full socialist is two different things.

[Mountain Man]

And how many mass graves did they produce in the process?

Come on, pix, letting sick people die is one of the most efficient means of increasing the percentage of healthy people in the population!

[Sparko]

Everybody's equal - just some are more equal than others.

Most coops in the USA don't seem to be anything more than a groups of separate businesses that just link together, like the dairy farmers co-op, or Ace Hardware stores which are basically ran more like a franchise. Each "business" is separate with their own employees, income and expenses, taxes and everything and just share a common name for marketing and bargaining purposes.

[lilpixieofterror]

Come on, pix, letting sick people die is one of the most efficient means of increasing the percentage of healthy people in the population!

[Sparko]

Starlight wants a free market capitalistic socialism, Where businesses still exist and make money, but then give it all to the people who don't actually do anything. That way they can sit on their butts and let the rich people take care of them.

Maybe if we get to an entirely automated society where robots do all the work and make all the money so we can just take it and get stuff for free. Like in Wall-E. I can see Starlight in his floating chair right now.