Let the hilarity ensue.

Why is Obama even called that? Most progressives think Obama is too far right. He's closer to Regan than Clinton on policies. I don't know how they even call him a socialist to begin with.

Anyway, back to your question...

Because Stone Cold said so?

Conservatives intentionally conflate "socialist economic policies" with "socialism imposed on a country through a dictatorship" to cause confusion in people. No one really wants the latter, but many countries have had the former for quite some time, through democratic elections, and are quite happy with it. In fact, the US has some socialist economic policies. Social Security, Medicare, the graduated income tax, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, workplace safety laws, product safety laws, worker's compensation, none of these things would be possible without socialism.

Every country is at least a little socialist. It's just a matter of degrees at this point. Some are more than others.

Lazy peeps like Socialism...Liberals.

Hard working peeps, who want to be rewarded for their hard work and entrepreneurship like capitalism.

So socialism takes money from hard working peeps and gives it to lazy peeps. It deinsentivizes any hard work or entrepreneurshipness.

lmao

I figure you can arrange countries in order of "most socialist" to "least socialist," and you'll also have a list of countries generally going from "peaceful and prosperous" to "hell on earth." You shall know them by their fruits.

Socialism absolutely devalues entrepreneurship, because it restricts/outlaws individual profit making.

The most slanted line is that "lazy people like it so others can do their work for them." And while that can be true, its true in the same sense that capitalism alienates anyone without capital from their own profits (subsistence wages, corporate greed, and exploitation of workers).

Ideally, socialism has everyone working for each other (the "profits" of labor go toward raising the standard of living for all rather than just for one). Everyone pitches in what they can and those who can't are taken care of by the excess from the rest.

Whether it's possible for socialism to exist anywhere close to that ideal is unproven (if not dis-proven by the governments who have attempted versions of it and faltered).

But Tahoe gives a good example of the stereotype that makes it "a bad word". That and the fact that our primary enemy subscribed to a version of it (communism).

Ideal socialism--labor strangles capital into stagnation and really requires some kind of iron fist at the top to perpetuate it. Ideal capitalism is equally unstable and bad.

Lazy peeps like Socialism...Liberals.

Hard working peeps, who want to be rewarded for their hard work and entrepreneurship like capitalism.

So socialism takes money from hard working peeps and gives it to lazy peeps. It deinsentivizes any hard work or entrepreneurshipness.

lmao

I like capitalism in general (people that work hard get rewarded) but clearly some functions of our capitalistic society are run by crooks. As mentioned in the health care thread we don't have a truly consumer based health option. They can jack up rates all they want. Nobody wants a socialistic society, they just want to stop getting dicked over by corporations.

they just want to stop getting dicked over by corporations.

The way you get there is with rule of law and strong controls against fraud. We've been undermining both of those things for the last three decades and now we reap what we've sown... boom/bust cycles of looting.

I like capitalism in general (people that work hard get rewarded) but clearly some functions of our capitalistic society are run by crooks. As mentioned in the health care thread we don't have a truly consumer based health option. They can jack up rates all they want. Nobody wants a socialistic society, they just want to stop getting dicked over by corporations.

I'm not sure I can agree on how you've framed the debate.

I guess the question is whether you want all aspects of society in a free market form. Is that what you want?:

Schools - poor areas will just get worse and worse
Mail service - rural areas pay huge amounts because they are farther from hubs?
Fire Dept & Police - If people can't afford they get no protection?

Those are a few items that are not free market systems (there are private school and private mail options but those users still pay taxes to cover public options).

I think that Swami summed it up perfectly. I also think that many politicians, pundits, etc. love to talk in absolutes and purposefully avoid the kind of spectrum discussion that would be much more relevant.

And as for how much countries with more socialistic economic policies affect capitalism and business, and I'm only talking about my own personal experiences, but I don't really see it at all. I would say that the only more socialistic policy that I've seen that makes things difficult on business owners is workers' severance. Salaries can be a factor depending on the country but not too much depending on the market and growth of the company. You wouldn't want to have 300 workers in Scandinavia and selling cheap goods to a small market for example. But again, and I think gee already touched on this, my experience is that a company has it's costs and risks and markets and that no matter where the company is those factors are processed accordingly.

I also think that many politicians, pundits, etc. love to talk in absolutes and purposefully avoid the kind of spectrum discussion that would be much more relevant.

Exactly. I think we need to be open to the option of tighter government regulation of business activities where they have proven to be necessary, but none of that makes us a "socialist state." In reality, there is a broad continuum between pure socialism and pure capitalism. I do think both extremes are probably unworkable in America. A purely socialist state can't help but wield its regulatory weapon so easily as to prevent a useful economy; a purely capitalist state ends up so susceptible to the influence of money that it quickly devolves into a branch of corporate control - and this is pretty much where we are now.

Where we are in terms of economic policy is pretty much irrelevant, in my opinion. America has a disease. That disease is that we want to be told what to do. We have gotten so comfortable with being told what to do, how to think, how to act through every single aspect of our lives, that any policy that requires our conscientious participation will eventually fail. Socialism can't really work here as it works so well in places like Scandinavia, because Scandinavians are resolute and firm in their ideals. They have the labor policies they have because they have insisted upon them in huge numbers. They cooperate and organize to achieve the things they desire.

Everyone in Denmark has Whitsunday off. We don't even know what Whitsunday IS in the USA. It's a very old church holiday that has been a national holiday for hundreds of years in Denmark, even though there is really only a small percentage of the population that practices Christianity. But the workers of Denmark have put their collective foot down when it comes to giving up the holiday, and the government is frightened of what might happen if they eliminated it - as they should be. The Danish people know that business interests and government interests always have an overarching agenda, and that agenda has to be kept in check through the firm, vigilant dedication of the regular people. In the USA, we are just too likely to believe that the nice man from Monsanto or the State Department really is one of us, and wants to look out for us, and has our best interests at heart, even when we have been proven wrong ten thousand times.

The big problem in America is not capitalism vs. socialism. Not at all. The big problem is authoritarianism, and the psychological state that makes authoritarianism so acceptable to so many of us.

This is slightly related to your point, but why since WWI have we not increased the number of representatives? I think our elected officials are out of touch with their constituents and that is one of the many reasons why. We've had 435 since 1911 yet we've gone from 93 million people to over 300 million today.

They aren't putting in 3 times the effort to represent us, that is for sure. The reason it won't increase now is because they are power hungry. They don't want their voice diluted and they also don't want less influence over the electoral college and it takes congress to increase the number.

Everyone in Denmark has Whitsunday off. We don't even know what Whitsunday IS in the USA. It's a very old church holiday that has been a national holiday for hundreds of years in Denmark, even though there is really only a small percentage of the population that practices Christianity. But the workers of Denmark have put their collective foot down when it comes to giving up the holiday, and the government is frightened of what might happen if they eliminated it - as they should be. The Danish people know that business interests and government interests always have an overarching agenda, and that agenda has to be kept in check through the firm, vigilant dedication of the regular people.
Most people have Whitsunday off these days -- it's a Sunday. It's the following Whit Monday (a.k.a. Pentecost) that many European countries have off.

Most people have Whitsunday off these days -- it's a Sunday. It's the following Whit Monday (a.k.a. Pentecost) that many European countries have off.

Oops, you're right. My bad.

My sister-in-law was working at her HR job in Denmark and she's a notorious workaholic. She wanted to come in on that Monday to get some things done while everyone else was off, but she was surprised to find that many of her co-workers were very hostile to the idea. They had fought hard to keep that holiday, and they were not going to stand idly by while someone made it seem like coming in on your day off was no big deal. Peer pressure is one way of keeping people organized and united in the face of an economic system that's constantly pushing you to give things up.