No argument there.
4 Likes
What do we define as Socialist? These countries have serious social safety networks, and money
giveaway programs, but Swedish govt did not nationalize IKEA or Volvo to the day. We did however begin to see mass protests of farmers in Europe. It will continue, govt imposing various āgreenā limitations, trying to reduce livestock by 30%. What happens when Dutch farmers refuse? Then we will know, if they have Socialism or not.
3 Likes
Do the definitions even matter when the systems become corrupted and warped for the gain of a few insiders? The Germans may have called themselves National Socialists in the 30s and 40s but functionally they were a dictatorship under Hitler as was the Soviet Union under Stalin and arguably Russia under Putin today.
I would argue that our āCapitalistā economic system here in the US has many socialist qualities. Corporations keep a large share of the profits when things go right but the government (meaning us taxpayers) often gets stuck covering the losses when things go wrong. Such as in 2007/2008 or with the cleanup of superfund sites, etc. Many businesses also count on the government to cover a lot of their low wage employeesā expenses such as health care and retirement. A lot of corporate costs get externalized and passed on for the benefit of short term profits at the expense of long term stability.
2 Likes
Socialism is always a rip off, but not every rip off is Socialism. Now if US govt owned the banks they bailed out, or bank leadership had significant position in US govt, I would agree with you.
Now there is a company called Pfizer. No, it didnt need a bailout yet.
3 Likes
Are you saying bank leadership doesnāt have a significant position in the US government? Our regulatory agencies in all sectors are revolving doors between the government and corporations. How many regulators are truly going to stand up for the people when they know it could likely cost them a future six figure salary? And how many former and future Pfizer employees had a say in pushing the experimental vaccines through the approval process without proper review?
Though I would say that corporations influencing the government is a recurring problem with capitalism. Iām certainly not saying socialism is better just that all the isms are corruptible.
3 Likes
@leo23 ā¦ donāt you think itās a good time to update the Category of this thread? 
Good reading hereā¦ but not meme anymore.
3 Likes
thanks for the reminder 
2 Likes
I can say for certain that Norway is definitely not a socialist country. In fact, they consistently rank higher than the U.S. in terms of being free market and business friendly. They have no minimum wage, no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax, etc., etc. What they do have is very generous social support programs, including free health care, free college, subsidized childcare and housing, and more. These programs are made possible only by the insanely high taxes levied against the capitalist prosperity of its citizens. Another fun fact: none of Norwayās social programs are means-tested the way programs are here in the U.Sā¦ Every citizen is free to make use of any and all of the programs, regardless of relative wealth or poverty.
By insane taxes, Iām not referring only to the income tax, which can be well in excess of 50% for people earning, $50-60,000.00 per year. It goes up from there. Itās also the 25% sales tax on every purchase, the 150% tax on the purchase of a new car, and taxes on practically every transaction in everyday life.
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are having trouble funding all these programs in recent years, mostly because, no matter how hard you try, sooner or later you run out of other peopleās money.
6 Likes
I think quite a few people in the US would consider all those government provided social programs and the high taxes needed to fund them to be the very definition of what a socialist country is.
I personally donāt see things as that black and white. Everything has its advantages and disadvantages. But Iām personally not aware of a government in any form that has managed to sustain itself for more than a few centuries without eventually collapsing under its own weight. Aside from some smaller isolated tribal communities.
2 Likes
I struggled for a long time to get my head wrapped around the difference between a communist and a fascist. From my seat here in the U.S., they look like twin ugly sisters. I finally started to understand when I learned about Mussolini. He was very involved with the Italian socialists, and was one of their main propagandists. But became disillusioned with their divisive nature. Socialism always requires a boogeyman to blame, in order to attract more proponents. Thatās why socialist movements always pit rich vs poor, black vs white, Jew vs gentile, etc.
Mussolini thought this was tearing Italy apart, and he thought Italy needed to be united to survive the Great War. So he made external bogeymen in order to unite Italians, rather than divide them. The socialists were furious with his new tactics, but his brand of nationalist socialism won out. The socialists went on to support the communist revolution in Russia, while the German National Socialists (Nazis) followed Mussoliniās model.
Thatās not a definitive distinction between communism and fascism, but knowing the history between the division helps me out.
3 Likes
For certain groups. Unfortunately, no trial similar to Neremberg happened to socialism.
2 Likes
Because you canāt put ists and isms in jail. But it would have been nice if Stalin and his henchmen had to face proper punishment for the millions of innocent civilians they killed.
3 Likes
Socialism is the revenge of the herd.
Nietzsche
4 Likes
Luckily, the new Marxist/Leninist/Socialist/Commie indoctrination is strong in our schools, from Pre-Kindergarten through PostGrad levels.
Arenāt we lucky? (/sarc)
God save us from our newest Leftists.
4 Likes
socialist, communist, fascist, nazi, itās all the same ilk. Please donāt tell me āRealā socialism works, it never has. socialism is the āpublicā word for communism. Itās more palatable and easier to get the usefuls to follow. Itās called socialism is when citizens are armed, itās called communism when citizens are not armed. 
4 Likes
Finally! Someone who has studied history and remembers it! You are right on point David. Socialism has NEVER worked. Hard to believe so many on a forum hosted by a pro 2A concealed carry organization would think socialism is good. This is scary people. Wake up people. I will end with a Margaret Thatcher quote: āSocialism works until you run out of other peopleās moneyā.
And my own thought āsocialism looks good on paperā
Oh, and for those of you that do not know who Margaret Thatcher was, you made my point.
6 Likes
I remember exactly who she is, Made me realize how old I am. Itās been awhile since Iāve heard that name.
3 Likes
By the way, the title of this thread is a bit misleading: āOld socialist vs newā. Letās be clearāthere is no such thing as ānew socialismā. At best there is the same old socialism; maybe with a new paint job, a man bun, and the serial numbers filed off. Donāt be fooled. Itās the same old song and dance that has failed everyone, everywhere, every time. It doesnāt just not work, it canāt work. The basic premises are flawed in their very core, which amount of tweaking or adjusting can compensate for.
Letās remember that the founder of modern socialism was a child born into a wealthy family, married the daughter of a wealthy family, and his best friend (Engles) was alsoā¦wait for itā¦a scion of wealth. At least Engles had a job. Marx never worked at anything, living off his family, his wifeās family, greedily anticipating the death of relatives for any inheritance coming his way, kowtowed to the monied classes in hopes of their favor and support. Maybe not the person Iād look to for guidance on the struggles of the working classes.
5 Likes