Is Scandinavian Socialism the best form of Socialism that exists...

Is Scandinavian Socialism the best form of Socialism that exists? Many social nets as well as the best HDI and income per household.

Other urls found in this thread:

mrbauld.com/conlibsoc.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

But it's just welfare capitalism. And it's supposedly being scaled back in recent years because of mass Mohammedan migrations

>social democracy
>socialism

Those aren't the same thing.

>more then half the income going to the government
>not socialism

Yeah give it a few more years.

>private property still being a thing
>socialism

Welfare state =/= socialism. Socialism means the workers own the production means, it's also quite a fucking retarded concept popularized by a Prussian kike.

The Scandinavian economy still has a fuckton of privatisation. Also, even if it didn't it wouldn't be socialism, because the workers do not directly control the means of production.

They're social democracies. The Scandinavian model is more or less perfect, other than allowing too many hostile immigrants/refugees in. Foreigners should only be allowed in slowly and they must assimiliate.

Before the inevitable tide of Marxists who still think that they're remotely relevant, let me repost something from a forum by a friend of mine. For the record, he's a member of the Labour Party in Britain.

>Socialism is like Liberalism or Conservatism in that it a very broad term that encompasses a very wide range of political tendencies and movements, many of which have almost nothing in common with each other. At its most basic it denotes support for the transfer of political and economic power from elite groups into the hands of the common people and the subsequent creation of a more egalitarian society. The term became more restrictively applied during the 20th century than had previously been the case and tended to denote support for the policies of various Socialist parties (much as had long been the case for Liberalism and Conservatism) many of which were explicitly Marxist or Marxist influenced and/or influenced by other forms of Utopian Modernism. In the West the Cold War led to the abandonment (gradual in some cases, very sudden in others) of the Marxist and/or Utopian legacy by the various Socialist parties and the subsequent diffusion of the term, a process hastened by the political and intellectual turmoil of the late 1960s and the emergence of the New Left. In the East the term was used to describe the society and system of government created by the various Communist regimes, while in the Third World it typically (though not entirely) denoted a form of enthusiastic Modernist folly. The collapse of the Soviet Union has ultimately meant (though it has taken a while) that we're back to where we began, almost.

>MUH HDI
The HDI considers Cuba to be more developed than México.
Where would you rather live?

HDI is a meme

Clearly it isn't if it allowed the latter to start disintegrating it.

Actually Cuba wouldn't be that bad compared to Mexico, which is riddled with the aftershocks of the CIA and KGB meddling in South America.

>CAPTCHA SUNSET sins

>Many social nets as well as the best HDI and income per household.

no because they got MUSLIMED

Allowing in too many refugees is not a genetic flaw of Social Democracy as a system, only a failure of people who allow their emotions override their reason.

Would also recommend this short essay by Kolakowski.

mrbauld.com/conlibsoc.html

As to whether the Nordic states can be called "socialist", it's a stronger current in those countries than it is in most other Western states and there is far less social inequality than in almost any other part of the world, but on the other hand free enterprise is very strong, so I wouldn't necessarily use the label, but I wouldn't reject it as quickly as the Marxists do.

>Where would you rather live?
Cuba. Crime rates are way lower and the healthcare system is actually functional.

The only advantage is that you can leave Mexico easier than Cuba, but HDI measures how good it is to live in a country, not leave it.

>it's not the homogenous demography

>homogeneous demography
Half the Scandinavians are Asians.

Holy shit you are delusional
Go live in your commie shithole then

>while in the Third World it typically (though not entirely) denoted a form of enthusiastic Modernist folly
To add onto this, the Meiji had a term for their extreme state investiture in industry that escapes my memory. Though today, we'd consider it 'socialism' of some sort.
As you say, for a lot of folks in the third world socialism wasn't ideological, it was a means of modernising as fast as they could. After the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping and the fall of the soviet union, a lot of those socialist parties turned liberal of some form or other, because that was now how they figured they'd modernise.

Have you not been to Mexico?

It's a fucking shithole. I don't blame the people who want to leave that godforsaken hell.

The Japanese have always had a strange interest in translating western concepts into forms which most benefit their political beliefs, though. In particular, there were concerted efforts to have the translation of 'democracy' to very explicitly be 'rule for the people,' rather than 'rule by' or 'rule by and for'. Even outside that, though, I would personally be wary of naming state industrial efforts as socialist.

Well for what it's worth their parliament from meiji to the end of the second world war was on the Prussian model, where such a thing wasn't entirely out of place. They didn't call it socialism because such concepts had very little penetration in asia at the time, even with the liberal democratic sorts. They didn't call it socialism because, even if they knew what it was, it wasn't really what they were doing. Heavy state investiture in industry was just a means of building but industry ASAP, so they could have all those fun things like cars and warships and everything else they figured they'd need to keep the gaijin out.

I bring it up because states during the cold war period did pretty much the same thing for the same reasons, but in these instances they and everyone else called it socialism, until it was no longer worth it to call it socialism.