Capitalism is socialism?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
No, it can't. None of the countries mentioned are socialist economies. Let us look at the Economic Freedom Index. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are each less than one point away from the US in regards to economic freedom. What makes this funnier is that each of these countries economies are less regulated then the U.S. they are just brought down by their welfare and taxation states. This is the Nordic success story. All of the Nordic countries had a higher life expectancy. If we delve into Sweden and Denmark's history, we realize why their economy flourishes despite their high taxes and the welfare state. I am specifically focusing on Sweden, but nigh all of what I am about to say applies to Denmark. Sweden's period of affluence took place between 1850 to 1950. During this period, Sweden the average Swedish income multiplied eightfold, while population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 percent, and average life expectancy rose an incredible 28 years. In 1950, Sweden had lower taxes and a smaller public sector than the U.S. and the rest of Europe. The Social Democrats finally took control in the 50s, and while they slightly raised taxes, the significant increases did not transpire until 1970. Since 1950, Sweden has gone from 7 to 19 in GDP per capita. But unfortunately, wasteful spending and poor economic policies nipped Sweden in the bud. The average growth rate was halved to 2 percent in the 1970s, declining further in the 1980s, and that was before the big crisis in the 1990s. In 1990, the year before a serious economic crisis in Sweden, private enterprise had not created a single net job since 1950. They luckily cut social spending and freed up the economy which helped them recover.

High tax rates and generous welfare benefits discouraged investment and subsidized indolence. Very few of Sweden's most prominent companies were created post-1970. In 2000 just one of the 50 biggest Swedish enterprises was founded after 1970. To quote Johan Nordberg,

How do you create a small fortune? You start with a big one. Sweden is using past money generated from capitalism and keeping their economy free to fund a massive welfare state. This applies to both Norway and Denmark.

Damn, good stuff.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
He said they're considered socialist. What is considered "socialist" today, i.e what most people refer to when they say they support socialism, is primarily capitalist integrated w/ socialist programs. Much in the same way that actual socialism (state-controlled economy) is what most people call "communism," even though communism is supposed to be stateless.

^ Bingo

Originally posted by Surtur
Socialism just plain needs to be snuffed out of existence.

Originally posted by Scribble
Hah! This is one of the best posts in recent memory. "Kill Socialism", says a man who survives entirely on a social welfare program. Without influence from socialism, your libertarian capitalist paradise would leave you dead in the street.

Except I don't survive entirely on it lol. Yes, socialism needs to go.

Originally posted by Scribble
Hah! This is one of the best posts in recent memory. "Kill Socialism", says a man who survives entirely on a social welfare program. Without influence from socialism, your libertarian capitalist paradise would leave you dead in the street.

Bingo.

Originally posted by Surtur
Except I don't survive entirely on it lol. Yes, socialism needs to go.

Social programs, appropriated from socialist government types, have improved American life, as they have improved all countries where they've been implemented. I mean, you just don't seem to understand what 'socialism' entails, other than "it bad and gotta go because fascism" or... something? I'm not really clear why you think it needs to go, especially when without it, you probably wouldn't have anywhere to live, unless you have rich parents.

Originally posted by Scribble
What else do you survive on, if not social welfare? If all socialism-related programs and laws were removed from the US, the standard of living would plummet and the death toll would rise dramatically. And would the wealthy provide alternatives? No, make your own money, leech.

Social programs, appropriated from socialist government types, have improved American life, as they have improved all countries where they've been implemented. I mean, you just don't seem to understand what 'socialism' entails, other than "it bad and gotta go because fascism" or... something? I'm not really clear why you think it needs to go, especially when without it, you probably wouldn't have anywhere to live, unless you have rich parents.

I never said get rid of social programs lol. Sp is there a point to your rant?

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said get rid of social programs lol. Sp is there a point to your rant?

Also please, that was hardly a rant. A rant has to either be three full-size paragraphs or one big wall of text. That was neither.

Surtur and his general ignorance got nailed to the wall. That happened.

Originally posted by Scribble
So, you want to scrub all of socialism from the face of the earth, but you want to keep the social programs? Which are like, a part of socialist theory and practice?

Also please, that was hardly a rant. A rant has to either be three full-size paragraphs or one big wall of text. That was neither.

I think you're taking it far too literally lol.

So when you said "Socialism just plain needs to be snuffed out of existence", what you meant was, "I disagree with many core tenets of socialism, in particular hard socialism, but its affect on western society has also brought many benefits, some of which I myself rely on and I am thankful for these", correct? Because you could have just... said that.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Capitalism is not socialism, but socialism is the end-game of capitalism. Eventually the free-market fails as the most successful companies devour the lesser ones and instill monopolies, at which point the exchange of currency for products/services ceases to be voluntary and becomes coercion-based. ISP's are a good example. Company gets big -> eats the surrounding companies -> uses its insane wealth to fund laws that make it harder for other companies to compete -> free market collapses and individuals are forced to pay that company for its services as the alternative is lacking a vital resource that's basically mandatory to be successful in the modern world.

No one is a Comcast customer by choice.

The GDP per capita of Sweden developed as well as that of the US since the 60s

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Corporatism is foregone conclusion of the free market.

Now, anti-corruption measures to take corporate money out of the political sphere can alleviate this issue to a great extent, so we can still keep both capitalism and government. But a 'true capitalist' system in which none have unfair advantages and in which corporatism is finally quashed isn't feasible.

i completely agree

Originally posted by lazybones
A pretty unavoidable truth, unfortunately. The corporatist relationship between business and state is ultimately symbiotic and sought by both parties. From a enterprise's very beginnings, the state guarantees the private property of the business, and has the monopoly on force to enforce those rights against those with competing claims. In return, the business provides tax revenues and help keep the people content through employment. As a business grows larger, they accrue more leverage, and can extract subsidies and aid from the government, which will generally be all too happy to provide it to them. This mutualistic relationship is why corporations will, when forced to choose between potentially no government and an authoritarian government, will pick the latter. This was seen in the Spanish Civil War, when the landed and business owners rallied around the fascist Franco, who although extremely authoritarian preserved the corporatist relationship and private property.

Now, anti-corruption measures to take corporate money out of the political sphere can alleviate this issue to a great extent, so we can still keep both capitalism and government. But a 'true capitalist' system in which none have unfair advantages and in which corporatism is finally quashed isn't feasible.

👆

Well there are several pretty fundamental differences between corporations and states, e.g. one has a monopoly of force and the other doesn't, and one has a broad set of responsibilities over its jurisdiction whereas the other just has a general idea to make its shareholders profit in specialized areas.

Originally posted by walshy
The GDP per capita of Sweden developed as well as that of the US since the 60s

Not sure if Sweden's GDP correlation with the U.S. really matters. Ever since the high taxes and the giant welfare state, Sweden stagnated juxtaposed to their previous growth.

And according to the World Factbook, Sweden has a lower GDP per capita than the states. In addition, they used to have the seventh highest and now they have dropped in 26.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well there are several pretty fundamental differences between corporations and states, e.g. one has a monopoly of force and the other doesn't, and one has a broad set of responsibilities over its jurisdiction whereas the other just has a general idea to make its shareholders profit in specialized areas.

👆

Originally posted by lazybones
A pretty unavoidable truth, unfortunately. The corporatist relationship between business and state is ultimately symbiotic and sought by both parties. From a enterprise's very beginnings, the state guarantees the private property of the business, and has the monopoly on force to enforce those rights against those with competing claims. In return, the business provides tax revenues and help keep the people content through employment. As a business grows larger, they accrue more leverage, and can extract subsidies and aid from the government, which will generally be all too happy to provide it to them. This mutualistic relationship is why corporations will, when forced to choose between potentially no government and an authoritarian government, will pick the latter. This was seen in the Spanish Civil War, when the landed and business owners rallied around the fascist Franco, who although extremely authoritarian preserved the corporatist relationship and private property.

Now, anti-corruption measures to take corporate money out of the political sphere can alleviate this issue to a great extent, so we can still keep both capitalism and government. But a 'true capitalist' system in which none have unfair advantages and in which corporatism is finally quashed isn't feasible.

Great argument for anarcho capitalism, tbh.