I've talked to both, and there are a few (though not many) nuances between them. Basically, a communist is a slightly more consistent socialist (which is not saying much). Socialists claim to believe that people own the product of their labor, but contradict themselves by arbitrarily dividing "means of production" from other kinds of property. Communists believe that people own their labor, but not the product of their labor.
You're missing the point; any government funded tax revenue is already socialist. I.e. --Denmark/United States didn't "go semi-socialist," it already was socialist.
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of *public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to *citizen ownership of equity. In other words, socialism can be either capitalist or communist. Or to put it more bluntly, socialism does not equal communism even though there are elements that would have you swallow that lie.
Take a corporation like let's say Morton Salt (yes, I'm looking at the salt shaker on the table): president, vice-presidents, board of directors, under-secretaries (sort of) stock holders, etc., all of whom are focused on profitability...pretty much as capitalist as it gets, right? But it's also a socialist construct by definition because the assets are collectively owned by citizens (the in-name owners as well as the stock-holders)--and yes, if you own stock in a company, you have a percentage-based ownership of that company. If that wasn't the case, hostile take-overs would be impossible. So long story short, if a nation doesn't operate under a command economy and instead collects taxes to cover the costs of its governmental administration, it's socialist.
Sorry, the second sentence is supposed to read: You're missing the point; any government funded *by* tax revenue is already socialist. I.e. --Denmark/United States didn't "go semi-socialist," it already was socialist.
Firstly, no. Denmark is a capitalist country with socialized healthcare and education. Secondly, no. Denmark is only the happiest country according to their own government surveys. The Danes are indoctrinated from their youth to believe that "free" healthcare and "free" education equals happiness. Their alcoholism, opiate addiction, and suicide rates beg to differ. Third: they are taxed 60% of their income to afford their "free" healthcare and education. Even the upper-middle class are forced to live in cramped railroad apartments that in America would be reserved for those in subsidized section 8 housing.
What a load of cobblers. Yes Denmark is a capitalist country, but with strong principles of social democracy. It must be hella nice for those Danes in "cramped railroad apartments" when they don't need to choose between them and a life saving operation. The US has been spreading these paranoiac myths about Scandinavian suicide rates for donkey's years.
Social democracy? That's not a thing. Democracy just means that the populace has a vote. And it's probably not so nice when healthcare is rationed and a panel of "experts" force you to wait for that life saving operation because they don't have the resources for it. Here's an idea: let an individual person decide how to spend what they earn from their labor, rather than government bureaucrats deciding for us. It's called freedom. Don't like it? Move to Denmark. Or try Cuba if that's too cold for you, they have "free" stuff too. Just don't be surprised when there's none left after the long line.
<Write a comment - ignore how healthcare has worked successfully in a number of European countries for the last 50 years. Trot out some libertarian waffle> How does that work if you don't earn anything from your labour, or your health affects your ability to generate income? The answer is it doesn't. Unless you can rely on other people.
I really don't know how to respond to this. Are you agreeing with me about wanton waste of taxpayer money? Are you sarcastically suggesting that I'm right, or seriously suggesting that stylish, expensive prison cells are a good idea? You literally brought my brain to a screeching halt.
Don't know where you live at, but if your sucky housing is at par with Danish apartments (and thus better than those prison cells), give directions, I am relocating. I don't have Section 8, but whatever they're asking I will double.
3 ups, 4y
A fly that has lioved his whole life in horseradish, thinks it's the sweetest stuff in the world
I never said anything about anarchy. Anarchy always inevitably leads to tyranny. But how exactly would you make a law against being an asshole? Seriously, how would you word the legislation? And who would write these laws? The government? Based on the inherent benevolence of government? Naa. They weren't greedy assholes at all.
Maybe you're an asshole by nature, but laws are there to keep normal, civil people protected from assholes by allowing us to lock them up. You must be a sad, confused person to have so little faith in humanity, yet so much faith in government.
Government IS people, dummy. Groups of people bound together by rules (laws) and I trust "humanity" within the ideology of government. And government can be corrupt....because the HUMANITY running it is/are corrupt. But at least laws are there to hold people accountable for their assholish ways.
Oh- and trust me, you're an asshole by nature. I am sure it's clearly evident to everyone that knows you.
Wow. I'm an asshole says the person who descends from discussion into name calling. Typical lefty. Yes, government are people, that's why we have separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism. Again I challenge: how would YOU write a law that forbids being an asshole. Particularly one what doesn't involve locking us both up for meme comments
How would *I* write a law that forbids being an asshole? They already exist: Speeding laws. Reckless driving laws. Child endangerment laws. ANY law is there to stop people from being assholes. What are you missing?
OK I will spell this out as much as I can but I am done after this:
ANYTHING MAN TOUCHES IS CORRUPTED BY THEIR GREED
So- governments, corporations, personal decisions, financial institutions, EVERYTHING we are involved in is influenced by the humans involved.
People are (for the most part) greedy, self centered assholes. We all are. Some more than others. This is why Capitalism doesn't work for everyone. Or Communism. Or socialism. Or whatever. It's also why we NEED to have laws to follow (like you know ANY law...) let's start with environmental laws. Corporations would dump toxic chemicals into your backyard if there wasn't a law saying they couldn't. People would drive like complete idiots (MORE THAN THEY ALREADY DO!) if there weren't cops to pull them over and arrest them.
When you look at "socialist" countries like Denmark, Germany, or literally basically ANY civilized western country outside of the US....the people seem happier than here. "Socialist" has become a scare tactic by the rich conservatives in this country to make their uneducated base fearful of moving toward a system those lower class conservatives would be WAY better under, Look up "top countries for quality of life" The USA is not #1.
These other countries work well because laws help to keep people in line. Places like Venezuela (the one place the right LOVES to point out "socialism" is not working) are NOT doing well because they have dictators in charge who do NOT follow the laws or don't enact them in the first place to benefit the most people. Again...GREED and assholes ruining it for the masses.
Denmark has less assholes and/or better laws to protect them from assholes.
Still waiting for you to show us a chart with data based on facts. I’ve alredy debunked your chart. The meme I posted was just for fun but it looks like you’re taking it seriously so now you need to be serious about your meme.