[QUOTE=Bee1;21075825]First off... Norway's NOT a socialistic country.
Social Democracy.
The socialistic parties in Norway oppose the government you hate. And no... What you call SV are not socialists. Read: Social Democrat.
Does America's system work? No. (Only for the rich, I guess.)
Is that fair? No.
Want that in Norway (or any other country)? Then you're quite ignorant.
Enjoy your capitalistic system when you get shipped off to the streets because you can't pay insurance.[/QUOTE]
SV is definitely a socialist party, AP are social democrats, SP are idiot farmers.
When it comes to the opposition, høyre and FRP are pretty much social democrats with a bit tighter spending. The only parties that do not associate themselves with the current social democracy are niche parties like DLF and those silly nazis that fortunately aren't taken seriously.
When it comes to America, a subject you brought up, not me, i'd say their system has its flaws. It is certainly a more efficient system than ours though, even though their astronomical military budgets and some incredibly silly stimulus packages has me doubting their credibility.
Oh, and to the two previous posters: are you norwegians by any chance?
Since i got king of page i guess i should open this page with a thought on the current system:
Sure, the social democrat / half capitalist system of todays europe is just fine, but should we settle on something that is as inefficient as this?
Giving the government this much money just leads to wasteful spending, it's done in every single country throughout europe. Norway is the prime example.
It just seems to boil down that everyone in the US hates the healthcare bill not due to it being "socialistic" that being only used as a scapegoat, but because it raises taxes(and who doesn't love money).
Slovenia has the highest tax rate in europe, and there are advantages because of it, what do you expect, money for healthcare to just appear out of thin air? Imagine you don't have any insurance, you would LOVE the bill, ofcourse you cannot comprehend that as it has never happened to you has it?
This entire thing just seems to be people caring about money more than other people.
Socialism ftw
I know people are getting this all wrong, but Marx's economic idea was (at least according to my History professor who is really smart) that the workers should own the business they work for. The idea was that the workers would take the profits and reinvest it into the the business, whereas a capitalist running it would go out and a buy a fancy boat.
From what I understand, Marx did not say anything about governments owning the means of production, or that everyone equally owns everything.
Personally, Marx's ideas don't seem so bad. I don't mind employee owned businesses. But the whole socialist/communist idea has been bastardized to mean the government runs everything.
[editline]08:36AM[/editline]
I'm getting this from "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital"]Das Kapital[/URL]". Which my History professor would argue is more influential than The Communist Manifesto.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21076050]I know people are getting this all wrong, but Marx's economic idea was (at least according to my History professor who is really smart) that the workers should own the business they work for. The idea was that the workers would take the profits and reinvest it into the the business, whereas a capitalist running it would go out and a buy a fancy boat.
From what I understand, Marx did not say anything about governments owning the means of production, or that everyone equally owns everything.
Personally, Marx's ideas don't seem so bad. I don't mind employee owned businesses. But the whole socialist/communist idea has been bastardized to mean the government runs everything.
[editline]08:36AM[/editline]
I'm getting this from "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital"]Das Kapital[/URL]". Which my History professor would argue is more influential than The Communist Manifesto.[/QUOTE]
Marx's "Das kapital" is not a bad piece of literature and his ideas are noble and well meaning.
I mean heck, a businessmodel involving employee-ownership is quite feasible in a completely free-market society where a company would sell stock exclusively to its employees. A norwegian firm called "Coop" has taken this even further allowing all its customers to buy a members card entitling them to a share of the companys profits in return for an annual members fee.
It's all nice and dandy as long as the government doesn't get its long sticky fingers involved into the fine tuned machinery of the modern free market. Marx's ideas and socialism don't depend on one another.
[QUOTE=thisispain;21071672]
i'm not a furry, nor a [b]fag[/b][/QUOTE]
I dont know about THAT but OK
[editline]09:09AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;21073463]
Well then maybe you should not have let Hitler be elected Chancellor, and not start World War 2, and then not lose, so that you don't have to have East Germany. And the Soviet Union was not just Russia.[/QUOTE]
Its not like I was even alive then and i know the soviet union was more than russia
[QUOTE=henrikb4;21074757]Please, stop treating Denmark, Sweden and Norway as the same country. We are similar, but it's comparable to call Europe a country.[/QUOTE]
You guys are in a strict economic agreement. The only country I'd have to discount is Finland. Don't worry, I was only referencing your economies.
[editline]11:58AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21076050]I know people are getting this all wrong, but Marx's economic idea was (at least according to my History professor who is really smart) that the workers should own the business they work for. The idea was that the workers would take the profits and reinvest it into the the business, whereas a capitalist running it would go out and a buy a fancy boat.[/QUOTE]
That is the difference between communism and socialism. Key word being commune. Therefor we can say there's never been a communist nation.
I believe there have been some communist entities here and there but none of the notable "communist" countries ever were.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21076050]I know people are getting this all wrong, but Marx's economic idea was (at least according to my History professor who is really smart) that the workers should own the business they work for. The idea was that the workers would take the profits and reinvest it into the the business, whereas a capitalist running it would go out and a buy a fancy boat.
From what I understand, Marx did not say anything about governments owning the means of production, or that everyone equally owns everything.
Personally, Marx's ideas don't seem so bad. I don't mind employee owned businesses. But the whole socialist/communist idea has been bastardized to mean the government runs everything.
[editline]08:36AM[/editline]
I'm getting this from "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital"]Das Kapital[/URL]". Which my History professor would argue is more influential than The Communist Manifesto.[/QUOTE]
Your history teacher deserves credit (compared to mine, at least). But the idea was the workers run a 'business' (using that loosely because they don't exist in socialism, probably better to refer to it as the means of production) to help accommodate social demand for a service or product, not to generate profit used for reinvestment. Furthermore, the idea also espouses on a concept of exploitation in capitalism that is necessary for new value to be created and profit made. In socialism, this concept is eliminated and so is the concept of profit. Instead, workers receive the full value of their labor (i.e. if I make a chair worth ten dollars, I get paid ten dollars for my labor) which makes profit (i.e. surplus value, as referred to by marx) moot in socialism.
Marx did talk about government and state owned the means of production, and about common ownership. The latter was pretty central to the whole idea of socialism. In his Critique of the Gotha Program, where he outlined the transition from capitalism to socialism, he wrote that the proletariat must seize the means of production by using the state, which is composed of workers.
So yes, in socialism the government does own everything, but it operates very differently then when a liberal, capitalist government owns everything.
Das Kapital is a hundred times more useful in understanding Marxist theory then the Communist Manifesto, but it's no where near as influential. The manifesto has become popularized, das kapital has not.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21087783]Your history teacher deserves credit (compared to mine, at least). But the idea was the workers run a 'business' (using that loosely because they don't exist in socialism, probably better to refer to it as the means of production) to help accommodate social demand for a service or product, not to generate profit used for reinvestment. Furthermore, the idea also espouses on a concept of exploitation in capitalism that is necessary for new value to be created and profit made. In socialism, this concept is eliminated and so is the concept of profit. Instead, workers receive the full value of their labor (i.e. if I make a chair worth ten dollars, I get paid ten dollars for my labor) which makes profit (i.e. surplus value, as referred to by marx) moot in socialism.
Marx did talk about government and state owned the means of production, and about common ownership. The latter was pretty central to the whole idea of socialism. In his Critique of the Gotha Program, where he outlined the transition from capitalism to socialism, he wrote that the proletariat must seize the means of production by using the state, which is composed of workers.
So yes, in socialism the government does own everything, but it operates very differently then when a liberal, capitalist government owns everything.
Das Kapital is a hundred times more useful in understanding Marxist theory then the Communist Manifesto, but it's no where near as influential. The manifesto has become popularized, das kapital has not.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/[/url]
[url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/[/url]
[QUOTE=Conscript;21087783]Your history teacher deserves credit (compared to mine, at least). But the idea was the workers run a 'business' (using that loosely because they don't exist in socialism, probably better to refer to it as the means of production) to help accommodate social demand for a service or product, not to generate profit used for reinvestment. Furthermore, the idea also espouses on a concept of exploitation in capitalism that is necessary for new value to be created and profit made. In socialism, this concept is eliminated and so is the concept of profit. Instead, workers receive the full value of their labor (i.e. if I make a chair worth ten dollars, I get paid ten dollars for my labor) which makes profit (i.e. surplus value, as referred to by marx) moot in socialism.
Marx did talk about government and state owned the means of production, and about [b]common ownership. The latter was pretty central to the whole idea of socialism[/b]. In his Critique of the Gotha Program, where he outlined the transition from capitalism to socialism, he wrote that the proletariat must seize the means of production by using the state, which is composed of workers.
So yes, in socialism the government does own everything, but it operates very differently then when a liberal, capitalist government owns everything.
Das Kapital is a hundred times more useful in understanding Marxist theory then the Communist Manifesto, but it's no where near as influential. The manifesto has become popularized, das kapital has not.[/QUOTE]
Let's not talk about Anarchy, which is the REAL common ownership.
Useless to remind you that thanks to politics and medias, anarchists are kind of terrorists with torches now...
[QUOTE=FacepunchZen;21067688]When you force people to pay for each other, there is no freedom.[/QUOTE]
Thread went to shit as soon as this smartass posted.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;21097722]Let's not talk about Anarchy, which is the REAL common ownership.
Useless to remind you that thanks to politics and medias, anarchists are kind of terrorists with torches now...[/QUOTE]
Depending on the anarchic system you're talking about, it may or may not have common ownership. Regardless there is nothing real about common ownership in anarchy and nothing unreal about common ownership in socialism/communism
[editline]12:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wakka;21097531][url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/[/url]
[url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/[/url][/QUOTE]
why are you linking me to them?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.