• Finland rated as world's happiest country, Denmark 2nd, Norway 3rd, Iceland 4th
    54 replies, posted
Fins are just swedes who haven't had their morning coffee yet.
what about swede-finns
Socialism itself isnt why nordic countries are happy, though it is a contributor. They have a very humanistic culture, and the rest of the world should take note.
They go hand-in-hand. The government reflects the culture, facilitating policies that work toward the ideals of the culture.
Our humanistic culture and social democratic values are really two sides of the same coin, to be honest. One leads to the other and vice versa.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the means of production aren't in collective ownership and control anywhere in the Nordic countries. Social democracy is not the same as socialism and nowadays the social democracy is getting weaker thanks to the creep of neoliberalism
Social Democracy* Calling it socialism just leaves it open to attack from people with less than ideal intentions. Call it what it is, capitalism that is very heavily regulated by the government with some industries being nationalized to prevent them from being abused. It's nowhere near Marx's idea of ownership by workers, or the Stalinist approach of authoritarianism.
God I wish all I had to worry about in my country was depression, alcoholism, and having public healthcare.
The UK is 15th happiest? This is arguably the greyest country on the face of the Earth
Every thread about an article where Finland gets rated highly on something, every single Finn comes out of the woodwork to say why that can't possibly be right :v Well, at least you can't accuse Finns of being boastful
Truly, the Scandinavian spirit hasn't died out. https://youtu.be/vm-MrkoJPC8
All the countries with strong welfare states in the top 10. What a suprise.
2nd and Denmark isn't even trying right now
Not to worry, we've been consistently trying to get rid of all the good things over the last, what, over 15 years now. We've got an election next month, so things could get better, but they won't, because people have been fucking up in voting for the past decade, so why would they change now.
People say nordic model this, socialism that, but to what I understand what makes it all work is that people generally try to actually compromise and agree with eachother. The point isn't to destroy corporations, or labor unions, it's to get them to actually agree with eachother and see a bigger, common goal. Americans are too fucking selfish, entitled to let a lot of that happen.
Social democracy is a form of socialism.
And it's also a form of capitalism, so what's even your point here. Perhaps in the original definition it was a way to morph a capitalist economy into a socialist one, but it hasn't really had that meaning for probably the better part of a century.
Social Democratic politicians in Europe referred to themselves as socialists until the 90's. Social democracy and socialism were interchangeable terms during that time, I'm pretty sure. So I think we should stop being anal about these definitions. Honestly, I'd rather have European Social Democratic politicians call themselves socialists again as well, like Bernie or AOC are doing now.
Can't be the happiest, nope. Woke up at 5 am in Helsinki today because a man in another apartment was screaming at the top of his lungs. I've never heard a man swear so much, so angrily. It honestly sounded like he wanted to murder someone, and I was considering phoning the police. Finland, not even once.
Well, if the parties in question have no intention of doing away with the market economy and capitalism, what's the point in advertising yourself as something you're not?
The definition has only recently become this strict, like I pointed out in my post. Social democratic politicians called themselves socialists for basically the entire previous century. So I don't really know why we care so much about social democrats calling themselves socialists again(!) these days. To me, it would indicate that they're trying to distance themselves from Third Way 'problem solver' ideology, which is a good thing.
http://puu.sh/D4Eue.png He really must've scared you, huh?
Took the next plane out
This dude is right. Socialism evolved to mean workers' control (absent capitalism), and there's still a competing social-democratic that has long overlapped with evolutionary or reformist socialists. I think progressive liberalism falls under the former and democratic socialism in the latter. It's important to remember in the old days the Labour Party was pretty radical, the SPUSA congratulated the Bolsheviks, and the German SPD both had prominent Marxists in its leadership and split twice to create communist parties.
Thing is Social Democracy has become it's own thing with it's own specific ideals at this point. Modern day social democrats don't seek to democratically transition society into a state of worker ownership like they used to when social democratic parties were more about democratic socialism. They instead regulate capitalism and try to set up a welfare net system in order to catch poor people and make sure they can get back up on their feet and back into the workforce. That's not socialism in any form, no matter what way you slice it. Socialism is very specifically worker ownership of all the businesses and industries in a nation, and if you want to argue against that then you're literally arguing against Marx himself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.