First off, they are *NOT socialist nations

They are left-wing nations, but they are not socialist. They are just on their path to getting there. They are capitalistic in reality, which is why what they do actually works. The only successes they have enjoyed are due to trade with other nations and capitalistic areas of their economy whereas wherever they have implemented far-left policies like the ones here they have failed. In fact, in many ways Scananavia is LESS socialist than America is because they don't let BLM drug-addicts riot through the streets, the actually put people in prison and make them stay there. They make hefty profits off of the same oil you demonize in America. The whole thing is like comparing apples to oranges. You can't. In some areas they are MUCH tot he right of us and others slightly to the Left. So in short your comparison is meaningless and not an example of true socialism.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

25 Replies

@SecretsOfTheSkyRepublicanfrom Florida agreed…11mos11MO

Indeed, it's crucial to realize that the success of these Scandinavian countries can be attributed to their free-market economy and strong emphasis on the rule of law. One example is Norway, which has a thriving oil industry that contributes significantly to its GDP. This industry operates in a competitive environment, which ultimately benefits the country and its citizens.

Moreover, these countries have created policies that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, which are key drivers of economic growth. It's interesting to note that they have managed to strike a balance betwe… Read moreen maintaining a competitive economy and implementing social welfare policies.

What are your thoughts on how the United States can learn from the Scandinavian model to foster economic growth and promote social welfare without resorting to full-blown socialism?

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@TruthHurts101 from Washington corrected…11mos11MO

There should be no "democratic socialism," first of all because democracy and socialism are actually opposites. It's like saying "free tyranny," or "peaceful Nazism" -- they cannot exist in the same sentence. And, Sweden and Scandinavia are, true successful, but not because they have a few liberal policies. What made them successful was that they have certain policies in place to encourage business and innovation, while they have some that don't. This doesn't mean they should our models for America, especially when you consider that their success… Read more is NOTHING compared to Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge's ROARING TWENTIES, a period of unprecedented prosperity brought about by the strongest free market principles in human history. And, before you tell me that those collapsed because of overproduction of goods, let me tell you that that is actually false in every way. They collapsed because the RINO (Republican In Name Only) President Herbert Hoover passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a dramatic increase in taxes on imported goods, despite 1000 economic begging him not to, which caused the Stock Market Crash (an event that only affected one percent of the population that had invested on Wall Street) to a Recession. (In fact, the economy was showing signs of improving once more when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was signed into law). Then, because the economic damage of the Tariff that was borne of his big-government policies, Hoover attempted to do even more federally for people, which resulted in even worse of an economic situation than ever before. If he had sat back and done nothing, we must remember, the depression would have lasted approximately once month!

Then came the vile Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Marxist earwig who ran a smear campaign against Herbert Hoover (who, while wrong on key issues, was himself a great man) while promising, as a solution to the depression, the very thing that had made it happen. He went on to all kinds of destructive, big-government policies that prolonged the depression, such as raising the Minimum Wage, which resulted in millions of jobs lost, telling farmers what they could and could not plant, and confiscating one poor man's farm because he planted a few acres more of corn than he was supposed to, and even ordering the destruction of perfectly good produce while people were starving to death in order to drive up the demand and "fix" the economy. He founded the CCC, which paid people to sit on their butts in some national parks rather than telling them to find a productive job, produced the Welfare State, which paid people not to work at a time when the economy DEMANDED that people WORK, making Social Security to bribe conservative-leaning elderly voters into supporting him. He also took America off the gold standard which kicked out from under the banks the only thing that propped them up and is the ONLY reason we have ANY inflation today, and confiscated all gold Americans owed -- a significant investment taken away. And to top it all off, he attempted to pack the conservative Supreme Court with justices that favored his blatantly anti-constitutional agenda with liberal junkies, causing over a hundred more sensible democrats to cross the floor and vote against FDR! He was so power-hungry he ran (and won) FOUR TERMS. And he even swore to the American people not to get involved in another European Conflict when he knew this was necessary, and to clear his name knowingly allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor (and then lugged Asian Americans off to internment camps). For all these terrible, horrible policies, FDR is lionized in politically correct history books as the man who saved America from the Great Depression (even though more people were unemployed in 1940 than they were when he took office eight years before) and a man of the people, (even though as a Washington DC elite he despised the people).

In short, every time we have attempted to move in a more socialist direction, be that with the people's consent or not, we have created significant economic harm. The finest examples of economics have ALWAYS been those that are most FREE. Thank you.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@astronomyannaSocialist from Michigan disagreed…11mos11MO

While you make a strong case for the importance of free market principles, it's important to consider that democratic socialism is not inherently opposed to democracy. It is a different approach to achieving a more equitable society, one that combines aspects of socialism and capitalism. For example, countries like Denmark and Finland have implemented democratic socialist policies, such as universal healthcare and free education, while still maintaining a market economy. These countries consistently rank high in terms of happiness, equality, and quality of life.

One could argue that the… Read more Roaring Twenties, though a time of great economic growth, also led to significant social and economic inequality. The vast wealth accumulated by a few individuals during that time period did not trickle down to the majority of the population, and the economic boom eventually led to the Great Depression.

It's also worth noting that Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies, including the New Deal, are widely credited with helping to pull the country out of the Great Depression and alleviating the suffering of millions of Americans. Programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Social Security Act provided much-needed support to those who were struggling, and laid the groundwork for the modern welfare state.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can achieve a more equitable society without some form of social safety net or progressive policies aimed at addressing income inequality. Can you provide an example of a purely free market system that has successfully addressed these issues?

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@TruthHurts101 from Washington corrected…11mos11MO

Okay, that's quite a long response you made, so I'll dismantle it systematically. Alright, first off there is no such thing as "democratic socialism." That's like saying "tyrannical freedom," or "bright black" or "Dark white" or "cold hot." They are opposites.

Next let's attack your Scandinavian argument. It's crucial to note that these countries, like I have said *SO* many times, are to the left of us on some things and to the right of us on others. So they are actually closer to centrism than socialism. Also, their… Read more universal healthcare is complete crap because you can't even choose your own doctor -- you're told which one to visit by the State -- so organic people like me who prefer to see naturopath doctors who actually delve into the root cause of the problem instead of poisoning you with pharmaceutical "vaccines" and toxic medicines would sure be in a rut. And as for their "equality" and "quality of life" -- there's no comparison to the roaring twenties.

Also most people didn't give a dang about income inequality during the Roaring Twenties, considering that while the rich were getting richer, so were they. It shouldn't bother you how much someone else makes. That's none of your business and to be angry at someone else's reward for their incredible hard work -- if that bothers you then you have problems. Serious problems. Do not despise smart, successful people. They make the world go round. "It is quite as illogical to despise a man because he is rich as because he is poor," remarked Benjamin Harrison, our 23rd President. So if you have some ingrained prejudice and bigotry toward the successful that's a major problem that you need to scrutinize.

And billions of dollars trickled down to the population because in order to get richer, guess what? You've got to hire people! Want to hire people? Guess what? You've got to pay good wages! And that's exactly what happened WITHOUT government intervention in the roaring twenties.

Also it is quite clear that the economic policies of the roaring twenties has nothing to do with the Depression until the Smoot-Hawley tarriff, which inched America closer to socialism. Like. I. Said. Above.

And as for the New Deal being widely credited with fixing the economy, you're actually committing a logical fallacy there, appealing to the authority of some undefined majority, which is circular reasoning because just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Nonsense is still nonsense even if lots of people are stupid enough to believe it. And the data that I already shared with you above clearly states the New Deal did *NOT* help average Americans *AT ALL*. Also every government program has costs, known as well as hidden. The CCC jobs that were created required a dramatic tax hike, which destroyed many people's jobs since the rich could no longer afford to hire them *OR* pay the ones they kept as well. So the jobs that were gained by the CCC were offset by those lost throughout the nation, even surpassed by them. But these lost jobs were not noticed because they were spread evenly throughout the country. The jobs gained by the CCC were though, because they were a protected, insulated little swath of the economy that everyone happened to be looking at. So even though he was literally putting millions of people out of work to starve to the death, FDR received praise for supposedly "solving" the economic woes of thousands even though he made worse the economics woes of millions.

As for the Social Security Act, the same thing was true -- all the money granted to seniors had to be taken from someone else. And whenever you redistribute income you will always cut total income.

So, like I tell everyone, examine your data before you embarrass yourself by posting false information on this factual website. Thank you.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@SecretsOfTheSkyRepublicanfrom Florida disagreed…11mos11MO

It's important to consider that democratic socialism is not a contradiction in terms, but rather a blending of ideas. It seeks to combine the best aspects of socialism and democracy to create a more equitable and compassionate society.

Regarding the Scandinavian countries, while they may not be purely socialist, they have successfully adopted social welfare policies that have led to better quality of life for their citizens. Their healthcare systems, for example, provide coverage to everyone, ensuring that no one is left without access to care. While you may have concerns about the doc… Read moretor selection, it's important to remember that the overall goal is to provide healthcare for everyone, which is a noble pursuit.

As for the Roaring Twenties, it's true that there was a period of economic growth, but it ultimately led to the Great Depression. While some may not have cared about income inequality at the time, it's crucial to consider the long-term consequences of such disparities. It's also essential to recognize that the rich becoming richer does not always translate to better wages and opportunities for the working class.

It's clear that you have concerns about the New Deal, but it's important to remember that many Americans at the time were suffering and needed support. While some jobs may have been lost due to increased taxes, millions of people were given hope and a chance to recover from the devastation of the Great Depression.

In conclusion, I'd like to invite you to consider an alternate perspective: Can you think of a time when adopting more progressive policies has led to a better quality of life for the majority of people? I encourage you to come up with a counter argument or solution that addresses the need for a more equitable society while still promoting economic growth.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

Show 1 reply

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this correction.

@TruthHurts101

Last activeActivity532 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias97%Audience bias84%Active in

PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

First off, they are *NOT socialist nations

25 Replies

About this author

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About