I’ve been calling the government a bunch of murderers. But to try to claim that the numbers are comparable to what the socialists did in the 20th century is laughable. My main argument for the elimination of the state is the elimination of unnecessary wars. Whether it is the 700,000 Americans killed in the civil war. The imperialists takeover of the Philippines, the unnecessary inclusion of WWI which helped give Hitler the ability to rise to power and gave us the mess of WWII and the every bomb dropped since.
Even with all those killings, you don’t get the mass murdering numbers by the hand of you Socialists.
40-70 million killed. China under Chairman Mao. Single Party Socialism. 1958-61 “The Great Leap Forward”.
20 million killed. USSR under Joseph “socialism in one country” Stalin. 1936-52 “The Great Purge”.
40 million killed. USSR under all other leaders.
4 million killed. Cambodia under Pol Pot. Communist. 1975-79.
1.6 million murdered; 4 million killed in hard labor. North Korea under Kim Il Sung. Independent socialist State.
1.15 million killed. Yugoslavia under Josip ” socialist federation President” Tito. 1945-65.
1 million total killed. Ethiopia under Menghistu. Communist. 1975-1978 “The Red Terror.”
1 million killed. Indonesia under Suharto. Communist. 1966.
1 million killed from genocide; this does not include war casualties. Afghanistan under Brezhnev. Communist. 1979 – 1981.
800,000 killed. Rwanda under Jean Kambanda. 1994. Socialist.
Scandinavian countries are definitely Democratic Socialist (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) where state owned industries are common place, post-secondary tuition is free, unemployment low, labour rights strong, and childcare and healthcare are treated as human rights rather than commodities to be bought and sold in the market.
Norway is the most democratic country on Earth according to the Democracy index rating. They also have one of the best safety nets in the world with free education and health care for all citizens, and their prisons are more like homes and their even dubbed living prisons.
Next country on the list is Iceland which has very similar safety nets to Norway.
In Rasmussen’s view, “The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.”
So it’s basically semantics,what he is describing is what a social democracy does but he’s shying away from the label. As the article says:
This is not especially different, as a substantive matter, from what Sanders is saying. His platform calls for higher taxes, a lot more social welfare spending, but — with the important exception of health insurance — not the nationalization of whole industries. And Denmark has, as Rasmussen goes on to say a bit later in the talk, exactly the kind of single-payer health system that Sanders favors. But in Rasmussen’s view, this doesn’t amount to socialism at all.
Denmark. A population a little more than half of New Jersey and made up of more than 90% Danes. If you find it so great, why don’t you move there and Bernie can move to Venezuela.
There are few restrictions on hiring and firing, there’s no legislated minimum wage, and taxpayers are not called upon to bail out their banks.
Their PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) educational rankings are just average, they have the lowest life expectancy in the EU aside from former communist countries, [and the highest rates of death from cancer in the world.]
The Danes’ dirty secret is that its public sector has been propped up by–now dwindling–oil revenues."
The lessons to draw from the Danish model are clear, even if they’re not the ones Bernie Sanders would like us to draw. The Danes benefited from low taxes in order to get rich, and they remain fairly well-off thanks to a light regulatory touch, but their extensive welfare state is not the great success it’s cracked up to be. Anything else is just a romanticized fairy tale.
In practice, the Swedish system involves local governments allowing families to use public funds, in the form of vouchers, to finance their child’s education at a private school, including schools run by the dreaded for-profit corporation
Wow, look how easy it is to copy and paste links without reading.
What does that have to do with the fact that it’s a Social Democracy? Also,are you equating the Nordic Social democracies with China under Mao and still pretending to understand political nuance?
Sweden. The unionization rate is extremely high–more than 85 percent of the workforce enjoys the benefits of union organization and collective bargaining. Indeed, compared to the U.S., the Swedish labor movement is, across the board, much stronger, better organized and united.
This strength is the key reason why Swedish workers were able to force the passage of ambitious reforms that benefit the working class as a whole. They include: free medical care coverage for all from cradle to grave; free tuition for university students; guaranteed free housing for all; subsidized child care; paid parental leave (13 month leave at 80 percent pay); extensive unemployment benefits (including cash transfers as well as job training and retraining programs); generous pensions; provision for the disabled; and care for the elderly.
As a result of this, poverty rates in Sweden are very low compared to the U.S. This is largely because social democratic governments in Sweden were committed to ensuring full employment. For most of the 20th century, Sweden averaged around 2 percent unemployment–a shockingly low figure when compared to the U.S.
Income and wealth inequality are also much lower than in the U.S. This isn’t just a Swedish thing–the same is true in most Scandinavian countries. Denmark, for instance, has the most equal distribution of income among all OECD countries and one of the lowest infant mortality rates. By contrast, the U.S. is the third most unequal and has the third highest rate of infant mortality.
SWEDEN’S PRO-worker reforms would never have been passed without a powerful, united, well-organized labor movement with a political arm–the Social Democratic Party (SAP)–that was capable of advocating for the interests of the working class as a whole.
We Americans place too much importance on ideology as oppose to actual policy. It creates divisions that hinders discussion. So it should be no wonder that life for the average American is deteriorating, and that includes economics, civil rights, and so on.As far as your obsession with Sanders,bottom line, it does not matter one iota what Sanders self-identifies as. What is important is his actual policies.
Bernie is no more a socialist than Angela Merkel is. He doesn’t believe in government ownership of the means of production—a key characteristic of socialism. Bernie has never expressed such a belief.
To be most accurate, Bernie believes in a Social Democracy. He believes in a free market, but he does not support Crony Capitalism. Nor should he, as Crony Capitalism is the most insidious failure of modern society.
Socialist like in the Soviet Union or Cuba, or even Venezuela? Nope. Actually, Scandinavian countries are actually very business-friendly in many regards.
Socialist like in a typical socialist/social-democratic party in Europe? Only partly. These parties usually cover between one half and one third of the political spectrum in European countries. In Denmark, there is a big center-left socialdemocratic party and a smaller socialist party which is at its left but more moderate than the green-red alliance party (which is closer to what could be called “democratic communism”). There is also a new party that I guess could be called humanist, but that stands close to the socialist party in many regards.
Socialist like Bernie Sanders? Given the timing of the question, this is probably what the OP meant. The answer is, lo and behold: " Yes, and in a higher degree than what Bernie Sanders is proposing to implement in USA ".
For example, what Bernie Sanders is proposing about free college tuition is actually an understatement in Denmark, and proposing to settle at that same state (just free tuition) would even be too much at the right even for the centre-right party. The reason is that Danish students actually get a stipend to study, and discussion about amounts and other details aside, even most of the right accepts that this benefits society because it provides everybody with an opportunity to get a higher education. While I understand that it may look like a strange waste of money for unaccustomed eyes, the thing is that at the long run, more educated people means a better trained and more competitive workforce in the globalised world, and lower violent crime rates. Some money may be wasted, yes, but at the long run it pays off. It is like watering a field where you know some areas may have bad seeds, but overall it pays off if you want to grow something.
The reason why the current prime minister (Lars Lokke, centre-right) claimed that Denmark is not a Socialist country in clear reply to Bernie Sanders’ claims, is because he needs to assist his political friends at the other side of the Atlantic, which by standing somewhere at his right, provide him with bargaining power at home, of the “it’s the way the world works” kind. When he said that, he took advantage of the differing definitions for the same term, but while he is definitely a political adversary to the Socialist Party of Denmark, much of what he accepts and implements at home is actually at the left of what Bernie Sanders is proposing.
Another question is whether what is implemented in Denmark and Scandinavia in general would work in the USA, considering their many differences. The answer is complex, beyond my knowledge, and may depend on the time scale and many other factors. But the reply to the question remains: Compared to what Sanders is saying, yes, and by a large margin .
To the best of my knowledge, Sanders is not proposing to be as socialist as Denmark, just proposing to import some of the things that are actually working somewhere else.