Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because they are not socialist countries as you and the left misguidedly believe. They are free-market capitalism with large welfare budgets paid for by higher income (not corporate) taxes. It's called the Nordic Model, and you and the left should brush up on the facts.
Even the PM of Sweden came out and said "we are not a socialist country!"
Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.
In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.
Read, learn, accept. "The Truth is Out There"
Guess what? The United States isn't socialist either, no matter how much Republicans wring their hands. Concepts of socialism are on a continuum. The vast, vast majority of conservatives would consider Scandinavia socialist because of their high tax rates, and they certainly are closer to it than the United States is, in terms of taxes and their social safety net.
Aren't all other western Democracies socialist by your definition? They're alive and well. Of course totalitarian governments always suck but you can't pin everything on so called socialism. How about do what works and is right and not worry about the label you hang on it. I know the GOP killed of pragmatism a long time ago but maybe it's time to resurrect it.
It's amazing how Cold War propaganda has managed to stick into people's minds still.
Actually true communism means a complete dissolution of the state, if you ever read the Marxist texts. So actually communism is significantly closer to, and in all technicalities is, anarchism than what these people think are communism which is dictatorships. I'd argue that the closest we have ever seen of true communism on this Earth was the Americas before white people. Rather decently-sized amounts of populations living in small communities with no private ownership of land (huge part of communism), the tribes themselves anyway working together and a class system was of little importance (though they still had it to a degree) as they generally shared resources together even then. However you could still make arguments that they didn't fall with all the principles of communism, which is why I say it was the closest but was not actually communism.
It should be noticed that the Scandinavian countries are generally "social democracies" and not "democratic socialist" countries and that distinction is actually very worth noting. Sanders claimed to be a democratic socialist and while his ideals were not too far off from what the Scandinavian countries have implemented today, some of the biggest differences are regulation (social democracies being more to the left than democratic socialism) and democratic socialists are more capitalistic minded than a social democracy. However the two are very close so it's worth making the comparison, IMO, as they have plenty of socialistic programs like we have as well.
. . . .
Note: 2.0 is considered the replacement birthrate for industrialized nations, less is depopulation
Source: Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
= = = = =
Though there are exceptions, the general trend is that non-socialist countries, wealthy or not, have high birthrates, whereas socialist countries, with government pensions, etc, have low birthrates, regardless of relative prosperity.
Since the future belongs to the descendants, those who are not making enough are going extinct, or at the least will be pushed out by those who are making many many more descendants.
That's BioWar 101.
And Socialism is a sure fire way to lose it.
. . . .
Note: 2.0 is considered the replacement birthrate for industrialized nations, less is depopulation
Source: Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
= = = = =
Though there are exceptions, the general trend is that non-socialist countries, wealthy or not, have high birthrates, whereas socialist countries, with government pensions, etc, have low birthrates, regardless of relative prosperity.
Since the future belongs to the descendants, those who are not making enough are going extinct, or at the least will be pushed out by those who are making many many more descendants.
That's BioWar 101.
And Socialism is a sure fire way to lose it.
Given that the planet has 7 billion people and counting, why do you see low birth rates as a bad thing?
Sure, if birth rates get too low there are problems with demographics (not enough young to support the old, etc). But otherwise, low birth rates are good on an overcrowded planet. Don't you agree?
. . . .
Note: 2.0 is considered the replacement birthrate for industrialized nations, less is depopulation
Source: Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
= = = = =
Though there are exceptions, the general trend is that non-socialist countries, wealthy or not, have high birthrates, whereas socialist countries, with government pensions, etc, have low birthrates, regardless of relative prosperity.
Since the future belongs to the descendants, those who are not making enough are going extinct, or at the least will be pushed out by those who are making many many more descendants.
That's BioWar 101.
And Socialism is a sure fire way to lose it.
It's a great argument for immigration - - something that Japan, Russia, Germany, and Italy should do some more of. The tax burden on the young will be huge as the older generations move out of the job market.
. . . .
Note: 2.0 is considered the replacement birthrate for industrialized nations, less is depopulation
Source: Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
= = = = =
Though there are exceptions, the general trend is that non-socialist countries, wealthy or not, have high birthrates, whereas socialist countries, with government pensions, etc, have low birthrates, regardless of relative prosperity.
Since the future belongs to the descendants, those who are not making enough are going extinct, or at the least will be pushed out by those who are making many many more descendants.
That's BioWar 101.
And Socialism is a sure fire way to lose it.
People in socialist countries are smart enough and safe enough--thanks to public schooling and publicly-funded law enforcement--across the board to make their own decisions financially. In Niger and other African countries many women are raped before the age 13 and it's common for women to have several children before the age of 20 even against their own discretion as their husbands pursue more children (and with traditional gender roles, men don't do much in the child-raising process as women). Rape is a huge epidemic in Africa as a whole and more so in specific countries than others like Mali and it comes down to its high birthrate.
In college I learned there are four stages to demographic transition model:
STAGE ONE: Pre-transition: Characterized by high birth rates and high death rates.
STAGE TWO: Early transition: High birth rates, and low death rates.
STAGE THREE: Late transition: Declining birth rates, low death rates.
STAGE FOUR: Post-transition: Low birth rates, low death rates, growth is negligible or enters a decline.
As you can see, most socialist countries are in Stage Four. This is partially because they are richer countries, and can afford healthcare for its population, reaching low death rates. The richest countries are generally in Stage Four. We are in Stage Three, most second-world countries are still in Stage Two. I do recall learning there is NO nation in Stage One currently at this time, but there used to be, so even the third-world is in Stage Two. It should be noted this acts as a cycle, so the socialist countries, at some point in time, will enter Stage One.
I don't view depopulation as an inherently bad thing if it is natural. We are overpopulated as it is.
So, when the USA had a top marginal tax rate in the 1950's at 92% and a corporate tax rate of 50% under REPUBLICAN Dwight D. Eisenhower, did that make us hardcore communists then? I know many of you want to go back to a bygone era that never existed ...you still want that? I guess nostalgia is pretty selective sometimes.
So, when the USA had a top marginal tax rate in the 1950's at 92% and a corporate tax rate of 50% under REPUBLICAN Dwight D. Eisenhower, did that make us hardcore communists then? I know many of you want to go back to a bygone era that never existed ...you still want that? I guess nostalgia is pretty selective sometimes.
After the vast array of tax writeoffs that were available then (and not now) the effective tax rates were similar to modern effective tax rates. Your comparison is bogus.
You also fail to understand that Communism and Socialism is about political structure, not tax rates. Taxes in USSR were 12% from first 100 rubles per month and 8.6% from anything over 100 rubles per month plus 5% from total earnings for childless people. And only Communist party (or Komsomol) members were charged the dues. Yet they were still virulently Communist.
Russia used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And it hasn't changed a whole lot since then.
Wait a second. If many on the right think Obama and the Dem's are communists, doesn't that mean we are communists right now anyways? I love cognitive dissonance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
