Socialism

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 550
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Socialism

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 25th, 2020, 12:04 pm

LuckyR wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 11:14 am
...I (too) held up the Scandinavian countries as a great mix of Capitalism and Socialism (each ruling where they have strength), I too prefer such a combined approach (as I have referred to several times).
Yes, but I contend that Norway does not use a combination of Socialism and Capitalism. I think it uses only socialism, but not in an extreme or authoritarian way. A country can have contact with money, and trade with other countries, et cetera, without necessarily being tarnished by Capitalism. Norway acts in a generally socialist way; it does not obviously follow Capitalism in any particular way, that I can see. Perhaps I am just not looking in the right place...? 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4058
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Socialism

Post by LuckyR » March 25th, 2020, 12:16 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 12:04 pm
LuckyR wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 11:14 am
...I (too) held up the Scandinavian countries as a great mix of Capitalism and Socialism (each ruling where they have strength), I too prefer such a combined approach (as I have referred to several times).
Yes, but I contend that Norway does not use a combination of Socialism and Capitalism. I think it uses only socialism, but not in an extreme or authoritarian way. A country can have contact with money, and trade with other countries, et cetera, without necessarily being tarnished by Capitalism. Norway acts in a generally socialist way; it does not obviously follow Capitalism in any particular way, that I can see. Perhaps I am just not looking in the right place...? 🤔
OK, now you are parsing the Norwegian government from the country of Norway. I am not a Norway expert by any means but if you happen to know that the Norwegian government acts in a totally Socialistic way, yet allows Capitalistic corporations to do their thing within Norway, I am calling that a mix, for the country of Norway, even though the government may act in a Socialistic style. As you can tell, I am guessing here since I am not an expert in things Norway.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 550
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Socialism

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 25th, 2020, 1:16 pm

LuckyR wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 12:16 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 12:04 pm


Yes, but I contend that Norway does not use a combination of Socialism and Capitalism. I think it uses only socialism, but not in an extreme or authoritarian way. A country can have contact with money, and trade with other countries, et cetera, without necessarily being tarnished by Capitalism. Norway acts in a generally socialist way; it does not obviously follow Capitalism in any particular way, that I can see. Perhaps I am just not looking in the right place...? 🤔
OK, now you are parsing the Norwegian government from the country of Norway. I am not a Norway expert by any means but if you happen to know that the Norwegian government acts in a totally Socialistic way, yet allows Capitalistic corporations to do their thing within Norway, I am calling that a mix, for the country of Norway, even though the government may act in a Socialistic style. As you can tell, I am guessing here since I am not an expert in things Norway.
Ah, but is it a "Capitalistic corporation", or is it a trading entity that simply originates in a Capitalist state? If the USA allows Chinese corporations to do business on American soil, does this make the USA a mixed Capitalist and Communist nation? What if it allows an Israeli corporation to do business in America? Would that make America a Jewish state? And if Pakistan, a Muslim state?

No, to allow (or even encourage) trade with other nations is not the same as accepting or adopting their preferred ideologies.

I am not specifically an expert on Norway either. Or on any other country, come to think of it. 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4058
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Socialism

Post by LuckyR » March 25th, 2020, 3:33 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 1:16 pm
LuckyR wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 12:16 pm


OK, now you are parsing the Norwegian government from the country of Norway. I am not a Norway expert by any means but if you happen to know that the Norwegian government acts in a totally Socialistic way, yet allows Capitalistic corporations to do their thing within Norway, I am calling that a mix, for the country of Norway, even though the government may act in a Socialistic style. As you can tell, I am guessing here since I am not an expert in things Norway.
Ah, but is it a "Capitalistic corporation", or is it a trading entity that simply originates in a Capitalist state? If the USA allows Chinese corporations to do business on American soil, does this make the USA a mixed Capitalist and Communist nation? What if it allows an Israeli corporation to do business in America? Would that make America a Jewish state? And if Pakistan, a Muslim state?

No, to allow (or even encourage) trade with other nations is not the same as accepting or adopting their preferred ideologies.

I am not specifically an expert on Norway either. Or on any other country, come to think of it. 😉
Perhaps I was being confusing. By using the term "Capitalistic corporation" I was not referring to the style of government in the corporation's country of origin, rather I was referring to the behavior of the corporation regardless of where it originates. For the purposes of our Norway example, it may as well be a Norwegian company.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 550
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Socialism

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 26th, 2020, 10:11 am

LuckyR wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 3:33 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 1:16 pm


Ah, but is it a "Capitalistic corporation", or is it a trading entity that simply originates in a Capitalist state? If the USA allows Chinese corporations to do business on American soil, does this make the USA a mixed Capitalist and Communist nation? What if it allows an Israeli corporation to do business in America? Would that make America a Jewish state? And if Pakistan, a Muslim state?

No, to allow (or even encourage) trade with other nations is not the same as accepting or adopting their preferred ideologies.

I am not specifically an expert on Norway either. Or on any other country, come to think of it. 😉
Perhaps I was being confusing. By using the term "Capitalistic corporation" I was not referring to the style of government in the corporation's country of origin, rather I was referring to the behavior of the corporation regardless of where it originates. For the purposes of our Norway example, it may as well be a Norwegian company.
I get (and got) that, but I didn't make it very clear. 😊 My contention is that the company's presence in our socialist country is for the purpose of trade, and thereby profit. It is there as a trading entity, and not a political representative of its home country's political stance. For this reason, the company will tend to minimise its politics (if it has any) and its political origins. For example, McDonalds wouldn't market the McGulag™ burger in Russia.

The behaviour of the corporation is the behaviour of a trader. It does what it takes to trade and make profit. This has no influence on, in this case, the socialist politics of Norway. It doesn't make Norway any more or less socialist. It has no influence at all, I contend. And I can't see any way in which it makes Norway's economy and politics mixed.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 550
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Socialism

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 29th, 2020, 10:59 am

I am a lifelong socialist. This, despite never having studied politics, or even socialism, in any depth. I found other areas of study more rewarding, as many do. So my politics is decided by headlines, if you will. Socialism is society-ism, and seeks to represent the people, all of the people, not just the rich and powerful. It is this equality-stance that makes me vote socialist. Politically, I follow what I would call socialist morals.

I don't mean Socialist Morals, as some sort of dogmatic equivalent to The One and Only Truth. I mean that I follow general socialist principles when I use my adherence to socialism to determine right from wrong, in a strictly political sense, of course! Nothing dogmatic or rigid; for real-world human politics, pragmatism and flexibility are essential, I think. Judging by socialist morals is simple. We only have to ask "Is this policy/decision/etc in the best interests of (all) the people?"

This looks pretty straight-forward, but it does rely on socialist, but also human, politicians acting according to the needs of the people, not according to socialist dogma, and not according to the best interests of socialist politicians, or a socialist party. And so it doesn't always happen as it should. Just like all the other, lesser 😋, ideologies.

So when we discussed a directed economy earlier, but in the context of what I have just written here, I would say that a wholly-directed economy is not usually in the best interests of the people, so it should not be done. If it should happen that private businesses would benefit the people, a socialist politician should encourage them. If any Capitalist policy should prove to be in the best interests of the people - unlikely though that might be 😋 - a socialist politician should encourage it. For socialism is not anti-capitalism, it is pro-people. To the degree that capitalism harms the people, socialism is its deadly enemy. But if it can benefit the people, socialism is its friend and ally.

As the UK Labour Party say: "For the many, not the few."
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4058
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Socialism

Post by LuckyR » March 31st, 2020, 2:47 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 26th, 2020, 10:11 am
LuckyR wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 3:33 pm


Perhaps I was being confusing. By using the term "Capitalistic corporation" I was not referring to the style of government in the corporation's country of origin, rather I was referring to the behavior of the corporation regardless of where it originates. For the purposes of our Norway example, it may as well be a Norwegian company.
I get (and got) that, but I didn't make it very clear. 😊 My contention is that the company's presence in our socialist country is for the purpose of trade, and thereby profit. It is there as a trading entity, and not a political representative of its home country's political stance. For this reason, the company will tend to minimise its politics (if it has any) and its political origins. For example, McDonalds wouldn't market the McGulag™ burger in Russia.

The behaviour of the corporation is the behaviour of a trader. It does what it takes to trade and make profit. This has no influence on, in this case, the socialist politics of Norway. It doesn't make Norway any more or less socialist. It has no influence at all, I contend. And I can't see any way in which it makes Norway's economy and politics mixed.
So is there a difference between Cuba and Norway? I don't mean the governments, I mean the countries (including the role of corporations). To my understanding the governments are more similar than the role of corporations in the two countries. By that measure Norway is more "mixed".
"As usual... it depends."

gad-fly
Posts: 279
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: Socialism

Post by gad-fly » March 31st, 2020, 6:39 pm

LuckyR wrote:
March 31st, 2020, 2:47 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 26th, 2020, 10:11 am


I get (and got) that, but I didn't make it very clear. 😊 My contention is that the company's presence in our socialist country is for the purpose of trade, and thereby profit. It is there as a trading entity, and not a political representative of its home country's political stance. For this reason, the company will tend to minimise its politics (if it has any) and its political origins. For example, McDonalds wouldn't market the McGulag™ burger in Russia.

The behaviour of the corporation is the behaviour of a trader. It does what it takes to trade and make profit. This has no influence on, in this case, the socialist politics of Norway. It doesn't make Norway any more or less socialist. It has no influence at all, I contend. And I can't see any way in which it makes Norway's economy and politics mixed.
So is there a difference between Cuba and Norway? I don't mean the governments, I mean the countries (including the role of corporations). To my understanding the governments are more similar than the role of corporations in the two countries. By that measure Norway is more "mixed".
Profit-seeking corporation, whether in production or trading, should exist and flourish primarily on the Capitalist principle of ownership (and perhaps also employee) ingratiation. Non-profit making corps should behave differently, according to its mission. Sate-owned corps can be hybrid between the two. Is there any difference between corps in Norway and Cuba? In principle: No. In practice: Yes, since corps in order to survive and thrive must seek accommodation with the mother country's prevailing government, including its ideology, policy, taxation, and orientation. It is apparently more involved than labeling the country as capitalist or socialist.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 550
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Socialism

Post by Pattern-chaser » 36 minutes ago

LuckyR wrote:
March 31st, 2020, 2:47 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 26th, 2020, 10:11 am


I get (and got) that, but I didn't make it very clear. 😊 My contention is that the company's presence in our socialist country is for the purpose of trade, and thereby profit. It is there as a trading entity, and not a political representative of its home country's political stance. For this reason, the company will tend to minimise its politics (if it has any) and its political origins. For example, McDonalds wouldn't market the McGulag™ burger in Russia.

The behaviour of the corporation is the behaviour of a trader. It does what it takes to trade and make profit. This has no influence on, in this case, the socialist politics of Norway. It doesn't make Norway any more or less socialist. It has no influence at all, I contend. And I can't see any way in which it makes Norway's economy and politics mixed.
So is there a difference between Cuba and Norway? I don't mean the governments, I mean the countries (including the role of corporations). To my understanding the governments are more similar than the role of corporations in the two countries. By that measure Norway is more "mixed".
Very well. In the face of your persistence, I acknowledge that Norway is a mixed Socialist/Capitalist economy, just as the US is a mixed Capitalist/Communist economy, entertaining, as it does, Chinese businesses on its soil. What has this perspective gained us? Not a great deal, that I can see...? 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Post Reply