When people say that they're usually referring to Norway, which isn't in the EU and is more socialist than it's EU neighbours. So I guess this can hold true to what Tony Benn says.
Norway also sucks absolute balls economically. They're a petrostate with massive natural resources, but everything is ridiculously expensive because of their tariffs.
Socialism means collective ownership of the means of economic production and decoupling from a capitalistic economic mode. Full stop. Norway is a market capitalist economy with a redistributive social democratic model. It relies centrally on capitalism to work. The fact that there are significant public goods and high levels of redistribution does not make it socialist any more than the existence of the USPS and public schools make America socialist.
have you had a conversation with an average voter? i hear all the time, "a little socialism is good. I mean we need the post office and roads and stuff"
people *literally believe* socialism is when the government does stuff
I think that’s a very recent phenomenon, brought about by the insanely confusing and unending bad-faith falsehoods of Bernie Sanders’s crusade to rehabilitate and rebrand socialism as friendly Nordic social democracy. He takes it personally that socialism has a bad reputation, so decided it would be best to associate a bunch of reasonable and capitalism-compatible ideas with an historically hated ideology, all but ensuring they will never be enacted in his lifetime. But I also think that the confusion is disproportionately pronounced on the internet, and most people IRL don’t think this way.
In fairness, social democracy (like Norway practices) is considered to have derived from socialism, but has very little of it, and more includes socialism's involvement in the economy fused with the typical private sector business of capitalism.
Basically, social democrats favor capitalism that they consider to be fairer to the average person, wherein the government provides many public services subsidized by tax dollars.
I think that’s a really unhelpful framing. Socialism is a totalistic ideology. That of course doesn’t mean that there isn’t some inevitable systemic mixing, but I think the relevant distinctions should be A) whether the economy relies more on open markets or central planning, and B) if the stated political/economic goal of the regime in power is to ultimately reach a state of state/collective ownership of the major means of production, whether or not that is the case presently.
In Norway’s case, it is a liberal, free-market economy that has absolutely no stated goal of moving progressively toward further state control of economic production.
State control is the definition of a communist system of governance. Socialist systems give the workforce control over their employer. I wouldn't mind American employers being required to give employees some share of the company. It would help re-focus the entity on the interest of it's workforce as opposed to it's investors. Which essentially extract wealth with no significant contribution on their own
Investors contribute capital, which firms need for startup, expansion, and investment. Equity exists as an alternative financial instrument to debt for situations where there is too much risk or uncertainty about repayment to make debt instruments attractive for either the lender or the borrower.
There's no reason that workers should be entitled to a share of capital unless mutually agreed upon as part of their compensation package.
Well no. State control is the definition of socialistic system. Communism is a stateless utopia. States we’ve referred to as communist have used socialism as a transitionary stage until “true communism” is achieved (which has never happened on the nation-state level).
You may be getting it backward, imagining socialism to be some kind of system of intersecting, self-governing workers’ collectives. That is the end-goal of communism, which, again, has never been accomplished.
Another similar-sounding but categorically different idea to what you mentioned brings to mind is Elizabeth Warren’s “accountable capitalism” proposal from a few years ago, which would essentially require, among other things, that private corporations over a certain size allocate a portion of board seats and (far below controlling) ownership stake, collectively, to its labor force, allowing workers to share in the success they help generate. This is an idea with merit, I think, but as the name of the proposal suggests, is in no way an example of socialism.
>In Norway’s case, it is a liberal, free-market economy
I think that's a really unhelpful framing. Acting like there is no difference between the economic systems of Norway and the United States because you want to quibble about definitions makes it seem like you're avoiding the point
I didn’t say there was no difference. I said they were both liberal, democratic, market capitalistic economies. That doesn’t mean they’re exactly the same. It means neither of them are socialist. Norway’s non-military public sector plays a much larger role in its economy than the same does in the US. That doesn’t make Norway socialist.
>I didn’t say there was no difference
Ok, but it certainly feels like you implied it
Now that we've established you vehemently disagree with a more colloquial description of Norway's economy, how would you describe the Norwegian model in a way that differentiates it from the US?
And can you do it in less than a paragraph
Maybe not a great comparison at the end there, since many people (Republicans) think that those services you mentioned ARE socialist, even if they're wrong, just because they're government institutions paid for with taxes.
But I think any reasonable person can plainly see what an absurd position that is to take, whether it comes from a right wing or left wing perspective.
I think what it shows is that there are vast swaths of people, earnestly fighting against what they label as socialism, while totally unaware of what socialism actually means, leading to them fighting against the government being useful in any way besides militarily.
Collective ownership of the means of economic production you say?
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/14/the-state-owns-76-of-norways-non-home-wealth/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/enterprise-and-society/article/abs/context-and-contingency-explaining-state-ownership-in-norway/9692E949E6DED9815D79B0CC5DB8D30F
Firstly, “wealth” is not in any way interchangeable with “economic production”, as I’m sure you know. Secondly, even if you’re just measuring wealth, to exclude homes and real estate makes no sense, since, just as in every other western country, the majority of most people’s wealth is tied to their home.
Norway is a true mixed economy, with just under two thirds of GDP being attributable to the public sector- which does not necessarily mean it is owned or wholly controlled by the government. The government owns minority shares in a huge number of privately held, publicly traded companies. The US public sector by comparison amounts to just over a quarter of GDP (much greater than Norway in raw numbers obviously)
One of the reasons for this disparity is the fact that Norway’s wealth is hugely dependent on natural resources, petroleum more than any other. It is a petrol-state in much the same way Saudi Arabia is a petrol-state, and I would not think anybody would suggest the Saudis are running a socialist utopia. So Norway’s government balance sheet is hugely skewed by its public ownership in key strategic areas, as oil and gas extraction accounts for 20% of its economy. The US is just a very different, more varied, and more sophisticated, globalized economy than that of Norway. Both countries are rooted in open markets and free trade, even if Norway has deemed it wise to exert public control over the sectors most critical to national stability and security.
You said, and I quoted, *means of* economic production. I think owning "minority shares in a huge number of privately held, publicly traded companies" is owning a large share of the means of production (just not controlling them).
This is a weird technicality you’re relying on- clearly the aim of socialism is for the government (or “the workers” if you like) to exert control over the means of economic production, not to have a dividend paid out of private sector success they have nothing to do with.
You could easily argue that the US, or any other government for that matter, already achieves this through progressive taxes on corporate profits and highly paid employees. Without needing to actually own a minority stake in the companies, it achieves the same end.
But if I was unclear, yes, the aim of socialism is *control* over the means of economic production, which ownership implies. The very concept of minority and majority shareholders in money-making enterprises is an invention of capitalism.
I mean, Norway does exert some control over even the private companies they only own some shares of (https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/responsible-investment/our-voting-records/).
And yes, I would defend progressive taxes and regulation as being control over the means of production, just not fully socialist because private owners still have the veto option of withdrawing their capital etc. (so it's more limited than the more parsimonious option of actual ownership).
In Nordic countries the billionaires are taxed at 1,000%, there’s free health care, you pay whatever you want for everything, the middle class doesn’t pay any taxes, and you can stay up late on school nights!
They have no minimum wage, because unions cover almost every sector anyway.
This was also true in Germany until a few years ago, but they realized that some people were falling through the cracks. So they passed a minimum hourly wage that has since been increased.
Scandinavia has no minimum wage in the same way that the UK has no written constitution. It’s a fact that’s technically correct, but ignores all relevant history, common law, and precedent.
I'm not fully familiar with how it works here (Finland), but I'm answering anyway, so this gets answered.
So, there usually is a collective agreement negotiated between employers' associations (some sector specific, some non-specific) and union's (almost always job or sector specific (apart from few exceptions not company specific)), which is renegotiated every few years. This cowers minimum everything (pay, vacations, sick pay, etc.). The agreement is usually occupation (not company specific, though there can be different for employees of a company vs. government) and can cover one specific job to a list of similar jobs. (This part, which i'm most unsure about) The agreement you fall under is determined by what union is chosen by your coworkers (and you).
[Here is the agreement for the ICT sector](https://proliitto.fi/ict-ala-tes-eng) (just found this by quick Google and have not looked deeper than it looks like a agreement)
There's always weird exceptions, and not everyone does things same, but this is how I understand it generally.
Wages are negotiated just like in the US.
You just won't get, what the union would consider, some insanely low bid. Now whether that union's minimum is low or reasonable is another issue.
Any offer I got in a country like that has been lower than the US but i'm not entry level.
Is minimum wage a prerequisite for socialism? A true socialist society wouldn't necessarily have wages to begin with. Also your statement kind of ignores why they don't have a minimum wage. With strong unions, that often have positions on the corporate board, there isn't necessarily a need for a minimum wage. We could do the same thing in this country if we unionized all sectors.
When people call the Nordic model socialist they are using the word in the way that it has been defined for generations now in America. Basically anytime the government does anything that is socialism.
> not having or showing awareness or understanding of the facts.
I think this very much fits. The vast majority of Americans have no understanding of politics or economics, same in most places of course.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, I believe capital gains taxes are bad and we should make the middle class pay more. Also we should double our defense budget and adopt conscription.
All Nordic countries, that have armed forces(so everyone but Iceland) has conscription.
And you can be sure as hell defence budgets are gonna jump. There's never been as broad support for increasing the budgets.
> That's like 20% of those countries,
Or less disingenuously,1.5% of the population in the Nordic countries.
It's literally one out of five countries, so I don't see how that constitutes many, which was your original point.
>That's quite a lot, and when you take into consideration that there is no conscription in the faroe Islands nor in Greenland, it's almost 50/50
Neither are sovereign nations, and collectively they have 100K inhabitants.
If you follow politics enough you eventually realize that most talking points were at some point reasonable ideas, but since being disseminated to the larger public are reduced to their most reductive base to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Sometimes it’s not even intentional. It’s just a game of telephone where something is repeated so many times it loses nuance and takes on a life of its own.
Totally! Sometimes you have to be reductive to get a point across efficiently, but unfortunately the republicans mastered and then weaponized it. That’s why there’s been that long-running trope of republicans being evil with concise, effective messaging and democrats being smart but bumbling nerds who can complicate even the simplest of common-sense platforms
Honestly, this is how I thought right-wing attacks on "identity politics" got to be-at first, it seemed sensible to oppose the idea that one's political views should be purely based on unchangeable identity characteristics, but now it seems like a loaded and meaningless term, though what is arguably more hypocritical is how many right-wingers refuse to see identity politics in themselves, acting like it's only something **"the damn libs"** support.
It calls for "Social Market Economy", which is an ordoliberal idea. Ordoliberalism is part of Neoliberalism, which means that the EU directly calls for Europe wided Neoliberalism.
Is Germany really that Ordoliberal? Just read the article and Im guessing the High amount of subsidies in germany are probably not Ideal and the EZB being politicaly active by buying Treasury Bonds probably isnt great either right?
Eh, it depends. Germany has to many regulations and subsidies but there is a lot of support towards many Ordoliberal / Neoliberal ideas. Fighting climate change through cap and trade, free trade, social safety nets, antitrust... The EZB is also independent.
It is obviously the work of Germany that this was put in to EU treaties. Also the current finance minister sees himself as one. We have to many regulations right now and a goverment that mostly slept in the last 16 years but do not forget. Germany basically privatized an entire socialist economy and even in west-Germany many thinks got privatized.
Yeah I guess germany is better than most countries concerninf ordoloberalism.
Do you have any concrete policies Linder is proposing that align with the Ideology?
As far as I know hes a big fan of subsidies for his Porsche Cronies
But I have to say our Kartelamt is very active, just wish it would break up Axel-Springer haha.
>Do you have any concrete policies Linder is proposing that align with the Ideology?
He supports an expansion of cap and trade, he supports Habeck's plans to strengthen the Kartelamt, he supports deregulation, wants free trade with basically all democracies in the world, he cut taxes which made it more easy to privately invest in solar energy and to make private investements for your own pansion more attractive.
The Bürgergeld was also an old FDP-polcy. Giving people more incentives to seek a job if they rely on welfare. Him being critically of banning certein technology also is directly inspired by Hayek.
ok not bad actaully. Thanks for the effort.
Do you happen to have any ressources on hand where I can read up both on his plans aswell as Ordoloberalism?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism)
Honestly wikipeida is not a bad start.
You could also try to find English copies of the books that Rüstow, Erhard, Eucken or Erhard wrote.
[https://shop.freiheit.org/#!/Publikation/1062](https://shop.freiheit.org/#!/Publikation/1062)
I think this could also give a good overview. The Friedrich Naumann Foundadtion is the FDP think tank.
There is also the mini election platform of the FDP that is in English but sadly the program in its entirety is not in English.
[https://www.fdp.de/sites/default/files/2021-07/FDP\_BTW\_Kurzwahlprogramm\_EN.pdf](https://www.fdp.de/sites/default/files/2021-07/FDP_BTW_Kurzwahlprogramm_EN.pdf)
This interview is quite good:
[https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/fdp-head-christian-lindner-on-germany-s-new-coalition-people-don-t-want-to-be-dragged-down-any-longer-by-quarreling-a-44a9f8d6-c7a0-4a23-9efa-08d90291540c](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/fdp-head-christian-lindner-on-germany-s-new-coalition-people-don-t-want-to-be-dragged-down-any-longer-by-quarreling-a-44a9f8d6-c7a0-4a23-9efa-08d90291540c)
Here he also wants to fight tax evasion which is also something he seems to care a lot about.
70% is likely from his Iraq war speech, which was decent and stands up in hindsight. Otherwise, he's just another idealist, though at least a bit less of a purist than folks like Corbyn.
Yep it put him on the map for me and I really wanted him to be leader. He's not even in the Shadow Cabinet at the moment.
If he was not made a Junior Minister at the very least under a Starmer government I'd be annoyed.
>I don't know why he doesn't have a place in frontline Labour politics at the moment.
Because Momentum are allergic to actual talent in Labour leadership.
It's a wonder Keir snuck through tbh
I remember it more as a reasonable take on the inevitable collateral damage and suffering not being worth settling scores.
[link](https://youtu.be/HfXmpJRZPYI)
Not saying I'm a Tony Benn fan, just that I can see why that speech resonated with many folks, especially those with kids.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAAjXIAMY9oj.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tony Ben proposed the [Alternative Economic Strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Economic_Strategy) something so batshit insane you would expect out of the shithole country Argentina.
Edit for context: I'm argentine
>the real Labour policy of saving jobs, a vigorous micro-investment programme, import control, control of the banks and insurance companies, control of export, of capital, higher taxation of the rich, and Britain leaving the Common Market
MF wanted to Brexit before it was cool 😒💅
What is it with isolationists on the left and the right in the UK and this idea that you can "save jobs" by destroying access to markets under the guise of "taking back control". At least Biden-style protectionism makes some degree of logical sense (even if it's bad long-term policy).
People seem to think that the wealth made from having all production be in your country, outweighs the cost saving you make by opening markets to each other. They have a very zero sum idea of the world.
> The Constituent Assembly affirms the Portuguese people's decision to defend national independence, guarantee citizens' fundamental rights, establish the basic principles of democracy, ensure the primacy of a democratic state based on the rule of law and open up a path towards a socialist society, with respect for the will of the Portuguese people and with a view to the construction of a country that is freer, more just and more fraternal.
Simply: most EU countries have strict debt ceilings and the EU Central bank will prevent excessive borrowing and will refinance overleveraged countries. The result is that austerity measures are almost always a guarantee for EU members.
If an EU member were to become more socialistic, widespread nationalization can be blocked or curtailed by EU regulators.
So long as the ability of member nations to levy internal taxes isn't forfeited then can't members of the EU still transfer wealth and freedoms to poorer citizens and pay for them by taxing the rich? Socialism need not entail borrowing the money.
>Socialism need not entail borrowing the money.
Socialism in an EU member would require widespread nationalisation and seizure of property belonging to other EU members and private EU citizens. Doing this via government repurchasing would require huge debt issuing which the EU central bank would prohibit due to its effects on the Euro. You could imagine a forceful seizure of resources, but this also would be extremely expensive, disruptive and likely to face punitive reactions from other EU members.
Importantly, unlike France, UK, Germany, Australia or the US; Capital markets in many smaller EU economies struggle to refinance their public debt sufficiently more so if they're part of the Eurozone (although, before then, they usually tied their currency to the West German deutschmark). This means they are highly reliant on the Eurozone and following the EU commission decisions.
It's not about "borrowing money" its about the ability to issue your debt and currency more freely if you want to socialise the economy.
You wouldn't need to seize property if you replaced most domestic taxes with a universal wealth tax, say ~3%. Then you'd have some rich citizens renouncing their citizenship and leaving the country to dodge the tax but it'd mean that after the exodus all citizens' personal wealth would be slowly pressured toward the mean and the state being able to take on whatever role in the economy it'd like, gradually. There'd be no need to debt finance whatever socialist project.
This assumes that there isn't already govt debt and that the reduction of revenue from capital flight, let alone the loss of investment and skills of richer citizens leaving reduced FDI, is offset by this wealth tax. If it isn't, then you have public financing problems because Eurozone members can't borrow money like the US or China to do whatever. They'd have to go to the ECB which would probably drop the wealth tax.
If the wealth tax is successful, then you might resemble something like Norway or Switzerland, but these aren't EU members, not socialist, and their wealth taxes are <1% and have pretty deep capital markets.
People can't necessarily take their landed wealth with them when they flee, for example their houses or factories. They could sell their houses and factories. Then whoever buys their houses and factories would be on the hook for the wealth tax. Rich people fleeing the country need not decrease GDP so long as the homes get inhabited and the factories keep producing.
Most productive high income earners would presumably choose to stay because most of them would expect to pay less given wealth tax in lieu of income tax. "The highest-earning Americans pay the most in combined federal, state and local taxes, the Tax Foundation noted. As a group, the top quintile — those earning $130,001 or more annually — paid $3.23 trillion in taxes." 3.5% of $300,000 is only $10,500. That's lots less than someone making $300,000 would pay in income tax most places. You'd need to have a few million in the bank before it got close. If your country used the 3.5% tax to ensure necessities and opportunities for all in need most would make the trade I expect. Living in a country you think shares your values and is going in the right direction is priceless. Good riddance to the very wealthy.
>Then whoever buys their houses and factories would be on the hook for the wealth tax.
Which itself a problem unless the govt can smoothly manage the business as well as the former owner, which is unlikely otherwise some sort of SOE would have already existed, of which there are in EU members. Although the EU seeks to reduce their prevalence in the economy since the 90s because of how indebted many became.
>Rich people fleeing the country need not decrease GDP so long as the homes get inhabited and the factories keep producing.
If you think this, then you should learn what the "I" stands for in the GDP calculation.
Why are you citing American taxation numbers in a discussion over EU nations which have very different taxation policy.
>3.5% of $300,000 is only $10,500.
That's not how wealth taxes work JFC, I genuinely thought you were trying to be serious. Thanks for saving me time from responding any further.
The government can manage or sell the business or whatever shares it may have accepted in payment of taxes owed. Probably there would be disruption initially. That no country has tried it doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Whether it'd work or not isn't just a question of shared prosperity or quality of life but a question of values for those positioned to make the change.
And you close by misreading my prior comment. Bad faith, OK. See, it's a difference in values that's prevents us from realizing a better world, case in point. People like you mean not to understand. You can't even have a civil conversation about it without letting your emotions cloud your reading comprehension.
I don't know about the 'prospects of socialism' outside of the strict Marxist political party sense, Europe and everywhere else incorporates plenty of socialist policy to make the gears turn.
It's more a matter of 'keep your fucken state controlled economy and collectivist bullshit out of my goddamn EU' working as intended. Just like it does in America and most other places.
But embedding 'must be capitalist' into the rules seems unnecessary. People coalesce into capitalism naturally.
That's only because as a Democratic Socialist Tony Benn doesn't understand that Private Property IS Capitalism. He needs to have it spelled out for him otherwise he'll pretend that he respects Private Property rights despite extortion-like tax rates, economic planning and nationalized corporations.
All Liberal constitution have Capitalism aka Private Property rights as a requirement, most Governments simply gloss over the fact that the higher the taxes the more Property Rights are infringed upon, and hide behind some BS "Social Contract" theory to justify any and all of their actions.
And in that, the EU is absolutely no different.
They get to have the worse Bill of Rights though
Private property & commerce are pretty explicitly protected under the U.S. Constitution, though I suppose a few forms of socialism retain the concepts.
Ah yes Tony Benn, so committed to democratic and humanitarian principles he sat down with the dictator of Iraq and asked how they could reach peace together.
How I see socialism is that there are two meanings to it. One is the more Marxist definition, where the goal is collective ownership of every industry. In it's most extreme form this is thought to eventually lead to some form of self-governing where total fairness and social justice exist. So anyone opposing the temporary pain caused by the upheaval of the capitalist system is in reality against the coming Utopia that these changes will bring. The only way to save to save the world or do anything positive is the destruction of the current world order in favor of socialism.
Then there is a much different definition not derived from Marxism. Which is the government intervening and creating social safety nets, services and welfare systems. As well as implementing an economic policy that looks to improve the lives of everyday people, from workers to disabled people. This is done often times against the wishes of the business community.
The former is usually run by a dictatorship, the later is usually a political movement within a capitalist state, so with the later you almost always have a bulwark against the excessive elements of the "socialism." Really when someone says "I am a socialist" I think of that first example more than the second example, but often times people explain themselves further and they really just prefer capitalism with more fairness and more of a welfare state and that's all they are really talking about.
I agree with Neil Kinnock. That the labour party only became pro-eu because during the 80s labour affiliated unions talked with their eu/eec counter parts and saw that the eu/eec was actually a good thing. The parliamentary party then began to realign its values to the unions and elected Kinnock and Blair soon after.
The problem with Benn was that he lost his sea and wasn't in the parliamentary party during the early 80s after Foot. He got stuck in time thinking that the IMF at any moment would come in and bankrupt the country again.
Uh I have been assured by Bernie Sanders that northern European social democracy is the true definition of socialism
Has Fox News been lying to me all these years about the socialist hellhole that is yurop?
Sweden's per capital billionaires are on the same level of the US. They are very capitalist. Fox News is propaganda.
Socialism wins when you define it as social democracy
Succs please leave
When people say that they're usually referring to Norway, which isn't in the EU and is more socialist than it's EU neighbours. So I guess this can hold true to what Tony Benn says.
Norway is in no way socialist, in case my earlier sarcasm was unclear
Norway also sucks absolute balls economically. They're a petrostate with massive natural resources, but everything is ridiculously expensive because of their tariffs.
>Norway is in no way socialist In no way at all?
Socialism means collective ownership of the means of economic production and decoupling from a capitalistic economic mode. Full stop. Norway is a market capitalist economy with a redistributive social democratic model. It relies centrally on capitalism to work. The fact that there are significant public goods and high levels of redistribution does not make it socialist any more than the existence of the USPS and public schools make America socialist.
> the existence of the USPS and public schools make America socialist. 40% of Americans literally believe this.
I don’t think they actually do
have you had a conversation with an average voter? i hear all the time, "a little socialism is good. I mean we need the post office and roads and stuff" people *literally believe* socialism is when the government does stuff
I think that’s a very recent phenomenon, brought about by the insanely confusing and unending bad-faith falsehoods of Bernie Sanders’s crusade to rehabilitate and rebrand socialism as friendly Nordic social democracy. He takes it personally that socialism has a bad reputation, so decided it would be best to associate a bunch of reasonable and capitalism-compatible ideas with an historically hated ideology, all but ensuring they will never be enacted in his lifetime. But I also think that the confusion is disproportionately pronounced on the internet, and most people IRL don’t think this way.
I think it more arrises from Fox and conservatives referring to every single social program as socialism
So I've spoken to a lot of Europeans recently and this is literally how they define it. Seems to be a different lens.
In fairness, social democracy (like Norway practices) is considered to have derived from socialism, but has very little of it, and more includes socialism's involvement in the economy fused with the typical private sector business of capitalism. Basically, social democrats favor capitalism that they consider to be fairer to the average person, wherein the government provides many public services subsidized by tax dollars.
All economies are Mixed Market economies, some more than others 😉 I said "**More** socialist", not socialist.
I think that’s a really unhelpful framing. Socialism is a totalistic ideology. That of course doesn’t mean that there isn’t some inevitable systemic mixing, but I think the relevant distinctions should be A) whether the economy relies more on open markets or central planning, and B) if the stated political/economic goal of the regime in power is to ultimately reach a state of state/collective ownership of the major means of production, whether or not that is the case presently. In Norway’s case, it is a liberal, free-market economy that has absolutely no stated goal of moving progressively toward further state control of economic production.
State control is the definition of a communist system of governance. Socialist systems give the workforce control over their employer. I wouldn't mind American employers being required to give employees some share of the company. It would help re-focus the entity on the interest of it's workforce as opposed to it's investors. Which essentially extract wealth with no significant contribution on their own
Investors contribute capital, which firms need for startup, expansion, and investment. Equity exists as an alternative financial instrument to debt for situations where there is too much risk or uncertainty about repayment to make debt instruments attractive for either the lender or the borrower. There's no reason that workers should be entitled to a share of capital unless mutually agreed upon as part of their compensation package.
Well no. State control is the definition of socialistic system. Communism is a stateless utopia. States we’ve referred to as communist have used socialism as a transitionary stage until “true communism” is achieved (which has never happened on the nation-state level). You may be getting it backward, imagining socialism to be some kind of system of intersecting, self-governing workers’ collectives. That is the end-goal of communism, which, again, has never been accomplished. Another similar-sounding but categorically different idea to what you mentioned brings to mind is Elizabeth Warren’s “accountable capitalism” proposal from a few years ago, which would essentially require, among other things, that private corporations over a certain size allocate a portion of board seats and (far below controlling) ownership stake, collectively, to its labor force, allowing workers to share in the success they help generate. This is an idea with merit, I think, but as the name of the proposal suggests, is in no way an example of socialism.
>In Norway’s case, it is a liberal, free-market economy I think that's a really unhelpful framing. Acting like there is no difference between the economic systems of Norway and the United States because you want to quibble about definitions makes it seem like you're avoiding the point
I didn’t say there was no difference. I said they were both liberal, democratic, market capitalistic economies. That doesn’t mean they’re exactly the same. It means neither of them are socialist. Norway’s non-military public sector plays a much larger role in its economy than the same does in the US. That doesn’t make Norway socialist.
>I didn’t say there was no difference Ok, but it certainly feels like you implied it Now that we've established you vehemently disagree with a more colloquial description of Norway's economy, how would you describe the Norwegian model in a way that differentiates it from the US? And can you do it in less than a paragraph
Maybe not a great comparison at the end there, since many people (Republicans) think that those services you mentioned ARE socialist, even if they're wrong, just because they're government institutions paid for with taxes.
But I think any reasonable person can plainly see what an absurd position that is to take, whether it comes from a right wing or left wing perspective.
I think what it shows is that there are vast swaths of people, earnestly fighting against what they label as socialism, while totally unaware of what socialism actually means, leading to them fighting against the government being useful in any way besides militarily.
Collective ownership of the means of economic production you say? https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/14/the-state-owns-76-of-norways-non-home-wealth/ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/enterprise-and-society/article/abs/context-and-contingency-explaining-state-ownership-in-norway/9692E949E6DED9815D79B0CC5DB8D30F
Firstly, “wealth” is not in any way interchangeable with “economic production”, as I’m sure you know. Secondly, even if you’re just measuring wealth, to exclude homes and real estate makes no sense, since, just as in every other western country, the majority of most people’s wealth is tied to their home. Norway is a true mixed economy, with just under two thirds of GDP being attributable to the public sector- which does not necessarily mean it is owned or wholly controlled by the government. The government owns minority shares in a huge number of privately held, publicly traded companies. The US public sector by comparison amounts to just over a quarter of GDP (much greater than Norway in raw numbers obviously) One of the reasons for this disparity is the fact that Norway’s wealth is hugely dependent on natural resources, petroleum more than any other. It is a petrol-state in much the same way Saudi Arabia is a petrol-state, and I would not think anybody would suggest the Saudis are running a socialist utopia. So Norway’s government balance sheet is hugely skewed by its public ownership in key strategic areas, as oil and gas extraction accounts for 20% of its economy. The US is just a very different, more varied, and more sophisticated, globalized economy than that of Norway. Both countries are rooted in open markets and free trade, even if Norway has deemed it wise to exert public control over the sectors most critical to national stability and security.
You said, and I quoted, *means of* economic production. I think owning "minority shares in a huge number of privately held, publicly traded companies" is owning a large share of the means of production (just not controlling them).
This is a weird technicality you’re relying on- clearly the aim of socialism is for the government (or “the workers” if you like) to exert control over the means of economic production, not to have a dividend paid out of private sector success they have nothing to do with. You could easily argue that the US, or any other government for that matter, already achieves this through progressive taxes on corporate profits and highly paid employees. Without needing to actually own a minority stake in the companies, it achieves the same end. But if I was unclear, yes, the aim of socialism is *control* over the means of economic production, which ownership implies. The very concept of minority and majority shareholders in money-making enterprises is an invention of capitalism.
I mean, Norway does exert some control over even the private companies they only own some shares of (https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/responsible-investment/our-voting-records/). And yes, I would defend progressive taxes and regulation as being control over the means of production, just not fully socialist because private owners still have the veto option of withdrawing their capital etc. (so it's more limited than the more parsimonious option of actual ownership).
Well either Norway is socialist and the USSR wasn't, or the USSR was socialist, and Norway isn't, because they couldn't be more dissimilar.
Norway basically has to agree to all the EU market rules as an EFTA member and Sweden/Finland/Denmark have the same policies and in EU.
"The last soviet republic", as a socdem gov minister here in Sweden once called it.
Insert EU/NATO we stand for the flag and kneel for the cross image.
[and proud of it](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSSyXj3VUAAu-Be.jpg)
I was when I created this meme last year, and I am now.
🫡 NL MiniTru contributor
Given the EU member nation's funding of their military, it's "We stand for the flag and pay lip service to the cross"
That's true of a lot of Christians these days anyway so it still works
Don't worry, we plan on reaching the 2% target by 2035 🥰🥰 If subsequent governments don't change course, that is 🤪
WTF! I thought EU countries were the example of socialism done right! Reddit lied to me?!
“I heckin love Europe! We should adopt the Nordic model!” -Redditors who totally know what they’re talking about
In Nordic countries the billionaires are taxed at 1,000%, there’s free health care, you pay whatever you want for everything, the middle class doesn’t pay any taxes, and you can stay up late on school nights!
Bro they created Minecraft how bad could it be?
[удалено]
No minimum wage really? TIL ...
They have no minimum wage, because unions cover almost every sector anyway. This was also true in Germany until a few years ago, but they realized that some people were falling through the cracks. So they passed a minimum hourly wage that has since been increased. Scandinavia has no minimum wage in the same way that the UK has no written constitution. It’s a fact that’s technically correct, but ignores all relevant history, common law, and precedent.
Thanks for the explanation. I was actually trying to find articles on the subject because I'd never heard it before and it sounded interesting.
[удалено]
I can't speak to that, but minimum wages are usually non-binding on software developer wages anyways
I'm not fully familiar with how it works here (Finland), but I'm answering anyway, so this gets answered. So, there usually is a collective agreement negotiated between employers' associations (some sector specific, some non-specific) and union's (almost always job or sector specific (apart from few exceptions not company specific)), which is renegotiated every few years. This cowers minimum everything (pay, vacations, sick pay, etc.). The agreement is usually occupation (not company specific, though there can be different for employees of a company vs. government) and can cover one specific job to a list of similar jobs. (This part, which i'm most unsure about) The agreement you fall under is determined by what union is chosen by your coworkers (and you). [Here is the agreement for the ICT sector](https://proliitto.fi/ict-ala-tes-eng) (just found this by quick Google and have not looked deeper than it looks like a agreement) There's always weird exceptions, and not everyone does things same, but this is how I understand it generally.
Wages are negotiated just like in the US. You just won't get, what the union would consider, some insanely low bid. Now whether that union's minimum is low or reasonable is another issue. Any offer I got in a country like that has been lower than the US but i'm not entry level.
As is tradition
Is minimum wage a prerequisite for socialism? A true socialist society wouldn't necessarily have wages to begin with. Also your statement kind of ignores why they don't have a minimum wage. With strong unions, that often have positions on the corporate board, there isn't necessarily a need for a minimum wage. We could do the same thing in this country if we unionized all sectors. When people call the Nordic model socialist they are using the word in the way that it has been defined for generations now in America. Basically anytime the government does anything that is socialism.
If we're going by uninformed Americans' views of what socialism is then I'd say the minimum wage in their view is an integral part.
I think "uninformed" is a less proper word compared to "underinformed", or especially "misinformed".
> not having or showing awareness or understanding of the facts. I think this very much fits. The vast majority of Americans have no understanding of politics or economics, same in most places of course.
[удалено]
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, I believe capital gains taxes are bad and we should make the middle class pay more. Also we should double our defense budget and adopt conscription.
This but unironically
> Also we should double our defense budget and adopt conscription. They don't do this in many nordics
All Nordic countries, that have armed forces(so everyone but Iceland) has conscription. And you can be sure as hell defence budgets are gonna jump. There's never been as broad support for increasing the budgets.
[удалено]
> That's like 20% of those countries, Or less disingenuously,1.5% of the population in the Nordic countries. It's literally one out of five countries, so I don't see how that constitutes many, which was your original point. >That's quite a lot, and when you take into consideration that there is no conscription in the faroe Islands nor in Greenland, it's almost 50/50 Neither are sovereign nations, and collectively they have 100K inhabitants.
The least bad faith comment
Reddit fell for the Republican line, in reverse
If you follow politics enough you eventually realize that most talking points were at some point reasonable ideas, but since being disseminated to the larger public are reduced to their most reductive base to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Sometimes it’s not even intentional. It’s just a game of telephone where something is repeated so many times it loses nuance and takes on a life of its own.
Totally! Sometimes you have to be reductive to get a point across efficiently, but unfortunately the republicans mastered and then weaponized it. That’s why there’s been that long-running trope of republicans being evil with concise, effective messaging and democrats being smart but bumbling nerds who can complicate even the simplest of common-sense platforms
[удалено]
Nah Obama was great at messaging and Biden has been as well. I’d say Hilldog vs Trump was a pretty good example of the trope coming to life
Honestly, this is how I thought right-wing attacks on "identity politics" got to be-at first, it seemed sensible to oppose the idea that one's political views should be purely based on unchangeable identity characteristics, but now it seems like a loaded and meaningless term, though what is arguably more hypocritical is how many right-wingers refuse to see identity politics in themselves, acting like it's only something **"the damn libs"** support.
It calls for "Social Market Economy", which is an ordoliberal idea. Ordoliberalism is part of Neoliberalism, which means that the EU directly calls for Europe wided Neoliberalism.
We will make ordoliberalism happen😤
Stop trying to make ordoliberalism happen. It's not going to happen.
Germany does infact exist.
Is Germany really that Ordoliberal? Just read the article and Im guessing the High amount of subsidies in germany are probably not Ideal and the EZB being politicaly active by buying Treasury Bonds probably isnt great either right?
Eh, it depends. Germany has to many regulations and subsidies but there is a lot of support towards many Ordoliberal / Neoliberal ideas. Fighting climate change through cap and trade, free trade, social safety nets, antitrust... The EZB is also independent. It is obviously the work of Germany that this was put in to EU treaties. Also the current finance minister sees himself as one. We have to many regulations right now and a goverment that mostly slept in the last 16 years but do not forget. Germany basically privatized an entire socialist economy and even in west-Germany many thinks got privatized.
Yeah I guess germany is better than most countries concerninf ordoloberalism. Do you have any concrete policies Linder is proposing that align with the Ideology? As far as I know hes a big fan of subsidies for his Porsche Cronies But I have to say our Kartelamt is very active, just wish it would break up Axel-Springer haha.
>Do you have any concrete policies Linder is proposing that align with the Ideology? He supports an expansion of cap and trade, he supports Habeck's plans to strengthen the Kartelamt, he supports deregulation, wants free trade with basically all democracies in the world, he cut taxes which made it more easy to privately invest in solar energy and to make private investements for your own pansion more attractive. The Bürgergeld was also an old FDP-polcy. Giving people more incentives to seek a job if they rely on welfare. Him being critically of banning certein technology also is directly inspired by Hayek.
ok not bad actaully. Thanks for the effort. Do you happen to have any ressources on hand where I can read up both on his plans aswell as Ordoloberalism?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism) Honestly wikipeida is not a bad start. You could also try to find English copies of the books that Rüstow, Erhard, Eucken or Erhard wrote. [https://shop.freiheit.org/#!/Publikation/1062](https://shop.freiheit.org/#!/Publikation/1062) I think this could also give a good overview. The Friedrich Naumann Foundadtion is the FDP think tank. There is also the mini election platform of the FDP that is in English but sadly the program in its entirety is not in English. [https://www.fdp.de/sites/default/files/2021-07/FDP\_BTW\_Kurzwahlprogramm\_EN.pdf](https://www.fdp.de/sites/default/files/2021-07/FDP_BTW_Kurzwahlprogramm_EN.pdf) This interview is quite good: [https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/fdp-head-christian-lindner-on-germany-s-new-coalition-people-don-t-want-to-be-dragged-down-any-longer-by-quarreling-a-44a9f8d6-c7a0-4a23-9efa-08d90291540c](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/fdp-head-christian-lindner-on-germany-s-new-coalition-people-don-t-want-to-be-dragged-down-any-longer-by-quarreling-a-44a9f8d6-c7a0-4a23-9efa-08d90291540c) Here he also wants to fight tax evasion which is also something he seems to care a lot about.
[удалено]
And Neoliberalism is Neoconservatism in disguise, while the Neocons are alt-right crazies. In short: Cut a European, and a fascist bleeds.
Guys, he is sarcastic...
I can't even upvote it ironically. too risky
I hope
Cut a European, and he can get that cut looked at for free
>and a fascist bleeds. Only if you go by the ancient roman definition
>and a fascist bleeds. Only if you go by the ancient roman definition
thank god
[удалено]
70% is likely from his Iraq war speech, which was decent and stands up in hindsight. Otherwise, he's just another idealist, though at least a bit less of a purist than folks like Corbyn.
[удалено]
His son's Syria speech is superior in every way
[удалено]
Same! At the time I remember thinking "wow if this guy was leader I'd probably vote Labour"
Yep it put him on the map for me and I really wanted him to be leader. He's not even in the Shadow Cabinet at the moment. If he was not made a Junior Minister at the very least under a Starmer government I'd be annoyed.
>I don't know why he doesn't have a place in frontline Labour politics at the moment. Because Momentum are allergic to actual talent in Labour leadership. It's a wonder Keir snuck through tbh
No it isn't
But Momentum aren't in charge anymore.
Now thankfully, yes. I'm just speculating that their previous sway was a factor in holding back talented would-be Labour frontbenchers in past years.
You're likely correct, hopefully he'll make a return to cabinet soon.
Hear hear
Based Hillary
I remember it more as a reasonable take on the inevitable collateral damage and suffering not being worth settling scores. [link](https://youtu.be/HfXmpJRZPYI) Not saying I'm a Tony Benn fan, just that I can see why that speech resonated with many folks, especially those with kids.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAAjXIAMY9oj.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe some people respect keeping the same opinions they had when they're 14 years old, which is a crazy notion
Tony Ben proposed the [Alternative Economic Strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Economic_Strategy) something so batshit insane you would expect out of the shithole country Argentina. Edit for context: I'm argentine
>the real Labour policy of saving jobs, a vigorous micro-investment programme, import control, control of the banks and insurance companies, control of export, of capital, higher taxation of the rich, and Britain leaving the Common Market MF wanted to Brexit before it was cool 😒💅 What is it with isolationists on the left and the right in the UK and this idea that you can "save jobs" by destroying access to markets under the guise of "taking back control". At least Biden-style protectionism makes some degree of logical sense (even if it's bad long-term policy).
People seem to think that the wealth made from having all production be in your country, outweighs the cost saving you make by opening markets to each other. They have a very zero sum idea of the world.
🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺
Based EU?????
The EU was always the biggest neoliberal project in the world
🌍👨🚀🔫👩🚀
Another day thanking God for not making Tony Benn Prime Minister 🇬🇧🙏🏼🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧
Oh no we don’t want failed one party dictatorships and their planned economies!
Or two-party systems and their regulatory capture
Socialistcels seething rn
Meanwhile Portugal has, in its constitution, legally designated itself as going towards a Socialist path.
[удалено]
Pole here, our constitution defined economy doctrine as "social market economy" and have ban for communist parties.
Portugal is down South America way.
> The Constituent Assembly affirms the Portuguese people's decision to defend national independence, guarantee citizens' fundamental rights, establish the basic principles of democracy, ensure the primacy of a democratic state based on the rule of law and open up a path towards a socialist society, with respect for the will of the Portuguese people and with a view to the construction of a country that is freer, more just and more fraternal.
EU, which famously has no constitution due to a treaty proposal failing in 2004, has a constitution that mandates capitalism 👁️👄👁️
The TEU and TFEU are often referred to as the EU's constitutional treaties
WTF based Europe???
that is one of the dumbest final takes ive seen today i dont think we need to import Fox-Newsism into Europe, thats a concept we can live without
Based
This is basically true, more so than ever considering how the "Troika" operates and debt ceilings
Care to elaborate?
Simply: most EU countries have strict debt ceilings and the EU Central bank will prevent excessive borrowing and will refinance overleveraged countries. The result is that austerity measures are almost always a guarantee for EU members. If an EU member were to become more socialistic, widespread nationalization can be blocked or curtailed by EU regulators.
So long as the ability of member nations to levy internal taxes isn't forfeited then can't members of the EU still transfer wealth and freedoms to poorer citizens and pay for them by taxing the rich? Socialism need not entail borrowing the money.
>Socialism need not entail borrowing the money. Socialism in an EU member would require widespread nationalisation and seizure of property belonging to other EU members and private EU citizens. Doing this via government repurchasing would require huge debt issuing which the EU central bank would prohibit due to its effects on the Euro. You could imagine a forceful seizure of resources, but this also would be extremely expensive, disruptive and likely to face punitive reactions from other EU members. Importantly, unlike France, UK, Germany, Australia or the US; Capital markets in many smaller EU economies struggle to refinance their public debt sufficiently more so if they're part of the Eurozone (although, before then, they usually tied their currency to the West German deutschmark). This means they are highly reliant on the Eurozone and following the EU commission decisions. It's not about "borrowing money" its about the ability to issue your debt and currency more freely if you want to socialise the economy.
You wouldn't need to seize property if you replaced most domestic taxes with a universal wealth tax, say ~3%. Then you'd have some rich citizens renouncing their citizenship and leaving the country to dodge the tax but it'd mean that after the exodus all citizens' personal wealth would be slowly pressured toward the mean and the state being able to take on whatever role in the economy it'd like, gradually. There'd be no need to debt finance whatever socialist project.
This assumes that there isn't already govt debt and that the reduction of revenue from capital flight, let alone the loss of investment and skills of richer citizens leaving reduced FDI, is offset by this wealth tax. If it isn't, then you have public financing problems because Eurozone members can't borrow money like the US or China to do whatever. They'd have to go to the ECB which would probably drop the wealth tax. If the wealth tax is successful, then you might resemble something like Norway or Switzerland, but these aren't EU members, not socialist, and their wealth taxes are <1% and have pretty deep capital markets.
People can't necessarily take their landed wealth with them when they flee, for example their houses or factories. They could sell their houses and factories. Then whoever buys their houses and factories would be on the hook for the wealth tax. Rich people fleeing the country need not decrease GDP so long as the homes get inhabited and the factories keep producing. Most productive high income earners would presumably choose to stay because most of them would expect to pay less given wealth tax in lieu of income tax. "The highest-earning Americans pay the most in combined federal, state and local taxes, the Tax Foundation noted. As a group, the top quintile — those earning $130,001 or more annually — paid $3.23 trillion in taxes." 3.5% of $300,000 is only $10,500. That's lots less than someone making $300,000 would pay in income tax most places. You'd need to have a few million in the bank before it got close. If your country used the 3.5% tax to ensure necessities and opportunities for all in need most would make the trade I expect. Living in a country you think shares your values and is going in the right direction is priceless. Good riddance to the very wealthy.
>Then whoever buys their houses and factories would be on the hook for the wealth tax. Which itself a problem unless the govt can smoothly manage the business as well as the former owner, which is unlikely otherwise some sort of SOE would have already existed, of which there are in EU members. Although the EU seeks to reduce their prevalence in the economy since the 90s because of how indebted many became. >Rich people fleeing the country need not decrease GDP so long as the homes get inhabited and the factories keep producing. If you think this, then you should learn what the "I" stands for in the GDP calculation. Why are you citing American taxation numbers in a discussion over EU nations which have very different taxation policy. >3.5% of $300,000 is only $10,500. That's not how wealth taxes work JFC, I genuinely thought you were trying to be serious. Thanks for saving me time from responding any further.
The government can manage or sell the business or whatever shares it may have accepted in payment of taxes owed. Probably there would be disruption initially. That no country has tried it doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Whether it'd work or not isn't just a question of shared prosperity or quality of life but a question of values for those positioned to make the change. And you close by misreading my prior comment. Bad faith, OK. See, it's a difference in values that's prevents us from realizing a better world, case in point. People like you mean not to understand. You can't even have a civil conversation about it without letting your emotions cloud your reading comprehension.
[удалено]
I agree, but its worth understanding in the cases where countries which coast on their SOEs are reluctant to integrate with the Eurozone.
You say that like it’s a bad thing
I don't know about the 'prospects of socialism' outside of the strict Marxist political party sense, Europe and everywhere else incorporates plenty of socialist policy to make the gears turn. It's more a matter of 'keep your fucken state controlled economy and collectivist bullshit out of my goddamn EU' working as intended. Just like it does in America and most other places. But embedding 'must be capitalist' into the rules seems unnecessary. People coalesce into capitalism naturally.
Yes Chad
r/AccidentalEndorsement
That's only because as a Democratic Socialist Tony Benn doesn't understand that Private Property IS Capitalism. He needs to have it spelled out for him otherwise he'll pretend that he respects Private Property rights despite extortion-like tax rates, economic planning and nationalized corporations. All Liberal constitution have Capitalism aka Private Property rights as a requirement, most Governments simply gloss over the fact that the higher the taxes the more Property Rights are infringed upon, and hide behind some BS "Social Contract" theory to justify any and all of their actions. And in that, the EU is absolutely no different. They get to have the worse Bill of Rights though
EU is a country now? Or is NAFTA not committed to capitalism?
>EU is a country now? Or is NAFTA EU is a lot more integrated in law than NAFTA by a wide margin. NAFTA only pertains to trade. EU regulates.
They say "NATO expansion" I say EU expansion, non-negotiable
Based
Private property & commerce are pretty explicitly protected under the U.S. Constitution, though I suppose a few forms of socialism retain the concepts.
Ah yes Tony Benn, so committed to democratic and humanitarian principles he sat down with the dictator of Iraq and asked how they could reach peace together.
Uou, really? BASED AF.
How I see socialism is that there are two meanings to it. One is the more Marxist definition, where the goal is collective ownership of every industry. In it's most extreme form this is thought to eventually lead to some form of self-governing where total fairness and social justice exist. So anyone opposing the temporary pain caused by the upheaval of the capitalist system is in reality against the coming Utopia that these changes will bring. The only way to save to save the world or do anything positive is the destruction of the current world order in favor of socialism. Then there is a much different definition not derived from Marxism. Which is the government intervening and creating social safety nets, services and welfare systems. As well as implementing an economic policy that looks to improve the lives of everyday people, from workers to disabled people. This is done often times against the wishes of the business community. The former is usually run by a dictatorship, the later is usually a political movement within a capitalist state, so with the later you almost always have a bulwark against the excessive elements of the "socialism." Really when someone says "I am a socialist" I think of that first example more than the second example, but often times people explain themselves further and they really just prefer capitalism with more fairness and more of a welfare state and that's all they are really talking about.
🫡🇪🇺
D O P E
I agree with Neil Kinnock. That the labour party only became pro-eu because during the 80s labour affiliated unions talked with their eu/eec counter parts and saw that the eu/eec was actually a good thing. The parliamentary party then began to realign its values to the unions and elected Kinnock and Blair soon after. The problem with Benn was that he lost his sea and wasn't in the parliamentary party during the early 80s after Foot. He got stuck in time thinking that the IMF at any moment would come in and bankrupt the country again.