Answering simple right wing arguments....

[RadioRaheem84]

How would you answer this?


You must be really young... and naive.

Socialism will never work in the US. The countries you mention (Norway, Sweden) are much smaller, much more homogeneous, and don't have any significant segments of the population that think they are owed something and ready to milk the system to full advantage.

Not to mention, America wasn't founded on that... quite different in fact. You should look into moving to those other countries if you admire them so much.

Oh, and nothing is "free." Someone is paying.

Basically skip the rhetoric and address the two points:

1.) Scandinavian countries have less people therefore resources are better allocated to the population. Welfare can work when there are less people.

2.) Nothing is free. It's paid by taxpayers.

and to counter before he does, explain why the rich should pay.

I know this is arguing liberal politics but I never really had an answer for them even when I was a liberal.

[Avanti]

You must be really young... and naive.

Socialism will never work in the US. The countries you mention (Norway, Sweden) are much smaller, much more homogeneous, and don't have any significant segments of the population that think they are owed something and ready to milk the system to full advantage.

Not to mention, America wasn't founded on that... quite different in fact. You should look into moving to those other countries if you admire them so much.

Oh, and nothing is "free." Someone is paying.

from

a statist pov

that argument

is based

on the assumption

that people of color

are lazy parasites

from an anti-statist pov

just call him

a docile sheeple

who's too old

to be of any use

to the revolution

[Rafiq]

Indeed nothing is free. It's the proletariat who has to pay.

[Rafiq]

Ask him what drew him to the conclusion scandandavian countries are socialist. I mean I would understand if it was like, Cuba or the Eastern Bloc but Scandandavian countries? Really? What the fuck? And social democracy carries the same systemic contradictions that any other capitalist mode of production does. This should be especially apparent considering they adopted neoliberalism like twenty years ago. Social democracy can only function with Communist states existing otherwise they have nothing to compete with and have no reason to make concessions to the power of the proletariat.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The people who think they are 'owed' something are the bourgeoisie, who think they are entitled to rent, profit and debt all off the backs of the proletariat who work and produce. There was a study done on 'entitlement' that I lost the link on but it essentially pointed out how rich people feel more entitled to benefits than poor people who believe that one should work and struggle for their due.

Also, the US was founded on slavery, genocide and a suppression of more than 90% of the populace who weren't entitled to vote. Those aren't aspects of society that still permeate in the US as people, generally working class people, fought against such things to improve their lives despite the rich trying to do everything they could to prevent that and maintain their profits. Why not logically further extend that process and remove all inequality, including economic?

[Avanti]

The people who think they are 'owed' something are the bourgeoisie, who think they are entitled to rent, profit and debt all off the backs of the proletariat who work and produce. There was a study done on 'entitlement' that I lost the link on but it essentially pointed out how rich people feel more entitled to benefits than poor people who believe that one should work and struggle for their due.

Also, the US was founded on slavery, genocide and a suppression of more than 90% of the populace who weren't entitled to vote. Those aren't aspects of society that still permeate in the US as people, generally working class people, fought against such things to improve their lives despite the rich trying to do everything they could to prevent that and maintain their profits. Why not logically further extend that process and remove all inequality, including economic?

that strategy

is like

speaking

to a wall

they approve

of the founding fathers

they want less democracy

not more

because

they fear

the nations of color

are going to

transform

the united states

into a matriarchal

egalitarian

neopagan

bisexual

theocracy

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The original statement is just not true.
Sure there are fewer people, but there are also fewer resources, when comparing to the US of A.
Secondly, of course we also have people abuse the welfare system, both poor and rich.
And lastly, what a country is "founded on" is irrelevant, as all the major Scandinavian countries were "founded" as Monarchies, and the smaller countries have been part of these monarchies.
The movement towards the welfare state is a result of a strong labor movement, but sadly it was not strong enough to go all the way.

PS: The scandinavian countries are becoming more and more neo-liberal, so there's that.

[Rugged Collectivist]

You must be really young... and naive.

I am.


Socialism will never work in the US. The countries you mention (Norway, Sweden)

Hold on friend! Those countries aren't socialist, but I know what you mean when you say socialism so I'll respond anyway.


are much smaller, much more homogeneous, and don't have any significant segments of the population that think they are owed something and ready to milk the system to full advantage.

Well, the first too assertions are non sequiturs. I doubt the third is even true.


Not to mention, America wasn't founded on that... quite different in fact.

True, but have you ever considered that I don't give a fuck? Look at a country like France. It was a monarchy, then became a republic, then an empire, then another monarchy, then another republic. It was "Founded" several times. The US too can be "founded" again.

Speaking of the US. It was originally founded as a series of British colonies. In fact, they had to have a violent revolution to change that.


You should look into moving to those other countries if you admire them so much.

No thanks. As an American I have just as much right as you to determine the countries course.


Oh, and nothing is "free." Someone is paying.

True. But under socialism the workers will be paying with their labor, which is fine because they'll be receiving the product of their labor without any bourgeois parasites taking the majority of it.

(that last rebuttal may need critiquing since I only have a really shallow grasp of economics.)

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

1.) Scandinavian countries have less people therefore resources are better allocated to the population. Welfare can work when there are less people.

2.) Nothing is free. It's paid by taxpayers.

and to counter before he does, explain why the rich should pay.

I know this is arguing liberal politics but I never really had an answer for them even when I was a liberal.

The first point is a shit answer. It is not a matter of size, it is a question of how much money there is in a country, how much people, how much healthcare actually costs, what amount of prevention there is, etc.
It's more a case of how people think.

Indeed, America was made on a capitalist basis, but Scandinavian Countries are older than that. Saying that they are founded on socialism is utter bullshit and historically inaccurate.

Second point, as Rafiq already said, someone has to pay and that someone is bound to be proletariat. Sure it's paid by taxpayers, but who pays the most on a relative basis? The workers.
The rich are pampered all over the world and are constantly making weird constructs to pay less and less. Although none of the bourgeoisie (or those who defend them) will ever admit, the cheat their asses off.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

The countries you mention (Norway, Sweden) are much smaller, much more homogeneous, and don't have any significant segments of the population that think they are owed something and ready to milk the system to full advantage.


1) How can you compare USA's size to any european country

2) I think Norway is much bigger than he thinks

3) About the problem that someone thinks they are owed something...that's just the problem with money. That's the beauty of communism! No money, no problems!

Furthermore, i read an article in yesterday's newspaper that multinationals are more and more evading taxes.
Apple only paid 1,9% taxes last year, and Starbucks profits outside of the US were taxed maybe even worse: 8,6 million UK Pounds of a turnover of 3,1 BILLION UK Pounds.
Holland has a lot of companies only for transferring money for tax-evading purposes. Some of those companies are: Coca Cola, Volkswagen, Google and Prada.

Now, who thinks he's owed something?

[campesino]

a

[#FF0000]

I like how no one pointed out the flagrant racism in this guy's statement.


Socialism will never work in the US. The countries you mention (Norway, Sweden) are much smaller, much more homogeneous, and don't have any significant segments of the population that think they are owed something and ready to milk the system to full advantage. Basically he thinks social democracy is a success because scandinavia doesn't have black people.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I like how no one pointed out the flagrant racism in this guy's statement.

Basically he thinks social democracy is a success because scandinavia doesn't have black people.

What!? How did you make this racist? I think you're mistaking homogenous (A more evenly spread wealth) with mono-cultural.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Basically he thinks social democracy is a success because scandinavia doesn't have black people.

Apart from that scandinavian social-democracy died in the early 1980's: I wonder where he gets this idea of cultural homogeneity from... Probably too much to expect him to have any clue of what he speaks on though.


What!? How did you make this racist? I think you're mistaking homogenous (A more evenly spread wealth) with mono-cultural.

I'm pretty bloody sure he wouldn't use "evenly spread wealth" as a REASON to oppose evenly spread wealth, now would he? He's racist, don't be silly. Quite flagrantly so. Also homogenous means to be of same origin.

[#FF0000]

What!? How did you make this racist? I think you're mistaking homogenous (A more evenly spread wealth) with mono-cultural.

Someone using homogenous in this context is almost certainly not talking about income equality.


Apart from that scandinavian social-democracy died in the early 1980's: I wonder where he gets this idea of cultural homogeneity from... Probably too much to expect him to have any clue of what he speaks on though.

It's pretty funny how whenever someone points out something that is going decently in Scandinavia, someone else has to point out that it's because there are a lot of white people. I remember reading an article about scandinavian schools, and some guy commented on it saying "well you see homogeniety and lack of immigrants who don't speak the language..." even though the article was specifically talking about Norweigian (i think) schools that were dealing with immigrants from literally everywhere (edit: and still doing better than shitty america's whitebread schools)

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Apart from that scandinavian social-democracy died in the early 1980's: I wonder where he gets this idea of cultural homogeneity from... Probably too much to expect him to have any clue of what he speaks on though.



I'm pretty bloody sure he wouldn't use "evenly spread wealth" as a REASON to oppose evenly spread wealth, now would he? He's racist, don't be silly. Quite flagrantly so. Also homogenous means to be of same origin.


Someone using homogenous in this context is almost certainly not talking about income equality.



It's pretty funny how whenever someone points out something that is going decently in Scandinavia, someone else has to point out that it's because there are a lot of white people. I remember reading an article about scandinavian schools, and some guy commented on it saying "well you see homogeniety and lack of immigrants who don't speak the language..." even though the article was specifically talking about Norweigian (i think) schools that were dealing with immigrants from literally everywhere (edit: and still doing better than shitty america's whitebread schools)

Still, whether or not he was talking about income equality, he isn't talking about culture per sé.
Besides, homogeneous means
consisting of parts or people which are similar to each other or are of the same type (according to a dictionary off course)
So that does not imply a cultural difference for certain.

Sorry, still not getting the racism-part. Still, the argument is still faulty and total bullocks.

[l'Enfermé]

I like how no one pointed out the flagrant racism in this guy's statement.

Basically he thinks social democracy is a success because scandinavia doesn't have black people.
Like 20 percent of Sweden's population is ethnically not Swedish. They've got like 200,000 Iraqis and Iranians alone here.

[Jason]

Socialism will never work in the US. The countries you mention (Norway, Sweden) are much smaller, much more homogeneous, and don't have any significant segments of the population that think they are owed something and ready to milk the system to full advantage.


Many people of all races want government programs to make up for the fact that:

There are no good schools, jobs are shipped to other nations, and no quality preventive healthcare exists (as explained in another post, mental illness leads to drug addiction and other problems which greatly hard the working class).

So, yes, a great many people think they're owed something.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Many people of all races want government programs to make up for the fact that:

There are no good schools, jobs are shipped to other nations, and no quality preventive healthcare exists (as explained in another post, mental illness leads to drug addiction and other problems which greatly hard the working class).

So, yes, a great many people think they're owed something.

I'm taking it a bit further, by saying racists (for example) think there owed a lot.
They think that people of other culture are taking jobs or welfare-money which they are entitled to.

Then there are religious-extremists. They think they alone are entitled to a heaven. Whether or not if it's even there, i think we are all entitled to the same heaven. I think it's not a question of being of one particular religion, but of how you lead your life and the stuff you do (or don't).

Oh, and rich people...they think they are entitled to all money. And free healthcare AND slaves (although they tend to call 'em employees). And still more money. They often think they should be taxed less then regular people because THEY make economies go round (yeah right assholes).

So in short: everybody thinks they are entitled to something at some point.

Only thing we are all entitled to in my opinion, is a free world and health.

[#FF0000]

Still, whether or not he was talking about income equality, he isn't talking about culture per sé.
Besides, homogeneous means (according to a dictionary off course)
So that does not imply a cultural difference for certain.

Sorry, still not getting the racism-part. Still, the argument is still faulty and total bullocks.

I have only ever heard people talk about ethnicities and cultures when they use "homogenous" in this context.

What do you think he could be talking about? In what way are Scandinavian countries more homogenous than the United States, aside from race and ethnicity and culture?

[Jason]

I'm taking it a bit further, by saying racists (for example) think there owed a lot.
They think that people of other culture are taking jobs or welfare-money which they are entitled to.


Racism is wrong, but capitalism causes racism. For instance, free trade leads to immigation from Latin America. This causes conflict because low wage workers in the US have to compete with the new arrivals. Many people become racist because they're only human, and hence manipulated by the right wing.



Oh, and rich people...they think they are entitled to all money. And free healthcare AND slaves (although they tend to call 'em employees). And still more money. They often think they should be taxed less then regular people because THEY make economies go round (yeah right assholes).




The rich supported regimes have failed to provide a quality environment for the workers. Therefore, they don't develop to thier fullest potential and cannot really get a piece of "The American Dream". Of course, some "Joe the Plumber" types do well. But with the drug war raging and other negative influences, a lot of poor people cannot raise to the level of "successful blue collar".

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I have only ever heard people talk about ethnicities and cultures when they use "homogenous" in this context.

What do you think he could be talking about? In what way are Scandinavian countries more homogenous than the United States, aside from race and ethnicity and culture?

I was reading economic homogeneousity. Viewed from that point Scandinavian wages are more homogeneous than US wages, i guess.

Thing is, even though he probably is a racist, we just cannot say for certain.
Therefore i am reluctant to call him racist.

He is a filthy capitalist though...

[#FF0000]

Thing is, even though he probably is a racist, we just cannot say for certain.
Therefore i am reluctant to call him racist.

I hear you. Calling someone a racist is virtually never a good idea. Its better to call the things people say "racist". Otherwise they can back out and be like "OH WELL U DONT REALLY KNOW ME I ACTUALLY LOVE BLACKS" and you're stuck arguing about how you can look into the core of this person's being and see racism.

know what i mean?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I was reading economic homogeneity. Viewed from that point Scandinavian wages are more homogeneous than US wages, i guess.


If this was his argument, it would be an argument in favour of it, would it not? And he seemed to say it was impossible in the U.S., why would that be? If not for a racial and cultural heterogeneity? His argument thus goes that because Sweden is culturally "the same" (white) (this is a very common argument in some right-wing circles) a political egalitarianism is possible, but in a diverse country, it is not.

If it is impossible in the U.S. because of a lack of homogeneous wages (whatever that means in this sense), it would have been impossible in Sweden too.

It's worth noting that, in the 1920's, Sweden was far from particularly equal; poverty was widespread, inequality tremendous, and the equalising efforts that the social-democrats and their treacherous ilk actually succeeded in realising were a product of the early-mid 1900's labour militancy (as it were in most of the Scandinavian countries) and a sort of general understanding among the Swedish ruling class of the need to placate the working class through these temporary concessions (which to some extent, in good social-democratic spirit, can be viewed as primarily corporatist), which began to be undone from the late 70's and early 80's. Income inequality has been sky-rocketing ever since.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

If this was his argument, it would be an argument in favour of it, would it not? And he seemed to say it was impossible in the U.S., why would that be? If not for a racial and cultural heterogeneity? His argument thus goes that because Sweden is culturally "the same" (white) (this is a very common argument in some right-wing circles) a political egalitarianism is possible, but in a diverse country, it is not.

If it is impossible in the U.S. because of a lack of homogeneous wages (whatever that means in this sense), it would have been impossible in Sweden too.

It's worth noting that, in the 1920's, Sweden was far from particularly equal; poverty was widespread, inequality tremendous, and the equalising efforts that the social-democrats and their treacherous ilk actually succeeded in realising were a product of the early-mid 1900's labour militancy (as it were in most of the Scandinavian countries) and a sort of general understanding among the Swedish ruling class of the need to placate the working class through these temporary concessions (which to some extent, in good social-democratic spirit, can be viewed as primarily corporatist), which began to be undone from the late 70's and early 80's. Income inequality has been sky-rocketing ever since.

Apart from the fact that scandinavia exists of more countries than Sweden alone, i think currently their income is more even as it is in the US.
So, from that point of view you might say that economic homogenety is differing.

In holland the discussion has been raised whether or not wages should be leveled more.
Even if we are one of the countries with th most equaly spread wealth, 60% of all capital is owned by 10% of the people. So we might look economically homogeneous, although we're not.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Apart from the fact that scandinavia exists of more countries than Sweden alone, i think currently their income is more even as it is in the US.
So, from that point of view you might say that economic homogenety is differing.


What I mean is - when the efforts of socialists began to pay off and the social-democrats hijacked the labour movement, beginning already in the early parts of the 1900's, things were very unequal. It was the political and economic efforts during the immediate post-war years that gave rise to the equality, no cultural homogeneity.

You seemed to think he argued that because Scandinavia was more equal to begin with, "socialism" as he called it, was possible: but it was social-democracy that led to the relative equality which is now being eroded (though yet having to reach U.S./China levels), it did not exist previously, despite a somewhat anti-individualist popular culture.

[CryingWolf]

"Responding" to so much bullshit packaged in so few words is impossible.

Just do what I do. Assume that everything you know is common knowledge, and treat every single one of his claims with complete suspicion. Ask him to expound on his reasoning and support his claims with evidence. Most people either have shoddy evidence or poor reasoning. Either way, that gives you an opening.

And never ever justify your views unless you are specifically asked to do so.

[prolcon]

1.) Scandinavian countries have less people therefore resources are better allocated to the population. Welfare can work when there are less people.

2.) Nothing is free. It's paid by taxpayers.



If a system can function on a smaller scale, there needs to be some definite, tangible barrier to its potential to function on a larger scale. If it's possible to ravel a few feet, it's possible to travel a mile. You see this exact argument used by creationists when they desperately attempt to create a "micro-evolution" that encompasses the undeniable shorter-term effects of the evolutionary process and "macro-evolution," the changing of populations' characteristics to the extent that their dogma is threatened. So it is with "micro" and "macro" socialism. Also, Scandinavian countries aren't fucking socialist, so there's that.
The very concept of taxation changes under socialism. If the means of production are owned collectively, then that which is produced is also owned collectively. It is not appropriated by another class; wealth's reinvestment into production is guided by the democratic input of the working people.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

You seemed to think he argued that because Scandinavia was more equal to begin with, "socialism" as he called it, was possible: but it was social-democracy that led to the relative equality which is now being eroded (though yet having to reach U.S./China levels), it did not exist previously, despite a somewhat anti-individualist popular culture.

Sure...but does someone who calls such bullshit arguments know that?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Sure...but does someone who calls such bullshit arguments know that?

Possibly not. But, let us not forget - someone doing these arguments is also very likely to hold these sorts of racist views!

[Lowtech]

How would you answer this?



Basically skip the rhetoric and address the two points:

1.) Scandinavian countries have less people therefore resources are better allocated to the population. Welfare can work when there are less people.
works or doesn't work in what sense? Welfare is currently used as an attempt to mitigate inequality intrinsic to capitalist subjugation. Welfare itself, mathematically, is identical to value aquired through dividends, profit.

2.) Nothing is free. It's paid by taxpayers.

and to counter before he does, explain why the rich should pay.
The rich wouldn't be "paying" anything. the value they acquire is produced by the working class. Therefore the rich should "pay" because the disproportion of value they produce runs counter to economics. They consume more than they produce. welfare is meant to fix this, however it in reality is just a bandaid. the cure is communism.

The working class pays into welfare for the rich via the profit mechanism. The rich simply don't return the favor. The rich don't care to, and don't work so they wouldn't have the capacity to do so anyway.



I know this is arguing liberal politics but I never really had an answer for them even when I was a liberal.

His tactics are to get you arguing over semantics.