Guest
25th January 2003, 16:58
"Socialism" in Sweden.
Let me start by saying that Sweden is not Socialist as Karl Marx, Engel, and Lennin defined and perceived Socialism. A Socialist society does not have any room for private enterprise, and Sweden has corporations. You could say Sweden is a mixed-economy that tilts more to the Left than Right. It is, without reservation, a welfare state.
"The cradle to grave welfare state heaven is coming apart at the seams. It’s had a considerably longer run than most other socialist experiments, but fail it must. And it will fail for the same reason all the others have: Penalizing ingenuity and effort while at the same time rewarding indolence and mediocrity doesn’t work. It’s contrary to human nature. It cannot be done indefinitely".
"Benevolent" socialism shows it doesn’t work either
Whenever one cites the dismal record of socialist countries such as Russia, China, Cuba, and all the other wretched failures, there’s always the rejoinder of, "Look at Sweden. Now there’s an example of how socialism can succeed if given the chance under the right circumstances."
I guess it depends on what your definition of success is. Certainly, Sweden hasn’t resorted to mass murder and the other terrors associated with dictatorships to impose their egalitarian paradise. Sweden is a democratic country.
At the same time, it’s apparent that state planners there at a very early stage were concerned about what happens when too many people are on the dole. Years ago it was revealed that tens of thousands of Swedes with government-determined undesirable traits such as poor eyesight or low IQ or "Gypsy features" were involuntarily sterilized beginning in the 1930s. Indeed, that particular collectivist benefit remained on the books well into the 70s. Another innovative program involved giving large amounts of sweets to the mentally retarded in order to study tooth decay.
No, Sweden didn’t have gulags or firing squads or planned starvations. On the other hand, it was never the ideal model of a welfare state as Leftists have claimed.
For seven decades, Sweden has managed to endure government redistribution of wealth. How? Perhaps it’s the small population; Sweden has fewer people than Illinois does. Maybe it’s the homogeneity of the society. Possibly it’s because Sweden sits out wars, saving huge amounts of money. Whatever the reasons, most Swedes are apparently satisfied to set aside their independence - and pay huge taxes - in exchange for some perceived economic security.
The late Astrid Lindgren wrote children’s books, including the Pippi Longstocking stories. That success brought her a tax bill from the Swedish government claiming 102 percent of her earnings. Even a Swede earning much less, slightly more than the equivalent of $19,000, is in the 50 percent tax bracket. And that’s after the conservative party, in office for a few short years in the early 1990s, slashed the tax brackets.
The standard argument is that high taxation and social welfare engineering have brought Sweden economic prosperity. Yet reality is very different.
As reported by Reuters this week, "Swedes, usually perceived in Europe as a comfortable, middle class lot, are poorer than African Americans, the most economically deprived group in the United States, a Swedish study showed on Saturday."
The report went on to note that if Sweden were a U.S. state, it would without doubt be the poorest one. The median American household income in the late 1990s was more than $39,000. In Sweden, it was the equivalent of under $27,000. The study’s authors noted that if the present trend continues, "things that are commonplace in the United States will be regarded as the utmost luxury in Sweden."
The cradle to grave welfare state heaven is coming apart at the seams. It’s had a considerably longer run than most other socialist experiments, but fail it must. And it will fail for the same reason all the others have: Penalizing ingenuity and effort while at the same time rewarding indolence and mediocrity doesn’t work. It’s contrary to human nature. It cannot be done indefinitely.
Sporadically, Sweden has made small steps away from a command economy. Reducing taxes a little here, lifting some regulatory burdens to help enterprises start up there, and whittling down the national debt temporarily slowed Sweden’s economic deterioration.
But now it must move toward individual responsibility if it wishes to turn things around. Sweden is most emphatically not an example of how socialism can work. Remember that the next time someone suggests it is.
The modern version of the class struggle is the belief that the interests of big businesses are dissimilar to the ones of the workers. Many politicians play that card constantly, referring to it as an unquestionable truth. Corporations, they say, care more about their profits than the wellbeing of their workers. Yet, the economic development industrialized countries attained would not have been possible without big businesses. Let's look into the example of Sweden which a lot of people praise as a successful socialist country. Sweden's private sector is suffering a crisis because entrepreneurship of its citizens is not being encouraged by the policies of its government. Nowadays it is more beneficial for people to work in the government sector than in the private sector. Some people even pay around 65 percent of their salaries to the government, causing people not to bother being innovative and developing new products since the majority of their profits would end up in the coffers of the government. I should not deny that Swedish citizens receive their benefits such as free tuition in college and free health care. Yet, when one pays taxes, his freedom of choice is taken away because taxes are mandatory payments to the government. One has no freedom to choose which type of health care one desires or even if he actually wants health care.
The examples of the rest of the world show us socialist policies were rarely successful in another countries.The number of countries that supported socialism in its full form decreased exponentially since the late '80s when the Berlin Wall fell. What we knew as the "Second World" cannot be classified that way anymore since those countries reversed their ill-fated socialist policies. Moreover, nations that applied mild socialist programs (Sweden, France, Spain) are seeking ways to replace policies (such as the ones discussed earlier) with ones more similar to the ones applied in the United States that were proven to be much more successful. It is fruitless to consider policies that were already proven to be unsuccessful in many other countries. Many of the problems our societies face can be resolved by observing other countries that have had already faced the same problems as we do now and following the examples of successful solutions.
http://www.survival.com.mx/gunrack/democrap.html
"You used the word "fact" a few times, except, in the manner you used it, you were referring to only the "facts" as fed to you by your Socialist media and government.
When I use the word "fact" I do so from personal experience, not because of some non-sensical blatherings of an obscure intellectual! "
http://www.digitaltrouble.com/ken&ashley/a...ley/healthcare/ (http://www.digitaltrouble.com/ken&ashley/ashley/healthcare/)
"Finally, at a time where advocates of socialized medicine like Sweden and Canada are cutting back their plans trying to cut costs and avoid bankruptcy, the financial dangers of socialized medicine must not be ignored."
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/bangersiste...ters/158/7.html (http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/bangersisters/158/7.html)
"09/25/02: Socialized medicine = long, long, long waiting lists."
http://w6daily.winn.com/000926.html
"Sweden's Woes"
http://www.iedm.org/library/userfeessweden.pdf
"Swedish health care in transition."
http://www.iedm.org/library/art127_en.html
"Privatizing Health Care in Sweden."
http://www.objectivemedicine.org/governmen...ed_medicine.htm (http://www.objectivemedicine.org/government_controlled_medicine.htm)
"Government "controlled" medicine."
Let me start by saying that Sweden is not Socialist as Karl Marx, Engel, and Lennin defined and perceived Socialism. A Socialist society does not have any room for private enterprise, and Sweden has corporations. You could say Sweden is a mixed-economy that tilts more to the Left than Right. It is, without reservation, a welfare state.
"The cradle to grave welfare state heaven is coming apart at the seams. It’s had a considerably longer run than most other socialist experiments, but fail it must. And it will fail for the same reason all the others have: Penalizing ingenuity and effort while at the same time rewarding indolence and mediocrity doesn’t work. It’s contrary to human nature. It cannot be done indefinitely".
"Benevolent" socialism shows it doesn’t work either
Whenever one cites the dismal record of socialist countries such as Russia, China, Cuba, and all the other wretched failures, there’s always the rejoinder of, "Look at Sweden. Now there’s an example of how socialism can succeed if given the chance under the right circumstances."
I guess it depends on what your definition of success is. Certainly, Sweden hasn’t resorted to mass murder and the other terrors associated with dictatorships to impose their egalitarian paradise. Sweden is a democratic country.
At the same time, it’s apparent that state planners there at a very early stage were concerned about what happens when too many people are on the dole. Years ago it was revealed that tens of thousands of Swedes with government-determined undesirable traits such as poor eyesight or low IQ or "Gypsy features" were involuntarily sterilized beginning in the 1930s. Indeed, that particular collectivist benefit remained on the books well into the 70s. Another innovative program involved giving large amounts of sweets to the mentally retarded in order to study tooth decay.
No, Sweden didn’t have gulags or firing squads or planned starvations. On the other hand, it was never the ideal model of a welfare state as Leftists have claimed.
For seven decades, Sweden has managed to endure government redistribution of wealth. How? Perhaps it’s the small population; Sweden has fewer people than Illinois does. Maybe it’s the homogeneity of the society. Possibly it’s because Sweden sits out wars, saving huge amounts of money. Whatever the reasons, most Swedes are apparently satisfied to set aside their independence - and pay huge taxes - in exchange for some perceived economic security.
The late Astrid Lindgren wrote children’s books, including the Pippi Longstocking stories. That success brought her a tax bill from the Swedish government claiming 102 percent of her earnings. Even a Swede earning much less, slightly more than the equivalent of $19,000, is in the 50 percent tax bracket. And that’s after the conservative party, in office for a few short years in the early 1990s, slashed the tax brackets.
The standard argument is that high taxation and social welfare engineering have brought Sweden economic prosperity. Yet reality is very different.
As reported by Reuters this week, "Swedes, usually perceived in Europe as a comfortable, middle class lot, are poorer than African Americans, the most economically deprived group in the United States, a Swedish study showed on Saturday."
The report went on to note that if Sweden were a U.S. state, it would without doubt be the poorest one. The median American household income in the late 1990s was more than $39,000. In Sweden, it was the equivalent of under $27,000. The study’s authors noted that if the present trend continues, "things that are commonplace in the United States will be regarded as the utmost luxury in Sweden."
The cradle to grave welfare state heaven is coming apart at the seams. It’s had a considerably longer run than most other socialist experiments, but fail it must. And it will fail for the same reason all the others have: Penalizing ingenuity and effort while at the same time rewarding indolence and mediocrity doesn’t work. It’s contrary to human nature. It cannot be done indefinitely.
Sporadically, Sweden has made small steps away from a command economy. Reducing taxes a little here, lifting some regulatory burdens to help enterprises start up there, and whittling down the national debt temporarily slowed Sweden’s economic deterioration.
But now it must move toward individual responsibility if it wishes to turn things around. Sweden is most emphatically not an example of how socialism can work. Remember that the next time someone suggests it is.
The modern version of the class struggle is the belief that the interests of big businesses are dissimilar to the ones of the workers. Many politicians play that card constantly, referring to it as an unquestionable truth. Corporations, they say, care more about their profits than the wellbeing of their workers. Yet, the economic development industrialized countries attained would not have been possible without big businesses. Let's look into the example of Sweden which a lot of people praise as a successful socialist country. Sweden's private sector is suffering a crisis because entrepreneurship of its citizens is not being encouraged by the policies of its government. Nowadays it is more beneficial for people to work in the government sector than in the private sector. Some people even pay around 65 percent of their salaries to the government, causing people not to bother being innovative and developing new products since the majority of their profits would end up in the coffers of the government. I should not deny that Swedish citizens receive their benefits such as free tuition in college and free health care. Yet, when one pays taxes, his freedom of choice is taken away because taxes are mandatory payments to the government. One has no freedom to choose which type of health care one desires or even if he actually wants health care.
The examples of the rest of the world show us socialist policies were rarely successful in another countries.The number of countries that supported socialism in its full form decreased exponentially since the late '80s when the Berlin Wall fell. What we knew as the "Second World" cannot be classified that way anymore since those countries reversed their ill-fated socialist policies. Moreover, nations that applied mild socialist programs (Sweden, France, Spain) are seeking ways to replace policies (such as the ones discussed earlier) with ones more similar to the ones applied in the United States that were proven to be much more successful. It is fruitless to consider policies that were already proven to be unsuccessful in many other countries. Many of the problems our societies face can be resolved by observing other countries that have had already faced the same problems as we do now and following the examples of successful solutions.
http://www.survival.com.mx/gunrack/democrap.html
"You used the word "fact" a few times, except, in the manner you used it, you were referring to only the "facts" as fed to you by your Socialist media and government.
When I use the word "fact" I do so from personal experience, not because of some non-sensical blatherings of an obscure intellectual! "
http://www.digitaltrouble.com/ken&ashley/a...ley/healthcare/ (http://www.digitaltrouble.com/ken&ashley/ashley/healthcare/)
"Finally, at a time where advocates of socialized medicine like Sweden and Canada are cutting back their plans trying to cut costs and avoid bankruptcy, the financial dangers of socialized medicine must not be ignored."
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/bangersiste...ters/158/7.html (http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/bangersisters/158/7.html)
"09/25/02: Socialized medicine = long, long, long waiting lists."
http://w6daily.winn.com/000926.html
"Sweden's Woes"
http://www.iedm.org/library/userfeessweden.pdf
"Swedish health care in transition."
http://www.iedm.org/library/art127_en.html
"Privatizing Health Care in Sweden."
http://www.objectivemedicine.org/governmen...ed_medicine.htm (http://www.objectivemedicine.org/government_controlled_medicine.htm)
"Government "controlled" medicine."