That's because the thing being implemented is capitalist social democracy.
All functioning states today are mixes of free-ish markets, regulated markets and various forms of social welfare and redistribution schemes.
It's pretty hilarious to say that nordics are "successful socialist countries" and then crack into "I wanted to clarify a widespread misconception: the countries that identify as “communist” such as China, Vietnam, Cuba, and historically the Soviet Union are not in practice communist societies.".
Like yeah universal healthcare is good! But the economy that funds it and produces the supplies it needs is powered by private enterprise.
Plenty of other (European) countries have universal healthcare, tuition-free universities, strict labour laws, maternal leave, and extreme extortion under the name of taxation. Yet few of those champagne socialists praise countries like Slovakia or Hungary with similar "socialist" laws.
What we never hear about from them is the moral part of socialism. They categorically assume every person consents with such system. What happens when someone doesn't want to participate in it by wanting to keep their hard-earned money to themselves, they conveniently ignore. I don't blame them for inheriting the collectivist idea of democracy and not bothering to critically question it, but thinking that if most people value stability more than freedom (or vice versa), then heuristically everyone does so and hence may be forced upon them needlessly locks people in tribal capitalism vs socialism discourse that ultimately accomplishes nothing.
6 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] threadIn popular US discourse, maybe.
All functioning states today are mixes of free-ish markets, regulated markets and various forms of social welfare and redistribution schemes.
It's pretty hilarious to say that nordics are "successful socialist countries" and then crack into "I wanted to clarify a widespread misconception: the countries that identify as “communist” such as China, Vietnam, Cuba, and historically the Soviet Union are not in practice communist societies.".
Like yeah universal healthcare is good! But the economy that funds it and produces the supplies it needs is powered by private enterprise.
What we never hear about from them is the moral part of socialism. They categorically assume every person consents with such system. What happens when someone doesn't want to participate in it by wanting to keep their hard-earned money to themselves, they conveniently ignore. I don't blame them for inheriting the collectivist idea of democracy and not bothering to critically question it, but thinking that if most people value stability more than freedom (or vice versa), then heuristically everyone does so and hence may be forced upon them needlessly locks people in tribal capitalism vs socialism discourse that ultimately accomplishes nothing.