Would you please kindly answer me about succesful method in Sweden?
Reliance on the socialist system in the economic management may causes laziness and dependency among individuals.I do not think this system stimulates creativity and innovation. One of the most important advantages of socialism are :disappearance of social classes and living individuals at an almost equal economic level.
Just imagine you have two cows . The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone's else cows. You have to take care of all the cows and at the end government will give you a glass of milk.
I think I cleared my point in my view SOCIALISM may be you work more than others but at the end you will get same rewards as others. So for me SOCIALISM is totally a demoralizing type of ideology. It can only work in small country .On bigger picture SOCIALISM stands nowhere.
regards
Would you please kindly answer me about succesful method in Sweden?
First, let me give you an example
Just imagine you have two cows . The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone's else cows. You have to take care of all the cows and at the end, the government will give you a glass of milk.
I think I cleared my point in my view SOCIALISM may be your work more than others but at the end, you will get same rewards as others. So for me, SOCIALISM is totally a demoralizing type of ideology. It can only work in the small country .On bigger picture SOCIALISM stands nowhere.
There are opinions (for example, M Khazin, capitalism has ended, that capitalism can not develop in a limited space like our planet and historically, socialism must come. For example, a good example was socialism in the Soviet Union in the period May 9, 1945 - March 5, 1953 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he1wk1qNN68, when there was a peak of power of USSR. It all depends on who is in power - smart leaders like Stalin or fools like Khrushchev and the rest after him. For socialism, there must first be a strong ideology that was under Stalin and, for example, is now in North Korea as the ideology of the "Juche". Is there socialism in Sweden? I do not think so, because there is no ideology. However, now in Sweden there is another problem - it is a huge influx of refugees, which make the Swedes flee to neighboring countries to save their lives https://nstarikov.ru/club/88744 Rape Sweden is sick with Stockholm syndrome (in Russian).
I think it has been used by the USSR to justify totalitarianism which if you would actually read Marx and other socialists really do not have anything to do with socialism. You might as well criticize capitalism for being used by the Nazis.
I do think the revolutionary aspect Marx brought into it is not applicable in modern society. But many socialist ideas have been implemented successfully under the banner of social democracy. Look at Denmark for instance. It has many socialist policies and is according to the UN the happiest place in the entire world. Modern socialists usually want democratic socialism. The idea that socialism can be achieved through democratic reformation instead of violent revolution. I support that idea.
Socialism is a very tough form to maintain especially as Prof Fedulov mentioned . The refugee influx hurts everyone , there is no easy solution as I have come across in some European countries , reinstating people to their home countries is a good option and way of fixing it ...
Socialism is about putting the needs of a group ahead of individual preferences. Its more about thinking about the good of the many as against that of the few.
Socialism is an economic and social system defined by social ownership of the means of resources, assets and equitable benefit sharing. Socialism describes a set of principles that economic and political system to conform to for bringing the world into harmony.
There are different types of socialism. In a nutshell: the real socialism (communist parties) of the totalitarian countries and the democratic socialism (social democratic parties) of the democratic countries. Real socialism knows how to redistribute wealth to everyone but not knows how produce wealth. Capitalism knows how produce wealth but not knows how redistribute wealth to everyone. Democratic socialism claims to be able to produce wealth and know how to redistribute it to everyone. So, when social democratic parties have governed the democratic countries, in alternation with liberal parties, popular parties etc., in my opinion, have, generally, given good evidence of itself.
I think it has been used by the USSR to justify totalitarianism which if you would actually read Marx and other socialists really does not have anything to do with socialism. You might as well criticize capitalism for being used by the Nazis.
I do think the revolutionary aspect Marx brought into it is not applicable in modern society. But many socialist ideas have been implemented successfully under the banner of social democracy. Look at Denmark for instance. It has many socialist policies and is according to the UN the happiest place in the entire world. Modern socialists usually want democratic socialism. The idea that socialism can be achieved through democratic reformation instead of violent revolution. I support that idea.
In reality, the country as USSR - dramatically destroided Russia - can not redistribute to everyone...
Very good idea of communisme is not the diabolic application of Socialisme.
Dear Mohammed H. Musleh,
I can not agree with your key phrase "I think it has been used by the USSR to justify totalitarianism". Firstly, you do not know the real state of affairs at that time, namely, in the days of Stalin. Secondly, now in Russia, Stalin is popular and famous as ever, especially among young people. If totalitarianism in the USSR is national sovereignty and an unprecedented rise in the economy, education and science in the days of Stalin, then capitalism in Yeltsin's time is a democracy in Russia with a complete loss of the national sovereignty of the country, a complete collapse of the economy and a complete degradation of society. I choose from these two - totalitarianism, although in fact it was the power of one person for the good of the country and its people. The story will still give a real assessment of Moammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and other dictators. I'm afraid that they will eventually become more national heroes than bloody dictators who were killed by not their peoples, but by completely other people. True, these people later publicly apologized, but as they say - the case was made.
In my opinion, "rich" countries that define themselves as democrats have the moral (ethical) obligation to welcome, help and integrate people who escape from war and hunger. At the same time it is necessary to work through the UN to pacify the countries at war and to improve the conditions of life in the poorest and most underdeveloped countries of the world.
Weinstein mathematician and managing director of Peter Thiel Investment says:
Technology has transformed our world so much that "we may need a hybrid system in the future that would paradoxically be more capitalist than our capitalism today and perhaps more socialist than yesterday's communism. Another way to say that socialist principles may be the only thing that can save capitalism " .
Socialism has not failed as many assumed. The world do not appreciate good things and tend to frustrate them. Socialism still remains the best system of government. Capitalism benefits the few privileged and do not reflect the wishes and aspirations of the majority. Capitalism flourished because it encourages survival for the fittest who are the privileged.
Socialism/Communism was perhaps the very first economic system practised within an urban centre-in ancient Uruk the temple may, the evidence is unclear, have organised labour and trade doling out provisions according to tasks. This made for a survivalist, not a dynamic society.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Economics