Reply to Cheiron ...

[Claus / Intromental]

You said on the regular board (but I decided to move it here as it has nothing to do with music):

"Denmark is a politically interesting country. It has a lot of socialized programs (read socialist), yet espouses free markets. Denmark's primary threat to its socialistic practices though is immigration (which is an influx of people who haven't participated in funding the programs for very long, or very well, yet take advantage of the program). And most see major changes happening to the country in a few years."

Well, first up, the whole immigration thing going on in Denmark is really a two-headed issue:
1) Denmark originally invited a lot of people from Turkey and other countries to come to Denmark to work, as we needed more people back then, (yeah, it sounds like utopia, huh?). We also have been very open to taking in people who were on the run from war etc over the past 30 years.
2) Today the reality is that Denmark has been keeping its borders open for too long with no real selection of who comes in and why. There hasn't been strong enough rules for getting the "immigrants" into work situations, schools or even just the basics of having to learn the language. I'm quite sure a lot of people here in the US can recognize this problem from their own backyard.

So where do you (as a country) cut off? When do you say: "Yeah, we originally invited you, but we can't do that anymore - and oh, by the way, feel free to go home again" ... it's not an easy task, and perhaps (at least in my opinion) the Danish government up through the 80's should have been harder on allowing everyone to get in and instead should have only taken in the exact work-force we needed.

The "problem" with all of this in Denmark is not just that there's a lot of people who take advantage of the socialized programs, but also a lot of other immigrational issues going on. I don't want to get into that whole debate though.


Second of all, when reading your posts I seem the find a common thing in there that just annoys me - the way you don't differentiate between "true socialism" and "socialized programs". It comes across as if you don't know the difference between the two, and it also makes it look like it's an attack (not just from you Cheiron, but also others who make the same assumptions) on countries like Denmark where the socialized programs are at work, but are far from being a socialistic country.


I apologize if I sound annoyed, but I'm proud of being of Danish origin, and I never considered myself a socialist in any way whatsoever, so it hurts to see people over here who knows nothing about Denmark make such snide comments.

Claus

 

[Heavenly Call]

Well written post. My friends and I are visiting Denmark (and Norway, Sweden, Finland) next year and I found this to be an interesting read!

 

[Cheiron]

Hey I'm 1/4 Danish! =d

I think that somebody else referred to the nations as socialism, and instead of getting into details about it, I just made a comment that some people would argue that that environment helps to drive the metal market.

I really don't know much about the social freedoms in Denmark. All I know is what I read for that region of the world. Denmark has had a lot of political uncertainty over the years (i.e. failed governments [which is a bad term, because it implies something in U.S. minds that doesn't exist. Its not as if the whole government crumbles, just political coalitions crumble]). So that might create an environment for metal as well.

I'm mostly convinced that the better public transportation within Europe and population density is why tours succeed more. Since tours succeed more, European bands succeed more. There's also issues with the dollar decreasing in value, which makes it hard for some U.S. bands to succeed in Europe, yet made it easier for European bands to succeed in the U.S. This is changing as the dollar is starting to be stronger again (in comparison to the euro).

As for what is true socialism and what is socialized programs, its a tough difference really. True socialism does not exist anywhere. But some countries lean more than way than others. So I'd say its a spectrum. When are you a 'socialist' country? I don't have a clear rule for this. Basically if I see that certain key industries are socialized, and a certain level of redistrobution of wealth, I consider it socialism. In general, Europe is far more 'socialist' than the U.S. In general, there seems to be more freedom of expression in the U.S. compared to Europe.

To get back on subject, I do think that in similar population densities that metal is more successful as a market in Europe (particularly the nordic countries) than in the U.S. But I think that other genres, such as punk, are more popular in the U.S. Part of the reason is culture (which is both informed by and informs the political climate). Part of it might be other conditions, such as age, marketing mechanisms, and more.

 

[J-Man]

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of modern socialist theory, and Utopian socialist Henri di Saint Simon advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism. This would allow for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production). Social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise. Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets. Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private ownership on society. The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), the first individual to coin the term socialisme, was the original thinker who advocated technocracy and industrial planning. The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organisation, and many contemporary socialists share this belief. Early socialist thinkers tended to favour an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism defined "socialism" as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

All above is from a Political Science 101 textbook.

Also it states that there are some countries that are purely Socialist i.e. Laos, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Nambia, Algeries, Vietnam.

Just because a country has a variety of "Social Programs" that in itself does not make the country Socialist if that was the case The US would be listed as Socialist( W.I.C, School Lunch program, Food Stamps, and even Affirmative Action, and Scholarship Programs), you have to look deeper, as in Nationalization of private companies, and other things. Some of you may say and think the US is a Democracy, but we aren't we are a Republic.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I will never understand the stigma of socialism. There is nothing wrong with with it! Communism sure, but not socialism. When we call Denmark a socialist country, we obviously don't mean that the government controls every aspect of society, but we mean that there are more-than-usual aspects of society that are run by the government. Guess what? That's not a bad thing in my mind at all as long as there is a proper marriage between socialism and communism. Scandinavia has done it right for many years and we could absolutely borrow a few ideas from 'em.

 

[Cheiron]

Claus and I are a bit beyond poli-sci 101 here

But the label isn't important anyhow...

 

[Pellaz]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html

The CIA is your friend.

 

[Cheiron]

Yah Paul I've used it in the past. But its not often as informative (detailed) as I'd like. The generalization of 'constitutional monarchy' isn't all that useful for me at this point.

 

[Pellaz]

Yah Paul I've used it in the past. But its not often as informative (detailed) as I'd like. The generalization of 'constitutional monarchy' isn't all that useful for me at this point.

Yeah, I kinda chuckled at that myself. ".....Annd?......"

 

[adaher]

Social programs predate Karl Marx. It's not the welfare programs and such that make socialism, it's the government ownership of industry. I get annoyed when people call Europe socialist, and both conservatives here do it, and Europeans sometimes say it too, proudly. Which makes about as much sense as calling universal health care Nazism because Germany maintained the Bismarckian health care system under Hitler.

Now Denmark is an interesting case. I think their success lies in only entrusting the reins of government to people named Rasmussen. We should do that here.

 

[adaher]

I will never understand the stigma of socialism. There is nothing wrong with with it! Communism sure, but not socialism.

No, socialism is bad, although I think it's more a case that you're misunderstanding what it is.

Scandinavia is actually more free market than the US in many ways. Sweden has private social security accounts and abolished their estate tax. All of Scandinavia has lower corporate taxes than the US. One of the admirable aspects of European social welfare is that everyone pays. In the US, we are constantly trying to tax someone else to pay for benefits we want to take advantage of. The idea of taxing just the rich to pay for health care would be absurd in Europe.

The reason the European model wouldn't work here is different attitudes. We have to all be in it together and we're just not. If we can't agree to pay higher taxes for health care, then we just can't do what Europe is doing with health care. I tend to lean libertarian not just because of ideology, but also practicality. Shared burdens are just not in the American bloodstream unless it's a war or natural disaster. You can't get Americans all gung ho for health care or food stamps unless someone else's taxes will be going up to pay for it.

 

[lady_space]

Socialism is basically an idea with its heart in the right place, but people are selfish bastards, hence it will never work, even if you take out a lot of the government "controls" (for lack of a better word). In all practicality, any such communal system will always fail because it will always create a ruling class.

I am intrigued by the idea that somehow European countries don't tax the wealthier more, as they most certainly do (generally speaking... talking about "Europe" is painting with an awfully big brush). Progressive taxation is a pretty accepted practice in the Western world. Also, "corporate tax" isn't exactly a flat rate across the board, so you can't say Sweden and Norway, for example, tax less than the U.S. In some cases, yes; in others, no. You have to consider other taxes: i.e., the payroll tax in Sweden is huge. So ultimately, businesses probably pay more in Sweden. In fact, one of the complaints I've heard is that Sweden stifles entepreneurship because of the heavy tax burden placed on business.

Yes, the U.S. has some "socialist" programs, insofar as that means our social welfare system. Yes, many European countries have more. But no, most people don't have a clue what "socialism" is--it seems to have replaced "communist" as the fear-mongers insult du jour.

 

[adaher]

The rich pay more taxes in Europe, but that's because the overall tax burden is higher. The middle class pays more too. In the US, the tax burden has become unbalanced at the federal level. THe federal government relies on the top 1% for something like 35% of revenues, and the top 50% pay 96%. In Europe it's much more balanced, with the tax burden shared more broadly. Which makes their societies more cohesive. In America, you've got a class that receives government benefits and a class that pays the taxes and they are constantly at war.

Now the corporate tax, in the US, most corporations don't even pay taxes. But those that do, pay one of the highest rates in the world. It's all about whether you are politically connected or not. The Big 3 auto companies, coal companies, and big agricultural companies like Archer Daniels Midland get very favorable tax treatment while oil companies and Microsoft and Wal-mart get the shaft. In Europe, if you make profits, you probably pay a tax. In the US, you only pay a tax if you don't have good lobbyists. So those that have poor lobbyists or don't bother to lobby end up paying much higher rates as a result.

 

[lady_space]

Now the corporate tax, in the US, most corporations don't even pay taxes. But those that do, pay one of the highest rates in the world. It's all about whether you are politically connected or not. The Big 3 auto companies, coal companies, and big agricultural companies like Archer Daniels Midland get very favorable tax treatment while oil companies and Microsoft and Wal-mart get the shaft. In Europe, if you make profits, you probably pay a tax. In the US, you only pay a tax if you don't have good lobbyists. So those that have poor lobbyists or don't bother to lobby end up paying much higher rates as a result.

=/=

"All of Scandinavia has lower corporate taxes than the US."

 

[adaher]

All of Europe has lower corporate tax RATES.

 

[lady_space]

Well, that is a different statement. But it is not an apples-to-apples comparison. There is a range in the U.S., whereas many European countries have a set percentage. SO... as I stated, in some cases, businesses here pay more, in others less.

For the record, just to let you know where I'm speaking from, I am drawing not just on what I have read online and what my husband has told me, but I also have a good friend who is managing director for a small company in Sweden. He has a different point of view than the average worker bee. (Let me tell you, they still have expense accounts. )

Anyway, I will let you know how things are IMO when I move to Sweden in a few months.

 

[Pellaz]

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree

 

[MetalRose]

Damn, so I come back after a break (Cause work's been busy) for some mindless reading... Guess I chose the wrong board for that. Talking taxes? Oh!

-Metal