Installer Steam
Logg inn
|
språk
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (tradisjonell kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tsjekkisk)
Dansk (dansk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spania)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latin-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (gresk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (nederlandsk)
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasil)
Română (rumensk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et problem med oversettelse
Utmerkelse
1 
Yes. The comment section is something of an epic dumpster fire. Admittedly, I contributed to it, but at least I am aware of my own terminally online brain rot, as @Gerewoatle puts it.
There is no TRUE socialist state as there is no TRUE capitalist state. The "one drop" rule ought not to extend only one way. You should ask yourself to what extent the Finnish democratic control over their own economy contributes to their success, and what would happen if they gave up that control.
Virtually every state has a central bank and a public education system - two planks of the Communist manifesto, and most states have gone further, enshrining public health and housing and other rights. The Overton window has shifted way left over the past few centuries and even modern conservatives would be considered leftist radicals by the standards of the past.
The reality is, as you point out in Finland, that a strong democratic state adopts socialistic policies for its own interests. That is a good thing. I am a stronger democrat than I am a socialist, between a socialist policy and a democratic one, I'd pick the democratic choice. Happily, that dilemma is rare.
Finland works because its one of the most democratic countries on the planet with a strong private sector, so much that the people of Finland dont need the welfare and public services offered by the state, but consciously chose to adopt it, and let the state monopolize those sectors (and even in healthcare they allow private alternatives).
Restating what i said above, the people are well serviced not because the country affords them, but because they afford it themselves, they just choose to pay the country to provide them the services instead of private initiative.
Yet to find a TRUE socialist government, that is democratic
Portugal is a good example. Socialism is written into the constitution. Chile before it was deposed. Nicaragua. I'd count the Kurdish authority. Modern Germany actively encourages worker-owned enterprises, so that's close. Norway, which funds its pubic sector through a state-owned oil company. The government of Kansas was once socialist. Actually there were a lot of socialist cities in the U.S. that were basically couped. New Zealand had a strong socialist government at one point.
Most of them, honestly. Most socialist governments were benign and democratic. The Soviet Union was the noted aberration.
This whole idea that some cultures are "obedient collectivists" and other cultures have "individualists" is purely to scare policy makers into curbing labor rights. They want us all working 16 hours a day, seven days a week, off the smell of an oily rag. And they'll tell you whatever they need to get you to do it: that you're a strong rugged individual and you don't need no union, or that your loyalty is to the country and you don't need no union, or you'll upset your ancestors if you start a union, or God doesn't want you start a union. Individualism and collectivism are not philosophies, they're propaganda strategies. That was as true in 1840s Britain as it is in modern China, the only defense you have against is democracy and labor activism.