Russia cracking down on gays

[Mariatenebre]

I'm not so sure. There is no prohibition against homosexuality in any Eastern religion, yet LGBTs are shunned because of traditional family roles in China, Japan, India, etc.

This wasn't true in the past though. For a large part in Eastern history homosexuality was accepted in most Eastern cultures. There were ever third gender groups such as in India with Hijras and Eunuchs in China. However it was generally expected for people to marry purely to secure the family line. In fact marriage through out most of the ancient world had little to do with love.

 

[Durango95]

Yes, not to mention that to claim those countries - which have the highest living standards on the planet, surpassing those of the States I might add - are "awful", is snicker-inducing.

If one is snickering, one is uninformed. Also it depends on what concept of "living standards" you are using. It is said, "one man's trash is another man's treasure."

 

[Durango95]

Yes, all of the socialist countries in modern Europe treat homosexuals like shit. The thirteen countries that offer some form of registered partnership and the eight that offer full-blown marriage equality are unspeakably awful. I can't believe the utter nonsense that is spewed in this sub-forum.

Might I suggest the you read "The Phenomenon of Socialism" by Igor Shafarevich. I doubt if it will change your mind if you are indeed an ideologue, but you may gain some understanding as to why most are resistant to socialism.

 

[Callum]

Might I suggest the you read "The Phenomenon of Socialism" by Igor Shafarevich. I doubt if it will change your mind if you are indeed an ideologue, but you may gain some understanding as to why most are resistant to socialism.

Socialism works.

No book will change that.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If one is snickering, one is uninformed. Also it depends on what concept of "living standards" you are using. It is said, "one man's trash is another man's treasure."

We're using the living standards shared by most of the planet except for all but the very most regressive reactionary conservatives.

Education, healthcare, access to employment, disposable income, etc.

 

[mightbe]

The only people that are resistant to socialism are those who've been misinformed or are living in a delusion concocted by Joe McCarthy. Igor Shafarevich is mainly a mathematician, not at all an economist. He lived what may be the most poorly-executed form of socialism: Russian communism, which is not actually communism, and barely socialism.

I don't think any of us here advocate for pure socialism, which is as useless and flawed as pure capitalism. Concentrated socialism doesn't work (see Russia), and concentrated capitalism doesn't work (see Gilded Age in the U.S.). Rather, I believe those here that advocate it, (including myself) use the term socialism to instead refer to democratic socialism or social democracy, which is basically a half and half mixture of capitalism and socialism. More-or-less the Nordic model.

The Nordic model is a healthy compromise of LME and CME, right in the democratic socialism range. It is incredibly stable, sustainable and even popular among those who live in it. It works. Fact.

 

[mightbe]

To explain, the Nordic model is like a consistent welfare capitalism. Business are mostly private and exist in a free market, but the state provides many services and welfare to taxpayers, who in this care are the primary benefactors of it. They pay high taxes (up to 52 or so %), but get so much out of it that it works out in their favor. The don't have to pay stupidly high rates for college or healthcare on top of taxes, since they've already paid for them BEFORE inflation. They also provide safety nets to keep a much higher portion of their population in the workforce and contributing.

The opposing view is to have private businesses provide these services and competition would force them to have low prices. Sounds nice on paper but doesn't work in the long-run, as one business would eventually come out on top. Their view is that since government isn't efficient enough to provide ALL the services, it can't provide ANY services. That's simply not true. The Scandinavians have proven that all the basic services CAN be provided at reasonable cost to the people and at a very high quality.

When it comes down to it, it's better to provide universally than only to the poor. Everyone benefits, as opposed to everyone losing, as it currently is in the U.S. (except the richest of the rich).

 

[Laufey]

Yes when people have lived in a strong welfare state they appreciate the security and life quality it brings.

Sure half of your money ends up in the state but a big majority thinks it's worth it. Nobody has to sell their house to pay for medical bills.

 

[Durango95]

You do realize all the counties in the "Nordic" model are less than a tenth of the U.S. population, combined. That means that the "poor" in these countries which receive benefits would be tantamount to the population of a large city in the U.S. To put it another way there are more people on the dole in the U.S. than the total population of all the Scandinavian countries.

 

[Durango95]

I will interject, if these countries are the paragon of human existence, then why is everyone trying to get into the U.S. I may have one possible answer. The mean income in the U.S. is 50% higher than all of the countries in your Nordic model.

There are a lot of interesting things about these wonderful countries. Let's take Sweden as an example. If you spend 12 years of your life in higher education to become a doctor, you can expect to make just a few dollars more than a guy that spent 4 years in higher education to become an IT guy, around 80K a year. Isn't that great! If you want to be a HVAC guy you can make a whopping 36k a year.

There is no good socialism and bad socialism there is only socialism. It has proven time and again to be an ineffective economic system.

 

[Durango95]

Here's some more few facts....those pesky facts.

Sweden's national debt to GDP is 187%.

Norway's national debt to GDP is 141%.

Finland's national debt to GDP is 155%.

Denmark's national debt to GDP is 180%.

The U.S. is cruising along at 105%. Considering the fact that the U.S. is shoring up the EU, the preceding numbers would probably be substantially higher.

Socialism is fabulous as long as someone else is financing it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You do realize all the counties in the "Nordic" model are less than a tenth of the U.S. population, combined. That means that the "poor" in these countries which receive benefits would be tantamount to the population of a large city in the U.S. To put it another way there are more people on the dole in the U.S. than the total population of all the Scandinavian countries.

Japan has about half our population in a country the size of California.

I've heard all these Bill O'Reilly dismissals of how socialized anything can't possibly work in the U.S. before and it's still nonsense. If anything bigger population size makes the idea even more viable since the price reduction you could get on things like medications mass produced for such a huge number of people would surpass what a country with a small population could do.

 

[kev]

But...but...but...I read on this forum that Leftism is the best thing ever for gays...wtf?

 

[xbuzzerx]

But...but...but...I read on this forum that Leftism is the best thing ever for gays...wtf?

Somebody's 1950s definition of Socialism needs updating.

Lot of that going around with conservatives though. 1950's definitions and worldviews.

 

[Rolyo85]

Also, the idea that the world is single-mindedly running to immigrate to the US is very false in 2013. True, it is still among the most desirable places to go to, but it is not the SINGLE most desirable one. Northern Europe is actually attracting a vast quantity of people. It's just that immigration is more difficult there.

 

[mightbe]

I can agree--I'd personally LOVE to move to Scandanavia. I see so many positives and so few negatives (language barrier being the largest). It's not too late to leard Danish....though it would've been better if I'd had the mind to start when I was like 6.

 

[T-Rexx]

There is no good socialism and bad socialism there is only socialism. It has proven time and again to be an ineffective economic system.

Quite the opposite. The Nordic countries are significantly more productive than the USA, and consistently rank well above the USA in quality-of-life surveys.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-nordic-countries-are-more-competitive-than-everyone-else-2012-7

The reason that socialism works so well as an economic model is because it supports the middle class. The Great Depression in the USA occurred because, from about 1900 to 1929, the wealth distribution in the USA became increasingly disparate, with rich people becoming very, very rich at the expense of the middle class. It is well to remember that a depression is not a decrease in the money supply. It is the concentration of that money in the hands of a very few. Rich people don't spend like middle class people, so a large disparity in the distribution of wealth in a society is economically depressing. By the Fall of 1929, the disparity in wealth distribution became unsustainable, and the Great Depression resulted.

The resolution of the depression in the USA occurred because money began flowing back into the middle class, in part because of the socialist programs of FDR and in part because WWII forced a war-time socialism on America. The boom was sustained from about 1940 to about 1980, during which time economic policy in the USA continually supported programs of benefit to the middle class, and the standard of living for Americans rose continuously (and dramatically!) during this period.

After about 1980, attitudes in the USA changed, and policies favorable to the rich became dominant. Money began flowing out of the middle class and into the hands of the rich as a result of US economic policy, precisely as it had from 1900 to 1929. By 2008, the disparity in wealth distribution again became unsustainable, with the same result in 2008 as was appreciated in 1929. Interestingly, the disparity in wealth distribution in the USA in 2008, at the time of the banking collapse, was exactly the same as in the Fall of 1929. It is interesting also that, in both cases, it took just under 30 years for conservative economic policies to bring us to the tipping point.

Socialist economies work well because the wealth generated by those economies is directed by government policy toward the people who are creating that wealth - the middle class. Because the middle class is the engine of a capitalist economy, the socialist economies tend to be highly productive.

The reason that the USA's recovery from the Bush Depression has been so sluggish is that the problem of disparate wealth distribution has not been corrected. If that problem is never corrected, the USA will forever operate under conditions of permanent recession/depression, as do many third world nations: a fabulously wealthy ruling class with lots and lots of relatively poor people.

 

[Rolyo85]

But... but... but... SOCIALIST!!!!

 

[Durango95]

Socialist ideologues will not accept any factual data. None. The dissertation above is so riddle with error there isn't enough time left on this side of eternity to expound on that point.

Socialists live in your lala land. Real history, and not the abridged fantasy that is often used, clearly indicates that socialism doesn't work to sustain periods of time. When the subsidies run out, the system collapses.

The main point of the thread was to address the issue of gays being targeted as political fodder in Russia. It is nothing new. Gays never fare well in socialist regimes. We are always one of the first groups to be used and then discarded.

A gay socialist is a truly confused sort. I suppose it makes some sort of sense. Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew. Maybe that is part of the ideology...the self loathing part.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Holy crap someone's speaking Viking.