Socialism...

Reads: 154  | Likes: 1  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 6

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Editorial and Opinion  |  House: Booksie Classic

Submitted: March 27, 2019

A A A | A A A

Submitted: March 27, 2019

A A A

A A A


I've started to actively read the Fox News, but it's a hard task, as most news are actually videos. I don't like watching them, as videos where people are interviewed, are always at least a little biased, plus, I just prefer reading my news like a normal person who can read. So, today I read an editorial article by John Stossel called about democratic socialims and it's downsides. Here's the link, in case you want to check it out. (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john-stossel-democratic-socialism-is-not-the-route-to-paradise-just-look-at-venezuela)

Stossel does the first mistake in his text when he doesn't explain much. In the beginning, he talks about how Venezuela voted for a socialist, and boom, the country became even poorer. He unfortunately doesn't explain why these two things might correlate, and what other reasons are behind this. He attacks the Vox media for blaming other things like the oil prices going down, and not taking socialism into account. This is his second mistake, as he has done the exact same thing. There are usually more than just one reason to why a country fails or doesn't fail. Also, I personally find it hilarious how many American medias clash and blame each other, as if that's proper reporting. Like seriously, c'mon journalists, where is your respect for research and also, competitor?

Stossel goes on to say that socialism will always fail in the end, when the country runs out of money. Well, that's what happens if the country doesn't invest their money properly. That's why countries loan money from the World Pank and other countries. Most countries owe others, that's just how the economics work. 

A quote from Bernie Sanders says he thinks about countries like Sweden and Denmark when talking about democratic socialism. Stossel disagrees, as those countries aren't socialist at all. They don't even have a minimum wage at a national level. Yes, that's true, but if Stossel did some research, he would know that Sweden, Finland, and I'm quite sure Denmark as well, (can't speak Danish so Googeling that is a bit hard for now) have a minimum wage for each branch of the work force and industry. It's in a contract, called collective agreement, which is a deal between a trade union representing the workers, and the employers representatives. The government has a representative present, but the main negotiations are between the employees and employers. Depending on the trade union, the agreements are updated and renewed every couple of years. As well as minimum wage, things like breaks, vacations, vacation money and required safety training are negotiated as well. I cannot stretch enough: DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE STATING SOMETHING!

He is right about one thing though; both Denmark and Sweden have welfare programs. From what I've undestood, it's about the same as in Finland, so it covers public health care, education, unemployment, sick leave, and other things. In Finland, the system also pays a daily salary for conscripts and helps the family, also paying for the conscript's rent if they live alone. 

Yes, all Nordic countries, not just Scandinavian countries, are somehow socialist. However, they are capitalist as well, and the mix is something that usually works. Government works together with the private companies, and things like schooling or healthcare can be given over for the private sector to deal with. That works in some areas, some areas it doesn't.

Scandinavian countries, and Finland and Iceland, have actually handeled democratic socialism quite well. It's not a major force, but neither is capitalism. Free market is important for the economic growth, but services provided by the government, which is a rather socialist thing, are as important. They make sure the citizens are given the same opportunities, no matter their income or background. That makes the people able to even start businesses, which is crucial for the free market to go around. 

I know the article only makes Sweden and Denmark an example, but those countries have been rather western for the last century. What's funny, is that Finland was more socialist after the Second World War, mostly due to the fact that we lost to the Soviet Union. Yes, we remained independent, but USSR had a lot to do with our politics. The were communists, so they opposed any radical right-wing movement in Finland. The country had several Parliaments with Democratic Socialist Prime Minister, but also several with a more right-wing Prime Minister. Then there were many coalitions, with centrum parties or even from both wings. The current government that just broke a few weeks ago, was made of three parties: the Centre Party, the National Coalition Party, and the New Alternative (aka the Blues or something like that). It's more of a right-wing government

According to gallups, the most popular party at the moment, is the Social Democrats (SDP). However, most people would want the next Prime Minister to be a person from the Green Party, but it's a divided party in some issues. What my point is, there have been many socialist governments in Finland over the course of time, since 1907 when we got the first government, and it has worked.

We, like other Nordic countries have the best health care systems in the world. We are amongst the happiest countries. We have quality education and it's free for all. Everyone is taken care of in case they lose their job or their family dies suddenly. Socialism and capitalism are both present in all the countries, but that's okay. They work together, each supporting one another, as one type of governing takes care of one thing, the other takes care of something else. What the US could learn from that, is that socialism can be bad, but so can capitalism. What's more important, is that the parties work together, the opposition and the government. Fighting against the people of the other party in Twitter is not the way to go. Save that energy and make compromises that help people and improve their life quality.


© Copyright 2019 helmu. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

Comments

avatar

Author
Reply

avatar

Author
Reply

avatar

Author
Reply

More Editorial and Opinion Essays