Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?

[T. A. Gardner]

Grok, is working not a requirement in socialism?

No. Working (or contributing labor according to ability) is generally expected or required under socialism, both in classical theory and in historical practice. It is not a system of free consumption without contribution.

In Socialism, work may even be assigned. That doesn't mean that those assigned will try and work beyond the minimum required.

As a side example of this, when Germany reunited in the late 80's early 90's, the new German government gave large incentives for West German companies to hire former East German workers. At first, the West German companies were very willing to do just that. They got incentives and needed the workers.

Then they found out what the East German work ethic had become under Socialism / Communism. The workers would show up late to work, perform half-assed until about lunch (this was in a professional magazine for machine shop owners and companies) where they'd go off to lunch get drunk and occasionally return in the afternoon. Their quality of work was generally substandard because they really didn't give a shit. They were used to getting paid no matter how much they did or didn't do.

That's Socialism.

People can also game the system and simply "look" for work perpetually without ever getting a job.

That too is Socialism.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Socialism can be democratic, Communism cannot.

From AI -

Summary Table​

Feature	Socialism	Communism
Political system	Can be democratic or authoritarian	Historically one-party; theory envisions a stateless society
Private property	Usually allows personal property and often some private business	Personal property allowed in theory; productive property held collectively
Markets	Often mixed with markets	Traditionally replaced by central planning
Goal	Greater equality and social ownership in varying degrees	Classless, stateless, communist society
Examples today	Many democratic socialist or social democratic parties in Europe	No major country operates Marx's theoretical end state; states such as China, Cuba, and Vietnam are led by communist parties but use differing mixes of state control and

In both the political system is massive, onerous, and intrusive. Even in a country with a supposedly "Democratic" election system, the party choices can be limited to those perpetuating the Socialized system. Since the government runs most stuff, or everything, they get to decide what you get, can and cannot do, and how much you will get. Either way, government intrudes on your life and limits your options.

The distinction between private and public property becomes increasingly blurred both. If those who own property are told by the government what they can and cannot do with that property in detail and are held to perpetual taxation of that property, then the idea that it is truly private property is an increasingly false one.

Same thing with markets. The government either way can create monopolies they control and in doing so control the market.

Goal: To make things "fair and equal" through confiscation and redistribution of wealth.

Most countries in Europe have abandoned most Socialist systems in favor of a Capitalist economy mixed with a restricted social-welfare state left over from earlier, a more Socialist one. Even the AI admits that supposedly Communist countries have to roll back their Socialist policies in order to function. N. Korea, an economic failure with a horribly oppressive Monarchy claiming to be "Communist" is a disaster.

 

[AProudLefty]

In Socialism, work may even be assigned. That doesn't mean that those assigned will try and work beyond the minimum required.

As a side example of this, when Germany reunited in the late 80's early 90's, the new German government gave large incentives for West German companies to hire former East German workers. At first, the West German companies were very willing to do just that. They got incentives and needed the workers.

Then they found out what the East German work ethic had become under Socialism / Communism. The workers would show up late to work, perform half-assed until about lunch (this was in a professional magazine for machine shop owners and companies) where they'd go off to lunch get drunk and occasionally return in the afternoon. Their quality of work was generally substandard because they really didn't give a shit. They were used to getting paid no matter how much they did or didn't do.

That's Socialism.

People can also game the system and simply "look" for work perpetually without ever getting a job.

That too is Socialism.

You understand that if people don't work, the society collapses, right?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You understand that if people don't work, the society collapses, right?

East Germany collapsed. The Soviet Union collapsed. People didn't work very hard for the most part because there was no incentive to work very hard. At the same time, those with initiative and desire to make big bucks often turned to running scams in the black market. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many of those top black marketers became "oligarchs" instead.

 

[Jarod]

East Germany collapsed. The Soviet Union collapsed. People didn't work very hard for the most part because there was no incentive to work very hard. At the same time, those with initiative and desire to make big bucks often turned to running scams in the black market. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many of those top black marketers became "oligarchs" instead.

The Scandinavian nations are flourishing. France is Strong. Germany strong.

 

[Sailor]

The Scandinavian nations are flourishing. France is Strong. Germany strong.

For Muslims.

 

[QP!]

East Germany collapsed. The Soviet Union collapsed. People didn't work very hard for the most part because there was no incentive to work very hard. At the same time, those with initiative and desire to make big bucks often turned to running scams in the black market. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many of those top black marketers became "oligarchs" instead.

East Germany and the Soviet Union were dictatorships and kleptocracies. People had no freedom of movement and were locked in as the kleptocrats looted the country.

That is what leads to people losing motivation in the systems and country.

Democratic Socialism, on the other hand is what you see in Scandinavian, Canada and other high performing countries with populations both often more healthy and happy and wealthy, based on median wealth, than the US citizens.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Scandinavian nations are flourishing. France is Strong. Germany strong.

Yea sure.

All of those have unemployment rates above 8%

Unemployment Rate - Countries - List | Europe

This page displays a table with actual values, consensus figures, forecasts, statistics and historical data charts for - Unemployment Rate. This page provides values for Unemployment Rate reported in several countries part of Europe. The table has current values for Unemployment Rate, previous...

tradingeconomics.com

The economic growth rate in France and Germany is barely above zero, while those in Scandinavia hover around 1%.

GDP by Country (2026) - Worldometer

Countries in the world ranked by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). List and ranking of GDP growth, GDP per capita and country share of World's GDP

www.worldometers.info

So, unemployment is high and economic growth is stagnant. That is not "flourishing."

 

[T. A. Gardner]

East Germany and the Soviet Union were dictatorships and kleptocracies. People had no freedom of movement and were locked in as the kleptocrats looted the country.

And this is different from other heavily Socialist countries how?

That is what leads to people losing motivation in the systems and country.

Actually, it's more about the Socialists 'thinking' that people will willingly be altruistic and freely work hard for the benefit of others who don't.

Democratic Socialism, on the other hand is what you see in Scandinavian, Canada and other high performing countries with populations both often more healthy and happy and wealthy, based on median wealth, than the US citizens.

Yea, sure...

High unemployment, stagnant economic growth, crippling levels of taxes. More Socialism means lower median wealth, and the average person having less personal property.

 

[QP!]

And this is different from other heavily Socialist countries how?


Actually, it's more about the Socialists 'thinking' that people will willingly be altruistic and freely work hard for the benefit of others who don't.


Yea, sure...

High unemployment, stagnant economic growth, crippling levels of taxes. More Socialism means lower median wealth, and the average person having less personal property.

You are confusing Soviet-style Authoritarian Communism or what is closer to fascism and Kleptocracy with Bernie style Democratic Socialism (the Nordic Model).

No one is advocating for a government-controlled command economy and you know it but you also know you cannot win without spinning and lying and so you argue against strawmen you stuff.

Look at countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. They are highly successful capitalist market economies, but they use tax revenue to fund robust social safety nets.

It doesn't rely on 'altruism'—people still work for profit, and they actually rank higher in global innovation and ease of doing business than the U.S.

Because citizens have universal healthcare, free education, and childcare, they have MORE economic freedom to start businesses without the fear of bankruptcy. High taxes are a trade-off for zero medical debt, zero student debt, higher social mobility, and a higher median standard of living. It's not about making everyone poor; it's about ensuring the floor doesn't drop out from under the working class.

You have crafted a fake world in your head and argue against that as you know you lose when you argue the facts and truth.

 

[Sailor]

You are confusing Soviet-style Authoritarian Communism or what is closer to fascism and Kleptocracy with Bernie style Democratic Socialism (the Nordic Model).

No one is advocating for a government-controlled command economy and you know it but you also know you cannot win without spinning and lying and so you argue against strawmen you stuff.

Look at countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. They are highly successful capitalist market economies, but they use tax revenue to fund robust social safety nets.

It doesn't rely on 'altruism'—people still work for profit, and they actually rank higher in global innovation and ease of doing business than the U.S.

Because citizens have universal healthcare, free education, and childcare, they have MORE economic freedom to start businesses without the fear of bankruptcy. High taxes are a trade-off for zero medical debt, zero student debt, higher social mobility, and a higher median standard of living. It's not about making everyone poor; it's about ensuring the floor doesn't drop out from under the working class.

You have crafted a fake world in your head and argue against that as you know you lose when you argue the facts and truth.

In Norway ALL of that is paid for by a sovereign fund funded by oil proceeds. The government of Norway started that that fund with those proceeds and now owns shares in over 7000 companies worldwide. They should be applauded for this as it is for every citizen. They actually looked out for their citizens futures and well being. And NONE of it is being paid for by anything remotely "socialist ". The oil proceeds are Capitilism as well as all the companies they have invested in. This is ALL being paid for by capitalism. Educate yourself dumb fuck.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In Norway ALL of that is paid for by a sovereign fund funded by oil proceeds. The government of Norway started that that fund with those proceeds and now owns shares in over 7000 companies worldwide. They should be applauded for this as it is for every citizen. They actually looked out for their citizens futures and well being. And NONE of it is being paid for by anything remotely "socialist ". The oil proceeds are Capitilism as well as all the companies they have invested in. This is ALL being paid for by capitalism. Educate yourself dumb fuck.

That's backed by being a small nation with unique geography that allows them to be nearly 100% hydroelectric generation. Norway is NOT an example that can be reproduced elsewhere. It is a shit example when the Left tries to do exactly that.

That aside, without those unique qualities that cannot be reproduced elsewhere, Norway is like the other Northern European nations in that it has relatively high unemployment and a near zero economic growth rate with high taxes. And, of course, the radical Leftist environmental front is trying its damnedest to force the government there to divest of its oil and gas operations.

 

[Sailor]

That's backed by being a small nation with unique geography that allows them to be nearly 100% hydroelectric generation. Norway is NOT an example that can be reproduced elsewhere. It is a shit example when the Left tries to do exactly that.

That aside, without those unique qualities that cannot be reproduced elsewhere, Norway is like the other Northern European nations in that it has relatively high unemployment and a near zero economic growth rate with high taxes.

Right. Good seafarers and fisherman though.

 

[QP!]

That's backed by being a small nation with unique geography that allows them to be nearly 100% hydroelectric generation. Norway is NOT an example that can be reproduced elsewhere. It is a shit example when the Left tries to do exactly that.

That aside, without those unique qualities that cannot be reproduced elsewhere, Norway is like the other Northern European nations in that it has relatively high unemployment and a near zero economic growth rate with high taxes. And, of course, the radical Leftist environmental front is trying its damnedest to force the government there to divest of its oil and gas operations.

you have the argument backwards.

Despite Norway being mainly a one track resource nation they manage to make it work whereas the richest economy on earth based in multiple tracks and industries and thus way less suspectable to down turn stresses would not be trying to replicate what Norway did as it would not have to.

The US by merely redirecting a portion of current money being prioritized to DoD and ICE and by instituting a truly progressive tax system could lead in ways NOrway would not be able to follow.

You like to push this stupid idea that because the US economy is not small and based on mainly one resource they cannot supply their citizens a robust social safety when that has NOTHING to do with it.

The US economy is the most robust and strongest in the world and by simply reallocating a small portion towards the priority of social safety net instead of military, corporatism and oligarchs is certainly something that can be done.

 

[Sailor]

you have the argument backwards.

Despite Norway being mainly a one track resource nation they manage to make it work whereas the richest economy on earth based in multiple tracks and industries and thus way less suspectable to down turn stresses would not be trying to replicate what Norway did as it would not have to.

The US by merely redirecting a portion of current money being prioritized to DoD and ICE and by instituting a truly progressive tax system could lead in ways NOrway would not be able to follow.

You like to push this stupid idea that because the US economy is not small and based on mainly one resource they cannot supply their citizens a robust social safety when that has NOTHING to do with it.

The US economy is the most robust and strongest in the world and by simply reallocating a small portion towards the priority of social safety net instead of military, corporatism and oligarchs is certainly something that can be done.

This right here just shows this entire topic is way, way, over your head.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Lionfish]