I have never read anything sensible that starts with “fundamental difference” so far. This includes the comment that sparked this article. Liberal democracies—which, whatever that means, might now be considered the biggest sham ever known—are evaluated based on the promises they make in theory, while what they face is measured by lived experiences—even though the person using these experiences as tools usually hasn’t directly experienced them. Don’t these liberal democracies, whose true nature remains unclear, have any real-world counterpart? Or do those writing this hold a kindergarten-level logic that nothing negative about liberalism can be linked to it if there is any good liberalism at all?
Yes, which is why Soviet counts for a long time was mainly inflated numbers because it naturally served Western propaganda. I grew up in the 1980s during the cold war and we did get served up a lot of lies about the Soviet Union, that got fed to us by CIA or the US in various ways.
The most obvious lie that I remember grasping even as a child was that Soviets made bombs looking like toys to deliberately kill and terrorize Afghan children. I remember telling my teacher that made no sense. My teacher brushed me off as a naive child who didn't understand the horrors of war.
Interestingly I learned as a grownup many years later that that was just BS. A lot about the USSR was like that. Grossly exaggerated during the cold war because they were the enemy. Nobody was going to question that. Hence it is really only after the wall came down that we started getting a more accurate picture of reality in the USSR.
I'm not saying oil is why Norway is socialist as yes America has oils I'm just saying why socialism can sustain itself is the gov has a lot of money to spare. But I'm not a Norway expert
But that is one data point. The point is that numerous researchers looked at countless archives and records to get an accurate picture. And regardless of what that family experienced, we still got told plenty of lies about the USSR. That is documented. The "toy bombs" in Afghanistan is one good example.
I suspect you think I am saying the Soviet Union was good place. But I am not. I am simply saying it was grossly exaggerated how bad it was. I know it was bad. My mother visited the Soviet Union in the midst of the cold war. She remembers the constant control and monitoring well. Guard towers with armed guards all over Moscow. Every time you entered other exited the hotel somebody would write it down. Control and surveillance was everywhere.
I can't accept a "not so bad" Soviet Union argument. They architected the concentration camp at industrial scale. One person dead is a tragedy, a million is a statistic...I find that level of cynicism unacceptable. But yes if you have an anarchist bend, all governments are bad and have murdered ppl.
Soviets did not have Nazi death camps at industrial scale. Gulags were prison camps. Again you cannot just invent arbitrary "facts". Why are you opposed to having a factual representation of the USSR? Why must it be whatever fantasy makes them look as bad as possible?
Prison camps?! Oh boy. Prison camps for u know...doctors, writers, scientists, politicians, Christian's, Jews, u know in Siberia. With no food. They didn't have to design intricate death systems. Ppl just died. But on Norway and social democrats I don't know - 5M ppl homogenous tons of oil - prob easier to make u happy. As for America, it was stamping out socialist flares long before Soviet Union.
As I said, one of the things researchers found was that these were not death camps. The assumption had been that most died. But that was not the case. Most came back alive.
That there was writers and scientists there is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether it was prison camp or death camp.
And what does Norwegian oil have to do with this question? Oil started making a profit in Norway in 1978 when I was born. Oil was discovered late. Both the Soviet Union and the US had had oil for something like 100 years before we started making money off it.
Stamping out socialism in America isn't something to be proud of. That you were persecuting people for simple having a different opinion is anti democratic. A free country should allow any political party unless they seek to undermine democracy.
Imagine if we went around persecuting conservatives in Norway.
The USSR was bad but does that mean you should inflate how bad it was because it served a political agenda we had during the cold war. I don't get this rational. If facts don't matter when it comes to bad regimes, then why don't we simply state that the Nazis murdered 60 million Jews?
Come on facts matter. We should base our understanding of the Soviet Union on facts not propaganda.
Germany’s history was nothing like Russia’s, yet when a similar totalitarian mindset was introduced, the outcome was essentially the same as in the Soviet Union. I’d wager that if Quisling had remained in Germany longer, Norway would have ended up the same way, too—so they should thank the United States for intervening. ;)
Come on Rebecca, it is as if you entirely ignore the whole argument I made. Fascism is an evil totalitarian ideology in a way that socialism isn't. Stalinism was far more about a product of Russian history and the nature in which the communists came to power rather than about the ideology itself.
The point I made is that if you place socialism in different context, it has bad outcomes in totalitarian countries, but good outcomes in democracies. Fascism in contrast always has bad outcomes.
The point is that with fascism it really is about the ideology. With communism it has always been far more about the history of that country, because you can see the outcomes are so different in different countries while the outcomes aren't vastly different for fascism. Fascism is inherently totalitarian and hateful.
What are you going on about Quisling? I don't understand the point you try to make. Quisling wasn't in Germany. He was a Norwegian fascist, that founded a fascist party in Norway called Nasjonal Samling. A traitor that even lobbied Hitler to invade us. He already was a bad guy. He served as a puppet for Nazi Germany in Norway.
And he is also a kind of good example of what I talk about. He was originally a good man, who became so obsessed with socialism as a danger that embraced Nazism.
This is what I am warning against. The derangement around socialism that drives people towards fascism, which is kind of a surefire way of ending your democracy. Quisling proved wrong. Norway kept electing socialists long after his death and the horrors he fantasized it would bring never materialized.
In fact the ones bringing horror her was him, and later in 2011 it was Anders Behring Breivik. Another right-wing extremists who also got obsessed with hating socialists, so he gunned down teenagers at Utøya. 80 of them and injured hundreds of others. Traumatized more. All after he blew up the government building in downtown Oslo. I pushed my son in a stroller through the street the day after. Glass shards everywhere. Building after building with blown out windows. The pressure wave from the explosion had traveled through numerous buildings knocking all their windows out. It took months before all buildings all their windows back.
He had an obsession with socialist and marxists as the enemy that he had been radicalized to believe by American right-wingers. That is part of why I wrote this article. I am tired of the unjustified vilification and hatred of us who are socialists. We have great track record in numerous European countries over many decades. This idea that democratic socialism is a slippery slope towards Stalinism must end. It is what right-wing extremists use as excuse to go and murder us.
It is vile propaganda to help people rally to their ranks. Remember extremists don't actually need you to join them. All they need is to convince you the other guys are more extreme.
Also don't forget stories like these. There were many socialists in America who got a wake up call in Soviet Union, you are glossing over all those stories. A well-known example is Emma Goldman American anarchist (often loosely grouped among socialist radicals) who went to Soviet Russia in 1920. Although she had long supported the revolutionary cause, Goldman was appalled by the reality she encountered: the repression of dissent, the Cheka’s (secret police) brutality, and the crushing of independent political voices (most famously the Kronstadt sailors).
She wrote about this disillusionment in works such as My Disillusionment in Russia (originally published 1923). Although Goldman is more accurately described as an anarchist rather than a socialist, she is often cited as the most famous American radical who went to the early Soviet Union believing in its promise and left profoundly horrified by the regime’s authoritarian methods.
I think we can agree that ppl of Russian descent might hate communists more and ppl in Europe probably more fearful of fascists. It's pretty difficult to counter that fascism is bad so I won't try. Since you agree that social democrats are probably closer to liberal countries like America than communist Russia we probably don't disagree too much. As for which evil one prefers at the far end of the spectrum, I've lost many hundreds of hours debating that in my family ;)
As for what East Block and Russians think of communism. That is entirely dependent on where you meet them. The people who went to the US typically all hate communism. But that doesn't mean that is the view of average East Block Europeans.
A surprising number of them have a number of positive views of communism. If you read accounts of East Germans for instance they will tell you that while they obviously wanted the oppression gone they had wished many aspects of the old system had remained.
Someone with a socialist belief isn't going to move the a super capitalist country like the US, so any Russian, Pole or Czech person you meet in the US will be a cheery picked selection. Not a random sample from those countries.
And yes the Cold War had a profound impact on Americans - ofc. But like I said socialist bandying with anarchists and revolutionaries in the 1800s prob didn't help much either. But we have some popular ones like Bernie sanders u know- had a real go at the presidency (sort of lol)
If someone doesn't know they are oppressed that means the oppression is all the greater. In a country with no free speech this is my belief. Just bc there's food on the table, doesn't mean they understand what's happening in a way that makes me think: yeh I wanna raise my kids tfeee. And isn't this what it's all about fundamentally
Come on they didn't want the oppression. It was the other part of the system. Why do Americans treat socialism all the time as a synonym for dictatorship? It was the other parts of the system many people liked.
And if you have not experienced poverty who knows what people prefer. I remember reading interview with an African about Chinese coming. He said was more oppressive with them than with Westerners. But he said Chinese built roads, factories, mines and hospitals. It gave him better food, education and opportunities for his children.
Despite the fact that he had been beaten by Chinese security, he actually said he preferred them. Now, I would not want to make that tradeoff myself but then again what do I know. I never lived in that kind of poverty.
When you don't have free press of the ability to speak freely your opinion on ur own situation becomes very difficult to comment on. You may be physically secure (to ur point on Africa) but Maslow hierarchy suggests that isn't enough at some point.
What I am not able to get across to you is that Norway and the USSR were different manifestations of socialism. They showed how socialist thinking turned into vastly different regimes. Place socialism in dirt poor illiterate, oppressive nightmare state that was Tsarist Russia and you get the USSR... which people keep forgetting was an improvement over Tsarist Russia. Ergo socialism in Russia actually made life for people there better. The same cannot be said about Fascism. Fascism made life for Germans much worse.
The problem when people analyze the USSR is that they always compare with developed countries like the US. It is about as logical as a African country having socialist take power and the Republicans go "Look how terrible socialism is. Kenya is so much poorer than the US, and corruption is so much higher. Education level is so bad."
Fascism doesn't have that excuse as Hitler took over what was the most advanced nation in the world. All of modern physics and mathematics was basically being pioneered there. They were not a backwards country. When the Red Army rolled in they mistook normal German houses for being upper classes houses.
Socialism end up creating a nice society in Norway because we had very strong democratic traditions. One of the best educated populations at the time, and quite a good economy combined with relatively low levels of inequality and low corruption. We had a good foundation. The Russians did not.
The point I make is that socialists won elections in the US tomorrow you would most likely end up looking more like Norway rather than something resembling the USSR.
The same cannot be said if Fascist take power. And in many ways a light version of them already have. That is why you are getting into serious problems already.
Norway's a really bad example for all this - as you say isn’t communist; it’s a social democracy. Which is Norway closer to—the United States or the Soviet Union? Norway has free markets, free elections, multiple political parties, and the rule of law, none of which existed under the Soviets. So why is Norway ever considered a shining example of “good communism”? I have no clue.
You are not reading what I wrote. No country was ever socialist (or communist). The USSR was a stat capitalist dictatorship. Its leadership held a communist ideology. Which is really just a branch of socialism.
Meanwhile Norway is/was as mixed economy where the leadership for many years was socialist. The system as such as was not socialist.
BOTH the Soviet Union and Norway naturally implemented many policies heavily inspired by socialist ideas given that both has socialist leadership.
And I would argue that Norway is much closer to socialism than the USSR ever was.
No country can be examples of good or bad communism as no country ever was, not likely ever will be. At least not the 1930s idea of it. Communism / Socialism as one believed back then would never have worked. Modern socialism however I will opinion is a workable idea otherwise I wouldn't be a socialist.
Having free markets, free elections, multiple parties, rules of law etc is no going against socialism. You have the wrong starting point. You define socialism in terms of what the USSR was. But again that was not socialism. It was a state capitalist dictatorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
That was the transition system the communists believed would take them to communism. Well... officially. Once they held power it was likely more about being in power than actually implementing any communism. An a moot point as the idea of communism would never have worked. It was not a practically implementable system.
I'm not sure I understand the point. America has a blend of social democratic elements especially in certain states. Your argument makes distinction meaningless. At some point functioning non totalitarian governments are similar. But when you look at which country ppl ultimately want to immigrate to you see the issue gets more complex.
People emigrate to pretty much any country that is rich. Not that complicated. Norway is rich and has massive immigration. Oslo is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe.
I would not say there is that much social democracy in the US. The left-wing influence in the US is primarily social liberalism, not social democrats.
Social liberalism and socialists don't tackle the non-capitalist parts of a country in the same way. Liberals are very much about the individual, detached from a larger context. Us socialists think much more in terms of community and systems.
That applies to every level of society. Wage setting in the Nordics follow a corporatist model for instance. A tripart negotiation between government, unions and corporations.
Workers have representation or corporate boards and participate directly in how companies are run. You don't see that in very capitalist liberal countries like the US.
Liberals make their social programs as means tested. Socialists / social democrats prefer universal goods. Whether you are rich or poor you get free college. Everyone gets health care. No special program such as Medicaid only for the poor. Nope the rich and poor use the same system.
We see a value in togetherness and sharing experiences rich or poor. Here in Norway we have a concept of "dugnad" where people regardless of income or privilege get out and work on public areas of their neighbourhoods, schools, pre-schools or anything together. The carpenter and the CEO together raking leaves, cutting branches, painting fences.
Could the CEO have paid somebody to do it? Of course, but this is about creating a community spirit. Togetherness regardless of who we are, regardless of race, income, gender or whatever. The liberal mind lacks this belief in togetherness.
And liberalism doesn't work in tackling poverty. Look at the US with all the poverty traps means testing creates. People are discouraged from getting a better job because they will lose benefits. So they get stuck. If you get the benefit regardless of your income, then you don't create poverty traps.
Research shows universal good prove themselves more effective. Us social democrats have the facts on our side on this one. Liberals don't.
If any kind of democracy was the same then Norway and the US would not be profoundly different societies and us socialists would not see liberals as opponents.
I have never read anything sensible that starts with “fundamental difference” so far. This includes the comment that sparked this article. Liberal democracies—which, whatever that means, might now be considered the biggest sham ever known—are evaluated based on the promises they make in theory, while what they face is measured by lived experiences—even though the person using these experiences as tools usually hasn’t directly experienced them. Don’t these liberal democracies, whose true nature remains unclear, have any real-world counterpart? Or do those writing this hold a kindergarten-level logic that nothing negative about liberalism can be linked to it if there is any good liberalism at all?
By the way - we know Nazi counts bc they lost the war.
Yes, which is why Soviet counts for a long time was mainly inflated numbers because it naturally served Western propaganda. I grew up in the 1980s during the cold war and we did get served up a lot of lies about the Soviet Union, that got fed to us by CIA or the US in various ways.
The most obvious lie that I remember grasping even as a child was that Soviets made bombs looking like toys to deliberately kill and terrorize Afghan children. I remember telling my teacher that made no sense. My teacher brushed me off as a naive child who didn't understand the horrors of war.
Interestingly I learned as a grownup many years later that that was just BS. A lot about the USSR was like that. Grossly exaggerated during the cold war because they were the enemy. Nobody was going to question that. Hence it is really only after the wall came down that we started getting a more accurate picture of reality in the USSR.
I'm not saying oil is why Norway is socialist as yes America has oils I'm just saying why socialism can sustain itself is the gov has a lot of money to spare. But I'm not a Norway expert
Hmm my insight into multigenerational family of Russians seems to contradict that
But that is one data point. The point is that numerous researchers looked at countless archives and records to get an accurate picture. And regardless of what that family experienced, we still got told plenty of lies about the USSR. That is documented. The "toy bombs" in Afghanistan is one good example.
I suspect you think I am saying the Soviet Union was good place. But I am not. I am simply saying it was grossly exaggerated how bad it was. I know it was bad. My mother visited the Soviet Union in the midst of the cold war. She remembers the constant control and monitoring well. Guard towers with armed guards all over Moscow. Every time you entered other exited the hotel somebody would write it down. Control and surveillance was everywhere.
I can't accept a "not so bad" Soviet Union argument. They architected the concentration camp at industrial scale. One person dead is a tragedy, a million is a statistic...I find that level of cynicism unacceptable. But yes if you have an anarchist bend, all governments are bad and have murdered ppl.
Soviets did not have Nazi death camps at industrial scale. Gulags were prison camps. Again you cannot just invent arbitrary "facts". Why are you opposed to having a factual representation of the USSR? Why must it be whatever fantasy makes them look as bad as possible?
Prison camps?! Oh boy. Prison camps for u know...doctors, writers, scientists, politicians, Christian's, Jews, u know in Siberia. With no food. They didn't have to design intricate death systems. Ppl just died. But on Norway and social democrats I don't know - 5M ppl homogenous tons of oil - prob easier to make u happy. As for America, it was stamping out socialist flares long before Soviet Union.
As I said, one of the things researchers found was that these were not death camps. The assumption had been that most died. But that was not the case. Most came back alive.
That there was writers and scientists there is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether it was prison camp or death camp.
And what does Norwegian oil have to do with this question? Oil started making a profit in Norway in 1978 when I was born. Oil was discovered late. Both the Soviet Union and the US had had oil for something like 100 years before we started making money off it.
Stamping out socialism in America isn't something to be proud of. That you were persecuting people for simple having a different opinion is anti democratic. A free country should allow any political party unless they seek to undermine democracy.
Imagine if we went around persecuting conservatives in Norway.
The USSR was bad but does that mean you should inflate how bad it was because it served a political agenda we had during the cold war. I don't get this rational. If facts don't matter when it comes to bad regimes, then why don't we simply state that the Nazis murdered 60 million Jews?
Come on facts matter. We should base our understanding of the Soviet Union on facts not propaganda.
By the way Solzhenitsyn puts Soviet death at 30m - 90m. I'm not sure where ur quote comes from of it being overstated.
I don't know where Solzhenitsyn got his numbers from. He could not have had proper access to archives to get any kind of accurate numbers.
The quote has a link right above it. I post it again here.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/
The key misconception it seems was an assumption that Gulags were akin to concentration camps. They were not. Most came back from the alive.
Germany’s history was nothing like Russia’s, yet when a similar totalitarian mindset was introduced, the outcome was essentially the same as in the Soviet Union. I’d wager that if Quisling had remained in Germany longer, Norway would have ended up the same way, too—so they should thank the United States for intervening. ;)
Come on Rebecca, it is as if you entirely ignore the whole argument I made. Fascism is an evil totalitarian ideology in a way that socialism isn't. Stalinism was far more about a product of Russian history and the nature in which the communists came to power rather than about the ideology itself.
The point I made is that if you place socialism in different context, it has bad outcomes in totalitarian countries, but good outcomes in democracies. Fascism in contrast always has bad outcomes.
The point is that with fascism it really is about the ideology. With communism it has always been far more about the history of that country, because you can see the outcomes are so different in different countries while the outcomes aren't vastly different for fascism. Fascism is inherently totalitarian and hateful.
What are you going on about Quisling? I don't understand the point you try to make. Quisling wasn't in Germany. He was a Norwegian fascist, that founded a fascist party in Norway called Nasjonal Samling. A traitor that even lobbied Hitler to invade us. He already was a bad guy. He served as a puppet for Nazi Germany in Norway.
And he is also a kind of good example of what I talk about. He was originally a good man, who became so obsessed with socialism as a danger that embraced Nazism.
This is what I am warning against. The derangement around socialism that drives people towards fascism, which is kind of a surefire way of ending your democracy. Quisling proved wrong. Norway kept electing socialists long after his death and the horrors he fantasized it would bring never materialized.
In fact the ones bringing horror her was him, and later in 2011 it was Anders Behring Breivik. Another right-wing extremists who also got obsessed with hating socialists, so he gunned down teenagers at Utøya. 80 of them and injured hundreds of others. Traumatized more. All after he blew up the government building in downtown Oslo. I pushed my son in a stroller through the street the day after. Glass shards everywhere. Building after building with blown out windows. The pressure wave from the explosion had traveled through numerous buildings knocking all their windows out. It took months before all buildings all their windows back.
He had an obsession with socialist and marxists as the enemy that he had been radicalized to believe by American right-wingers. That is part of why I wrote this article. I am tired of the unjustified vilification and hatred of us who are socialists. We have great track record in numerous European countries over many decades. This idea that democratic socialism is a slippery slope towards Stalinism must end. It is what right-wing extremists use as excuse to go and murder us.
It is vile propaganda to help people rally to their ranks. Remember extremists don't actually need you to join them. All they need is to convince you the other guys are more extreme.
Also don't forget stories like these. There were many socialists in America who got a wake up call in Soviet Union, you are glossing over all those stories. A well-known example is Emma Goldman American anarchist (often loosely grouped among socialist radicals) who went to Soviet Russia in 1920. Although she had long supported the revolutionary cause, Goldman was appalled by the reality she encountered: the repression of dissent, the Cheka’s (secret police) brutality, and the crushing of independent political voices (most famously the Kronstadt sailors).
She wrote about this disillusionment in works such as My Disillusionment in Russia (originally published 1923). Although Goldman is more accurately described as an anarchist rather than a socialist, she is often cited as the most famous American radical who went to the early Soviet Union believing in its promise and left profoundly horrified by the regime’s authoritarian methods.
I think we can agree that ppl of Russian descent might hate communists more and ppl in Europe probably more fearful of fascists. It's pretty difficult to counter that fascism is bad so I won't try. Since you agree that social democrats are probably closer to liberal countries like America than communist Russia we probably don't disagree too much. As for which evil one prefers at the far end of the spectrum, I've lost many hundreds of hours debating that in my family ;)
As for what East Block and Russians think of communism. That is entirely dependent on where you meet them. The people who went to the US typically all hate communism. But that doesn't mean that is the view of average East Block Europeans.
A surprising number of them have a number of positive views of communism. If you read accounts of East Germans for instance they will tell you that while they obviously wanted the oppression gone they had wished many aspects of the old system had remained.
Someone with a socialist belief isn't going to move the a super capitalist country like the US, so any Russian, Pole or Czech person you meet in the US will be a cheery picked selection. Not a random sample from those countries.
And yes the Cold War had a profound impact on Americans - ofc. But like I said socialist bandying with anarchists and revolutionaries in the 1800s prob didn't help much either. But we have some popular ones like Bernie sanders u know- had a real go at the presidency (sort of lol)
If someone doesn't know they are oppressed that means the oppression is all the greater. In a country with no free speech this is my belief. Just bc there's food on the table, doesn't mean they understand what's happening in a way that makes me think: yeh I wanna raise my kids tfeee. And isn't this what it's all about fundamentally
Come on they didn't want the oppression. It was the other part of the system. Why do Americans treat socialism all the time as a synonym for dictatorship? It was the other parts of the system many people liked.
And if you have not experienced poverty who knows what people prefer. I remember reading interview with an African about Chinese coming. He said was more oppressive with them than with Westerners. But he said Chinese built roads, factories, mines and hospitals. It gave him better food, education and opportunities for his children.
Despite the fact that he had been beaten by Chinese security, he actually said he preferred them. Now, I would not want to make that tradeoff myself but then again what do I know. I never lived in that kind of poverty.
When you don't have free press of the ability to speak freely your opinion on ur own situation becomes very difficult to comment on. You may be physically secure (to ur point on Africa) but Maslow hierarchy suggests that isn't enough at some point.
What I am not able to get across to you is that Norway and the USSR were different manifestations of socialism. They showed how socialist thinking turned into vastly different regimes. Place socialism in dirt poor illiterate, oppressive nightmare state that was Tsarist Russia and you get the USSR... which people keep forgetting was an improvement over Tsarist Russia. Ergo socialism in Russia actually made life for people there better. The same cannot be said about Fascism. Fascism made life for Germans much worse.
The problem when people analyze the USSR is that they always compare with developed countries like the US. It is about as logical as a African country having socialist take power and the Republicans go "Look how terrible socialism is. Kenya is so much poorer than the US, and corruption is so much higher. Education level is so bad."
Fascism doesn't have that excuse as Hitler took over what was the most advanced nation in the world. All of modern physics and mathematics was basically being pioneered there. They were not a backwards country. When the Red Army rolled in they mistook normal German houses for being upper classes houses.
Socialism end up creating a nice society in Norway because we had very strong democratic traditions. One of the best educated populations at the time, and quite a good economy combined with relatively low levels of inequality and low corruption. We had a good foundation. The Russians did not.
The point I make is that socialists won elections in the US tomorrow you would most likely end up looking more like Norway rather than something resembling the USSR.
The same cannot be said if Fascist take power. And in many ways a light version of them already have. That is why you are getting into serious problems already.
Norway's a really bad example for all this - as you say isn’t communist; it’s a social democracy. Which is Norway closer to—the United States or the Soviet Union? Norway has free markets, free elections, multiple political parties, and the rule of law, none of which existed under the Soviets. So why is Norway ever considered a shining example of “good communism”? I have no clue.
You are not reading what I wrote. No country was ever socialist (or communist). The USSR was a stat capitalist dictatorship. Its leadership held a communist ideology. Which is really just a branch of socialism.
Meanwhile Norway is/was as mixed economy where the leadership for many years was socialist. The system as such as was not socialist.
BOTH the Soviet Union and Norway naturally implemented many policies heavily inspired by socialist ideas given that both has socialist leadership.
And I would argue that Norway is much closer to socialism than the USSR ever was.
No country can be examples of good or bad communism as no country ever was, not likely ever will be. At least not the 1930s idea of it. Communism / Socialism as one believed back then would never have worked. Modern socialism however I will opinion is a workable idea otherwise I wouldn't be a socialist.
Having free markets, free elections, multiple parties, rules of law etc is no going against socialism. You have the wrong starting point. You define socialism in terms of what the USSR was. But again that was not socialism. It was a state capitalist dictatorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
That was the transition system the communists believed would take them to communism. Well... officially. Once they held power it was likely more about being in power than actually implementing any communism. An a moot point as the idea of communism would never have worked. It was not a practically implementable system.
I'm not sure I understand the point. America has a blend of social democratic elements especially in certain states. Your argument makes distinction meaningless. At some point functioning non totalitarian governments are similar. But when you look at which country ppl ultimately want to immigrate to you see the issue gets more complex.
People emigrate to pretty much any country that is rich. Not that complicated. Norway is rich and has massive immigration. Oslo is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe.
I would not say there is that much social democracy in the US. The left-wing influence in the US is primarily social liberalism, not social democrats.
Social liberalism and socialists don't tackle the non-capitalist parts of a country in the same way. Liberals are very much about the individual, detached from a larger context. Us socialists think much more in terms of community and systems.
That applies to every level of society. Wage setting in the Nordics follow a corporatist model for instance. A tripart negotiation between government, unions and corporations.
Workers have representation or corporate boards and participate directly in how companies are run. You don't see that in very capitalist liberal countries like the US.
Liberals make their social programs as means tested. Socialists / social democrats prefer universal goods. Whether you are rich or poor you get free college. Everyone gets health care. No special program such as Medicaid only for the poor. Nope the rich and poor use the same system.
We see a value in togetherness and sharing experiences rich or poor. Here in Norway we have a concept of "dugnad" where people regardless of income or privilege get out and work on public areas of their neighbourhoods, schools, pre-schools or anything together. The carpenter and the CEO together raking leaves, cutting branches, painting fences.
Could the CEO have paid somebody to do it? Of course, but this is about creating a community spirit. Togetherness regardless of who we are, regardless of race, income, gender or whatever. The liberal mind lacks this belief in togetherness.
And liberalism doesn't work in tackling poverty. Look at the US with all the poverty traps means testing creates. People are discouraged from getting a better job because they will lose benefits. So they get stuck. If you get the benefit regardless of your income, then you don't create poverty traps.
Research shows universal good prove themselves more effective. Us social democrats have the facts on our side on this one. Liberals don't.
If any kind of democracy was the same then Norway and the US would not be profoundly different societies and us socialists would not see liberals as opponents.