Why are socialists so different between countries?

[Second-class Canadian]

Canadian labour-socialists sometimes point to social-democracy or even social-corporatism in Sweden and other countries as proof of how socialism can work. Yet the contrast between them is significant. Let's compare Sweden, long ruled by the Social Democratic Party, and the Federal NDP's vision of socialism.

Sweden has long been pro-free-trade, has no enforced minimum wage, has right to work laws, has a national school voucher program, and a two-tiered health care system, and promotes public-private partnerships and values balanced budgets. It also places a high value on the Universal Declaration on Human rights (one of the arguments the right used in favour of school vouchers but that the left chose to not challenge once implemented). Though it's true that the Christian Democratic Party introduced some of these, the SDP never reversed them when it had the chance to do so.

Setting Sweden aside for a moment, let's look at the European Union which is generally considered to be more socialist than Canada. A few northern European jurisdictions have a national school voucher program, and two-tiered Healthcare is common across the EU even under a Socialist Party government in France.

Of course I'm not denying that there are similarities between Canadian and European socialist parties, but simply that one can't point to them as proof that the NDP's vision would work. The NDP is pro-free-trade in principle, but with so many caveats that it's likely to end up being quite anti-free-trade in practice. It fanatically opposes public-private partnerships in most of their forms. And Ironically enough, it does not mention the more socialist policies that are in place in Europe. It stays mum on the separate school system while the Ontario Greens and PC's (both more conservative than the NDP provincially) opposed it in one way or another.

If I had to guess at the reason, it's that socialist parties in the EU actually formed national government and so had to modify their policies to practical experience, whereas the NDP, never having formed a government Federally, has never yet been confronted with the experience of its policies.

That of course should not have prevented the NDP from learning from the experiences of more successful socialist parties with more open minds in foreign jurisdictions.

Inasmuch as I can sympathize with the intentions of the Canadian left, it must learn to adapt to reality. Until it does that, it will likely never form government, or at least never win two elections in a row, Federally.

Part of the reason the right in Canada has won so many elections is precisely because, like the left and right in Europe, it can adapt to reality. Just as socialists in Europe have adopted those capitalist ideas that work, conservatives in Canada have adopted socialist ideas that work. They've been pragmatic, and that is a skill that I believe the Canadian left has yet to develop.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

[Evening Star]

You know, there are some other differences between the 'practical, electable' social democrats in Sweden and NDP policy that you have left out: free post-secondary education, much higher personal income taxes (with the top marginal rate close to 57%), well over double our rate of unionization, double the OECD average percentage of workers employed by the government...

[Edited to add cites]

Edited July 4, 2015 by Evening Star

[Second-class Canadian]

You know, there are some other differences between the 'practical, electable' social democrats in Sweden and NDP policy that you have left out: free post-secondary education, much higher personal income taxes, more than double our rate of unionization, double the OECD average percentage of workers employed by the government.

I never denied that. They also have co-determination laws granting workers representation on boards of directors. My point was though (and your post actually reinforces mine) that they are very different at a very fundamental level. So why doesn't the NDP propose co-determination laws? They also have a higher VAT. I believe the NDP is not fond of the GST. Another fundamental difference.

All this to say that New Democrats who like to compare themselves to European socialists don't know what they're talking about.

[Evening Star]

I never denied that.

No, but you omitted these things, only listing differences that suggest that Swedish social democrats are much more in line with right-wing economic ideas. (Minimum wage laws are less necessary when most of the country is protected by very strong unions and the government employs nearly a third of the population, for example. School vouchers mean something very different in a context where there is more equality in terms of income and more people pay a similar [high] level of taxes into the system as opposed to when this is not the case, as in North America.) You seemed to be asking "Why does the NDP not endorse PPPs and school vouchers?" as opposed to "Why does the NDP not want to jack up taxes on high income earners and unionize most of the country? Why do they not demand free tuition? Why won't Rachel Notley nationalize Alberta's oil resources?" That would have been a very different OP.

They also have co-determination laws granting workers representation on boards of directors. My point was though (and your post actually reinforces mine) that they are very different at a very fundamental level. So why doesn't the NDP propose co-determination laws? They also have a higher VAT. I believe the NDP is not fond of the GST. Another fundamental difference.

All this to say that New Democrats who like to compare themselves to European socialists don't know what they're talking about.

Which New Democrats have been saying this and what comparisons have they been making? Has anyone said "We need to adopt the Nordic model wholesale" or have they been comparing specific issues or policies?

Why are the Conservatives different from right-wingers in Germany or Japan? Canada and Sweden are different countries in many ways (diversity of the population, area of the country, and proximity to the US are three). Not every idea might be transferable. It's one thing to point to specific policies and suggest that they would be good ideas to adopt or learn from. However, broadly asking "why are our socialists so different?", esp when cherry-picking policies that seem to fit one agenda, doesn't seem that fair.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Evening Star

[PrimeNumber]

OP left out the information that disproves their point, because it doesn't prove their point.

[Second-class Canadian]

OP left out the information that disproves their point, because it doesn't prove their point.

Seeing that I was discussing socialist parties, I figured most people would guess that socialist parties will tend to have higher taxes, spend more on universal public education, trades and professional education for the unemployed, etc.

For this reason, in order to not insult people's intelligence by explaining to them what a socialist is, I'd decided to focus on the differences instead.

Does it surprise you that Sweden has higher taxes and spends more on education, etc. Probably not. It's less likely one will be familiar with the differences.

[PrimeNumber]

Seeing that I was discussing socialist parties, I figured most people would guess that socialist parties will tend to have higher taxes, spend more on universal public education, trades and professional education for the unemployed, etc.

For this reason, in order to not insult people's intelligence by explaining to them what a socialist is, I'd decided to focus on the differences instead.

Does it surprise you that Sweden has higher taxes and spends more on education, etc. Probably not. It's less likely one will be familiar with the differences.

So the NDP and Scandinavian socialist countries do in fact share common policies?

[Evening Star]

Seeing that I was discussing socialist parties, I figured most people would guess that socialist parties will tend to have higher taxes, spend more on universal public education, trades and professional education for the unemployed, etc.

Does it surprise you that Sweden has higher taxes and spends more on education, etc. Probably not. It's less likely one will be familiar with the differences.

But there are major differences between the NDP and the Swedish social democrats here! The Swedes go MUCH further in these areas than any NDP leader advocates for Canada. Mulcair has adamantly opposed higher income taxes for high earners, for instance. No provincial NDP government has tried to eliminate tuition. This changes the context for things like minimum wage laws and school vouchers.

Btw, Sweden is also a unitary state, which is also a key difference.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Evening Star

[Second-class Canadian]

So the NDP and Scandinavian socialist countries do in fact share common policies?

Let's say I'd pointed out fundamental differences between Canadian and other conservatives. Would you still expect me to point out that they're still conservatives?

I think the differences I'd pointed out are fundamental. For example, Canada has some of the longest hospital wait times which a two-tiered system could rectify and which works well in France and other EU countries, yet the NDP ignores the evidence.

Whereas the NDP want to legislate the unskilled out of the workforce through minimum-wage legislation, the Swedes and others invest in trades and professional education to help raise the worker's employability and economic worth.

Additionlly, German and other co-determination laws to democratize the workforce ensure workers are consulted. For instance, in times of economic hardship, workers could freely negotiate their wages down to prevent layoffs while also ensuring that upper management and CEO bit the bullet too. The NDP would just raise the minimum wage to prevent such flexibility in hard economic times.

France and other EU countries promote not only free trade, but also a common labour market so as to make it easier for workers to go where their skills are most in demand. The NDP just wants protectionism and competition with other countries rather than co-operation for everyone's benefit.

These are just some differences, and I hardly think they're cosmetic. These are fundamental differences, and there are many of them.

[Second-class Canadian]

So the NDP and Scandinavian socialist countries do in fact share common policies?

Of course, but on other fronts the differences are fundamental.

[Second-class Canadian]

But there are major differences between the NDP and the Swedish social democrats here! The Swedes go MUCH further in these areas than any NDP leader advocates for Canada. Mulcair has adamantly opposed higher income taxes for high earners, for instance. No provincial NDP government has tried to eliminate tuition. This changes the context for things like minimum wage laws and school vouchers.

Btw, Sweden is also a unitary state, which is also a key difference.

You're absolutely correct. Sweden raised taxes but did not suffocate business. The NDP is not as interested in raising taxes: it just wants to suffocate business instead.

I do agree with a resource tax like a carbon tax for example. It encourages more efficient use of resources. I can agree with increased funding on universal compulsory education and trades and professional training for the unemployed. That might explain NDP successes provincially. I don't agree with legislating the unskilled out of the workforce by raising the minimum wage. That hurts the NDP both provincially and Federally. And when it comes to protectionism, that's suicide for the NDP. European socialists understood give and take. If you raise taxes, then you must also help businesses to function in a high tax environment. Spending on trades and professional education helps with that. While other countries can compete on price, they can compete on technology and quality. Free trade also allows them to specialize and promote economies of scale to offset the higher taxes. A common labour market and educational standards for various trades and professions increases worker mobility, ensuring employers can hire the workers they want and workers can find the work they want. It's like a social contract. We'll tax you more, but we'll also help you to become more efficient. The NDP? We'll tax you more and then block your every opportunity for growth.

Again, just some fundamental differences.

[Second-class Canadian]

Even on the human rights front, while the Ontario NDP is mum on separate schools, the Swedes grant school vouchers so that the Saami and Finns can establish schools in their own languages.

[Freddy]

The difference is the size of the country. Every landscape brings different challenges. Sweden is how big compared to Ontario? Socialism is more manageable within a smaller community, but on a larger scale become's difficult. We need to stop comparing to other countries and look at what works for Canada.

Joining the United States is our best next step.

[Second-class Canadian]

The difference is the size of the country. Every landscape brings different challenges. Sweden is how big compared to Ontario? Socialism is more manageable within a smaller community, but on a larger scale become's difficult. We need to stop comparing to other countries and look at what works for Canada.

Joining the United States is our best next step.

Joining the United States? You mean federation?

Maybe eventually, but first thing's first. We don't even have a common labour agreement or common educational standards for various trades and professions yet. Woun't that be the next big step before joining the US?

[Bryan]

The real difference is everyone has a different idea of where the centre line is in the political spectrum. Positions that are considered left wing here would be considered centrist if not right wing in many european countries. Conversely, positions that are considered right wing here would be considered as left wing in the US. Mulcair would be called a conservative in Europe, Harper would be a called a socialist in the US.

[Freddy]

Joining the United States? You mean federation?

Maybe eventually, but first thing's first. We don't even have a common labour agreement or common educational standards for various trades and professions yet. Woun't that be the next big step before joining the US?

Not really, as the colleges and Universities are hardly producing any form of legitimate competent workers.

Most of all important training and knowledge that brings the efficiency employers are looking for is gained in the office or in the field.

We have books and the Internet. college 's and Universities are obsolete.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Freddy

[Second-class Canadian]

What about a common labour agreement. Would that not be the next step before any confederation with the US were possible? We can't just jump into confederation from one day to the next.

[-1=e^ipi]

Sweden's system isn't sustainable. They are going through demographic collapse due to a culture of self hatred and are replacing themselves with Islamists. Look at Malmo.

Also, look at the wonderful children's programming enlightened Sweden has:

[Second-class Canadian]

Unless you're planning o introduce Iranian-style anti-conversion laws, how do you plan to prevent a person from choosing any particular religion?

[-1=e^ipi]

Sweden has long been pro-free-trade

I think a lot of this has to do with the history of the country. A lot of the far left's mentality in many countries is that whatever is on the right = evil therefore whatever is the opposite = good. In the case of Sweden, which was neutral during WW2, historically nationalist parties in Europe have been protectionist so protectionism in Europe is seem as xenophobic and therefore only an evil nazi would support protectionism in Sweden. Also, having open trade helps make Sweden more 'diverse'.

In North America, we never had nationalistic governments that were protectionist. USA and Canada have always been relatively open to trade. So nationalism and the far right is not associated with protectionism in Canada. Instead, free-trade is associated with capitalism and libertarianism here, so is more associated with being far right. Because of this, the NDP and the Democrats in the USA are more anti-trade since free-trade = right-wing = bad.

So in Europe, protectionism = nationalistic = right-wing = bad.

And in North America, free-trade = laisse-faire capitalism = right-wing = bad.

[-1=e^ipi]

They also have a higher VAT. I believe the NDP is not fond of the GST.

I think the differences I'd pointed out are fundamental. For example, Canada has some of the longest hospital wait times which a two-tiered system could rectify and which works well in France and other EU countries, yet the NDP ignores the evidence.

In the case of Canada, I think that Canadian politics have this bad case of 'it's conventional wisdom, and you can't go against conventional wisdom'. And this applies to all parties.

With respect to the GST, it's 'conventional wisdom' that Canadians don't like the GST, therefore no party wants to raise the GST.

With respect to the Healthcare system, it's 'conventional wisdom' that Canadians like their healthcare system, and that only two healthcare systems exist (the USA or Canada; apparently European healthcare systems don't exist in the minds of North American politicians), so no party wants to change the healthcare system because doing so will be seen as American, unpatriotic and treason.

With respect to supply management, it's 'conventional wisdom' that any party that wants to eliminate supply management will lose more votes than they will gain, therefore no party wants to eliminate it.

The same thing is seen with Catholic school systems and the LCBO in Ontario. It becomes 'conventional wisdom', so nothing gets changed.

Edited July 4, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

The real difference is everyone has a different idea of where the centre line is in the political spectrum.

One of the problems is the belief in the political spectrum being 1-dimensional (right vs left), when there are so many other dimensions to political positions.

[Second-class Canadian]

In the case of Canada, I think that Canadian politics have this bad case of 'it's conventional wisdom, and you can't go against conventional wisdom'. And this applies to all parties.

With respect to the GST, it's 'conventional wisdom' that Canadians don't like the GST, therefore no party wants to raise the GST.

With respect to the Healthcare system, it's 'conventional wisdom' that Canadians like their healthcare system, and that only two healthcare systems exist (the USA or Canada; apparently European healthcare systems don't exist in the minds of North American politicians), so no party wants to change the healthcare system because doing so will be seen as American, unpatriotic and treason.

With respect to supply management, it's 'conventional wisdom' that any party that wants to eliminate supply management will lose more votes than they will gain, therefore no party wants to eliminate it.

The same thing is seen with Catholic school systems and the LCBO in Ontario. It becomes 'conventional wisdom', so nothing gets changed.

Reading is actually depressing. Mindless politicians all unthinkingly agreeing on "convenational wisdom" because the electorate does, no politician daring to challenge the sacred cow, the only differences remaining between parties being so superficial as to make voting almost insignificant.

So, how do we shake this up?

[Second-class Canadian]

One of the problems is the belief in the political spectrum being 1-dimensional (right vs left), when there are so many other dimensions to political positions.

Very true. Yet even our "wisest"politicians in Canada seem to have blindly fallen into this trap.

[Freddy]

Reading is actually depressing. Mindless politicians all unthinkingly agreeing on "convenational wisdom" because the electorate does, no politician daring to challenge the sacred cow, the only differences remaining between parties being so superficial as to make voting almost insignificant.

So, how do we shake this up?

The same way nature has for billions of years.

Zero regulations and survival of the fittest.