Socialism and the elite

[jason]

A lot of Libertarian literature discusses how the elite/special interests have been pushing for socialism in the US for 100 plus years because, since they exert such strong influence over the the US government, then the bigger and more powerful the government becomes, the wealthier and more powerful the elite become.  This seems to make sense, but if this is true, why is it that the Nordic countries have a much more socialist government than the US, yet they do not seem to be overrun by crony capitalism and corruption?  One does not get the sense that the big Nordic governments are being completely steered by the special interests.  If anything, it seems that the US government is far more under the influence of special interests than they are.  Is this accurate?  If true, doesn't this prove that more socialism does not necessarily lead to more domination by the special interests/elite, and that people can govern themselves with big government, but at the same time keep the corporations/special interests/elites in check?  Am I missing something here?

[Libertarian666]

There are a couple of points to notice here:

1. The Nordic countries are very homogeneous socially. This makes socialism work a lot better than it does with heterogeneous societies like the US.
2. They also aren't that socialistic. In fact, they aren't even as socialistic as the US in some ways:
"In some ways, Sweden is now less progressive than the United States. Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw writes that the wealthiest decile of Swedes carries 26.7 percent of the tax burden. In The United States, the figure is a whopping 45.1 percent. Additionally, wealth inequality is more pronounced in Scandinavian countries than it is in the United States. In Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway, the top decile of earners own between 65 and 69 percent of the country’s total wealth, an astonishing figure. Sanders is apparently unaware of this reality, given that one of his primary reasons for praising Scandinavia was their low levels of wealth inequality."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/sca ... -paradise/

Other than that, I have no idea.

[jason]

There are a couple of points to notice here:

1. The Nordic countries are very homogeneous socially. This makes socialism work a lot better than it does with heterogeneous societies like the US.
2. They also aren't that socialistic. In fact, they aren't even as socialistic as the US in some ways:
"In some ways, Sweden is now less progressive than the United States. Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw writes that the wealthiest decile of Swedes carries 26.7 percent of the tax burden. In The United States, the figure is a whopping 45.1 percent. Additionally, wealth inequality is more pronounced in Scandinavian countries than it is in the United States. In Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway, the top decile of earners own between 65 and 69 percent of the country’s total wealth, an astonishing figure. Sanders is apparently unaware of this reality, given that one of his primary reasons for praising Scandinavia was their low levels of wealth inequality."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/sca ... -paradise/

Other than that, I have no idea.

That makes a lot of sense.  I guess to see something more like actual socialism, you need to look at a country like China.  And I think it's pretty clear that the special interests/elite run the show in China.  So I guess that's why Libertarians often allege that the elite want to move the US in the direction of China.

[Mountaineer]

I have a new understanding of our "open borders" policy; it is a grand strategy to reduce the potential for the US to go socialist.  I knew obama was the smartest man on the planet since Solomon.  Now I feel humbled by not listening to all those times he told us about his greatness. 

... M

[MediumTex]

I think that being both ethnically homogeneous and living in a harsh climate can push a society toward socialism.  The ethnic bit is covered above, but I think the harsh climate tends to create a set of cultural norms where people are expected to help each other out when times are tough.

In the U.S. most of the more socialist-leaning states are in areas with harsh climates.

[moda0306]

There are a couple of points to notice here:

1. The Nordic countries are very homogeneous socially. This makes socialism work a lot better than it does with heterogeneous societies like the US.
2. They also aren't that socialistic. In fact, they aren't even as socialistic as the US in some ways:
"In some ways, Sweden is now less progressive than the United States. Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw writes that the wealthiest decile of Swedes carries 26.7 percent of the tax burden. In The United States, the figure is a whopping 45.1 percent. Additionally, wealth inequality is more pronounced in Scandinavian countries than it is in the United States. In Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway, the top decile of earners own between 65 and 69 percent of the country’s total wealth, an astonishing figure. Sanders is apparently unaware of this reality, given that one of his primary reasons for praising Scandinavia was their low levels of wealth inequality."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/sca ... -paradise/

Other than that, I have no idea.

Does homogeneity make socialism work better, or does it simply induce people to accept it more, as they don't see so many others as "others?"  Why, fundamentally, should a heterogeneous society have more difficulty with socialism?  Homogeneity might contribute to economic strength, which allows room to pay for basic needs socially such as food, water, shelter, education, and medical care without sinking the rest of the economy, but isn't that the strength of the economy at work?? 

[Pointedstick]

Homogeneity leads to high social trust. High social trust reduces people's likelihood of becoming free riders in a variety of ways, since they empathize with the group that would be hurt in the abstract (their own). Free riders stress any system predicated on trust that lacks a huge infrastructure to prevent fraud.

[moda0306]

Homogeneity leads to high social trust. High social trust reduces people's likelihood of becoming free riders in a variety of ways, since they empathize with the group that would be hurt in the abstract (their own). Free riders stress any system predicated on trust that lacks a huge infrastructure to prevent fraud.

Really?  I know a lot of poor white people who complain about black people getting the same tax credits they do.  They just don't see themselves as lazy because they hunt on the weekends rather than putting spin rims on their car.

Further, take France... don't tons of people take advantage of their mandatory child leave, 30 hour work weeks and long vacations (totally assuming here).  I'd be surprised if most people didn't take FULL advantage of that stuff. 

I agree that high social cohesion creates social trust.  However, this just results in seeing Grandpa's Social Security planning as "smart financial planning move" while poor people are "milking the system" with food stamps (literally had a very conservative, "responsible" friend of mine brag to me about how his Grandpa got all his money to his kids before his nursing home stay so he could have the stay paid for free by Medicaid... he loves his Grandpa who shoved hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability onto the government... can't stand "those people" for getting free handouts).

[MachineGhost]

[quote=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/go ... u-live-in/]Yankeedom: Founded by Puritans, residents in Northeastern states and the industrial Midwest tend to be more comfortable with government regulation. They value education and the common good more than other regions.

New Netherland: The Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world when New York was founded, Woodard writes, so it’s no wonder that the region has been a hub of global commerce. It’s also the region most accepting of historically persecuted populations.

The Midlands: Stretching from Quaker territory west through Iowa and into more populated areas of the Midwest, the Midlands are “pluralistic and organized around the middle class.” Government intrusion is unwelcome, and ethnic and ideological purity isn’t a priority.

Tidewater: The coastal regions in the English colonies of Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware tend to respect authority and value tradition. Once the most powerful American nation, it began to decline during Westward expansion.

Greater Appalachia: Extending from West Virginia through the Great Smoky Mountains and into Northwest Texas, the descendants of Irish, English and Scottish settlers value individual liberty. Residents are “intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers.”

Deep South: Dixie still traces its roots to the caste system established by masters who tried to duplicate West Indies-style slave society, Woodard writes. The Old South values states’ rights and local control and fights the expansion of federal powers.

El Norte: Southwest Texas and the border region is the oldest, and most linguistically different, nation in the Americas. Hard work and self-sufficiency are prized values.

The Left Coast: A hybrid, Woodard says, of Appalachian independence and Yankee utopianism loosely defined by the Pacific Ocean on one side and coastal mountain ranges like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevadas on the other. The independence and innovation required of early explorers continues to manifest in places like Silicon Valley and the tech companies around Seattle.

The Far West: The Great Plains and the Mountain West were built by industry, made necessary by harsh, sometimes inhospitable climates. Far Westerners are intensely libertarian and deeply distrustful of big institutions, whether they are railroads and monopolies or the federal government.

New France: Former French colonies in and around New Orleans and Quebec tend toward consensus and egalitarian, “among the most liberal on the continent, with unusually tolerant attitudes toward gays and people of all races and a ready acceptance of government involvement in the economy,” Woodard writes.

First Nation: The few First Nation peoples left — Native Americans who never gave up their land to white settlers — are mainly in the harshly Arctic north of Canada and Alaska. They have sovereignty over their lands, but their population is only around 300,000.[/quote]