Are socialists actually socialists at all?
Lots of talk recently about how Finland is a net contributer to the EU, we give more money than we receive. A *lot* of people are upset about this.
If I were to bitch and whine about the fact that I’m a net contributer to the welfare state, all the welfare statists would quickly lash out at me and call me heartless. Yet, when Finland becomes a net contributer to the EU, suddenly all the welfare statists become upset and against this redistribution of wealth.
So I wonder, are these pro-welfare state/anti-EU socialists (like much of SDP and the Left Alliance) actually socialists at all? They support the redistribution of wealth, but only if the wealth is distributed to people of their choosing. If they’re socialists, then I guess I am too! …I distribute my wealth to the people of my choosing, like my friends and family.
I don’t mind us being a net contributers. The EU has been good for us.
But I’m not really a socialist. I’m sort of a pseudo-libertarian.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
Using words like “bitch and whine” is a nice way to bias the brief piece you wrote…
You indicated a lot of people are úpset about this about this…it may be the case but definitely left-leaning members of parliament are not the only ones and definitely not the most outspoken on this issue…
Comment by Kai — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
That’s certainly true, euroskepticism isn’t attached to any political beliefs, it’s found everywhere. It just sometimes seems that the left are the most skeptic while Kokoomus are more pro-EU.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
You have a point there. A lot of people do not practise what they preach – socialists too. SDP isn’t really a socialist party though, they are social democrats. But enough about definitions…
Kokoomus are pro-EU because ultimately it’s a trade union and is good for business. So even if Finland pays more than it gets back I guess the business people (and probably everyone else too) get richer anyway. That is also why some left-wingers are euroskeptics.
There are lots of reasons to hate AND to love the EU but I’ve never really heard socialists whine about us paying more than we receive. Any links to those kinds of comments, please? Besides, we don’t pay as much as Sweden or most other rich countries. We’re basically giving developing aid to the new member countries and that’s why we “lose” money.
BTW, why does that picture have Lenin in it instead of, say, Karl Marx?
Comment by Pave — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
Thats because the is a liberalising influence on the economies of the nordic states. Less goverment and more private business are not what the left is usually about.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
With amount of bones you break and serious illnesses you develop (plus all the other social goods we all benefit from) how do you know you are net contributor to the welfare state? I might be paying for you to goof off work in your hospital bed.
I want my money back, you work-shy huckster you.
Comment by Toby — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
With amount of bones you break and serious illnesses you develop
Hehe, that’s true. Within just 3.5 years of living here, I’ve had three surgeries. Plus I was unemployment for like 8 months. I’m milking the welfare state cow!
Comment by Phil — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Just as a funny note, this actually works both ways. I’ve heard quite a few people say “Giving some money to eastern Europe will benefit us all greatly later on.” These are mostly people who don’t like the socialism in Finland.
Comment by Jani Kuusisto — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
“Within just 3.5 years of living here, I’ve had three surgeries. Plus I was unemployment for like 8 months. I’m milking the welfare state cow!”
I was just telling my wife last week that we are looking at moving back to Finland the wrong way. We really should be figuring out how much we can get for free by moving back and being unemployed. There is a bonus in that I have already worked in Finland at a high salary rate so my unemployment should be pretty good.
Oh yes. EXCELLENT POINT MADE in this post. Redistribution of wealth within the EU is very important to it’s success. I just learned yesterday that in Estonia you are considered rich if you have Ikea furniture at home. Who knew?
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
You work in a place where your Unemployment is pretty good.
WOW
I did not realize how bad you have become. There probably is no turning back now, it will take the upcoming crash of your social system to bring reality into play.
Just like the old Soviet Union.
Comment by winter — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
As a relentless Euroskeptic for more than a decade now, it’s always good to point out what the net contribution is really used for instead of only helping poorer parts of the EU to catch up with the rest. Money laundered back to Finland from Finnish taxpayers via Brussels, supporting French millionaire farmers (and Queen Elizabeth II’s farming hobby) and so on. Just check the recent scandal of the EU probably having paid millions of Euros extra for their leased premises in Strasbourg, somewhere they never should have gone it had it not been for the typical French “We’re the centre of the world” arrogance.
MM
Comment by Moral minority? — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
The Strasbourg-thing is a monument of stupidity to begin with. The whole EU parliament is packed in trucks and moved between Strasbourg and Brussels each week probably due to some ancient french cow trading. People always laugh at russians for such a spectacles and huge bureaucracy, but who brought them to russia? Yes, Peter the Great. And where did he travel to get his model? Some G- and F-countries come to mind.
As MM says above, biggest part of the EU budget goes to agriculture and the subsidies have been traditionally pissing off the finnish left, I suspect, the reason deep down is that the bloody hicks were slaughtering them in 1918. Urban Kokoomus doesn’t like the subsidies in general and these subsidies in particular, have also the smell of manure in their fine noses.
Social democrats probably stand EU, because it comes pretty close to the construct they proposed in some Socialist Internationale about 100 years ago. It offers nice career prospects for their bureaucrats and opportunities to control everything they like. Besides, the EU may be generous to Betty two-sticks and the french farmers but it is stingy to the finnish farmers.
For the extreme left then, EU is an evil capitalist construct.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
“Hehe, that’s true. Within just 3.5 years of living here, I’ve had three surgeries. Plus I was unemployment for like 8 months”
It makes it harder to take your wide-eyed libertarianism quite so seriously though! Would your health insurance have gone up if you had been in the US? Do health plans have the equivalent of a “no claims bonus” like on your car?
Comment by Toby — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
Would your health insurance have gone up if you had been in the US?
My past companies in the U.S. paid for full coverage, so I dunno.
It makes it harder to take your wide-eyed libertarianism quite so seriously though!
Why? I’ve paid alot in taxes, I’ll take any chance I can get to get some of that back.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
Serious question – For all you pro-welfare state and anti-EU people…why is okay to redistribute wealth within Finland but not the EU?
Comment by Phil — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
Phil, as someone you might label anti-EU but pro-welfare state (although I want to avoid any labelling myself), I can reply for my part. The idea of redistrubution of wealth is not bad per se, on the contrary. That leads to such contradictions as a well-off foreign resident working for Nokia who uses his freetime to bashing the Finnish welfare state has the right to receive treatment in a public Finnish hospital (instead of a private one). It’s a question of whose wealth, how much of it and for what purposes is distributed. We can always argue what amount of taxation is OK or just enough but whatever that is, I support the idea that tax money is used for purposes which I personally feel are worth it. No counterarguments, please, use of tax money is always a qustion of personal taste and we have no single truths there.
We talk here about reasonable amounts, among others, for health care, education, security, culture (not zillions for Opera etc.) and there’s nothing wrong with that. How much is used for what and so on is no absolute truth and that’s what we must discuss ourselves.
Although I’m anti-EU and would like Finland to never have joined the union and would rather see us out of there, as long as we are members, it’s a reality that we must pay a membership fee (how much is however subject to discussion). If reasonable, there’s per se nothing wrong with using the membership I also pay unwillingly to support less-off parts of the EU. However, there’s no doubt that how the EU actually uses the money is seriously questionable. Take the examples I wrote above. Neither does it make any sense to recycle Finnish taxpayer money back to Finland through Brussels to end up in zillions of useless projects which are one of the reasons for educated youngish Finns ending up in living in funding cycles to get a living.
I don’t simply know how many people there are out there who’d really think redistribution is OK within Finland but not OK within the EU. The world’s not that black and white. Both within Finland and the EU money is used for good ends and wasted in uselessness.
MM
Comment by Moral minority? — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
I dunno. All those people who whine about being netpayers in EU… I always figured its like club membership. Sure, the card costs, but you get discounts that cover them.
How much has Finland won thanks to common currency and EU membership? Jobs, comissions, projects… Not to mention the additional political power of actually being INVOLVED with something and not just covering at the corner and whispering “dont hit me”.
Comment by Justen — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Oh, and about those transfers. Ireland was really poor when it joined. Now its one of the richer countries in EU. The same will happen to Portugal and Spain. And after a while, to East-Europe. I think its worth paying about that too — the higher status of living in our own backyard will materialize in time as new markets for products and better medication (least AIDS and company spread), better drug control (less intercontinental drug trade!) etc.
It would be cool if neighbors were doing better.
Comment by Justen — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Justen, yeah, it’s very nice to be involved in something with like a 1% share of influence with countries such as France, Italy and Poland increasingly arrogant and chauvinistic. If involvement per se is an end, then it was fantastic for Estonia to be a part of the great Soviet family of nations. Well, theoretically they had some influence they wouldn’t have had if they had opted out instead of joining “voluntarily”…
In fact, in addition to our low self-esteem which caused parts of our majority to opt for EU membership so that we could finally be “Europeans” and other nonsensical arguments, one of the core reasons behind the decision was the unconscious manouevering behind the scenes by officials. No, this is no conspiracy theory, just think about it yourself. For your typical Finnish bureaucrat with a low self-esteem suddenly all the doors were opened for interesting posts abroad just in case Finland joined this club. It really takes a spine in these situations to resist the temptation and see things more clearly, and differantiate between the goof for the nation and your own personal benefits.
In one of my previous jobs, I was also involved in EU affairs and noticed my antagonism kind of decreased due to meeting with these issues on a regular basis and starting to think about them as a normal part of my life. In cases like that, you lose the perspective and slowly start getting blind.
As for the benefits, no catastrophe would ever have happened if we hadn’t joined. There was real scaremongering in Norway as well and yes, they’re doing very well. And before anyone puts afore here the oil argument, I can also point out that Switzerland and Iceland have neither and are also doing well – well, Iceland until it all ends up as it did in Finland in the early 90s. Also remember the scaremongering what would happen in Sweden if the “stupid citizens” voted against the Euro. Now, the non-Euro users among the older EU15, UK, Sweden and Denmark are doing better than Euro users, once again contrary to taistoite-like propaganda of the Euro freaks.
Finally, caring about our neighbours has no connection to being an EU member. Finland gave lots of money for example to the Balts before we joined the EU, after we joined but the Balts still weren’t in and is now indirectly contributing again after we’re both in. The so-called neighbouring area cooperation (read: giving money to Russians) goes on although Russia has no realistic chances of becoming an EU member for a long time.
Ireland surely is a success story partly because of long-term EU funding. I don’t deny that. On the other hand, just pouring money in doesn’t always help. Think about the former GDR and the amount of money the Wessis and EU have invested there.
MM
Comment by Moral minority? — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
That leads to such contradictions as a well-off foreign resident working for Nokia who uses his freetime to bashing the Finnish welfare state has the right to receive treatment in a public Finnish hospital (instead of a private one).
I went to Diacor first, they couldn’t do it. Nokia was footing the bill, so trust me, I wanted Diacor to do it.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
Hey Phil, I didn’t try to deny your right to use the public sector. Of course you do, we should treat all people equally.
But could we say the Finnish welfare saved your life indeed? I guess an untreated appendix problem might be lethal.
MM
Comment by Moral minority? — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
But could we say the Finnish welfare saved your life indeed? I guess an untreated appendix problem might be lethal.
It has nothing to do with the welfare state. A hospital, which are found all over the world, welfare state or not, saved my life. Your logic is like saying that the American military saved prisonrs at Guantanamo Bay because they feed them three times a day.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
Redistribution of wealth in Finland is just perfect. Let me make an example (not all of these are correct, but I believe the overall picture is correct):
Erja H. live in middle Finalnd in a smaller town. She is employed by the city and would otherwise she would be unemployed. Her salary is partly subsidized with money from our taxes. She doesn’t earn too much, but she enjoys the quality of her life.
She is working as farm aid to give the farmer family an opportunity to have some holidays away from the farm. The farm is heavily subsidized with our tax money because Finland agreed on less agricultural subsidies and money saved for other services will be utilized for agriculture subsidies instead of lowering taxes. That’s ok because Finns would be starving without the superior Finnish agriculture products (they have to be superior, or why would anybody pay double the price for a Finnish tomato compared to a Durch one).
Since Kaisa’s salary is low, she gets a housing subsidy from the Kela, which is also paid from our tax money.
Erja is running a local knitting club, for which she receives state funding (which is paid from our tax money), she can’t move away from the little village, even though she has graduated in Egyptology, Paleontology and Herbology (free education paid with our taxes) and might find a job elsewhere.
Another reason form not moving away are her 3 children. She wants their natural father to be close to them, even though this is not known officially. She gets the alimentary from KELA (our tax money) because the father is an artist and she doesn’t want to take his money.
Because she is so poor, KELA pays her a week of holiday in a summer cottage somewhere in Finland (paid with our tax money)
I think everybody should do that. There will always a few Finnish people, who think they can get rich here and live their lifes in this illusion.
Comment by Ragnarök — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
Sure, Norway is doing well. They have oil, as you pointed out. Iceland is doing quite well – but its in the middle of the sea. I doubt very much that it would get same sort of things out of the Union that Finland has — anyway, 20% of its trade goes to USA and Norway.
For Swizerland I cant really say anything – other that its strenghts lie in somewhere different than Finland’s.
I know that France and pals are quite annoying. But I feel that being part of EU still brings good things, that outweight the bad.
Comment by Justen — Wed, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
If we take your argument for anything but a joke, we need to understand the inmportance of nationalism. That is a strong notion in Europe. There is no way I’m going to pay(BTW, I don’t pay, I get, since I’m a student) for the lives of all Africans, or the poor of USA. We need to draw a line. The left thinks that the line is where our borders lie.
Comment by Ode — Thu, Apr 27th, 2006 @ 4:27 am
he gets the alimentary from KELA (our tax money) because the father is an artist and she doesn’t want to take his money.
Wait, the state pays because the deadbeat father can, but doesn’t want to support his own kids? Great.
Redistribution of wealth in Finland is just perfect.
Well what about those poor people just over our borders? It’s okay just to ignore them so Eija can get her three degrees and her ex-husband can paint all day long and take government-sponsored vacations?
Comment by Phil — Thu, Apr 27th, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
12. The Strasbourg-thing is a monument of stupidity to begin with. The whole EU parliament is packed in trucks and moved between Strasbourg and Brussels each week probably due to some ancient french cow trading.
Antti, we may not see eye to eye on a lot of things, but your insights on this and on a lot of other things are quite refreshing.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sat, Apr 29th, 2006 @ 5:35 am