Is Japan more socialist?

[RDClip]

I have been wondering this. Is Japan socialist like Canada or Sweden or not like America? (eg. free healthcare, etc.)

[atomiton]

Definitely socialist. More so than Canada... more like Europe.

[RDClip]

Definitely socialist. More so than Canada... more like Europe.
So, I'm assuming the tax is really high?

[atomiton]

actually... really low. sales tax is 5% and other taxes are lower.

the difference is... japanese people pay for quality goods... so the prices of the goods are higher... less support from the government... or at least that is how i always saw it.

[atomiton]

american taxes are high... for anyone who gets sick... technically those with the best genetics have low taxes.

[Maian]

Heh, I'll probably be flamed for this but...American gas taxes are really low.

[Dana]

Well you have to pay for national health insurance in japan, its based on your previous year's income so if you are poor you pay a relatively low price for great coverage. there is also private insurance here. income tax is insanely low, i think i get taxed about 10%... but then there are huge fees on other things, such as driving and what have you. All I know is that they are having a problem with the decreasing population, so I guess maybe reforms are on the horizon? Maybe not tho...

[Pierrot le Fou]

They are uber-socialist. And the tax ain't that cheap here, you just don't realize it because individual taxation is lower. Buisnesses are taxed to shit which means lower salaries, longer hours, and fewer benefits from work. It also means that the industry is less capable of competing overseas. It's all related to the devleopment of a protectionist economy based on exports.

I can go into more detail if you'd like.

[Arilou]

The japanese aren't as much socialist as a certain brand of pre-capitalist conservative, I think this goes all the way back to their flirt with Wilhelmine Germany after the Meji Restoration.

Essentially a rather influential strain within conservative though promotes welfare and other government intervention because they feel a laissez-faire policy would adversely affect stability and the national interest: Free health-care etc. etc. is seen as a means to keep the "mob" pacified. This strain of conservatism tends to be promoted by the christian-democrat parties of europe (and is often known as "social conservatism") It does not, however, share much of the ideological underpinnings of socialism.

[Kustom]

I wouldn't describe Japan as "socialist". If you're one of the underdogs or misfits, society will drag you down all the way into the ground and bury you. Poor people receive no support, and private insurance is necessary, not optional. Hell, you even have to pay for your own rescue if you are the victim of natural disasters (or kidnapping in Irak).

Japanese society is socialist (certainly not the government) in that it favors government control over the economy, people being on an equal foot economically, does not focus much on shareholder value and still has relatively low numbers of super-rich/super-poor people. Everything is changing though.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Okay, we can argue all day over semantics if we'd like, but socialized healthcare, huge taxes on the wealthy (read: corporations), protection of the domestic market, and the essential government control of business tend to make me think that while they are capitalist (there isn't government control of the businesses on paper), they sure as Hell aren't exactly for free markets or solid economic policies based on the premises of capitalism.

I guess I agree with Arilou, in a way, about the pre-capitalistic conservative conception, only that it's done in a Japanese way, which is very different from the parties of Europe which, while still backwards, innovate and change the message to forward their ideas. The lack of transparency in government finances and actions, coupled with the lack of transparency in business combines for a very iffy situation as to which is controlling whom. Clearly government policy tends to control business, but the needs of business have controlled Japan for a large part of the last half century...

[Kustom]

To sum it up, I think Japan is economically socialist, politically authoritarian and socially conservative. I'm not talking about semantics, just pointing out that Japan is not socialist the way Sweden is, I don't think we disagree.

[Arilou]

socialized healthcare

As pointed out the guy who first instituted socialized healthcare was Otto Von Bismarck... Hardly a socialist.

huge taxes on the wealthy (read: corporations),

There is nothing really inherently socialist about this, in many ways it makes sense to tax the wealthy: They've got the money after all :p

protection of the domestic market,

Definately not a socialist idea, the scandinavian countries are very much free-traders (moreso than either the US or the rest of the EU) Protectionism actually tends to be a conservative issue.

and the essential government control of business

Here we're getting closer, but no, that's not it: Socialism means government *ownership* of the means of production: An economy with the means of production owned by private interests but directed by the state is still capitalist (although not free-market) Most war-time economies operate this way, Nazi Germany being the most famous example.


tend to make me think that while they are capitalist (there isn't government control of the businesses on paper), they sure as Hell aren't exactly for free markets or solid economic policies based on the premises of capitalism.

Agreed, they definately are not laissez-faire capitalists.

The lack of transparency in government finances and actions, coupled with the lack of transparency in business combines for a very iffy situation as to which is controlling whom.

Very much so: The situation is similar to Wilhelmine Germany or Robber-Baron-Era USA: There is a kind of collusion between business and politics that makes them hard to separate, note that this is the *opposite* of socialist though where the objective, at least theoretically, is to put the economy under the control of "the people" (either via political/democratic means or via their representatives in the Party)

Clearly government policy tends to control business, but the needs of business have controlled Japan for a large part of the last half century...

Exactamundo.

[RDClip]

Here we're getting closer, but no, that's not it: Socialism means government *ownership* of the means of production: An economy with the means of production owned by private interests but directed by the state is still capitalist (although not free-market) Most war-time economies operate this way, Nazi Germany being the most famous example.
I really wasin't asking if they are strictly socialist. I was inquiring if they are more on the Socialist side of democracy. We in Canada like to refer to our system as a Socialist Democracy. And I gather from the comments here that Japan could be considered one as well.

[Arilou]

I really wasin't asking if they are strictly socialist. I was inquiring if they are more on the Socialist side of democracy. We in Canada like to refer to our system as a Socialist Democracy. And I gather from the comments here that Japan could be considered one as well.

I think even then the ideological difference is pretty large: The Liberal-Democratic party is not socialist (of course they're not liberal either, despite the name) and the Socialist party has never really held power (apart form like, 2 terms) Japan's nationalist/protectionist/"collusion with the corporation" policy is a lot more conservative than socialist.

[Kustom]

I'm pretty sure I understand what you meant RDClip and my answer would be a big "no". If you mean socialist as in "big bad soviet-like bureaucracy that gets in the way of free market", then sure, it is Japan.
If you mean it as in "a society that protects the weak and has a generous providence-state with plenty of social safety-nets", then that's Canada or Norway but definitely not Japan. Honestly I cannot think of many similarities between Japan and Canada... Both people like to watch mapple leaves fall in Autumn?

[Pierrot le Fou]

Okay, in our day and age, we know that both communism and socialism are lost causes. When people scream 'socialist' they never mean the actual textbook definition of socialism -- they mean a lot of taxes serving to redistribute the wealth and serve the common person.

I agree with you, in effect, that Japan is a far different cup o' tea than the Scandanavian/European/Canadian socialist-democracies (for lack of an accurate term which is escaping my mind at the moment), but I believe that it is along a similar (if more fucked up/old) path.

While you argue that conservatives are the proponents of closed economies, you really have to define 'conservative' within a specific political viewpoint. In the US, the liberals like to defend union construction/manufacturing jobs (in the blue states) while conservatives like to defend agricultural jobs (in the red states). Conservatives, wanting to maintain the status quo by a dictionary definition of conservative, would definitely be the ones in favor of protectionism, but it's so rare that the theoretical definition and the people who apply that label to themselves are equivalent.

I'd argue that Japan is actually more socialist (as in closer to socialist reality) than the other social-democracies. Why? Because of the massive bureaucracy, the extreme wealth disparity, the lack of upward mobility, and the entire futility of change short of revolution.

But that's a different conversation.

[Kustom]

Yup, it's a different conversation.
As you guessed, we don't all hold negative views about socialism and certainly have different definitions of "socialist realities". I think RDClip sees it as a positive thing. But I'd like to hear more about how you became so bitter about socialism one day, if you're so inclined I just created a thread that might suit that purpose.

[Arilou]

I agree with you, in effect, that Japan is a far different cup o' tea than the Scandanavian/European/Canadian socialist-democracies (for lack of an accurate term which is escaping my mind at the moment), but I believe that it is along a similar (if more fucked up/old) path.

The term in use here is usually "Welfare-state" (which I guess *could* include Japan, not sure how they do things) or, at least for Scandinavia: "Social Democracy" is the term used (taken from the ruling parties that built up the scandinavian models)

For sweden in particular the word "Folkhemmet" (lit. "People's Home" is used).

I doubt any swede, finn, norwegian or dane would describe their society as "socialist" though.

While you argue that conservatives are the proponents of closed economies, you really have to define 'conservative' within a specific political viewpoint

True, "conservative" is all the more problematic as it is not a formulated theory (like Socialism, most socialist parties at least *relate* to Marxism somehow: Either by rejecting it and forging a different path or accepting it) or even Liberalism (which has people like JS Mill and John Locke proposing it's ideas) Conservatism is generally an anti-ideology coupled with a certain amount of nostalgia... The closest thing I can think of to a conservative ideologue would be Hegel and Burke, the latter moreso than the former.

In the US, the liberals like to defend union construction/manufacturing jobs (in the blue states) while conservatives like to defend agricultural jobs (in the red states). Conservatives, wanting to maintain the status quo by a dictionary definition of conservative, would definitely be the ones in favor of protectionism, but it's so rare that the theoretical definition and the people who apply that label to themselves are equivalent.


I (when i remember to do it :p) tend to distinguish between Conservative (IE:A person of conservative ideology) and conservative (sceptical towards change) a conservative can be found in any politicial affiliation, a Conservative is always right-wing.

I'd argue that Japan is actually more socialist (as in closer to socialist reality)

Strange, unless you mean "closer to a socialist state as predicted by Marx because their repressive society is close to a revolution" but that's a pretty obscure and outdated view of "socialism".... Because you see:

Why? Because of the massive bureaucracy

Which is quite irrelevant. 17th century Sweden had a for it's time massive bureaucracy, but was not anywhere near socialist (the term wasn't even coined)


the extreme wealth disparity,

Isn't the entire point of socialism to eliminate wealth disparity?

the lack of upward mobility,[/QUOTEit

Ditto, you can actually say what you want about communist states, but they tended to be pretty meritocratic (given a certain value of "merit" "Merit" was of course often defined as "serving the communist part") Gorbachev was the son of a peasant, Stalin was a low-level student (wanted to become a priest) Trotsky was son of a lawayer, Mao was assistant-librarian... The point is moot anyway: A socialist state would indeed not have much "upward mobility" but it would also not be heirarchical: In a sense there would be no "up" to go to. Japan is extremely hierarchical.

[QUOTE] and the entire futility of change short of revolution.

...

[Pierrot le Fou]

My point is that while Marxist ideology is all well and good about making everyone and their wealth equal, both communism and socialism in practice tend to do the exact opposite -- merit gets replaced with pull in practice, and those who know enough people to benefit from nepotism quickly break away, receiving better positions with less work and better benefits.

Just like Japan.

That's what I was saying.

(and in my world, right-wing refers to laissez faire capitalist right-wingers. What perspective are you referring to right-wing for?)

[atomiton]

sheesh... what a bunch of political mumbo jumbo.

Interesting though... just curious... I would assume that in the United States, where every man is for themselves, kids are mostly taught the evils of Socialism, right?

That's always the idea that i get... that most feel taxes should be lower and lower (like how walmart slashes prices ^_^ ) and everyone should be able fend for themselves, and the government has no right to tell me what to do, ever. There seems to be a large emphasis on personal rights. I'm not going to get into the ideological rights or wrongs of this way of thinking... I'm just curious what they teach at school... because after all, along with parents and journalists, teachers are usually the most influential people in our lives.

[Arilou]

I had posted a HUGE post on the various political ideologies but it was wasted by IE.