Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, you're saying we can consider "social democracy" as something different from "socialism," so Americans should have no fear that doing what northern European governments do is "socialism."
Okay.
Obviously they should not fear being more like Europe, because of socialism. I think the people who make that argument, is the same kind of people who think Trump could be a good president.
However, there is no northern European model, they are in fact quite different. I think there exist three main economic models used by western democracies.
1. Liberal model - It is characterized by low taxes and low regulations. This is a model that is used by US, Switzerland and Australia.
2. Liberal Social Democrats. It is characterized by high taxes and low regulations. This is a model used primarily by Denmark, but you can also see it in Sweden, Netherlands and Germany.
3. Traditional Social Democrats. It is characterized by high taxes and high regulations. This is a model used by France and Italy.
So why shouldn't we elect Bernie Sanders, because he is no liberal social democrat. What makes him so popular is that he doesn't make exceptions, but that also makes him a traditional social democrat, hence you are comparing him against the wrong countries. Do I want US to become more like France and Italy, no I don't, hence I don't support Bernie Sanders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kool Krab
As for Switzerland, I admit that it does somewhat go against my argument. You make a strong point. They are a very unique case. Would an American conservative be supportive of their mandatory paid maternity and holiday leave laws though? I'm not so sure.
I think some conservatives do, and I certainly do not think it is the reason it is not implemented. Democrats support it, most independents support it, and some republicans support it. A 6 months paid maternity leave would cost about 20-30 billion dollars. Thats pocket change for the politicians.
I don't think popular support is the reason it is not implemented. I think the reason it is not implemented is because political donors are against it. This affects both Democrats and Republicans.
Denmark is good for business
The average Dane has a household debt equal to 310% of his disposable income, one of the highest for personal debt in the world, if not the highest. The average American household debt is considerably lower at 114%.
Socialism costs money. If the government gives something to someone it has to take that from someone else.
I've lived in NZ a few years and it didn't strike me as a more advanced country than the US.
NZ isn't a Socialist country though.
Like all countries, it has areas in which government exerts authority, for ideological or economic purposes. But the economic driver, is activity by individuals.
They are called social democracies, not socialist democracies.
well actually
social democracy is a self-proclaimed international revolutionary socialist party, aiming to abolish capitalism by any means necessary -- including the ballot box.
Thus electioneering results in the fight being carried out by means of leaders, in which the masses can play but a minor role. In practice it means a handful of individuals, the representatives, carry on the struggle on behalf of the masses. It can only lead to the illusion that others can do the fighting for us - regardless of the wishes of the leaders in question. Once radicals are elected the whole focal point of struggle changes. Rather than direct struggle against the state and the boss, this is no longer needed as the elected representatives will act or people will think they will act and so not act themselves. They have elected someone to fight for them and so do not need to fight themselves. If radicals are elected to fight for people, can we be surprised if people do not act themselves? The notion that reforms (indeed, the revolution) would be the work of leaders acting on behalf of the masses soon followed, with the masses reduced to voters and followers, not active participants in the struggle.
Moreover, socialist support for electioneering is somewhat at odds with their claims of being in favor of collective, mass action. There is nothing more isolated, atomized and individualistic than voting. It is the total opposite of collective struggle. The individual is alone before, during and after the act of voting. Unlike direct action, which, by its very nature, throws up new forms of organization in order to manage and co-ordinate the struggle, voting creates no alternative organs of working class self-management. Nor can it. It is not based on, nor does it create, collective action or organization. Given that socialists often slander anarchists as "individualists" the irony is delicious!
you do realize that socialism, social democracy, communism, nazisism, and fascism are all part of the same family.
look at the kinship between communism, fascism, and liberalism. All derive from the same tradition that goes back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. His revised political spectrum would focus on the role of the state and go from libertarianism to conservatism to fascism in its many guises – American, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on.
As this listing suggests, fascism is flexible; different iterations differ in specifics but they share "emotional or instinctual impulses." Mussolini tweaked the socialist agenda to emphasize the state; Lenin made workers the vanguard party; Hitler added race. If the German version was militaristic, the American one which could be called liberal fascism is nearly pacifist.
The Social Democrats, USA is the same Socialist Party of America as is has been since August 1, 1901, an is LEFT WING. Social Democratic Party was originally founded June 11, 1898 as a direct political offshoot of the communalist Social Democracy of America (Labor Day Message of 1897 by Eugene Victor Debs). After a merger with the Socialist Party of America (1901) the party remained essentially the same although the named varied a few times. From 1900 (before its formal union) to 1912, the Socialist Party ran Eugene Debs for President at each election. The best showing ever for a Socialist ticket was in 1912, when Debs gained 901,551 total votes, or 6% of the popular vote. we are the party of Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Helen Keller, Norman Thomas, A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin.
social democracy is a self-proclaimed international revolutionary socialist party, aiming to abolish capitalism by any means necessary -- including the ballot box.
Thus electioneering results in the fight being carried out by means of leaders, in which the masses can play but a minor role. In practice it means a handful of individuals, the representatives, carry on the struggle on behalf of the masses. It can only lead to the illusion that others can do the fighting for us - regardless of the wishes of the leaders in question. Once radicals are elected the whole focal point of struggle changes. Rather than direct struggle against the state and the boss, this is no longer needed as the elected representatives will act or people will think they will act and so not act themselves. They have elected someone to fight for them and so do not need to fight themselves. If radicals are elected to fight for people, can we be surprised if people do not act themselves? The notion that reforms (indeed, the revolution) would be the work of leaders acting on behalf of the masses soon followed, with the masses reduced to voters and followers, not active participants in the struggle.
Moreover, socialist support for electioneering is somewhat at odds with their claims of being in favor of collective, mass action. There is nothing more isolated, atomized and individualistic than voting. It is the total opposite of collective struggle. The individual is alone before, during and after the act of voting. Unlike direct action, which, by its very nature, throws up new forms of organization in order to manage and co-ordinate the struggle, voting creates no alternative organs of working class self-management. Nor can it. It is not based on, nor does it create, collective action or organization. Given that socialists often slander anarchists as "individualists" the irony is delicious!
you do realize that socialism, social democracy, communism, nazisism, and fascism are all part of the same family.
look at the kinship between communism, fascism, and liberalism. All derive from the same tradition that goes back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. His revised political spectrum would focus on the role of the state and go from libertarianism to conservatism to fascism in its many guises – American, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on.
As this listing suggests, fascism is flexible; different iterations differ in specifics but they share "emotional or instinctual impulses." Mussolini tweaked the socialist agenda to emphasize the state; Lenin made workers the vanguard party; Hitler added race. If the German version was militaristic, the American one which could be called liberal fascism is nearly pacifist.
The Social Democrats, USA is the same Socialist Party of America as is has been since August 1, 1901, an is LEFT WING. Social Democratic Party was originally founded June 11, 1898 as a direct political offshoot of the communalist Social Democracy of America (Labor Day Message of 1897 by Eugene Victor Debs). After a merger with the Socialist Party of America (1901) the party remained essentially the same although the named varied a few times. From 1900 (before its formal union) to 1912, the Socialist Party ran Eugene Debs for President at each election. The best showing ever for a Socialist ticket was in 1912, when Debs gained 901,551 total votes, or 6% of the popular vote. we are the party of Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Helen Keller, Norman Thomas, A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin.
Each time you copy and paste this it shows up in a Google search. Just a friendly heads-up.
With all this Occupy Wall Street protesting going on, it seems that these people are advocating a more socialist government. But, has socialism ever worked over the long term, to the point that it would be better than capitalist U.S. policy? Can someone give me examples of successful socialist countries that have lasted for the LONG TERM and/or will likely last for the LONG TERM? Should the U.S. envy other socialist countries? Does it really work better as these Occupy Wall Street people believe it would? Honestly, it seems like the Tea Party of the left.
Enlighten me.
The US from the end of the Great Depression through today is a great example of socialism that worked. It is also a great example of capitalism that worked. No modern functional state has ever existed that was not an effective mix of socialism and capitalism. You question forces us to pick one or the other - a false premise.
Pure Socialism might work for countries the size of Sweden, Denmark, etc. with between 5-20 million people, but the United States has about 320 million people living in it... there is a big difference in trying to make it work here and at the same time have it sustainable for decades upon decades.
Pure Socialism might work for countries the size of Sweden, Denmark, etc. with between 5-20 million people, but the United States has about 320 million people living in it... there is a big difference in trying to make it work here and at the same time have it sustainable for decades upon decades.
Why?
I hear people asserting this as some kind of fact, but nobody can explain why they believe it to be true.
Pure Socialism might work for countries the size of Sweden, Denmark, etc. with between 5-20 million people, but the United States has about 320 million people living in it... there is a big difference in trying to make it work here and at the same time have it sustainable for decades upon decades.
The last I checked none of the countries you've listed or alluded to are "pure" socialist states. In fact state owned business in Sweden are pretty much along the exact same lines as federal and state owned enterprises in the U.S. with the exception of Apoteket which is the national pharmaceutical retailing monopoly that accentuates Sweden's national health program.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
