Thoughts on Social Democracy?

[A.S.]

'Socialist' has become an epithet in a lot of American political discourse, usually by comparison to Leninism and Stalinism. There are people who view it as an ideology promoting the common good of all, others who view it as an abomination of any free country, and a spectrum of views in between. I want to know your thoughts.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The Right has been flat-out blowing it about the Left, screaming "socialism" and "communism" and "Marxism", completely missing the target.

The goal of the Left is a Euro-social democracy, and the Right is essentially assisting them with their hyperbole and their inaccuracy. While the Right is screaming and using the wrong terms, the Left is winning. We'll be there in 20 to 25 years, sooner depending on how quickly the Left can effectively dissolve the southern border.

.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The left is hell bent on destroying this country.

 

[KNB]

The left is hell bent on destroying this country.

Rich people are getting richer. That means that job creators have more money to create more jobs.

Why aren't job creators creating any jobs?

 

[A.S.]

.

The Right has been flat-out blowing it about the Left, screaming "socialism" and "communism" and "Marxism", completely missing the target.

The goal of the Left is a Euro-social democracy, and the Right is essentially assisting them with their hyperbole and their inaccuracy. While the Right is screaming and using the wrong terms, the Left is winning. We'll be there in 20 to 25 years, sooner depending on how quickly the Left can effectively dissolve the southern border.

.

I agree. And the Right has been giving itself a bad reputation lately, trying to ban victimless acts on the basis of religious beliefs and make Reaganomics work.

 

[A.S.]

The left is hell bent on destroying this country.

Care to elaborate? How is the left destroying this country when the right are making the rich richer and making life harder for the poor? Or generally being bigoted to homosexuals and atheists?

 

[Mac1958]

'Socialist' has become an epithet in a lot of American political discourse, usually by comparison to Leninism and Stalinism. There are people who view it as an ideology promoting the common good of all, others who view it as an abomination of any free country, and a spectrum of views in between. I want to know your thoughts.

I don't think you're going to get many lefties here to support your premise. My impression is that they're not quite ready to admit what they're after - shooting down the hyperbole of the Right is enough for them. I often mention the fact that the Left is after a Euro-social democracy, and I have not yet had any of them deny it.

However, I do sense that they have become significantly more bold since Obama took office, and I suspect we'll see more honest people like you chiming in. A little more here, a little more there.

While, of course, they're having fun watching the Right incorrectly scream "socialism" and "communism" and "Marxism".



.

 

[A.S.]

'Socialist' has become an epithet in a lot of American political discourse, usually by comparison to Leninism and Stalinism. There are people who view it as an ideology promoting the common good of all, others who view it as an abomination of any free country, and a spectrum of views in between. I want to know your thoughts.

I don't think you're going to get many lefties here to support your premise. My impression is that they're not quite ready to admit what they're after - shooting down the hyperbole of the Right is enough for them. I often mention the fact that the Left is after a Euro-social democracy, and I have not yet had any of them deny it.

However, I do sense that they have become significantly more bold since Obama took office, and I suspect we'll see more honest people like you chiming in. A little more here, a little more there.

While, of course, they're having fun watching the Right incorrectly scream "socialism" and "communism" and "Marxism".



.

I think the American Left is guilty of the same thing at times. I've heard Democrats call Republicans fascists and nazis in similar contexts. It kind of worries me at times, especially when such hateful attitudes are fairly prevalent in less politically knowledgeable people.

It would be political suicide right now to openly pursue social democracy (at least by that name), and I think that's why they're afraid to admit what they're after. After all, it could easily be construed as "the Right knew all along!"

 

[westwall]

Socialism taken too far is terrible for a country. Capitalism taken too far is terrible for a country. The best countries are those with a healthy mix of both political ideologies.

The USA right now is no longer truly capitalistic. We have entered into the era of political cronyism and multinational corporations dictating policy to limit the mom and pop shops that compete with them.

The free market became a fantasy around 30 years ago.....

 

[A.S.]

Socialism taken too far is terrible for a country. Capitalism taken too far is terrible for a country. The best countries are those with a healthy mix of both political ideologies.

The USA right now is no longer truly capitalistic. We have entered into the era of political cronyism and multinational corporations dictating policy to limit the mom and pop shops that compete with them.

The free market became a fantasy around 30 years ago.....

True, to an extent. Socialism=/=completely planned economy. That would be Communism.

The free market isn't necessarily a fantasy...yet. The cronyism has begun to take hold, especially as campaign finance regulations were actually relaxed by a Supreme Court decision a year or two ago. There is still time to stop it, our votes still matter, and small businesses can still survive as long as they don't become too big a threat to the multinationals.

Such is the result of Capitalism going too far. The government needs to intervene more, and at the same time, more controls need to be placed on government officials to make corruption more difficult.

 

[Contumacious]

Social Democracy?.

That is just a term which the left wingers use in order to to surreptitiously "wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, and to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…" , aka, Communism.

.

 

[A.S.]

Wow, some hostility toward Social Democracy in the polls

 

[westwall]

Socialism taken too far is terrible for a country. Capitalism taken too far is terrible for a country. The best countries are those with a healthy mix of both political ideologies.

The USA right now is no longer truly capitalistic. We have entered into the era of political cronyism and multinational corporations dictating policy to limit the mom and pop shops that compete with them.

The free market became a fantasy around 30 years ago.....

True, to an extent. Socialism=/=completely planned economy. That would be Communism.

The free market isn't necessarily a fantasy...yet. The cronyism has begun to take hold, especially as campaign finance regulations were actually relaxed by a Supreme Court decision a year or two ago. There is still time to stop it, our votes still matter, and small businesses can still survive as long as they don't become too big a threat to the multinationals.

Such is the result of Capitalism going too far. The government needs to intervene more, and at the same time, more controls need to be placed on government officials to make corruption more difficult.

The government needs to reign in multinational corporations and leave the rest of us alone. That would see the biggest positive economic impact and the most benefit for the general public.

There is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF INDIVIDUALS, AND SMALL COMPANIES.

 

[A.S.]

Social Democracy?.

That is just a term which the left wingers use in order to to surreptitiously "wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, and to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…" , aka, Communism.

.

No, what you describe is Communism, not Social Democracy. You don't have a full understanding of what the term means if you think the two are equal. Let me give you some bullet points.

-A Communist wants everyone to have equal income. A Social Democrat wants everyone to have equal opportunity to earn income.

-A Communist wants to take all the rich people's money and assets by force. A Social Democrat acknowledges that there will always be rich and poor people, and so wants the rich to pay higher taxes because they earn more.

-A Communist wants to nationalize all industry and production. A Social Democrat may not want any nationalization, but if he does, it will only be industries that people literally can't live without, reasoning that the forces of supply and demand are unfair when we can't stop demanding a product/service out of necessity.

 

[A.S.]

Socialism taken too far is terrible for a country. Capitalism taken too far is terrible for a country. The best countries are those with a healthy mix of both political ideologies.

The USA right now is no longer truly capitalistic. We have entered into the era of political cronyism and multinational corporations dictating policy to limit the mom and pop shops that compete with them.

The free market became a fantasy around 30 years ago.....

True, to an extent. Socialism=/=completely planned economy. That would be Communism.

The free market isn't necessarily a fantasy...yet. The cronyism has begun to take hold, especially as campaign finance regulations were actually relaxed by a Supreme Court decision a year or two ago. There is still time to stop it, our votes still matter, and small businesses can still survive as long as they don't become too big a threat to the multinationals.

Such is the result of Capitalism going too far. The government needs to intervene more, and at the same time, more controls need to be placed on government officials to make corruption more difficult.

The government needs to reign in multinational corporations and leave the rest of us alone. That would see the biggest positive economic impact and the most benefit for the general public.

There is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF INDIVIDUALS, AND SMALL COMPANIES.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Mac1958]

'Socialist' has become an epithet in a lot of American political discourse, usually by comparison to Leninism and Stalinism. There are people who view it as an ideology promoting the common good of all, others who view it as an abomination of any free country, and a spectrum of views in between. I want to know your thoughts.

I don't think you're going to get many lefties here to support your premise. My impression is that they're not quite ready to admit what they're after - shooting down the hyperbole of the Right is enough for them. I often mention the fact that the Left is after a Euro-social democracy, and I have not yet had any of them deny it.

However, I do sense that they have become significantly more bold since Obama took office, and I suspect we'll see more honest people like you chiming in. A little more here, a little more there.

While, of course, they're having fun watching the Right incorrectly scream "socialism" and "communism" and "Marxism".



.

I think the American Left is guilty of the same thing at times. I've heard Democrats call Republicans fascists and nazis in similar contexts. It kind of worries me at times, especially when such hateful attitudes are fairly prevalent in less politically knowledgeable people.

It would be political suicide right now to openly pursue social democracy (at least by that name), and I think that's why they're afraid to admit what they're after. After all, it could easily be construed as "the Right knew all along!"

Agree completely.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

'Socialist' has become an epithet in a lot of American political discourse, usually by comparison to Leninism and Stalinism. There are people who view it as an ideology promoting the common good of all, others who view it as an abomination of any free country, and a spectrum of views in between. I want to know your thoughts.

I don't think you're going to get many lefties here to support your premise. My impression is that they're not quite ready to admit what they're after - shooting down the hyperbole of the Right is enough for them. I often mention the fact that the Left is after a Euro-social democracy, and I have not yet had any of them deny it.

However, I do sense that they have become significantly more bold since Obama took office, and I suspect we'll see more honest people like you chiming in. A little more here, a little more there.

While, of course, they're having fun watching the Right incorrectly scream "socialism" and "communism" and "Marxism".



.

Please describe a Euro-Social Democracy. Specifically, how would it differ from what we have now? You may be correct in your belief that the left wants this. But until you define it for us.....we won't know, will we. Maybe you could tell us what country's system that you believe we want to emulate? The Nordic Model? Is that what you refer to?

If your description fits....there will be no reluctance to admit it.

Thanks.

 

[Contumacious]

Social Democracy?.

That is just a term which the left wingers use in order to to surreptitiously "wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, and to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…" , aka, Communism.

.

No, what you describe is Communism, not Social Democracy. You don't have a full understanding of what the term means if you think the two are equal. Let me give you some bullet points.

-A Communist wants everyone to have equal income. A Social Democrat wants everyone to have equal opportunity to earn income.

-A Communist wants to take all the rich people's money and assets by force. A Social Democrat acknowledges that there will always be rich and poor people, and so wants the rich to pay higher taxes because they earn more.

-A Communist wants to nationalize all industry and production. A Social Democrat may not want any nationalization, but if he does, it will only be industries that people literally can't live without, reasoning that the forces of supply and demand are unfair when we can't stop demanding a product/service out of necessity.

Understood.

What you described is called FASCISM - but fascism will always culminate in communism. Under fascism state bureaucrats determine what is appropriate - and what rights , or privileges the people will have.

.

.

.

 

[A.S.]

That is just a term which the left wingers use in order to to surreptitiously "wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, and to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…" , aka, Communism.

.

No, what you describe is Communism, not Social Democracy. You don't have a full understanding of what the term means if you think the two are equal. Let me give you some bullet points.

-A Communist wants everyone to have equal income. A Social Democrat wants everyone to have equal opportunity to earn income.

-A Communist wants to take all the rich people's money and assets by force. A Social Democrat acknowledges that there will always be rich and poor people, and so wants the rich to pay higher taxes because they earn more.

-A Communist wants to nationalize all industry and production. A Social Democrat may not want any nationalization, but if he does, it will only be industries that people literally can't live without, reasoning that the forces of supply and demand are unfair when we can't stop demanding a product/service out of necessity.

Understood.

What you described is called FASCISM - but fascism will always culminate in communism. Under fascism state bureaucrats determine what is appropriate - and what rights , or privileges the people will have.

.

.

.

I can do the same thing for Fascism. The USSR had more parallels to Fascism than actual Marxism/Leninism:

-A Communist (a real one) wants to control all economic freedom. A Fascist wants to control all social freedom.

-A Communist wants to eliminate all corporations in favor of the state producing goods for free. A Fascist actually values a free market except where it would directly contradict state interest.

-A Communist promotes equality above all else, despite differences in work performed. A Fascist promotes national strength and (often) racial/religious/ideological purity above all else, and completely devalues the lives of individuals in favor of this.

-A Communist hates the rich. A Fascist hates the poor.

They are equally oppressive, but are quite distinct from each other. Pure Capitalism results in something similar to both, but run by corporations out of greed. Just look at the latter half of the 19th century in the Western world. They may not have been above the government, but they were certainly oppressive until reforms were passed.

EDIT: I read your article, and it even says that it is the opposite of "Marxian Socialism," or as it is more commonly referred to, Communism.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The social democracies of Sweden, Germany and France have not devolved into communism or Marxism or anything like them. Nor will they. Unfortunately, the social democracies of Spain and Greece and Portugal (and perhaps Ireland) have devolved into big piles of shit. But more importantly, the countries are not nearly as dynamic or exciting or attractive to talent as America has been, as it has avoided becoming a social democracy.

America is more high risk, high reward, high failure, and that's an environment that will always be more dynamic and more creative and filled with more possibilities. But as such, it will always be an easy target for social democrats who want to point out that such a dynamic environment may not be "fair". The comfy mediocrity of a social democracy becomes more attractive to those who put government-induced "fairness" at a higher priority.

As long as the Right keeps missing the target, as long as they keep screaming simplistic hyperbole, the social democrats have an open field in front of them to get what they want. My guess is that we've passed the tipping point and are clearly on our way, with many on the Right essentially assisting in the process.

.