Display:
Why not socialism? Socialism is neither a bad word, nor bad policy. (The devil is in the details, of course.) So let me openly call for it: more socialism, please.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Jan 8th, 2009 at 10:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I personally am not fan of the socialism (as we know it through the practice). I was unfortunate to live through it for 38 years. Yes we had "free" education and health system and that was good but in many aspects it was similar or worse then developed capitalism of say West Europe. There are classes still in socialism and there are injustice...and there are poor people...oh yes many of them. But that's a long story.
Theoretically socialism (or even better communism) is ideal...but it looks more like a dream. I am very skeptical that people (as we know our nature) will ever get there...
by vbo on Thu Jan 8th, 2009 at 06:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So what alternative do you suggest? and how is it going to deal with the poor, the sick, and the needy?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jan 8th, 2009 at 08:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think something like Swedish model ( during U.Palme's times)is the way to go.I am not sure but it looks like Sweden changed nowadays a bit...and moved right...
It may not give the fastest growing economies (I don't see why we are in a hurry anyway) but it is much more just...OK Swedish are a small population so it's much easier for them then for China.But yes , I think rich people should pay high taxes.They'll be rich enough after paying these taxes too.Education and health should be totally free and of a highest standard.
State needs to suppress greed in people and develop other better feelings but it's not possible by nationalization .We are "social animals" but "collectivization" did not give results...Private property is still "in our blood"...
by vbo on Thu Jan 8th, 2009 at 11:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh. So, mostly a disagreement on terms, I think. I would count Social Democracy as a branch of Socialism. In that it implemented (in Sweden, as an example I am somewhat familiar with) not just such good things as you describe above, but also a system of collective bargaining between employer and employee unions, enforced by law and by courts, including codecision rights in questions of hiring, firing, direction of the company, etc. There where also state monopolies, and various level of state steering of what was considered strategic interests.

I would count this as a different, and better, implementation of socialist ideas. Some things where indeed collectivized and nationalized. Private property obviously existed, but there where (and are) strict limitations when it comes to land of where and how you can exclude people from that which is considered private. I.e. there is a maximum distance from the dwelling that can be fenced in and allocated as private space, the rest of the land people must be allowed to pass over. As well as pick berries, fruit, mushrooms, etc. etc. etc. Of course different rules apply for land under agricultural production, but also there the exclusion is limited to what is crop damaging. I.e. you must permit persons to walk in the border between fields, out of growing season, etc.

So, if private property is in our blood, it is sure in our blood in different ways as to what rights we have with respect to exclusion.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 01:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ditto for Finland.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 01:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and the same for Norway...

by Solveig (link2ageataol.com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 05:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know it's not perfect but Scandinavian model looks the best we have for now...
by vbo on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 09:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series