Thoughts on Social Democracy?

[A.S.]

.

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.

.

Mostly true, but the fairness isn't necessarily reducing creativity, it's creating an environment where people can try and fail, and not have the failure last the rest of their lives. If a person's business venture fails and he loses everything, he can have welfare to pay for his needs while retraining and looking for a job to get more money to try again. Intense competition between corporations/businesses can exist, with the losers going out of business, but not necessarily losing everything.

There are also elements of social democracy which would have no effect on creativity: socialized medicine and post-secondary education. Those two things should at no time be profit-driven enterprises. It ethically wrong that a person can get better treatment than everyone else for being rich, and wrong that they can be better educated.

If a person is rich, he can buy most material pleasures, he can start more businesses to get richer or expand his current enterprise, he can basically do whatever he wants. So why should he have better access to things everyone needs to either live or succeed when he has all the resources to do both already?

Don't tell me he earned it; he had an idea and got people to work for him, he played the stock market, he won the lottery, or he climbed a corporate ladder. All this while people shovel muck or work in factories or build infrastructure, generally working much harder than him for less pay. Not that this is wrong, but if he earned it, so did they, and they didn't get it.

 

[rightwinger]

'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.

Anything done to help big business is.....PATRIOTISM
Anything done to help working Americans is.....SOCIALISM

 

[westwall]

There is no such thing as "fair" in nature. Nature doesn't give a flying fuck if you're a Democrat, or a Repub, or if you're nice or if you beat puppies or not. She just doesn't care.

This concept of fair is laughable. The difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is many of us believe that it is societies duty to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Please note, that doesn't mean it is societies duty to take care of those who WON'T take care of themselves.

Mankind spends most of its life living in tyranny of one sort or another. As children we are beholden to our parents, as adults we have to pay our taxes etc. The difference is, in a collectivist society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

In an individualistic society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

The difference is..in a individualistic society ANYBODY can become one of the elite. I prefer to live in a society where I can advance myself and my station in life through hard work.

You people whining about fair have no idea just what that means. I suggest you educate yourselves...

 

[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.

.

Mostly true, but the fairness isn't necessarily reducing creativity, it's creating an environment where people can try and fail, and not have the failure last the rest of their lives. If a person's business venture fails and he loses everything, he can have welfare to pay for his needs while retraining and looking for a job to get more money to try again. Intense competition between corporations/businesses can exist, with the losers going out of business, but not necessarily losing everything.

There are also elements of social democracy which would have no effect on creativity: socialized medicine and post-secondary education. Those two things should at no time be profit-driven enterprises. It ethically wrong that a person can get better treatment than everyone else for being rich, and wrong that they can be better educated.

If a person is rich, he can buy most material pleasures, he can start more businesses to get richer or expand his current enterprise, he can basically do whatever he wants. So why should he have better access to things everyone needs to either live or succeed when he has all the resources to do both already?

Don't tell me he earned it; he had an idea and got people to work for him, he played the stock market, he won the lottery, or he climbed a corporate ladder. All this while people shovel muck or work in factories or build infrastructure, generally working much harder than him for less pay. Not that this is wrong, but if he earned it, so did they, and they didn't get it.

The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.

They have not a clue.

But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.

.

.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Funny thing is, your explanation sounds exactly like that which Contumacious described ... gov't enforced communism wrapped in genteel "social democracy" language.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Sure, but what is meant by "reign in" and can we trust gov't officials to do it without sliding into socialism? 'Tis a slippery slope, son.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no such thing as "fair" in nature. Nature doesn't give a flying fuck if you're a Democrat, or a Repub, or if you're nice or if you beat puppies or not. She just doesn't care.

This concept of fair is laughable. The difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is many of us believe that it is societies duty to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Please note, that doesn't mean it is societies duty to take care of those who WON'T take care of themselves.

Mankind spends most of its life living in tyranny of one sort or another. As children we are beholden to our parents, as adults we have to pay our taxes etc. The difference is, in a collectivist society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

In an individualistic society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

The difference is..in a individualistic society ANYBODY can become one of the elite. I prefer to live in a society where I can advance myself and my station in life through hard work.

You people whining about fair have no idea just what that means. I suggest you educate yourselves...

No. Not ANYBODY. That is a fairy tale.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

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.

.

Mostly true, but the fairness isn't necessarily reducing creativity, it's creating an environment where people can try and fail, and not have the failure last the rest of their lives. If a person's business venture fails and he loses everything, he can have welfare to pay for his needs while retraining and looking for a job to get more money to try again. Intense competition between corporations/businesses can exist, with the losers going out of business, but not necessarily losing everything.

There are also elements of social democracy which would have no effect on creativity: socialized medicine and post-secondary education. Those two things should at no time be profit-driven enterprises. It ethically wrong that a person can get better treatment than everyone else for being rich, and wrong that they can be better educated.

If a person is rich, he can buy most material pleasures, he can start more businesses to get richer or expand his current enterprise, he can basically do whatever he wants. So why should he have better access to things everyone needs to either live or succeed when he has all the resources to do both already?

Don't tell me he earned it; he had an idea and got people to work for him, he played the stock market, he won the lottery, or he climbed a corporate ladder. All this while people shovel muck or work in factories or build infrastructure, generally working much harder than him for less pay. Not that this is wrong, but if he earned it, so did they, and they didn't get it.

The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.

They have not a clue.

But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.

.

.

"Most people, especially here,"

Who are you referring to? Name names, please.

 

[Erand7899]

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 damn good question, since there must be a reason they are not doing so. What do you suspect is the reason?

I will give you a hint or two.

a. Good gamblers do not risk their stake in a fixed game.
b. People who have money do not wish to lose that money in a bad investment.
c. People who have money desire to obtain a good return on the investments they make, and they put that money where they have the best chance of doing so.

 

[KNB]

a) Greed
b) Selfishness
c) Narcissism

Hooray for job creators who create wage-slave jobs in China that don't help Americans.

 

[bendog]

.

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.

.

Well, the right wing bat shite shrill crazies aren't helping, but of all the people I've met of Hispanic "origin," I never met one who wanted a euro social democracy.

That's one reason I don't really understand the RW grass roots virulent opposition to any compromise. They've pissed off this group that should be a natural ally.

all Immigrant groups want access to state supported education and some degree of healthcare though. Perhaps all the TPM nonsense of "constitution" or the constitution somehow making fed govt involvement in educ and HC an over reach colors the gop's "embrace" on this issue.

 

[natstew]

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 Communist wants everyone to have equal income. A Social Democrat wants everyone to have equal opportunity to earn income." NO, You are wrong. Are you stupid or just don't listen to what the Democrat politicians are screaming for? Obama and his 'screaming heads' are screaming for income equality! Republicans have always stood for equal opportunity.

-A Communist wants to take all the rich people's money and assets by force. That's exactly what Obama is calling for, by regulation and taxes, force of a different nature is still force.

A Communist wants to nationalize all industry and production. Again, that's what Obama's doing by regulation and taxes.

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.

This part is just plain stupid on your part!

 

[A.S.]

There is no such thing as "fair" in nature. Nature doesn't give a flying fuck if you're a Democrat, or a Repub, or if you're nice or if you beat puppies or not. She just doesn't care.

This concept of fair is laughable. The difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is many of us believe that it is societies duty to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Please note, that doesn't mean it is societies duty to take care of those who WON'T take care of themselves.

Mankind spends most of its life living in tyranny of one sort or another. As children we are beholden to our parents, as adults we have to pay our taxes etc. The difference is, in a collectivist society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

In an individualistic society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

The difference is..in a individualistic society ANYBODY can become one of the elite. I prefer to live in a society where I can advance myself and my station in life through hard work.

You people whining about fair have no idea just what that means. I suggest you educate yourselves...

Appeal to nature fallacy. What is good in nature is not necessarily good for society. If we have the ability to create a fairer society, then we should. It is society's duty to take care of EVERYONE. Not give them everything they want, but no one should have to starve out of unemployment. Just because there is a safety net for failures does not at ALL hinder your ability to become one of the elite. There is no tyranny in America right now, and most people are middle class or lower middle class. Taxes are not tyranny. I don't believe in a collectivist society. I believe in a mixed economy with a bit more regulation, along with democracy in corporations.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

-

What the fuck do that means ? And what means do you use to accomplish that goal? And how is that different from the Libertarians ?

.

 

[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.

"-A Communist wants everyone to have equal income. A Social Democrat wants everyone to have equal opportunity to earn income." NO, You are wrong. Are you stupid or just don't listen to what the Democrat politicians are screaming for? Obama and his 'screaming heads' are screaming for income equality! Republicans have always stood for equal opportunity.

-A Communist wants to take all the rich people's money and assets by force. That's exactly what Obama is calling for, by regulation and taxes, force of a different nature is still force.

A Communist wants to nationalize all industry and production. Again, that's what Obama's doing by regulation and taxes.

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.

This part is just plain stupid on your part!

Care to cite a source about income equality?

So if taxes on the rich go up to 50%, that would be exactly equal to stealing everything they own?

Do any of these regulations decide what to produce, where to produce it, how much to produce and who it will be sold to? If not, then it's not nationalization.

Explain to me how the last point is stupid.

 

[A.S.]

.

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.

.

Mostly true, but the fairness isn't necessarily reducing creativity, it's creating an environment where people can try and fail, and not have the failure last the rest of their lives. If a person's business venture fails and he loses everything, he can have welfare to pay for his needs while retraining and looking for a job to get more money to try again. Intense competition between corporations/businesses can exist, with the losers going out of business, but not necessarily losing everything.

There are also elements of social democracy which would have no effect on creativity: socialized medicine and post-secondary education. Those two things should at no time be profit-driven enterprises. It ethically wrong that a person can get better treatment than everyone else for being rich, and wrong that they can be better educated.

If a person is rich, he can buy most material pleasures, he can start more businesses to get richer or expand his current enterprise, he can basically do whatever he wants. So why should he have better access to things everyone needs to either live or succeed when he has all the resources to do both already?

Don't tell me he earned it; he had an idea and got people to work for him, he played the stock market, he won the lottery, or he climbed a corporate ladder. All this while people shovel muck or work in factories or build infrastructure, generally working much harder than him for less pay. Not that this is wrong, but if he earned it, so did they, and they didn't get it.

The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.

They have not a clue.

But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.

.

.

Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.

 

[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.

Anything done to help big business is.....PATRIOTISM
Anything done to help working Americans is.....SOCIALISM

And Patriotism is ALWAYS good and Socialism ALWAYS bad, right?

 

[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.

Funny thing is, your explanation sounds exactly like that which Contumacious described ... gov't enforced communism wrapped in genteel "social democracy" language.

1st point: Keyword is "opportunity." Social Democracy doesn't want everyone mandated to the exact same income. Rather, college and training programs should be free to allow the same opportunities to everyone.

2nd point: Keyword is "all." Raising taxes on the rich is fair, because even at a 50% tax rate they would have enough for all their business ventures and luxuries. Even at a 50% tax rate, they would still be very rich. Stealing ALL of their assets for redistribution across society is just that, stealing. Social Democrats are not Robin Hood.

3rd point: The two positions are clearly contrasting here.

 

[A.S.]

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.

Sure, but what is meant by "reign in" and can we trust gov't officials to do it without sliding into socialism? 'Tis a slippery slope, son.

Yes we can, if we can get more than a quarter of the country voting and make government corruption more difficult through legislation and demonetizing elections. Socialism=/=Communism, and it's not even a bad thing, though it goes further than my belief.

 

[A.S.]

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.

-

What the fuck do that means ? And what means do you use to accomplish that goal? And how is that different from the Libertarians ?

.

As in post-secondary education and training programs that are free to attend. Expanding organizations like WorkSource which helps people find jobs. Also, differing political positions tend to have some overlap.