As I see it, the reason you go so against socialism is that you've chosen just one out of many possibly definitions of socialism, and an outdated one IMO. Communism/Marxism etc are dead versions of socialism. What we tend to call socialism today is a welfare system which walks hand in hand with capitalism and not against it.
Axis of Evil 2.0a - Iraq, Al-Queda & France
- Thread starter Stvn
- Start date
I never generalize about capitalists the way you do about leftists sabastion. But your last post sure confirms that you do lump anyone with any leftists tendencies as anythign but commie\socialists in sheeps clothing. That is just paranoid.
BTW Im a social democrat who thinks theres plenty of room for private enterprise in human civilisation... In fact most of the room should be reserved for private enterprise...
BTW Im a social democrat who thinks theres plenty of room for private enterprise in human civilisation... In fact most of the room should be reserved for private enterprise...
JacksBleedingEyes
Regular
Sabastian said:
Prove me wrong you captialist zuch, enlighten me.
Oh, where to start, you've given so many good examples to go after.
Let's start with the differences between Marxism and Leninism. Marxism was the ideological base on which Socialism and Communism were based. It also layed out some, (although not all, as Marx was more a critic of capitalism than a theorist on the potential funcionings of socialism), of the economic basis on which Socialism would later be based, namely the abolition of private ownership of the means of producing the goods needed to keep society functioning, and their democratic, (yes, democratic), integration into the state.
Leninism, on the other hand, is the Party structure that brought the Bolsheviks into power in Russia. It has little to do with Marxism, and in fact many non-Marxist parties have used it as a strategy to gain power, (Most notably the CCP's arch enemy, the Guo Min Dang, Which up until recently controlled Taiwan). Namely, it uses a closed and centralized party structure which becomes difficult to infiltrate and sabotage. At the same time, after the Revolution, the centralization of the Party led to a beareaucratic elite forming, which Lenin himself derided as he neared death. This beareaucratic elite, most notably Stalin, used this centralized Party structure to slowly chip away at potential rivals, as well as freedoms of those outside the party structure, until it was too late to stop their takeover.
As far as the "sudden turnaround" to promoting democracy among Marxists, I suggest reading up a little more history yourself. Specifically, perhaps you'd be interested in reading Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed", or something by Liu Binyan. There have been people fighting against both "Communism" or "Socialism" as you refer to it as well as capitalism. Unfortunately, when you end up picking fights with both of the world's superpowers you tend not to win.
While you seem to be very good at looking up words in online dictionaries, these seem to be the only two defenitions you've internalized, ignoring pretty much everything else. It's a pretty narrow set of defenitions, which don't even begin to investigate the full scope of the meaning of the word.
Reading up on more history, it would be interesting to look back and see who it really was that funded the fascist's rise to power, and who the first people were who were killed off once it was consolidated. The names Rockefeller and Ford often came up as frequent donors to the Italian Fascists, and it was companies like Mercedes and Volksvagen that profited directly from Hitler's rule, (although they were probably less enthusiastic once their factories were getting bombed). And before he started going after the Jews, Hitler's first moves in power were to dismantle the labor parties, and crush anyone who might be sympathetic.
And once again, there is nothing communistic or socialistic in the Chinese Communist Party. They have within the past 10 years declared the Capitalists are no longer the enemy of the CCP and in fact are actively recruiting members among the wealthy urban industrialists. It is now kind of a status symbol, if you are an urban capitalist, to be recruited into the CCP, (and the political influence that is often tied to it). I don't know what kind of further proof you need to be convinced of this.
Having said what I've said, I think there are good reasons to be weary of any system that wants to integrate the press into the state, and there are defenite efficiency problems that come into play with planned economies, especially in industries that need to be on the cutting edge of technology, such as computers. Which is why I would advocate integrating some industries into a democratic state apparatus, (and I don't feel that the "democracy" of the U.S. is sufficient for that, at present), in combination with cooperatively owned and operated businesses outside of the state do deal with industries not crucial to the maintenance of everyday sustenance, such as entertainment, as well as those that need independence for efficiency's sake, such as computers, and those that need independence for democracy's sake, such as the press. There would also be no need to eliminate small, privately owned businesses, as they wouldn't pose any threat to taking over people's everyday lives, and the kinds of variety and independence they would bring about could be pretty healthy from the point of view of diversity.
Let's start with the differences between Marxism and Leninism. Marxism was the ideological base on which Socialism and Communism were based. It also layed out some, (although not all, as Marx was more a critic of capitalism than a theorist on the potential funcionings of socialism), of the economic basis on which Socialism would later be based, namely the abolition of private ownership of the means of producing the goods needed to keep society functioning, and their democratic, (yes, democratic), integration into the state.
Leninism, on the other hand, is the Party structure that brought the Bolsheviks into power in Russia. It has little to do with Marxism, and in fact many non-Marxist parties have used it as a strategy to gain power, (Most notably the CCP's arch enemy, the Guo Min Dang, Which up until recently controlled Taiwan). Namely, it uses a closed and centralized party structure which becomes difficult to infiltrate and sabotage. At the same time, after the Revolution, the centralization of the Party led to a beareaucratic elite forming, which Lenin himself derided as he neared death. This beareaucratic elite, most notably Stalin, used this centralized Party structure to slowly chip away at potential rivals, as well as freedoms of those outside the party structure, until it was too late to stop their takeover.
As far as the "sudden turnaround" to promoting democracy among Marxists, I suggest reading up a little more history yourself. Specifically, perhaps you'd be interested in reading Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed", or something by Liu Binyan. There have been people fighting against both "Communism" or "Socialism" as you refer to it as well as capitalism. Unfortunately, when you end up picking fights with both of the world's superpowers you tend not to win.
While you seem to be very good at looking up words in online dictionaries, these seem to be the only two defenitions you've internalized, ignoring pretty much everything else. It's a pretty narrow set of defenitions, which don't even begin to investigate the full scope of the meaning of the word.
Reading up on more history, it would be interesting to look back and see who it really was that funded the fascist's rise to power, and who the first people were who were killed off once it was consolidated. The names Rockefeller and Ford often came up as frequent donors to the Italian Fascists, and it was companies like Mercedes and Volksvagen that profited directly from Hitler's rule, (although they were probably less enthusiastic once their factories were getting bombed). And before he started going after the Jews, Hitler's first moves in power were to dismantle the labor parties, and crush anyone who might be sympathetic.
And once again, there is nothing communistic or socialistic in the Chinese Communist Party. They have within the past 10 years declared the Capitalists are no longer the enemy of the CCP and in fact are actively recruiting members among the wealthy urban industrialists. It is now kind of a status symbol, if you are an urban capitalist, to be recruited into the CCP, (and the political influence that is often tied to it). I don't know what kind of further proof you need to be convinced of this.
Having said what I've said, I think there are good reasons to be weary of any system that wants to integrate the press into the state, and there are defenite efficiency problems that come into play with planned economies, especially in industries that need to be on the cutting edge of technology, such as computers. Which is why I would advocate integrating some industries into a democratic state apparatus, (and I don't feel that the "democracy" of the U.S. is sufficient for that, at present), in combination with cooperatively owned and operated businesses outside of the state do deal with industries not crucial to the maintenance of everyday sustenance, such as entertainment, as well as those that need independence for efficiency's sake, such as computers, and those that need independence for democracy's sake, such as the press. There would also be no need to eliminate small, privately owned businesses, as they wouldn't pose any threat to taking over people's everyday lives, and the kinds of variety and independence they would bring about could be pretty healthy from the point of view of diversity.
Humus said:
Well my friend I would like to answer this question in depth with some explanation of my bias against socialism in all its flavors. I am more then glad to explain my convictions to someone such as yourself. I don’t know if you are open minded about these matters. I would also warn that my critique of your political system (eg social democratic) is no sort of personal attack, unfortunately it may seem so but this is relative to the paternal system that social democracy and subsequently your country is. All that I can ask for is for you to understand my perspective on this, I don’t expect you accept it, just understand it.
Oh where to start ….. firstly there are such a wide variety of social democratic governments it does seem rather unfair to use a blanket definition such as socialism as a qualification of their varieties and I will give you that. But there are a number of glaring parallels between them so many in fact that what the vast majority of social democratic parties vying for the “third way†end up so very much looking like a socialist top down model. But there are matters that are not only happening elsewhere but also here in North America that are as equally disturbing as this wide spread move to the left leaning “third way “ models. What this amounts to is a break down in the social fabric that in a good democracy is a prerequisite. As I have already noted in my previous posting a state can still be totalitarian and democratic….. But it is not the tyranny of the elected officials but rather the incremental rights grab on a variety of levels by special interest groups. A tyranny of the minority if you like… but it is more then a simple demanding of certain “positive rightsâ€. In many instances these “positive rights†end up infringing on our “negative rightsâ€. (negative rights defined as rights that you don’t have to get from your government such as freedom of speech.) For example I used sexual harassment in the workplace during my last posting to show that freedom of speech as a civil right was being infringed on but also (something I did not elaborate on then BTW) that morality is being dictated by governmental policy on the same note. But this is only a small portion of the breakdown.
At this point I will try to explain about something that you may not be well familiar with simply because again of your countries invasive social policy. There are only two political models in reality and all systems can be made to fit into one or the other. The premise is fairly basic. The real ideal of all human society is to achieve community. It is how these communities are formed that is the mechanism you can use to help define the type of government or system that you live in. The two models are called the “bottom up system†and a “top down systemâ€.
The vastly more preferred system in academic realms are the “top down†models. The matter here being is that a “top down system†is one that is contrived from an engineering perspective. Oh BTW this is where I sight Sociology as the main culprit. I will try to diagram this for you, it works like this.
{Bottom up model} Freedom-> Individualism->cooperation-> COMMUNITY
{Top down model} Collectivism/Communalism/Government->Coercion->Obedience
I know the diagram is crude but it is the best I can manage and basically achieves the desired effect of showing how a top down model works.(or rather doesn’t.) From this we can see that real community cannot be achieved using the top down model. In the bottom up model where people are free to create a spontaneous community rather then a governmental contrived model people freely work together for a better community and it does this by affirming the value of each individuals choice to support community goals. But with a top down model a real community cannot be reached. Communalism/Socialism always produces the felling of obedience or …. rebellion and because it is imposed it does not produce the felling of a freely sustained bonding with the values of others. This can be seen as well in North America where we can see that human rights police, pay equity police, employment equity police, politically correct police, behavior police, language police(particularly in Quebec.) and all sorts of others with police type powers forcing citizens to behave in ways they never would consider without the threat of coerion. So as never before tyranny seems to thrive in a democratic system. In my opinion bad law making equates to the worst sort of tyranny.
A real community comes from the bottom up model from the individuals and families that nurture them. It happens on voluntary cooperation between free human beings within the context of laws that forbid people to harm others and otherwise leave them alone in their freedom. This sort of arrangement lends way to a situation where there is a moral surplus and this is very positive community. In a top down model where many are subject to laws in place by the government the people suffer from a moral deficit as a result of the state intervention in social matters people don’t make their moral they must abide by what the system dictates to them. In a free society the government runs the government and stays out of our private lives. This runs very much in contrast to the rally cry of many leftist that the “personal is political†and the government ought to intervene. Individual responsibility, free will and political/economic freedom are prerequisites for a healthy society. All of which I might add are threatened by the proliferation of social democracy, the newest incarnation of collectivist top down models. While it isn’t horribly new to Sweden.
Since until recently there were very few social democratic states and most use the Swedish model as their guide in blazing their path on the “new†“third way†I propose to use that template for which to make my case against Social Democracy as socialism in sheep’s clothing.
Well first I will give you the definition as suggested by the academic community.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Now I am directly on the topic of Sweden I feel that there is a necessary topic, that while not everyone agrees to on the conservative spectrum of things, I feel is far more important then it is given credence. That being once again the traditional family or natural family. I would suggest to others whom are likewise conservative minded that the notion of the traditional or natural family is not a lost cause at all. I would admit though injecting the moral fiber back into society with regards to the natural family would be most difficult…. but not impossible. I do think that it is possible to create a situation where family does play a more central role in the lives of people as it should. Simply remove the governmental social policies that make the notion of divorce more simple. (eg no fault divorce.) Now the simple fact of the matter is that marriage can be difficult and in some cases not reflected in the divorce rate BTW impossible. In the vast majority of cases though people are becoming married for the wrong reasons. Since the sexual revolution the notion that love was the primary or sole reason to become married has become the definition of what the institution of marriage is about but the simple fact of the matter is that this really never was the primary reason for the institution of marriage. Facts be known marriage was about family and raising that family.
The anti family tradition goes as far back as Plato’s Republic.
Now there are some here whom have read the Republic I am sure. This Greek classic has become the template of all collectivist systems. Plato developed a model for the operation of the ideal state… the one in his head to stifle what he called the “law of degeneration†which supposedly causes the fall of civilizations. But in order to do this he decided that human freedom and moral agency would have to be destroyed. The subordination of all individual will to the common will (aka collective will) of the state, thus achieving “social harmonyâ€. The logic then flowed that in order to guarantee this, the state must abolish private property and the family both of which according to Plato "breed envy and differences between its citizens". Inequality if you like. Then of course all women must be forced to lead the same life as men including military service.
While attending a university philosophy course I asked my professor (Whom is widely noted for his extensive study of Plato I might add.) what he thought Plato would think of our current social structure. He said something to the extent (not exact words mind you.) that all except for the family unit was basically in place and that this was a major problem for the realization of the Republic…Plato wanted to forbid marriage, childrearing by parents and to allow men to share all women in common. Further he wanted to have police whom were a special class of citizens labeled “guardians†whom were to be selected by the philosopher kings to impose the scheme. Also he wanted to impose selective breeding and the children of these select few would be raised by the state nurseries. Any children of the inferior guardians and any defective offspring would be quietly and secretly disposed of. Socrates thought that this eugenic program would rid of the loyalties, affections and interests of the natural family system and recruit everyone for community service…… but if it is as some here on these forms have indicated and there is no hope left for the traditional family then indeed the Republic comes and there is little to stop the transformation to the collective hive.
What is disconcerting is the fact that Plato is held by generations of “ intellectuals†that admire him and his teachings as if these were brilliant. The real irony here is that Plato’s views are diametrically opposed to the ones on which our western society is based on… or used to be.
Rousseau also held contempt for family, property, wealthy people he wanted to replace them with an enforced egalitarianism after which there would not be allowed further revolutionary disorder. There are a lot of parallels between Plato’s thinking and Rousseau. Rousseau assumed that through a process of democratic –centralism the general will would always express the will of the people. Unfortunately it doesn’t work out that way. This is typical of the top down model that I explained earlier….Rousseau philosophy demanded total submission to the state he saw man as divided and the only thing that could remedy this was to have the state make him whole:
… [action]shiver[/action]
Marx was strongly influenced by hegel whom in turn was strongly influenced by Plato. Marx’s theories were to influence his friend Engels. In 1848 in their manifesto Marx and Engels wrote that :
In Engels book The origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Engels articulates his hatred of the natural family. Engels believed that human societies evolved from an ancient stage in which they were controlled by women. Engels reasoning is that as society passed from a hunter /gatherer stage to an agrarian economy men gradually took over the production of the livestock wealth. My sakes didn’t the feminist grab a hold of this theory and run with it……Never mind the poor science behind it. It is no wonder there are so many Marxist feminists in the world. Engels claimed that private property was the source of this and the only way to eliminate all of the inequities that the institution of the family bring was to eradicate the institution of the family via the elimination of private property, force women into the labor market and turn their children over to the state. Here is a quote of one of his rants:
The assumption is that men and women who marry are unconscious dupes devoid of caring for one another and that women have no control over their home or their sexual love. In Engels world woman have no lust nor any natural desire for children.
Engels answer to this problem isn’t a far cry form what Plato suggested.
Then there are the feminist ….. Plato without a beard.
Simone de Beauvoir author of The Second Sex in 1952 that is touted as some sort of manifesto of liberated women and anti male movement BTW states:State affirmative action programs so called pay equity and employment equity programs, nationalized health and insurance schemes, unfunded pension plans and a host of so called regional disparity programs have the effect of destroying the work ethic whilst undermining the traditional family. Socialistic universal daycare programs are being fought for as some sort of “right†regardless of economic, social condition or need. This kind of thinking comes directly from the top down model I made reference to.
Humus it is the feminist isn’t it…. Sweden in 1970 created a taxation policy that disallowed the submission of joint family tax returns. If you want to strengthen the family you create tax policies that reward family formation. If you see the family as a thing that ought to be removed then you create tax polices that turn family formation into a losing economic game.
The Swedish experiment forced on the people of Sweden supported by radicals (cough feminist.) and their social engineers (Sociologist.) was brought mostly by two people… Gunnar and Alva Myrdal. He was an economist and she was a radical feminist sociologist that initially supported the family within an egalitarian state. By the early 1970s Alva however had become much more openly socialist. She fought heavily for the idea of equality, not for the right to compete on equal terms but rather for the idea of equal outcomes. Sweden quickly became the first social democratic state to be openly against the traditional family in Sweden’s political, economic and social policies. Myrdal called for in her report Crisis in the Population Question 1934 the economic independence of married partners as a basic condition of equality. By this they meant that the focus of future policy would discourage traditional familial interdependence. Indeed Plato without a beard. It clearly suggests that the family unit ought to be abolished and people would live as autonomous units…. dependent on the state.
In a 1968 publication by the Swedish institute under the heading The Family Is Not Sacred :
This is the recipe for the atomization of the family as a social unit and with it the transformation of Sweden into a true welfare, dare I say? Totalitarian Democracy. Plato’s republic. People whom have thrown in the towel on the natural family ought to remember that the abolishment of this unit is the final bastion for Plato’s Republic. Sweden has all sorts of other demoralizing policy aimed at the breakdown of the natural family. In Sweden (as well as NA countries.) there are two kinds of families the natural family and single parents with children who on the condition they are not living as a married person hook themselves with the state as a substitute spouse/parent. Sweden is responsible for “anti-spanking†laws and revolutionary sex education morals that their society as well as ours suffers from even today.. Once the naturally occurring unit the tradition family is broken then society will not go into socialism in some massive revolution but rather be duped into its tyranny. There are no other obstacles. If you think that democracy and capitalism by themselves are enough I believe you are absolutely wrong both of which we can see operate within the social democratic( collectivist) methodology without the natural family.(father mother children.) The drive of the egalitarian state for equality at all cost and the leveling of society (and Bell curve, curiously it doesn’t allow for the leveling .) is however seemingly strong enough rational for the creation of a welfare state.
Another interesting development from this same government that brought you the breakdown of their family unit was the adoption of some rather bizarre genetic experiments. Curiously similar to the eugenics program Germany was involved with under Hitler and makes paralels with Plato's idea. Here is a quote from August 29, 1997, in the Washington Post.
Another oddity I have noticed is that Sweden’s “social democratic†government enjoyed some fantastic support from the late great Soviet Union. Interestingly enough in only a matter of a couple of years following the collapse of the Soviet Unions Communist government the Swedish model collapsed and quite hard. Now it seems they are realizing that they can’t afford all of their much vaunted social programs and are on some road of reform. Ironically we have a number of countries now attempting to create the same sort of social democracy using Sweden as their template. If you use one credit card to pay interest on another credit card and vice –versa for a very long time you can indeed create a situation conducive to the welfare state mentality. But the reality of the economic and moral processes inherent in welfare states eventually erode them from the inside out. Humus have the state openly stated they are going to throw out their egalitarian principles and policies? I don’t think so. Even in the face of the fall in the early nineties they won’t give up on these. Now that the people are so used to the state interference they can’t see the difference. Consider the debt of Sweden will never be dealt with …
Consider the plight of the taxpayer in Sweden they are in the highest taxation bracket. What is the sense of being Capitalistic if the government takes in some cases upwards of 70% of your income, you might as well be lining up for the toilet paper for that. Where is the incentive to work harder. Indeed Sweden’s political economy sounds like a couch potatoes wet dream.
Up until the fall of Sweden’s socialist government it was the only one that anyone dared to point out. Strictly speaking though and in all fairness Sweden is not socialist (A state that owns everything) it is a welfare state (one that controls everything.) But the distinction is minor in reality. Collectivism does not have to own anything to collectivize a country. They simply have to regulate and control society heavily possibly they took this same page from the National Socialist from Germany under Hitler.(I wonder at this point as to why Sweden did not oppose Germany in the second world war, or for that matter why Germany did not have any hostilities with Sweden...ahh who knows maybe their governments shared similiar convicitons.) But the idea that the state does not own things is irrelevant except in principle. Consider you own a vehicle but for some strange reason I control whom uses it where it goes and so on, where are the benefits of the ownership if one has no control.
I don’t understand the need for more collectivism. Society without a social engineering government is already a collective or sorts so without government intervention there is not a need for balance between individuals and the collective the bottom up style achieves community without intervention. We ought to reject a government-imposed morality that uses courtrooms as their means of implementing government social engineering. People instead of relying on the neo socialist welfare state/social democrats for their well being ought to look after their selves and their own children to avoid the sterile tyranny of the Platonic model inherited though collectivist mentalities. The top down model from which collectivist of all varieties is in the end an absolute tyranny and at first while the state appears to be working with the best of intentions for the general well being of all will force (at least try to) or dupe its model on a population rather then the population being free to create and follow its own moral convictions. Hence my sig “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.â€
I beg to differ and you can tell the borg queen I won't be assimilated. hehe.
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry over your interpretations ...
1) Marx is history. His ideas and philosophies have no place in modern socialism, and absolutely zero impact in social democracy.
2) You talk about freedom to create and follow your own model conviction, still you want to force a traditional family model down everyones throat. Your model is the totalitarian, not the Swedish model. Sweden does not in any way try to eliminate the family, or even actively work against it. Rather the opposite, though it does remove any barriers hindering alternative ways of living, more freedom in other words.
The laws does indeed endorse building families, there are significant economic benefits of it. However, Sweden doesn't force a traditional family model down everyone's throat. If someone want to live another way, the option is open for everyone. Just as it ought to be IMO, though personally the traditional family means a lot to me. For me it's unthinkable to go into a serious relationship without a longterm goal of marriage. But if someone else don't share my views and morals, they are free to choose another model, and I'm not going to stop them and I would have if my government would try to stop them.
3) I don't agree with that definition of social democracy you looked up. Social democracy is not about getting rid of capitalism as that definition implies. Sweden has been using a capitalistic system for ages.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
"A military power during the 17th century, Sweden has not participated in any war in almost two centuries. An armed neutrality was preserved in both World Wars. Sweden's long-successful economic formula of a capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements was challenged in the 1990s by high unemployment, rising maintenance costs, and a declining position in world markets. Indecision over the country's role in the political and economic integration of Europe delayed Sweden's entry into the EU until 1995, and waived the introduction of the euro in 1999."
Here's another defintion:
"In general, social democrats worldwide today are in favor of:
Private enterprise, but strongly regulated to protect the interests of workers, consumers and small enterprise - in stark contrast to libertarian and some green approaches, e.g. Natural Capitalism which minimizes regulation by controlling commodity prices more directly
Large government spending to ensure that good education, health care et cetera are available for all citizens
High taxes (necessary to pay for the former), especially for the higher income groups
An extensive system of social security network (see welfare state), alhtough not to the extent of communists.
Extensive social laws (minimum wages, working circumstances, protection against firing)
Generally support environmental protection laws, although not to the extent of Greens
Generally support anti-xenophobic legislations (pro-choice, anti-racist, anti-homophobic, some environmental laws specifically opposing monoculture), although not to the extent of anarchists."
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrat
Or this one:
"A political system that combines the principles of socialism with the greater personal freedoms of democracy."
(Oxford advanced learners dict.)
4) "Sweden is responsible for “anti-spanking†laws and revolutionary sex education morals that their society as well as ours suffers from even today." Change "suffers" to "enjoy" and I would agree.
5) Re: genetic experiments ... yes, that's a dirty page of Sweden's history, but long gone ideas, and those affected have recieved recognition for these facts and gotten their damages paids by the state. I'm sure you'll find plenty of similar stories in your country from that time if you dig a little. I don't see how it's relevant for the discussion though.
6) Soviet connection. LOL, I'm not sure in what world you live in, but the commie scare was as much alive here as overseas. The social democratic government actually went to extreme lengths, even illegal such, in order to make sure comunism did not gain grounds in Sweden. People were registered for having communistic opionions, illegally by all standards, just being a member of a suspected organisation and you ended up in these registers. 100,000 people were registered.
Sweden also made secret deals with the US and NATO and was promised protection in the event of an attack from Soviet. Soviet was viewed as a serious threat at that time, no way were they viewed as friends.
7) Sweden's economical problems are completely unrelated to the fall of Soviet. Where do you look up these theories? Or do you make up themself by looking at years of events and drawing your own false conclusions? Sweden's economical problems through the 1990's are because of internal screw ups in the government. First there was a recession, then the social democrats lost the election and a four-party rightist government took over. Instead of properly applying their policies they thought it was a good idea to cut taxes without making any cuts on costs by reducing governemtn services. And yay!, four years later our national debt had rose to like three times that of the debt collected over several decades before. The current social democratic government actually does something about it and the debt is being payed off, and last year we payed enough to finally be on plus. That is, the total value of the state resources were higher than the debts.
8) Your Nazi-theory ... Sweden kept out of the war because we had the neutrality policy. Also, in the choice of getting bombed like Norway got or simply try to keep a low profile and perhaps save our skin we opted for the latter. Some have argued that we should have opposed the Nazi's too. Well, maybe from a moral point of view, but we had nothing to set against them.
Finally, socialism is not the devil. Nor is capitalism. Neither socialism or capitalism in their pure forms are particularly good models. There need to be balance. Sweden had a fine balance until early 90's, but we've lost it since then.
1) Marx is history. His ideas and philosophies have no place in modern socialism, and absolutely zero impact in social democracy.
2) You talk about freedom to create and follow your own model conviction, still you want to force a traditional family model down everyones throat. Your model is the totalitarian, not the Swedish model. Sweden does not in any way try to eliminate the family, or even actively work against it. Rather the opposite, though it does remove any barriers hindering alternative ways of living, more freedom in other words.
The laws does indeed endorse building families, there are significant economic benefits of it. However, Sweden doesn't force a traditional family model down everyone's throat. If someone want to live another way, the option is open for everyone. Just as it ought to be IMO, though personally the traditional family means a lot to me. For me it's unthinkable to go into a serious relationship without a longterm goal of marriage. But if someone else don't share my views and morals, they are free to choose another model, and I'm not going to stop them and I would have if my government would try to stop them.
3) I don't agree with that definition of social democracy you looked up. Social democracy is not about getting rid of capitalism as that definition implies. Sweden has been using a capitalistic system for ages.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
"A military power during the 17th century, Sweden has not participated in any war in almost two centuries. An armed neutrality was preserved in both World Wars. Sweden's long-successful economic formula of a capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements was challenged in the 1990s by high unemployment, rising maintenance costs, and a declining position in world markets. Indecision over the country's role in the political and economic integration of Europe delayed Sweden's entry into the EU until 1995, and waived the introduction of the euro in 1999."
Here's another defintion:
"In general, social democrats worldwide today are in favor of:
Private enterprise, but strongly regulated to protect the interests of workers, consumers and small enterprise - in stark contrast to libertarian and some green approaches, e.g. Natural Capitalism which minimizes regulation by controlling commodity prices more directly
Large government spending to ensure that good education, health care et cetera are available for all citizens
High taxes (necessary to pay for the former), especially for the higher income groups
An extensive system of social security network (see welfare state), alhtough not to the extent of communists.
Extensive social laws (minimum wages, working circumstances, protection against firing)
Generally support environmental protection laws, although not to the extent of Greens
Generally support anti-xenophobic legislations (pro-choice, anti-racist, anti-homophobic, some environmental laws specifically opposing monoculture), although not to the extent of anarchists."
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrat
Or this one:
"A political system that combines the principles of socialism with the greater personal freedoms of democracy."
(Oxford advanced learners dict.)
4) "Sweden is responsible for “anti-spanking†laws and revolutionary sex education morals that their society as well as ours suffers from even today." Change "suffers" to "enjoy" and I would agree.
5) Re: genetic experiments ... yes, that's a dirty page of Sweden's history, but long gone ideas, and those affected have recieved recognition for these facts and gotten their damages paids by the state. I'm sure you'll find plenty of similar stories in your country from that time if you dig a little. I don't see how it's relevant for the discussion though.
6) Soviet connection. LOL, I'm not sure in what world you live in, but the commie scare was as much alive here as overseas. The social democratic government actually went to extreme lengths, even illegal such, in order to make sure comunism did not gain grounds in Sweden. People were registered for having communistic opionions, illegally by all standards, just being a member of a suspected organisation and you ended up in these registers. 100,000 people were registered.
Sweden also made secret deals with the US and NATO and was promised protection in the event of an attack from Soviet. Soviet was viewed as a serious threat at that time, no way were they viewed as friends.
7) Sweden's economical problems are completely unrelated to the fall of Soviet. Where do you look up these theories? Or do you make up themself by looking at years of events and drawing your own false conclusions? Sweden's economical problems through the 1990's are because of internal screw ups in the government. First there was a recession, then the social democrats lost the election and a four-party rightist government took over. Instead of properly applying their policies they thought it was a good idea to cut taxes without making any cuts on costs by reducing governemtn services. And yay!, four years later our national debt had rose to like three times that of the debt collected over several decades before. The current social democratic government actually does something about it and the debt is being payed off, and last year we payed enough to finally be on plus. That is, the total value of the state resources were higher than the debts.
8) Your Nazi-theory ... Sweden kept out of the war because we had the neutrality policy. Also, in the choice of getting bombed like Norway got or simply try to keep a low profile and perhaps save our skin we opted for the latter. Some have argued that we should have opposed the Nazi's too. Well, maybe from a moral point of view, but we had nothing to set against them.
Finally, socialism is not the devil. Nor is capitalism. Neither socialism or capitalism in their pure forms are particularly good models. There need to be balance. Sweden had a fine balance until early 90's, but we've lost it since then.
I seriously don’t know if you should or not ether. But the academic parallels that I draw between the neo socialist or welfare state that Sweden is certainly ought to make you think about some of the serious philosophical ends that your state is working towards. It really looks like you Swedes have fallen for the feminist welfare state model, like it or not.
I see so now we have modern socialism. What happened to the original? Is it that now that socialism has failed we must now redefine just what it is? Oh my sakes there are allot of bruised egos out there these days with the failure of socialism and the fall of the Berlin wall. Marx plays a key role in your “social justice†as well as much of the Swedish egalitarian welfare state government policy, hell bent on creating equal outcomes and attempting to eliminate inequality at any cost, is there and the mere existence of Capitalist economic activity makes it no less. Even mother Russia had to use currency, from what I can see the single largest difference between the way Russia did business and the way that Sweden did business is simply a matter of ownership. In Russia the state owned the franchise, in Sweden they were more smart, they let business be owned buy private interest and controlled as well as taxed the hell out of anyone whom made an extra buck. You can ignore the reality of the argument as much as you like but the simple fact of the matter is that indeed, the Swedish system is heavily influenced by socialist thinking. But I will give Sweden this… they are not the only country to suffer that. In Canada there is a growing irrational left wing movement whom looks to the Swedish model for inspiration. In fact sense the fall of mother Russia the left is desperately looking for ways in which they can put their political agenda back in the mainstream. “The third way†appears to be just that.
Oh, did I hit a nerve? Lets get this straight.. I am not pushing anything down anyone’s throat. You know that even though there has been a lot of damage done to the institution of marriage it is still on a global scale widely accepted as the norm in terms of couples creating an environment to look after their children. This is not imposed by any government and people get married within the community with the endorsement of all. This is because society and the community at large approves of this joining. Not because there is a law that says they can. You still don’t understand the difference between the bottom up style model and the top down. It is not a government enforced moral. Who is try to shove what here? Again…. . If you want to strengthen the family you create tax policies that reward family formation. If you see the family as a thing that ought to be removed then you create tax polices that turn family formation into a losing economic game.
I am glad for you and your convictions to have a family some day. Hopefully they have not abolished the institution by the time you settle on a mate. Again the natural family is a totally spontaneous social creation that is universally accepted. The problem is, there really is no other model for procreational family units and nor should there be for the institution of marriage.. Traditionally marriage is about the family and the raising of children…. Not about governmental approval of your union. Joe made good points about this before. There is no one stopping anyone from cohabiting in some configuration that is not traditional. Why does the definition of marriage need be expanded? It really need not be. The motive behind the move to have less traditional marriage recognized by the state is about breaking down what is conceived as being normal activity and replacing it with something considerably more ambiguous that is less favorable in the eyes of the state for supporting. In other words when the natural family lost its favored status in governmental taxation policy it made it more difficult to support a family based on one income. This is not favorable to the financial well being of the natural family it causes stress and makes it difficult for the parents involved to pass along any wealth to their children. The natural family ought to have less taxation to support their effort rather. Further the implementation of No fault divorce policies do nothing but create an easy out for individuals should they be having a bad day. This sort of environment does not encourage people to stay together and be responsible for their own children. But in Sweden (as well as a number of other democracies) there is even a state spouse to replace your old and used up one. Fantastic, you make vows with your wife “for better or worse†and she gets caught messing around with the neighbor and somehow there is no one at fault for the destruction of the family and even worse the break up is state funded.
Interesting enough the Swedish government has its own Lutheran church, so much for the separation of church and state. Oh they are probably more interested in having the priest pay lip service to the state anyhow. Hmm wouldn’t that be a kin to taking communion from the taxman?
I didn’t go looking around I simply typed “dictionary†in Google and took the first link I came too. Also I did say in my posting:
In reality there seems to be very little distinction between a “social democratic†government and a socialist government and this is my point.
Well…there is a hell of a difference between abusing a child and disciplining one. These spanking laws are simply state intervention gone amuck. It really is silly to suggest that a few swats on the butt of a child is abusive. All this really does is make disciplining a child all that more difficult. Abuse, I would never submit is a good thing for a child, a simple spanking though is not grounds for abuse and this is a silly suggestion. It almost seems as though they are the children of the state rather then then people whom created them.(re: Plato's Republic.) That is about all I have to say on that though.
As for the sex educational program for children in school, on this I take issue. Interesting though throughout the first decades of this century, Sweden’s official programs for sex education had as a goal to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock. What is fascinating is that these programs did work. Between 1930 and 1950 the proportion of children born outside marriage dropped, from about 15% to some 10%. Success led them to new tactics to increase the effectiveness of these sex educational programs. But then unexpected things began to happen during the 1950´s. The proportion of children born out of wedlock did not decrease. In the 1960´s it regained its former levels, and during the 1970´s and later in the 1980´s it more or less exploded. Clearly these facts say sex education increases sexual activities in the children they are taught too. It seems obvious that indeed sex education tells children that indeed they have state sanctioned approval to be sexually active. Never mind the massive dangers of STDs and AIDS. Educating children to have sex does not decrease their risks of catching STDs but rather increases it and the epidemic of STDs amongst our teenage population is evidence of it. In other words there are real problems with this and what they teach to children no less ought to be changed or outright banned.
Not AFAIK, or at least nothing that even comes close to this kind of program:
The relevance comes from the parallel that it draws with Plato’s Republic.
Oh I must admit, that was a tad “tongue in cheek†but it is interesting that the Swedish model collapsed shortly after the collapse of communism. Just one of them things that make you go … hmm. Who knows maybe they had “secret deals†with Warsaw Pact countries as well.
Oh I agree they shouldn’t have kept Sweden’s spending so outrageously high if they were cutting taxes. But likely the problem they faced was that if they actually cut spending they feared a backlash from the population and welfare radicals.(laying on their couches.) The fact of the matter is that Sweden employ’s a full 30% of the population and most everyone depends on some sort of state subsidy to get by in daily life. Sweden takes as high as 70% of the hard earned cash of the people. Here is something you ought to think about, What are you if the state takes 100% of your income? Ans: A slave. What are you if the state takes 60% of your income? Ans: 60% slave. What are you if you rely on the state for your income? Ans: A welfare bum. There is no good reason to make your neighbors responsible for you and your well being. It is not a “right†to take what is not yours nor is it your “right†to expect others to support you. Bah, I think the welfare state is fundamentally flawed in its motives.
Interesting. Thanks for that Humus, but maybe it was that your government had nothing against them rather then having “nothing to set against them.†I don’t know and it appears neither do you, this was mostly a speculative argument anyhow. But there are parallels there as well. If you say there was as much a “commie scare†in Sweden as there was in Germany that would be an interesting development. Who knows though behind the scenes there were all sorts of political games being played in Europe.
You mean the Swedish welfare state didn’t collapse until the early 90’s and because of the massive debt that the country built up over the years time to pay the piper.
EDIT: I changed that typo Humus sorry about that ..
Sabastian said:
I had good arguments against all your theories, but when you go as far as to state I personally have nothing against Nazi's I don't know why I should even discuss something with you when you counter logic and facts with conspiracy theories and insults.
Humus said:Sabastian said:
I had good arguments against all your theories, but when you go as far as to state I personally have nothing against Nazi's I don't know why I should even discuss something with you when you counter logic and facts with conspiracy theories and insults.
That was an error I didn't pick up after skimming through. Sorry about that Humus. I really didn't mean to imply it was you but rather your government in that time period. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you were even a sparkle in your dads eye at that point. Anyhow I fixed the typo.
Actually, it was my bad. I misread your post. I read "neighter do you" as referring to having something against Nazis instead of the "I don't know" part of the same sentence. Though I would disagree that the government didn't have anything against Nazis. As you "don't know" I think it's ridiculus to start to make up baseless conspiracy theories.
Yes, we have modern socialism today. Politics isn't static. The previous century and the latter part of the 1800's we went through an assload of different political theories and ideas and many have been tried in practice and many has severly failed. Your "third way" nomenclature seams kinda odd given that there has been dozens of ways that has been tried. Today some things have settled though, democracy is proven to be good, free market economy has been proven to be good, plan economy has failed, all kinds of dictatorships have proved to be inefficient. While most of the ideas of Marx has been thrown out of the window for todays socialists the ideas of a society where people have equal opportunity has not. Today these goals are being reached by offering for instance free education and social and medical protection. We will never reach a society where all people are truely equal, and in fact such a society would probably not work anyway, but things like free education and economic protection for health care are just a good sign of civilisation IMO and are basic services any society worth the name should provide.
About spanking, I don't want "disciplined" children. Discipline is for the military. I want children who are free, confident and believe in themself. One drop of oil in a lake does not destroy it, but it doesn't mean its harmless and certainly doesn't help it. One spank may not destroy your child, but it doesn't mean it's harmless and certainly doesn't help it.
As for sex education. I can't believe anyone can actually have anything against that. How can education ever be a bad thing? I don't know what century you live in, but the more people know about their sexuality the better they can control it and know how they want to use it. The goal of these programs are not to reach some old school goals of reducing the amount of children born outside the marriage, it's about teaching sex, what it is and what it's not, the positives and the negatives (STD's etc).
100% tax => slave ... well, maybe. 60% taxes => 60% slave, not at all. Why do you assume proportionality or even linearity? Everyone is more or less slaves in your opionion since everyone pays taxes? Quite scewed view IMO.
Also, your idea that Sweden tries to undermine the family ... well, I saw this published today .... according to Save The Children Sweden has the world's best conditions for mothers and children. Doesn't line up well with your theories that Sweden tries to undermine the family.
http://www.savethechildren.org/sowm2003/MothersIndex.pdf
Yes, we have modern socialism today. Politics isn't static. The previous century and the latter part of the 1800's we went through an assload of different political theories and ideas and many have been tried in practice and many has severly failed. Your "third way" nomenclature seams kinda odd given that there has been dozens of ways that has been tried. Today some things have settled though, democracy is proven to be good, free market economy has been proven to be good, plan economy has failed, all kinds of dictatorships have proved to be inefficient. While most of the ideas of Marx has been thrown out of the window for todays socialists the ideas of a society where people have equal opportunity has not. Today these goals are being reached by offering for instance free education and social and medical protection. We will never reach a society where all people are truely equal, and in fact such a society would probably not work anyway, but things like free education and economic protection for health care are just a good sign of civilisation IMO and are basic services any society worth the name should provide.
About spanking, I don't want "disciplined" children. Discipline is for the military. I want children who are free, confident and believe in themself. One drop of oil in a lake does not destroy it, but it doesn't mean its harmless and certainly doesn't help it. One spank may not destroy your child, but it doesn't mean it's harmless and certainly doesn't help it.
As for sex education. I can't believe anyone can actually have anything against that. How can education ever be a bad thing? I don't know what century you live in, but the more people know about their sexuality the better they can control it and know how they want to use it. The goal of these programs are not to reach some old school goals of reducing the amount of children born outside the marriage, it's about teaching sex, what it is and what it's not, the positives and the negatives (STD's etc).
100% tax => slave ... well, maybe. 60% taxes => 60% slave, not at all. Why do you assume proportionality or even linearity? Everyone is more or less slaves in your opionion since everyone pays taxes? Quite scewed view IMO.
Also, your idea that Sweden tries to undermine the family ... well, I saw this published today .... according to Save The Children Sweden has the world's best conditions for mothers and children. Doesn't line up well with your theories that Sweden tries to undermine the family.
http://www.savethechildren.org/sowm2003/MothersIndex.pdf
Silent_One
Newcomer
One thing I noticed under the Save The Children is that a "political status" index is used, with a 12% value towards the final score for the Mothers Index. Under the listing for the 6 indicators for a Women's Well Being, the indicator "Participation of Women in national government" states, in part, "When women have a voice in public institutions, they can participate directly in the peace and rebuilding process, and advacte for issues of particular inportance to women and children" (page 15/16). Now the question I ask is how does "political status" indicator take into consideration different types of governments: is it an apple to apple comparison to say that the political status of women is greater in say, China with a 22% ratting, than the United States with a 14% ratting? How would the ranking of countries change without the "political status" indicator? As it is I don't know if I agree with their overall rankings.