democratic socialism

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-05-22 10:41am

good idea, bad idea?

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-22 02:22pm

Isn't it somewhat an oxymoron, given that socialists consider equality to be more important than freedom?

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-05-22 05:56pm

A democratically elected government which owns means of production. That's what I call Scandanavia(Norway and Sweden mostly) and Canada. Mostly you have to have a population that can do pretty well on their own and rich people who are courteous and smart enough to know they don't really need more money. And everything works pretty well. Half of government resides on the ability of the people to allow sovreignty, and the other half is the government knowing what to do with that sovreignty.

These are the most stable governments on earth because they only look after what they need to succeed, most of whatever else is private business. Thus things like infrastructure are controlled governementally, while technology that deals outside of the daily everyday needs, can do what it wants within the limits of regulations.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-22 06:19pm

Johansen, you clearly do not understand democratic socialism. Democratic Socialists believe in some socialist practices, nationalization of key industries, such as health care, coal/oil, electricity, phone, rail. Basically the UK prior to Mrs. Thatcher. That isnt inherantly undemocratic. It respects equality and freedom.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-05-22 07:52pm

Australia is a democratic socialist system. Well it was until Little John went off the deep end...

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-05-22 08:07pm

Hell, even the USA is a little bit socialist, after all.

Enricko · Post by **Enricko** » 2003-05-22 08:17pm

Andrew J. wrote:Hell, even the USA is a little bit socialist, after all.

Can you tell me what means of production the US governement control? I'm curious. In my province, electricity was nationalized during the sixties because power compagnies were refusing to give services to small communities.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-22 08:40pm

Hell, even the USA is a little bit socialist, after all.

Incorrect. The United States is more fascist than socialist. Ours is a free-market economy with limits, not a command economy. Businesses take contracts or direction from the government periodically, but everything is privately owned.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-22 09:11pm

with the exception axis of medicare, medicade, social security, food stamps, welfare, etc.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-22 09:30pm

With the exception axis of medicare, medicade, social security, food stamps, welfare, etc.

Socialist influences exist in every form of government. They are however not so much Democratic Socialist tendacies as Fascist tendancies. Be careful to deliniate between Socialist policies and Socialist government.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-22 09:45pm

Social democrats want just that socialistic economic policies without the typical drawbacks of socialistic political policies

According to the political compass idea, they would be Leftist Libertarians often, favoring leftist economics, and libertarian civil liberties

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-22 09:58pm

Nationalism of industry is a Bad Thing, in my opinion.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-22 09:59pm

Nationalization, sorry.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-22 10:05pm

Social democrats want just that socialistic economic policies without the typical drawbacks of socialistic political policies

According to the political compass idea, they would be Leftist Libertarians often, favoring leftist economics, and libertarian civil liberties.

But the fact of the matter is that the American economy draws more on Fascism than it does on Socialism. Industry is never command-oriented or state-financed despite being subject to instruction. The means of production are privately owned even if officially regulated. Democratic Socialism would not produce the same outcome.

Social programs such as Medicare or Medicaid are generally applicable to every nation, Socialist or otherwise. They are more staples of a modern, thriving economy at this point in time than of a Socialistic government per se. If you need to identify the greater influence – Socialism or Fascism -, it’d be the later.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-05-22 11:27pm

Wait, look at the time this post was made. Keep that time in mind, because it was then that I actually AGREED WITH AXIS KAST!!!!!! Granted, it's not an issue of morals, but in this case, he is correct in that the government is more fascist than socialist not only because of its political policies, but also that since social programs have become an integral part of government, the spectrum of how socialist a nation is has shifted to the left, leaving the USA still pretty far right. The economic system is still most definately based in fascism, seeing as how government business is not state-owned, but rather, contracted.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-22 11:35pm

For once in your life, you're right. Enjoy the moment while it lasts.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-22 11:37pm

According to the political compass idea, they would be Leftist Libertarians often, favoring leftist economics, and libertarian civil liberties

The political compass is retarded. Ignore it.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-23 12:01am

The political compass is retarded. Ignore it.

I've been saying that ever since it fingered my a Libertarian Marxist.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-23 12:07am

Also, there are industries that are *a-hem* "privately owned", such as the US Postal Service. It privatized in the sixties, but is in practice works for the US government. It's a government sponsered monopoly, basically, and always will be because all the laws that were made to ensure the mail system was omnipresent in all of America (such as the law that says that all towns must have a post office) still exist even after the US Postal Service became privatized, plus the billions in subsidies that the government gives it (which is fair, since the USPS gives it all back and more in profit that finds it's way back into the US government).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-23 12:10am

It's chock full of false dilemmas and loaded rhetoric. The first question

"If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

says a lot about whoever wrote it. That is obviously a false dichotomy, and also makes the rather insulting claim that what benefits trans-national corporations will tend to not benefit "humanity."

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-23 12:16am

Also, there are industries that are *a-hem* "privately owned", such as the US Postal Service. It privatized in the sixties, but is in practice works for the US government. It's a government sponsered monopoly, basically, and always will be because all the laws that were made to ensure the mail system was omnipresent in all of America (such as the law that says that all towns must have a post office) still exist even after the US Postal Service became privatized, plus the billions in subsidies that the government gives it (which is fair, since the USPS gives it all back and more in profit that finds it's way back into the US government).

Facism clear and true.

says a lot about whoever wrote it. That is obviously a false dichotomy, and also makes the rather insulting claim that what benefits trans-national corporations will tend to not benefit "humanity."

Agreed.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-23 12:16am

Durran Korr wrote:It's chock full of false dilemmas and loaded rhetoric. The first question

"If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

says a lot about whoever wrote it. That is obviously a false dichotomy, and also makes the rather insulting claim that what benefits trans-national corporations will tend to not benefit "humanity."

Well, it doesn't necessarily follow that what benefits trans-national corporations benefits everyone. What benefits trans-national corporations benefits trans-national corporations, and if that benefit filters down to everyone, then so be it, but it doesn't always filter down.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-23 12:22am

The USPS predates fascism. That the United States does a few of the same things that fascist governments do does not mean those things are inherently fascist.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-05-23 02:46am

Durran Korr wrote:The USPS predates fascism. That the United States does a few of the same things that fascist governments do does not mean those things are inherently fascist.

The United States Postal Service? Predating facism? Are you out of your fucking mind? The United States wasn't even formed, the America's not even fucking DISCOVERED by Western Civilizations when Facism was created.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-23 09:29am

NapoleonGH wrote:Johansen, you clearly do not understand democratic socialism. Democratic Socialists believe in some socialist practices, nationalization of key industries, such as health care, coal/oil, electricity, phone, rail.

That's not really socialism, it's more akin to capitalism with socialist elements.