Social Democracy and Socialism

[George_Bonanza]

It seems to me that these two ideologies are used interchangeably. The term "socialist" is thrown around ranging from moderate pro-capitalist/pro-social services parties to hardcore Communist/collectivist parties.

Social Democracy is identified as a moderate form of socialism where supporters do not want to tear down capitalism, but want to incorporate general socialist goals like universal health care, etc. Is that really socialism in the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as Marx described it?

For example, I hear a lot about those socialists in Sweden. But they're Social Dems, who support capitalism, and do not even have a minimum wage. They're capitalists with really high taxes and top of the world education. Are they really socialists?

So my question is, when the DUers identify themselves as socialists, are they meaning Social Democrats, or more like orthodox socialism where it is the passing stage between capitalism and communism?

[OhioStateProgressive]

1. Democratic-Socialism as opposed to Institutional Socialism

is really what you are talking about here.

I believe in some Institutional Socialism (free healthcare, college education) but not equal draft into the army, and a few of those types of things

I label myself as a Democratic-Socialist, because I believe our system of elections, our current government structure could be maintained under Democratic-Socialism, and not under Institutional Socialism, which would require revolution

[izzie]

2. I think so as I think the way it is done in Eur is good.

n/t

[George_Bonanza]

3. I agree, I always was in favour of an enlightened capitalism

And Social Democracy is it.

[durutti]

4. Definitely the latter.

Though I would vote for a social-democratic party.

[Deja Q]

5. Either way works for me... but...

Keep the taxes reasonable, the people fed and educated and employed, those who earn the most give back the most, and then I'd feel for the affluent as much as I feel for the poor and working classes. Right now, it's all for them and the rest of be damned. AMerica gives these bastards a lot and they still ask for more. (they also ask for government to provide services but don't expect to pay a damn penny for them.)

But reading this only makes me think that outright socialism is what we need to do. :-( America's corporate giants exterminating all in their path, destroying smaller companies, enveloping them, and hiring the now unemployed workers for lower wages and benefits, and pray that walmart doesn't see that outlet as being economically un-viable as when walmart pulls out, the town they infested soon dies.

[debsianben]

6. Social Democracy Isn't Socialism

Socialism means the extension of democracy from politics to economics, a system where people democratically control their workplaces and communities from the bottom up and the division between employers who live off of the sweat of others and the rest of us who must rent ourselves out to them in order to make a living has been abolished.

Social democracy means maintaining the basic undemocratic structures of capitalism described above, but passing reforms that make it more liveable...."capitalism with a human face." At best, it means gradually expanding control over the economy by the state bureaucracy, but that ain't socialism either. The core of socialism is radical democracy, and a strong state negates that.

In terms of American electoral politics, socialists try to support to run independant radical candidates as a method for building movements for change from below, while social democrats, since they don't hope for anything beyond crumbs from the rulers, tend to just campaign for Republocratic candidates that offer a slightly "kinder and gentler" version of the same core vision of free trade neo-liberalism at home and aggressive military intervention abroad.

[MSchreader]

8. Hi Ben!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Martin

[George_Bonanza]

9. Labour, NDP, Green, and Nordic European parties are social dems, right?

NOT socialists. The only true socialist country is Cuba, right?

[MSchreader]

10. First question, right.

Second question,... umm, no.

Martin

[OhioStateProgressive]

11. yeah

Europe is mostly Democratic-Socialism...

I think Cuba and a few Central American countries are the only Institutional Socialist countries there are

[arcos]

37. huh?

all seven Central American countries are capitalist.

[debsianben]

13. Yes on 1, No on 2

Nope. Cuba is a soft-core version of the same social system engineered in the USSR. It certainly doesn't represent radical bottom-up democracy. This isn't to say that I'm indifferent to Cuba's achievements in staying free of the 900-pound guerilla 90 miles away from its shores, just that I think that words mean things.

[George_Bonanza]

14. Anything resembling soc-dem is called socialist nowadays

Kucinich has been called a socialist, even Dean (lol) by some on the internet. The Green Party is socialist. Tony Blair is socialist. Sweden is socialist. But they're not.

[Kanary]

15. Hello, Ben!

Welcome to DU!

:hi: :hi: :hi:

:toast:

Kanary

[cryofan]

7. I am a social democrat

It is not the same at all as Socialism. Basically, it takes advantage of human greed and need for social status and just taxes really high. I would prefer to live in a social democracy in europe. The citizens there really have it good.

[Syn_Dem]

12. Social Democrat here

n/t

[George_Bonanza]

16. What is "Democratic Socialism" then?

Online encyclopedias define it as something a bit more radical than social democracy. Then they say Sweden is a form of democratic socialism. But Goran Persson is a Social Democrat. Are they getting mixed up? Do they not realize that Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are different things? They sure sound alike, but it turns out they're different.

[OhioStateProgressive]

17. they are different

i was trying to get into it with my posts...but Democratic-Scoialism is Insititutional Socialism empowered by the Democratic Process...Social Democracy is really just social welfare, and not a true Socialistic government...Democratic-Socialism is a true merger between the Democratic Process, and the Socialistic Economy

[George_Bonanza]

18. Goran Persson is part of the Social Democratic Party

Yet you said most of Europe was Democratic-Socialist. Norway is led by the Christian Democrats. Does "Social Democracy" mean something different up there?

[OhioStateProgressive]

20. the system, not the parties

the system is Democratic-Socialism, Sweden is a Democratic-Socialist nation, the leader is a Social Democrat...they are multiparty still, and different parties can win, they are all socialist to some varying degree, but the SYSTEM itself is Democratic-Socialist

[George_Bonanza]

26. How so?

[arcos]

38. ok....

Social democratic parties theoretically support achieving the ends of socialism by democratic means. Thus, it is the same as democratic socialism. However, socialdemocracy used to be much more to the left than what it is now.

Very few socialist parties in the world actually support socialism in it's "pure" form... most of them have endorsed socialdemocracy. In fact, the Socialist International is the global organization for Labour, Socialist and Socialdemocratic parties around the world.

The UK Labour Party, Israel's Labor Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democratic Party, Mexico's Party for the Democratic Revolution, Costa Rica's National Liberation Party and several dozen more are all part of the Socialist International.

Most of its member parties and organization itself has moved to the center (some even consider it center-right), and embraced neoliberal policies of privatization, free trade, etc.

So, theoretically, Tony Blair is a socialist.

In the case of Scandinavia, it's system has been very socialdemocratic, because that's the ideology that has ruled the region for a few decades. Even a lot of moderate right wingers support parts of the socialdemocratic agenda, since the center of political spectrum is much more to the left than in the US.

[MSchreader]

25. Socialism as Radical Democracy

http://www.sp-usa.org/about/principles.html

Martin

[evil_orange_cat]

19. about minimum wage

if there are social institutions to handle things like health care, education, and affordable housing, a minimum wage isn't necessary. ;)

[camero]

21. If a minimum wage is not necessary

Then what is there to stop the employer from paying labor nothing?

[OhioStateProgressive]

22. unions:)

if all labor and workers were unionized, the minimum wage wouldn't be necessary, in my opinion

[camero]

24. It would still be necessary

Unless somebody would police the unions also. You would still have certain people who would be living almost entirely off the government.

I like unions, but I also know that they can be corrupt also.

You need a floor and a ceiling to have a house.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

41. Welfare

We have unlimited access to welfare(well, almost), and if the employer don`t pay enough, people just won`t take the job he is offering.

[camero]

43. That's all fine and dandy

But we still need standards or you basically have indentured servitude.

[evil_orange_cat]

47. what servitude?

seriously... if health care, education, and other welfare safety nets are in place, where is the servitude? Yes, some wages might drop... but wages would then directly reflect disposable income. Most of America is now in debt! Frankly, minimum wage isn't doing much of anything.

[camero]

48. Minimum wage is keeping people from starving

or haven't you noticed? Guess not.

[evil_orange_cat]

45. if they paid nothing, nobody would work... and consumers couldn't spend!

it's basic economics... yes, the scare tactics... OH THEY COULD PAY NOTHING... but the system itself is set up to deter that. ;)

[camero]

49. Check out Wal-Mart and unpaid overtime

They would do it if they could get away with it. Alot do.

[camero]

50. Better yet...talk to a trucker

And ask him about all that unpaid labor he does. I'm sure him or her will tell you.

[rman]

58. and this is why minimum wage is not necessary?

these seem to be examples of why protection of laborers rights are needed, including minimum wage.

[camero]

63. exactly

Take a minute and google and look at the labor practices in this industry. People do exactly what they can get away with. I know. I did it for 6 years.

And the excuse will be, "You're on the dole. Why should I pay you?".

[camero]

64. I'll give ya one

http://www.trucksafety.org/default.asp?contentID=380&rb=1

However: what is the central reason for a trucker's driving while sleepy which leads, for instance, to his running over a car and killing four passengers? Why does a trucker "cut corners" and rush to get the delivery made and the truck back for the next load? The reason is: a boss sees every truck, driver, and load in terms of profit for himself and the quicker the delivery and the lower the wage he pays, the bigger the profit. Bosses make it clear to a trucker that if he wants to keep his job he'd better "deliver" not giving a damn for what happens to that driver, and through him, to people on the road.

Interstate trucking is not covered under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and therefore companies are not required to pay a driver overtime so they often demand that the driver work 60 or more hours per week. Also, most interstate drivers are paid by the load or mile, not the hour, and are not paid for waiting time or time spent loading and unloading. So unless there is a union contract requiring respectful pay for a reasonable work week, if a driver is to eke out a living he finds speed and long hours desperately necessary.

Mr. Siegel explained that contempt "the addition to self through the lessening of something else" is the source of all injustice. I think his seeing this is one of the most important discoveries in world history.

[camero]

66. I said it is needed

At no point did I say it was not needed.

[brainwashed_youth]

23. Social democrat

I'm all for the free health care and other stuff like that

[MissMarple]

28. There is no free health care. Someone always has to pay.

And right now, no one wants to.

:evilgrin:

[cryofan]

30. You completely miss several important points

Obviously, health care cannot be free. But we can put more of the costs on those who make more money. They may not want to pay more, but we can MAKE THEM pay more.

Also, if the govt takes over administration of healthcare, it will cost less. We are the only country in the world that pays 14% of its GDP on healthcare. No one else even comes close: Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, England, etc etc, all pay in the SINGLE DIGITS, such as 9% or so.

One more big big advantage to their socialized medicine/univeral healthcare, or whatever you wanna call it: EVERYONE is covered!

This ALONE gives citizens of those an improved quality of life. It means companies do not have to pay for healthcare. It is paid in taxes.

[manfriend]

33. It's like nirvana, but different

google around, those countries are going broke. every year thousands of canadians come to the US for life saving treatment. and european countries are trying to scale back their utopian health benefits. they can no longer afford it.

[camero]

35. Those countries are broke for the same reason we are

They all have lowered their top marginal rates. The increase in tax burdens in Social Democracies are in consumption taxes. The income tax rates are much the same as here.

http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/events/bbl/03051301.pdf

Country 1976 1997 reduction 1997 - 1976
Australia 65 47 -17
Austria 62 50 -12
Canada1 43 31 -14
Finland1 51 39 -12
France 60 57 -3
Germany 56 53* -3
Ireland 77 48 -25
Italy 72 51 -22
Japan1 75 50 -25
Netherlands1 72 50* -12
New Zealand 60 33 -27
Norway1 48 23 -35
Sweden1 57 25 -37
United Kingdom 83 40 -43
United States1 70 39 -39
Unweighted
63.4 42.4 21.7

[blurp]

34. Health care here does not equal health care there

Also, if the govt takes over administration of healthcare, it will cost less. We are the only country in the world that pays 14% of its GDP on healthcare. No one else even comes close: Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, England, etc etc, all pay in the SINGLE DIGITS, such as 9% or so.

I think it's a mistake to confuse spending with cost. Do we really pay 50% more for everything, or are we buying 50% more of services? How many more MRI's do we get? How many more pills do we buy? Do we see the doctor more often? What about the effects of auto-accident related injuries? It's a fact we drive much more than those in Europe. How much more do we spend because we are hurt more often? What about liability differences? Do state doctors or hospitals get sued? If so, more or less than those here?

The phrase "health care" means different things in different places.

[Kellanved]

36. You pay more

While it is quite possible that some things don't occure so often in Europe, that would not explain why travelling to Europe for treatments (especially dental) is so popular. And way cheaper, even with the flights.
The sueing is an important point: you won't see spectacular ammounts of money in malpractice cases. The main point is: the doctors insure themselves against such suits, thus the other patients share the costs, making it more expensive for everyone.

[blurp]

40. Is it really that popular?

I think it's the other way around: more people come to the US for care than leave the US for care.

It certainly applies to things like cancer. Take a look here:

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/nation/6854045.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-09-25-cancer-survival_x.htm

Survival rates for those with cancer in Europe range from a low of 25.2% for men in Poland to a high of 57.9% for women in France.

In the US, the overall AVERAGE is 62% for men and 63.5% for women.

Some more stuff here:

http://www.davidgratzer.com/report1/appendix1.pdf

There are 4 times as many coronary bypass operations per person in the US than Europe. How many people die of heart failure because they can't get the operation?

[Kellanved]

42. well

cancer-diagnosis is a problem - it is frequently diagnosed too late.
As for the other things: the quality and density of the medical system varies in the different Euopean nations; I'm not aware of waiting lists for heart operations outside the UK (but I might be mistaken on this).

The ER net is considered superior, AFAIR 85% of all US ERs have more patients than they can handle.
Fact is : almost any treatment is cheaper than it would be for an uninsured patient in the US; but AFAIK are the costs are lower for insurance companies than for patients on their own in the US as well.

[cryofan]

39. Damn straight America healthcare not equal to Euro healthcare!

Euro healthcare costs a pittance (or nothing) when you actually go in to see the doctor, dentist or into hospital, and EVERYONE is covered.

American healthcare costs a fortune (and going up, up, up!) and 20% of AMerican citizens do not even HAVE healthcare.

Also, they only have to spend 8-9% of GDP on healthcare in order to get like 78 years life expectancy, while we have to spend 15% of GDP to get 75 years of life expectancy....

There is a HUGE difference! No WAY the two are equal...you are right about that.....

[iverglas]

51. I tend to think

... that people who ask questions like:

Do we really pay 50% more for everything, or are we buying 50% more of services? How many more MRI's do we get? How many more pills do we buy? Do we see the doctor more often? What about the effects of auto-accident related injuries? It's a fact we drive much more than those in Europe. How much more do we spend because we are hurt more often? What about liability differences? Do state doctors or hospitals get sued? If so, more or less than those here?

... should really be in a position to offer some answers, if they are making assertions that would only be correct if the answers went in a particular direction -- as you did:

Health care here does not equal health care there
... The phrase "health care" means different things in different places.

I'd be needing some evidence to support those assertions before paying them any heed, myself.

.

[blurp]

57. Oh, come on

It's obvious that standards differ from place to place.

"Health care" whatever it means in terms of MRIs per person, etc, is going to be different from place to place because people are different from place to place.

Values are subjective. Tolerance of risk is subjective.

Do I really have to prove this to you? It seems obvious.

[iverglas]

59. duh, yeah

It's obvious that standards differ from place to place.

So was THAT what you were meaning to say when you said:

Do we really pay 50% more for everything, or are we buying 50% more of services? How many more MRI's do we get? How many more pills do we buy? Do we see the doctor more often? What about the effects of auto-accident related injuries? It's a fact we drive much more than those in Europe. How much more do we spend because we are hurt more often? What about liability differences? Do state doctors or hospitals get sued? If so, more or less than those here?

Well then allow me.

Do USAmericans really get more bang for their bucks, or are they just filling the pockets of corporate middle-thingies that add no value to the services they receive and skim off money that could have been spent on health care?

How many more MRIs do people without private health insurance get in the US?

How many more pills do people in the US buy with the result that they are unable to afford food ... or how many more pills do people in the US not buy because they can't pay for them and also eat?

Does the average USAmerican, or the average USAmerican in the bottom income quintile, see a doctor more often?

What about the effects of spending hugely more on health care? It's a fact that USAmericans, on average, do. How much more do they spend because they are charged more for every single health care service they consume?

What about liability differences were there are precious few "state doctors" -- like Canada? Do you have some notion that they don't get sued? Are you suggesting that liability awards/settlements account for significant amounts of the higher costs ... and lower services ... experienced in the US? If so, why don't you tell us what your basis for that assertion is? And what the facts are?


"Health care" whatever it means in terms of MRIs per person, etc, is going to be different from place to place because people are different from place to place.

Yuppers. And it's going to be different in terms of whether you can take your sick kid to see a doctor without going without a week's groceries, too, do you think?


Values are subjective. Tolerance of risk is subjective.

Sure 'nuff. But you only have a point if you are able to point to some actual facts, and make some actual argument for one set of values being better, or one set of risks being less tolerable ... if you manage to establish what the differences between them are in the first place.

Otherwise, you're just blowing insinuations around ... and nobody could ever meaningfully discuss any public policy, let alone adopt one, 'cause it's all just subjective.


Do I really have to prove this to you? It seems obvious.

And so are the stars in the sky. It's just that asking "are there stars in the sky?" wouldn't actually make my case, if I were saying that night-time was better than day-time, or even that night-time might, by some standard, be better than day-time.

To make that case, I'd actually have to state a standard, and then demonstrate how night-time measured up to it better than day-time, even if my audience completely disagreed with my standard.

So, like, if the starriness of the sky were part of my standard, I might do well to prove that there are stars in the sky. Without even mentioning that I ought to be able to state a case for the starriness of the sky being a better standard than the warmth of the air, say.

You asked a host of questions that presumably reflected criteria that you regard as relevant for measuring the value of a health care system. You ignored criteria that are more than arguably more relevant to more people. You didn't establish that any particular health care system measured up more poorly to your standards, let alone any other relevant standards, than any other system.

Hot air, my friend; but I always figure that even people who blow hot air have some reason for doing it, when they're blowing it at someone else.

.

[blurp]

62. Don't try to turn it around, the burden is on you

But you only have a point if you are able to point to some actual facts, and make some actual argument for one set of values being better, or one set of risks being less tolerable...

You ask the impossible. Values at some point are irreducible. There is no place for an argument. You cay merely state your own preferences.

You ignored criteria that are more than arguably more relevant to more people.

And how do you know this? More people? Really? You did a survey? Where do you get this idea? Ah, it must be some of that hot air you were talking about.

You didn't establish that any particular health care system measured up more poorly to your standards, let alone any other relevant standards, than any other system.

And I don't have to. Someone made the claim that one system was better than another under the assumption the "health care" meant the same thing to everyone. It doesn't, and I think the mere fact that I gave standards that differ from yours proves it.

If someone makes the claim that one system is superior, it's up to them to express the standards they're using.

Hot air, my friend; but I always figure that even people who blow hot air have some reason for doing it, when they're blowing it at someone else.

Not nice.

[pacifictiger]

27. I think political terminology

has been so skewed over recent years, especially with so many news pundits, career politicians and advisors making a sports game over "winning" an argument in sound bites. Oh for the day when ethics and service to the greater public good supercedes the petty ego need to win at any cost.

Thomas Jefferson considered the fundamental essence of any political philosophy was either democratic or autocratic, no matter what name was given at any point in time. The republicans today love to equate democracy with capitalism and dictatorship with communisism, (and by extention communism->socialism) thereby painting themselves as us=good/them=bad. In reality, the opposite of democracy is dictatorship while the opposite of capitalism is communism. Socialism is somewhere in the middle. Autocratic, aristocratic capitalistic rule, which is where this country is rapidly heading under spokesman Bush, is just as bad for the citizenry as a whole as is autocratic communism, and was the very type of system that the founders of this country were trying to escape from. Communism sprouted from the people's rebellion against European & Chinese aristocrats. We need to speak up on this fundamental truth and repel those that allow facts to be distorted and enable the catchy one-liner sound bites accepted somehow as a new truth.

I grew up in New Zealand, which has always been considered pretty socialistic by US standards. That system grew out of a small developing country pooling resources for the greater good of the people, the common-wealth if you will, to provide health care, education, and fundamental infrastructure such as roads and railways. New Zealand by the way was the first country to give women the vote, to mandate that the indigenous people of the land have a minimum number of representatives in government, and is today rated as one of the top 3 countries in the world perceived to have the least corrupt government. Yes, taxes were, and still are, relatively high, but, with medical expenses, education and pensions covered, each citizen got way more back for every penny taxed than I do as a US citizen today. In spite of government provided, basic human needs and services being made available for all citizens, innovation, free thinking, business ventures, hard work, self reliance, fairness and ethical behaviour were not only encouraged but expected. As everywhere else, the NZ that I grew up in has changed somewhat, but was, despite some faults, a pretty good system in my opinion.

[resist]

29. Perhaps a more interesting question

might be why we would want to support the concept of Capitalism at all?

My sister gets very angry with me because I refuse to join her boycott of Walmart, which she believes is Satan incarnate. But she seems to feel fine shopping at KMart or Target. Can she honestly believe they are different simply because they're not big enough to make it on the evening news? You cannot buy good cotton socks for 99 cents unless they are being made by children in somethingstan.

Is Ford motor company ever going to decide not to ship jobs overseas just because they recognize its bad for this country? Not as long as their first bottom line is their obligation to their investors. Is Chevron ever going to decide not to invade the Alaskan wilderness for oil on their own? Hell no. Will they stop buying democracy to keep their no-tax status? Are they idiots? Is NBC going to stop running violent shows on our public airwaves just because we own them?

The basis of all this is greed and that is the inevitable outcome of capitalism in any society where corporations are not all strictly regulated by the public. How can we honestly expect anything but what we get when we make the entire ethos of our nation dependent on a philosophy that says get all you can and to hell with the other guy? Socialism shmocialism.

[pacifictiger]

31. I think the issue is not

capitalism vs communism, but the fact that secrecy, autocratic rule, and ignorance foster greed and shady ethics. When the unions were so corrupted by organized crime, I was adamantly against them and still dislike the way some members are allowed to circumvent accountability, wheras I suspect today the organized crime element has certainly gone corporate white collar. I believe to be on either extreme end of the spectrum is not good for the greater social good.

[blurp]

32. Socialism emphasizes society. Individualism emphasizes the individual.

The big problem is that many people have very different ideas about what is "good for society". This is why monsters like Hitler were able to claim they were national socialists. Dictators all claim that they are acting in the interests of society, even as they slaughter millions.

Fascists do the same thing.

Fascism
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Fortunately, most people now understand that respecting the rights of the individual mostly ends up helping society overall. It seems a bit paradoxical, but it works for me.

[pacifictiger]

44. The common denomenator

for dictator rule whether they be Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Jeffrey Skilling, etal, was SECRECY so they could hide their self serving motives. When individuals in society are somehow prevented from questioning their leaders, whether by fear, terror, pandering, or simple ignorance, everyone but the top eschelon loses. I am appalled by the increasing secrecy moves by this administration and cohorts and am amazed that so many people are willing to blindly follow their "leader" without question. The only way to ensure that honesty will prevail in this era of less than stellar ethics, is to demand openness. Evil cannot stand the light of openness.

[blurp]

52. But keep in mind, also

If people buy into the idea that society always comes before individual rights, then people won't question simply because they think it's not their place, secrecy or not.

"Society" seems so large a thing! It's very intimidating to think that you are going against "society". Oh, they're just oh so much more important than little ol' you.

This is why people stand around and do nothing when people get slaughtered. They've been convinced that society's judgment comes before their own and they shouldn't question it. They lost their individuality.

[pacifictiger]

54. I agree that

individual, independent thinking, is paramount to a democracy, but that is a separate issue from an individual whose sole motivation is greed for the self.

[iverglas]

61. you might be interested

in the Organization of American States' Democratic Charter.

(Everybody should be interested.)


The only way to ensure that honesty will prevail in this era of less than stellar ethics, is to demand openness. Evil cannot stand the light of openness.

And corruption in particular has a hard time when it's put under a lamp, corruption being the biggest complaint of ordinary people all over the world about their governments. (It has rather bad effects in terms of both personal liberty and collective security -- "human security" these days being a term that covers things like food, shelter, medical care and education.)


http://www.oas.org/charter/docs/resolution_en.htm


Article 4

The strengthening of democracy requires transparency,
probity, responsibility, and effectiveness in the exercise
of public authority, respect for social rights, and freedom
of the press, as well as economic and social development.


The transparency of government action and decision-making is a biggie in the world today.


And also, regarding some of the rest of this discussion:


Article 19

The OAS will continue to undertake activities and programs
of various kinds to promote democracy and its values.


Article 20

The objectives of the programs and actions will be to promote
governance, stability, good governance, and the quality of
democracy with special preference given to strengthening
political institutions and the wide range of social organizations
which make up civil society. At the same time, and noting that
democracy is not just a juridical structure and a political regime,
but a way of life founded on liberty and the constant economic,
social, and cultural improvement of its people, such programs
will pay similar attention to strengthening a democratic culture
and promoting democratic principles and practices and the values
of liberty and social justice in child and youth education.


There are quite a lot of people in the world who give considerable thought to the "balancing" of individual liberty and collective security, and particularly the extent to which enhancing one will enhance the other. (It can be hard for the illiterate person to exercise freedom of the press ... and hard for a person who doesn't have freedom of association to support his/her family ... etc.)

The conflicts between the two interests really just aren't as violent and constant as some would have us think -- and, in particular, the benefits to individuals of measures to enhance human (collective) security, in particular, are strangely often disregarded, denied or downplayed.

.

[IrateCitizen]

53. Cooperative vs. selfish individualism

You have made an attempt to equate socialism with a lack of individuality. To do so is to assume that socialism is a static philosophy, unable to change with the times. While in certain circles this may be correct, it is far from the norm across the board.

This is where the original libertarians -- the anarchists of the turn of the 20th century -- had it right, IMHO. They believed that there could be no such thing as "overall freedom" without the paramount freedom in place first -- freedom from exploitation. Without that basic freedom, all others were null and void.

Many interpretations of socialist theory and philosophy do not impose limitations on the freedoms of individuals, unless you consider the freedom to exploit others (either directly or indirectly) to be a key freedom. Rather, they propose a system in which the public commons are recognized as an essential part to enable EVERYONE to enjoy their freedom and individuality. And in this sense, freedom and individuality are not limited to the narrow consumer sense, as many modern-day libertarians seem to advocate.

A modern-day socialist sees the economy as something that should, first and foremost, be used to meet the basic needs of society. Profit is fine after that, so long as it does not infringe on those basic needs. Such an outlook can be both individual AND cooperative -- the best of both worlds. Freedom (true freedom, not narrow consumer freedom) abounds for all within the society.

The selfish individualist, OTOH, is concerned only with his/her short-term wants, even if they are to be attained through the exploitation of others (and therefore, the limitation of their freedom). In this system, freedom ends up becoming a finite quantity, where one person's freedom (usually meaning consumer freedom) means another's subjugation.

[pacifictiger]

55. Dear Irate

you say I am attempting to equate socialism with a lack of individuality. Absolutely not!! And if somehow you gathered that impression, it was certainly not my intent. Perhaps you picture "socialism" to be a different shade than I do. I am not a rhodes scholar interested in debating the fine points of theoretical politics, but am a simple, free thinking person trying to make sense of a crazy world.

[IrateCitizen]

56. Not at all, pacifictiger. I was replying to blurp's post -- not yours.

No harm, no foul? :D

[iverglas]

60. and the damned funny thing is ...

Fortunately, most people now understand that respecting the rights of the individual mostly ends up helping society overall. It seems a bit paradoxical, but it works for me.

... that a lot of people -- actually, a lot of the very same people, at least out here in the big wide world -- also recognize that protecting society as a whole mostly ends up benefiting the individuals in it.

I mean, that's a pretty big generalization all right. Kinda like yours.

They also tend to recognize that flinging assertions about dictators into a discussion of socialism and social democracy, and definitions of "fascism" into a discussion in which others are engaging in sincere, honest exchanges of opinion in an atmosphere of goodwill and mutual recognition of that goodwill -- whatcha might call "civil discourse" -- well, isn't quite civil discourse.

If you don't know the difference between "national socialism" and "socialism", you might want to go back to the dictionary. Or at least refrain from insinuating that the two are in some way related, and thus that socialists (or social democrats?) and Nazis are close blood relatives, until you figure it out.

That'd be the civil thing to do, anyhow.

.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

46. I'm a Social Democrat, and it depends where you are in the world

as to whether a Social Democrat is also a Socialist. In Canada, we are Socialists.

[camero]

65. here it is. the end all be all of unregulated capitalism

"The inefficiency of ill will in economics is now becoming apparent all over the world. There will be no economic recovery in the world until economics itself, the making of money, the having of jobs, becomes ethical; is based on good will rather than on the ill will which has been predominant for centuries. "

The power of respect in economics is the power of every person to be given his dignity; what used to be called the fruits of his labor; his fair share of the world's wealth. The power of respect is the power to we are working, not to be exploited by someone or to beat out someone, but because what we do can strengthen other people even as we feel we are being strengthened. "