View Full Version : Cool article about democratic socialist Sweden
Some fashinating stuff about democratic socialist Sweden...
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/fa04/brook.htm
Living last fall in Sweden, I often felt as if I were in the richest country in the world. In my two months there, I never saw a boarded-up window or dilapidated house. Cell phones were ubiquitous, carried by everyone from children to seniors. In small Swedish towns, I saw the trappings of upper-middle-class American life-travel agencies, chic cafés, and such Swedish chain stores as H&M and Ikea, whose aesthetic quality limits their range in the United States to a handful of sophisticated metropolitan areas. The general outlook of Swedes in all but the most remote parts of the country was like that of America's upscale, educated, urban elite. The nation still reflected Susan Sontag's 1969 observation that "the ideas and attitudes of, say, The Village Voice, are 'establishment' opinions" in Sweden.
As I chose among the eight varieties of pickled herring in a Stockholm supermarket, I heard Bob Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues" pumped in over the sound system. In provincial train station newsstands, I saw an array of books like that in small, independent bookstores in Berkeley or Cambridge. Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed was prominently displayed in English, and Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation was available in Swedish. The Parliament (Riksdag) had long-ago enshrined gay civil unions and outlawed spanking one's own children. A sex education magazine for teenagers put out by the Swedish National Institute of Public Health seemed concerned not merely that teens were having safe sex, but that they were enjoying it. The lead article included an excerpt from the Kama Sutra detailing a rather acrobatic sexual position and informed its teenage readership, "The clitoris is for enjoyment. It is in just the right place for fondling." A government-funded publication of this sort would be almost unthinkable in the United States.
And yet, Sweden is not the richest country in the world. It is not even close. It is far poorer than the United States. Current statistics put it in the low teens internationally, just below Italy (by contrast, in 1970, Sweden ranked fourth). Frederick Bergstrom, a neoliberal Stockholm economist I interviewed, recently put out a study comparing Sweden to the fifty American states. He found that in terms of gross domestic product per capita, Sweden is poorer than all but West Virginia and Mississippi. Yet Sweden ranks high on broader indexes of societal health as well as economic competitiveness. Sweden topped University of Pennsylvania professor Richard Estes's "weighted index of social progress" in 2003, a ranking of nations based on a slew of social indicators including life expectancy, infant mortality, and literacy. In Foreign Policy magazine's annual globalization index, which tracks global integration of money, people, and information, ultra-wired Sweden has ranked as high as number three in recent years.
So why does Sweden, although poorer in per capita GDP than Alabama, top the United States in virtually every social indicator and hold its own in economic competitiveness as well? The keys to Sweden's success lie in the social and economic system it has developed since the Great Depression, sometimes called the "Swedish model," which has created a stunning degree of equality among its citizens and a physical infrastructure that is the envy of richer countries.
......read on.......
hooligan
01-19-2005, 11:33 PM
I like their issue they've taken with the welfare state. It's a little bit ironic, that back when welfare started, well back when welfare was more "white" (sorry for the reference) its was looked at something good and something necessary because not everyone was going to do well. But, when welfare suddenly became a "colored" affair, it became something sordid, something that was inherently negative. It goes to show some of the institutionalized racism that guides the philosophy of the welfare state in Amierca.
Economy and its philosophies aren't blind, they're dictated by social pushes and pulls just like everything else. It's sad to see how we stereotype welfare in this country.
deez nuts
01-20-2005, 07:39 AM
what's with all the socialism threads of late?
There have been some capitalist and free trade threads lately. The middle ground is usually the best solution and it isn't socialism. It's democratic socialism like they have in Sweden. Or as the article states about this case, "capitalism without capitalism", "McDonald's without McJobs".
yoMAMA
01-20-2005, 11:15 AM
Alabama and Missisippi?
those are 3rd world countries......
From the article above:
"a neoliberal Stockholm economist I interviewed, recently put out a study comparing Sweden to the fifty American states. He found that in terms of gross domestic product per capita, Sweden is poorer than all but West Virginia and Mississippi. Yet Sweden ranks high on broader indexes of societal health as well as economic competitiveness".
It's not about quantity it's about priorities and Sweden makes social welfare top priority and it's consistently had the highest standard of living in the world.
Yeahman
01-20-2005, 01:47 PM
Yet Sweden ranks high on broader indexes of societal health as well as economic competitiveness
Those are subjective measures.
hooligan
01-20-2005, 01:53 PM
Those are subjective measures.
So's the GDP and per capita income. Woo.
Mr.Lum
01-20-2005, 02:19 PM
I have relatives that live in Sweden. They're doing better than we are and they've been there for a shorter period of time than we have (they just moved there from Algeria like 10 years ago). Edu there is free and high quality for everyone including international students through the highest levels too. I took Swedish last year I might want to check it out for myself. Scandinavia seems mad chilled from what I hear. My Swedish teacher said that she thought Norweigians were 'like communists" because they have income caps and all these laws about how much money you can make. I thought that was funny because I've heard a lot of American friends talk about "communist Sweden and Germany" and so forth.
So's the GDP and per capita income. Woo.From all the bullshit I've had to read in history and economics, etc., in school I'd say this is true. Back in the day what we read was alot worse than it is now. Now there's all kinds of multiculturalism, sensitivity, empowered girls, etc. I remember having to read alot of bullshit that made no sense no matter how hard I tried. No wonder I was bored. It didn't make sense. There is always an agenda, conservative or liberal, we just have to be vigilant. So much is subjective on both sides. Somehow I trust numbers and long-winded tomes less now.
hooligan
01-20-2005, 05:50 PM
From all the bullshit I've had to read in history and economics, etc., in school I'd say this is true. Back in the day what we read was alot worse than it is now. Now there's all kinds of multiculturalism, sensitivity, empowered girls, etc. I remember having to read alot of bullshit that made no sense no matter how hard I tried. No wonder I was bored. It didn't make sense. There is always an agenda, conservative or liberal, we just have to be vigilant. So much is subjective on both sides. Somehow I trust numbers and long-winded tomes less now.
Remeber, as Preacher Yell0 put it, we hate facts because we're liberals and progressives.
Yeahman
01-20-2005, 10:20 PM
No, you hate facts because you don't know any better. True socialists/communists can argue using facts.
For example, GDP per capita is not a subjective term. What you, as a socialist, can say is...
1. GNP is preferable to GDP in measuring the wealth of Sweden against the US.
2. GDP per capita is not relative to domestic purchasing power. A more fair equation would involve a CPI or at least the Big Mac index.
3. GDP per capita says nothing about the disparity of income.
Don't hate the facts. Use them.
We're not communists. Why does everyone refer to us that way? I'm not a socialist but a democratic socialist and I define that by reading about the various pro-social welfare and environment democratic socialist countries in the world.
hooligan
01-20-2005, 10:29 PM
No, you hate facts because you don't know any better. True socialists/communists can argue using facts.
For example, GDP per capita is not a subjective term. What you, as a socialist, can say is...
1. GNP is preferable to GDP in measuring the wealth of Sweden against the US.
2. GDP per capita is not relative to domestic purchasing power. A more fair equation would involve a CPI or at least the Big Mac index.
3. GDP per capita says nothing about the disparity of income.
Don't hate the facts. Use them.
No, you don't seem to realize that there are other pertinent things other than facts that people use to describe how they live. There are oral histories and dialogues where people use things such as popular education to build things like "consciousness" and "power" and "education". Facts, now days, can be pulled and twisted into every which way, take for example this current administrations views on Iraq. Please, if we relied solely on facts, we'd fail to see things like art, music, and culture are things which are measurable but rarely concrete enough to be called "facts".
Before you start "preaching" on and on about how statistics or "facts" can't lie, perhaps you better do some reading on some experiences and histories of people. And you're dogmatic claim to facts reaks of brainwashed academia as well as too much Fox News.
I have relatives that live in Sweden. They're doing better than we are and they've been there for a shorter period of time than we have (they just moved there from Algeria like 10 years ago). Edu there is free and high quality for everyone including international students through the highest levels too. I took Swedish last year I might want to check it out for myself. Scandinavia seems mad chilled from what I hear. My Swedish teacher said that she thought Norweigians were 'like communists" because they have income caps and all these laws about how much money you can make. I thought that was funny because I've heard a lot of American friends talk about "communist Sweden and Germany" and so forth.
Facts, now days, can be pulled and twisted into every which way, take for example this current administrations views on Iraq. Please, if we relied solely on facts, we'd fail to see things like art, music, and culture are things which are measurable but rarely concrete enough to be called "facts". Before you start "preaching" on and on about how statistics or "facts" can't lie, perhaps you better do some reading on some experiences and histories of people. And you're dogmatic claim to facts reaks of brainwashed academia as well as too much Fox News.I was going to say that too. Facts are framed to lie to us. They are useless in the framing and interpretation.
hooligan
01-20-2005, 10:33 PM
I was going to say that too. Facts are framed to lie to us. They are useless in the framing and interpretation.
Also, there are horrible limitations to facts. For example, what Yell0 consistently does when he posts about economic matters. "Facts" are another rhetorical device he uses separate those who actually can debate against them and frame the argument within his own reference.
I have relatives that live in Sweden. They're doing better than we are and they've been there for a shorter period of time than we have (they just moved there from Algeria like 10 years ago). Edu there is free and high quality for everyone including international students through the highest levels too. I took Swedish last year I might want to check it out for myself. Scandinavia seems mad chilled from what I hear. My Swedish teacher said that she thought Norweigians were 'like communists" because they have income caps and all these laws about how much money you can make. I thought that was funny because I've heard a lot of American friends talk about "communist Sweden and Germany" and so forth.Hey and I was just going to say this too! That my cousins in Toronto are doing very well. They didn't start out as well as we did at all. Their parents worked at the post office but because there is so much more social support of Asians and women they are all literally thriving. They had a stability their whole lives there to build and build on. There wasn't all this obnoxious racism and capitalism threatening their livelihoods at every turn. It's a rat race here.
Also, there are horrible limitations to facts. For example, what Yell0 consistently does when he posts about economic matters. "Facts" are another rhetorical device he uses separate those who actually can debate against them and frame the argument within his own reference.It is a rhetorical device to control the debate.
If you listened to today's inaugural sppech Bush said he'd use his presidency to end tyranny. Another device is coopting the left's ideas and words so that the left cannot use them. They use words and facts and twist them around to their own advantage. It is all lies and smoke screens.
Yeahman
01-20-2005, 10:53 PM
OK this time it's you guys that said you don't like facts. You really can't get anywhere with people like that. So you can go on believing that the earth is flat and that the universe was created in 6 literal days. I'll just stick to my facts.
We don't like facts that are framed to lie.
Saying the earth is flat or the universe was created in six days is something conservatives would say. Conservatives would frame them so that they become facts.
We don't like facts that are framed to lie.
Saying the earth is flat or the universe was created in six days is something conservatives would say. Conservatives would frame them so that they become facts.
So which facts are framed to lie and which aren't? It seems to me that your criteria is whether or not they support the case for socialism. (and btw, before we get into a debate of the meaning of socialism, to me you are a socialist)
GDP is not subjective, whether or not it actually means anything is debatable, but GDP has a solid definition, just like we define 1m=100cm.
As for Sweden, I've never been there so I can't say how it compare to the US. But I have been to Japan, another socialist country, and they aren't nearly as rich as I thought they are. Although the temples and zen gardens and cherry blossoms were nice. I don't think that our standard of living compares unfavorably with the rest of the world at all, especially not Europe. I've been to Germany as well and it's quite nice, despite being a socialist country. The houses near Garmisch look like candy houses from Hansel and Gretel, and the little towns in the Alps were quite charming. I have to admit that the German environmental standards are something to be admired. But I suspect that every country has its ugly side. I went as a tourist so I probably saw some of the best parts of Germany, it'd be like some foreigner visiting Yosemite national park and San Diego without checking out the ugly parts like Harlem or inner Detroit.
I'm democratic socialist and not socialist which I interpret as communist.
I like democratic socialist nations best. They have the highest standards of living in the world.
Germany also has the best health care system in the world. In fact, it's a mixture of socialized and private funding. Yes, it's very clean.
Yeahman
01-20-2005, 11:59 PM
They have the highest standards of living in the world.
Using what definition of "standard of living"? Oh wait, nevermind. Forget you didn't like facts. Just go on believing that without facts to back it up.
Just google "rankings and highest standards of living" and this appears third:
Worldwide Quality of Living Survey
A worldwide quality of living survey by consultants William M. Mercer has identified four cities in the world's top position as having the highest quality of living - Vancouver, Zurich, Vienna and Bern. Other cities ranked in the world's top 10 are Sydney, Geneva, Auckland, Copenhagen, Helsinki and Amsterdam.
The survey covered 218 cities and evaluated 39 quality of living factors for each city including political, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services. The survey was conducted to assist multinational companies in assessing comparative international quality of living standards for their expatriate workers.
Cities were ranked with New York as the base city with a score of 100. Compared with the top four cities, which each score 106, the least desirable cities are Brazzaville and Pointe Noire in Congo which score 23 and 30.5 respectively, and Khartoum and Baghdad which each score 33.
"At the very top end of the scale, there is little to choose between the highest-scoring cities. Crime levels, transport and education services are what can make the difference. It is in the developing countries where the real variables can be seen, affecting personal safety, hygiene and the basic comforts of living," said Jasbir Singh, European Partner at William M. Mercer.
Europe
The European regional rankings emphasise the difference in living conditions between Eastern and Western Europe, although the gap is narrowing.
Western Europe has three of the world's four highest-ranking cities (Zurich, Vienna and Bern), and 12 of the top 20. Switzerland has three of the highest-scoring cities - Zurich (106), Bern (106) and Geneva (105.5) while Germany also has three cities in the top 20 - Frankfurt (104), Munich (104) and Dusseldorf ( 103.5). Amongst the high-scoring cities are Copenhagen (105.5), Helsinki (104.5), Amsterdam (104.5), Oslo (103.5) and Brussels (103.5). Paris (102.5) is ranked in joint 24th position while London (101.5) is in joint 34th position.
North America
In North America, Canada has three of the world's top 20 cities - Vancouver (106 -joint first position) and Toronto (103.5 - joint 15th position) - due to a combination of social stability, excellent infrastructure and good leisure facilities.
Honolulu (104) scores best of the US cities surveyed, followed by San Francisco (103.5) - both in the top 20 league. The US has 12 of the world's top 50 cities. American cities all score highly on political stability, availability of consumer goods and quality of medical services but less so on crime and personal security issues which reduce their overall ranking (101 - average for all).
Mexican cities are rated lowest in the region.
Asia is a region of extremes with cities at both ends of the table. Australia and New Zealand have four of the world's 20 highest-ranking cities - Sydney and Auckland (105.5), Melbourne (104) and Perth (103.5). Tokyo (102.5), Kobe (101.5) and Yokohama (101) in Japan also rate highly in this part of the world, together with Singapore (100.5). Hong Kong is currently rated at 93.
At the other extreme, Vietnam and China's cities continue to rate poorly in world terms although conditions have improved. Indonesia's ratings have dropped back due to the recent social and political instability in the region.
The rankings here were based on:
"Political, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services. Crime levels, transport and education services are what can make the difference. It is in the developing countries where the real variables can be seen, affecting personal safety, hygiene and the basic comforts of living."
Looks like Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands, Austalia, New Zealand, Belgium and the US own the top twenty. They're ALL IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST COUNTRIES (San Francisco and Honolulu are so liberal and multicultural/Asian that we may as well call them democratic socialist). I think democratic socialist countries are basically Canada, Scandanavia, Western Europe, New Zealand and Australia.
But I have been to Japan, another socialist country, and they aren't nearly as rich as I thought they are. Although the temples and zen gardens and cherry blossoms were nice. I don't think that our standard of living compares unfavorably with the rest of the world at all, especially not Europe. I've been to Germany as well and it's quite nice, despite being a socialist country.Japan is democratic capitalist country.
Mr.Lum
01-21-2005, 03:51 AM
Amsterdam. I love that city. It's dirty as all hell though.
AliBabaIncorporated
01-21-2005, 06:22 AM
Japan is democratic capitalist country.
Japan's internal markets are by no means capitalist, competition is basically forbidden. For example, it's illegal to give discounts on books. A few sectors which are broadly subject to market discipline (automobiles, electronics, finance) earn huge profits overseas; those basically subsidize high-priced domestic protected industries like agriculture, retail distribution, intra-Japan travel. Basically, Japan's employment policy is a form of welfare ... creating millions of makework jobs, which avoids the social problems arising from people on welfare who sit around all day without working. I wouldn't call it democratic socialist so much as simply socialist.
Also, from the Association of Women in Science, a map of tenured mathematics professors by country for Europe:
http://www.awis.org/resource/statistics/euromath.jpg
For such egalitarian countries, those Scandinavian social democracies sure are lagging behind new capitalist economies like those in Eastern Europe, or societies traditionally identified as having restrictive attitudes towards women due to heavy religious influence (Poland, Portugal, Turkey). All the Scandinavian countries have fewer than 10% of tenured mathematics professors being women. Not sure about the equivalent statistic for the US. I recall seeing about 1/4 of mathematics doctorates going to women; not sure how many of those attain tenure.
Finally, European countries are starting to question their welfare systems due to immigration, the same as happened in the US after the 1965 immigration reform ... if Sweden had the same proportion of third-world immigrants as the US, I wonder how much of the population would be clamouring for reform. Not sure about the situation of Muslim immigrants in Sweden (aside from that widely-publicized "honour killing" case a while back), but I know that the Netherlands have basically utterly failed in integrating their middle Eastern population (while having somewhat more success with Turkish and Indonesian immigrants); in France, similarly, the Muslims have been heavily secularized (mosque attendance at 10%) but are severely lagging behind economically, the men moreso than the women.
The rankings here were based on:
"Political, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services. Crime levels, transport and education services are what can make the difference. It is in the developing countries where the real variables can be seen, affecting personal safety, hygiene and the basic comforts of living."
Looks like Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands, Austalia, New Zealand, Belgium and the US own the top twenty. They're ALL IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST COUNTRIES (San Francisco and Honolulu are so liberal and multicultural/Asian that we may as well call them democratic socialist). I think democratic socialist countries are basically Canada, Scandanavia, Western Europe, New Zealand and Australia.
Japan is democratic capitalist country.
Japan a capitalist country? This just proves my point that you're a socialist. If you think Japan is capitalist, then what is socialist? By your scale we'd have to be the borg to be socialist. Japan's internal economy is extremely non-competitive. The banks are basically one big government aided cartel. The whole Japanese economy is pretty much commanded from the top, by the Okurasho and MITI, etc. Japan as a whole is just a pyramid, their education system is also top down, and so is agriculture. The Japanese government buys rice from the farmers at 7 times world market prices and sells them to consumers at a loss. They also restrict foreign imports of raw materials to protect construction cartels. The government funds the famous bridges to nowhere to keep the construction industry afloat.
"health, education, transport and other public services"
So health, education, and transport are public services now? Don't you think this by definition has a socialist bias? What if a country has no public health, education or transport system? Are they a 3rd world country now? What if all the healthcare, education and transport is privately owned but the best in the world?
hooligan
01-21-2005, 08:58 AM
Japan's internal markets are by no means capitalist, competition is basically forbidden. For example, it's illegal to give discounts on books. A few sectors which are broadly subject to market discipline (automobiles, electronics, finance) earn huge profits overseas; those basically subsidize high-priced domestic protected industries like agriculture, retail distribution, intra-Japan travel. Basically, Japan's employment policy is a form of welfare ... creating millions of makework jobs, which avoids the social problems arising from people on welfare who sit around all day without working. I wouldn't call it democratic socialist so much as simply socialist.
Also, from the Association of Women in Science, a map of tenured mathematics professors by country for Europe:
http://www.awis.org/resource/statistics/euromath.jpg
For such egalitarian countries, those Scandinavian social democracies sure are lagging behind new capitalist economies like those in Eastern Europe, or societies traditionally identified as having restrictive attitudes towards women due to heavy religious influence (Poland, Portugal, Turkey). All the Scandinavian countries have fewer than 10% of tenured mathematics professors being women. Not sure about the equivalent statistic for the US. I recall seeing about 1/4 of mathematics doctorates going to women; not sure how many of those attain tenure.
Finally, European countries are starting to question their welfare systems due to immigration, the same as happened in the US after the 1965 immigration reform ... if Sweden had the same proportion of third-world immigrants as the US, I wonder how much of the population would be clamouring for reform. Not sure about the situation of Muslim immigrants in Sweden (aside from that widely-publicized "honour killing" case a while back), but I know that the Netherlands have basically utterly failed in integrating their middle Eastern population (while having somewhat more success with Turkish and Indonesian immigrants); in France, similarly, the Muslims have been heavily secularized (mosque attendance at 10%) but are severely lagging behind economically, the men moreso than the women.
Actually, if you look at current UCLA standings, over the last decade we've only hired 1 black professor and like 2 Latino/a professors. In a campus that's 55% women, women aren't represented in tenure-tracks and such. It's not just Sweden that lags behind in representation, but whatever country that reinforces or promotes the male patriarchy.
AliBaba,
I'm glad Eastern Europe is doing so well with tenured female professors but the other factors in my article are much more important a gauge of social well-being than tenured female professors. Eastern Europe did not make the top twenty cities.
jz,
Alright fine. Japan is not democratic capitalist. The US is though. If you keep googling you will see similar results of highest ranking nations or cities with slightly different factors. If you and ye110 think the highest standards of living are different than mainstream media, alternative media and google state, you are probably looking at business magazines and other pro-big-business newspapers and press.
My standard of living is pretty good, that's all I can say about that. So I think I'll stay in the US. I don't think you can judge that a country is better just because a few cities have nice rankings. It's like all those people who go to Shanghai and gush about how dynamic China has become.
Yeahman
01-21-2005, 10:38 AM
That Mercer survey's the same one that said that the US has many of the cleanest big cities in the world.
But of course the US lags behind in health, safety, and public services. We're a fat country with lots of guns and private healthcare.
The rankings by country come out about the same too.
My bias for democratic socialism may have a little to do with their pro-woman, pro-environment stances. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Scandanavia and Western Europe are the most pro-woman countries in the world. You may not care about these things so the US is fine for you. The US is a rather hostile environment for women.
Mr.Lum
01-21-2005, 01:17 PM
Not sure about the situation of Muslim immigrants in Sweden (aside from that widely-publicized "honour killing" case a while back), but I know that the Netherlands have basically utterly failed in integrating their middle Eastern population (while having somewhat more success with Turkish and Indonesian immigrants); in France, similarly, the Muslims have been heavily secularized (mosque attendance at 10%) but are severely lagging behind economically, the men moreso than the women.
My relatives in Sweden say its very good for them there except for in certain areas where new immigrants congregate. As for France, I am aware from the experiences of family members (father, grandmother, older cusins) who lived or worked/studied in France that there is widespread "color favoritism" as in, Bosnian/East Euro Muslims tend to be given less grief and are less discriminated against than are Africans or North African/Arab Muslims. The Muslim population is primarily Algerian or Moroccan, former colonials. Algerians particularly are stigmatized as either inferior or militant ("terrorist" mostly from the civil war there and also as a result of the Algerian War in which France was defeated) Furthermore, I would suspect the reason for the gender inequality between Muslims is for the same reason black females in the states do better than black males. Muslim/black/African males are more threatening than are their female counter parts. During the Algerian War there was quite a bit of propaganda against Muslims (particularly males) and negative attitudes towards Muslim males were rampant in France from the Middle Ages growing upward with the times and intensifying during the 1960s and 1970s and 1990s. The algerian war of independence, the influx of Algerian and Moroccan "guest workers' and the Algerian war of independence which brought many "political dissidents" ie Islamist terrorists (GIA) as asylum seekers who took the place of the French Communist Party in Muslim slums/ghettos. Muslim youth instead of being encouraged to work hard within the French system were encoraged to reject it by new immams and such who stressed male supremacy and other Salafist ideas which were mroe successful with females than males. This has become the stereotype in France of a violent/sexist overly zealous Muslim male and a docile, oppressed Muslim female. The Muslims of France howver, were not "secularized" upon arrival in France. The majority of them were and are from Algeria. Algeria was very secular especially during the period of peak immigration in the 1970s and 1960s (the earliest ones in the 60s were Algerian France supporters after the war of independence). Most of them were already well aquainted with being secular.
kuilong
01-21-2005, 04:27 PM
Actually, most of the European parties in question identify themselves as "social democratic" -- the SDP in Germany, or SAP in Sweden, for instance. The terms are usually used to mean different things today -- to use a quick Wikipedia summary, "Social Democracy is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with just a few socialist elements to make it more equitable and humane. Meanwhile, Democratic Socialism is more left-wing and it supports a fully socialist system, seeking to establish that socialist system by gradually reforming capitalism from within."
For me the single most important criteria to judging whether a system is capitalist or socialist is the legal protection of property rights. Systems that allow arbitrary confiscation of personal property is simply socialist. Systems that safeguard personal property are capitalist. Since taxation is a form of property confiscation, I put high taxes under socialist traits.
Nola, once again, I find the formula which they use to compute the rankings, which define health, education, etc as public services to be biased toward socialism. I can easily come up with a different metric that puts the US light years ahead of all those euro trash countries.
Rankings for Highest Cost of Living perhaps? I'm not kidding. Many consider the most expensive countries or cities to have the highest standards of living. Whatever makes you happy.
My relatives in Sweden say its very good for them there except for in certain areas where new immigrants congregate. As for France, I am aware from the experiences of family members (father, grandmother, older cusins) who lived or worked/studied in France that there is widespread "color favoritism" as in, Bosnian/East Euro Muslims tend to be given less grief and are less discriminated against than are Africans or North African/Arab Muslims. The Muslim population is primarily Algerian or Moroccan, former colonials. Algerians particularly are stigmatized as either inferior or militant ("terrorist" mostly from the civil war there and also as a result of the Algerian War in which France was defeated) Furthermore, I would suspect the reason for the gender inequality between Muslims is for the same reason black females in the states do better than black males. Muslim/black/African males are more threatening than are their female counter parts. During the Algerian War there was quite a bit of propaganda against Muslims (particularly males) and negative attitudes towards Muslim males were rampant in France from the Middle Ages growing upward with the times and intensifying during the 1960s and 1970s and 1990s. The algerian war of independence, the influx of Algerian and Moroccan "guest workers' and the Algerian war of independence which brought many "political dissidents" ie Islamist terrorists (GIA) as asylum seekers who took the place of the French Communist Party in Muslim slums/ghettos. Muslim youth instead of being encouraged to work hard within the French system were encoraged to reject it by new immams and such who stressed male supremacy and other Salafist ideas which were mroe successful with females than males. This has become the stereotype in France of a violent/sexist overly zealous Muslim male and a docile, oppressed Muslim female. The Muslims of France howver, were not "secularized" upon arrival in France. The majority of them were and are from Algeria. Algeria was very secular especially during the period of peak immigration in the 1970s and 1960s (the earliest ones in the 60s were Algerian France supporters after the war of independence). Most of them were already well aquainted with being secular.I think the Swedish case was a fairly isolated one. Oh yeah Paris is RACIST! esp against Arabs! Well it's not in the Top 20 cities anyways. Of the Top 20 cities on the list, I'd suspect Sydney is racist too.
kuilong
01-22-2005, 05:14 AM
For me the single most important criteria to judging whether a system is capitalist or socialist is the legal protection of property rights. Systems that allow arbitrary confiscation of personal property is simply socialist. Systems that safeguard personal property are capitalist. Since taxation is a form of property confiscation, I put high taxes under socialist traits.
But by this logic, any government expenditure must be socialist, including, but not limited to the military, the courts system or public infrastructure. After all, if property rights are absolute, then no sort of taxation is acceptable -- even if we leave aside the question as to why property rights should be absolute in any sense at all.
It may seem like liberal policies are a violation of "liberty" (with a suitable definition of that), but such a claim only makes sense to people who already share your views. De Rochefoucauld once wrote that we never seem to find any reasonable people but those who agree with us. Just as classic liberals or anarcho-capitalists feel they're fighting for "liberty", (modern-day) liberals feel they're fighting for "justice" -- a claim, again, which makes little sense to those who don't share their views.
I'm probably making no sense here; I haven't had any sleep for 32 hours.
Mr.Lum
01-22-2005, 09:19 AM
Rankings for Highest Cost of Living perhaps? I'm not kidding. Many consider the most expensive countries or cities to have the highest standards of living. Whatever makes you happy.
I think the Swedish case was a fairly isolated one. Oh yeah Paris is RACIST! esp against Arabs! Well it's not in the Top 20 cities anyways. Of the Top 20 cities on the list, I'd suspect Sydney is racist too.
Not as much as Brisbane. Horrible city. I visited relatives there and the white people there were just rude and mean. Old man spat at my grandmother and called her a "fuckin coon".
Craig
01-22-2005, 02:17 PM
Strange how people think Sweden must be a utopia (without those little issues like racism against Asians, etc.), especially considering that I am probably the only person on this forum that has actually lived and worked there. I wonder how many people who never lived in the USA feel the same way ?
kimpossible
01-22-2005, 03:09 PM
Strange how people think Sweden must be a utopia (without those little issues like racism against Asians, etc.), especially considering that I am probably the only person on this forum that has actually lived and worked there.
Well, I never worked or lived there but I pretty much feel the same way. I didn't bother to make any remarks about it.
Tell us about it. I've never been and have only read about this social welfare utopia. Was it really bad?
Not as much as Brisbane. Horrible city. I visited relatives there and the white people there were just rude and mean. Old man spat at my grandmother and called her a "fuckin coon".Brisbane? You're pretty bou-gie yourself. :wink:
But by this logic, any government expenditure must be socialist, including, but not limited to the military, the courts system or public infrastructure. After all, if property rights are absolute, then no sort of taxation is acceptable -- even if we leave aside the question as to why property rights should be absolute in any sense at all.
It may seem like liberal policies are a violation of "liberty" (with a suitable definition of that), but such a claim only makes sense to people who already share your views. De Rochefoucauld once wrote that we never seem to find any reasonable people but those who agree with us. Just as classic liberals or anarcho-capitalists feel they're fighting for "liberty", (modern-day) liberals feel they're fighting for "justice" -- a claim, again, which makes little sense to those who don't share their views.
I'm probably making no sense here; I haven't had any sleep for 32 hours.
Actually, government expenditures need not be socialist. If the government is a monarchy and thus the property of an individual, he can just pay the police and the courts out of his own pockets and charge people for the service. In this sense government is a commercial service and does not require taxation for funding. You don't have to pay, you only have to pay if you actually want the service of security and law. If I live in the middle of nowhere and don't enjoy police protection anyway, why should I pay taxes?
I think the socialists have thoroughly brainwashed the masses into believing that without big government civilized life would be impossible. The necessity of government provision for national defense is the biggest myth out there. Iceland has no standing army and they're perfectly fine, you don't see them getting invaded by anyone. On the flip side, how big of an army is enough? You can never have too big of an army in some sense since all capability is relative and as long as someone else has a bigger army you're not safe. Should everybody spend themselves to bankruptcy to match the US in military spending then? There is no directly relation between military spending and national security, we spend at least twice as much as the next 5 powers combined, are we twice as safe? Iceland has no army and they haven't ever gotten attacked. What about France? They spent all those francs on the Maginot line and what a lot of good it did them when the Germans attacked. The national defense budget is a massive waste of tax payer dollars but the myth has been so thoroughly perpetuated that most people believe it. The fact is if someone really wanted to nuke the US, we have absolutely no defense against it, despite our $200 bn+ defense budget. People don't like this fact so they like to delude themselves into thinking that they're safe because they're spending money to do something about it. Politicians are experts at the dog and pony show, they'll do something for show regardless of its effectiveness.
Mr.Lum
01-23-2005, 08:56 AM
Brisbane? You're pretty bou-gie yourself.
There;'s nothing bou-gie about Brisbane. It's like florida except a ltitle more white trash.
Sounds niiiiiice..... :eek:
Yeahman
01-23-2005, 01:13 PM
Actually, government expenditures need not be socialist. If the government is a monarchy and thus the property of an individual, he can just pay the police and the courts out of his own pockets and charge people for the service. In this sense government is a commercial service and does not require taxation for funding. You don't have to pay, you only have to pay if you actually want the service of security and law. If I live in the middle of nowhere and don't enjoy police protection anyway, why should I pay taxes?
I live in a big city. I don't want to pay for police protection. What happens then? I enjoy the protection that other people pay for. Police protection, for the most part, like roads is something whose benefits are spread over an entire community.
not really. People hire things like private security firms to protect their houses. Rich people can afford to hire body guards to protect their person. Let me give you an example, suppose you got mugged, you can choose to let it go if it's not a lot of money, fight the mugger yourself and get the money back, or go to the police and pay them to handle it for you. Consider South Africa's crime situation, it's simply out of hand and the government police is totally inadequate at handling the situation. That's why you have so many private security firms, I think it'd make a nice case study for private market in security.
Yeahman
01-23-2005, 01:59 PM
OK so my neighbor pays for a security guard on the street corner. I also benefit from it. Or is the security guard going to let all crimes pass unless my neighbor, who paid for the security, is effected?
And what about roads? Or dams?
A lot of countries have police who work off personal protection money. What happens is that rich neighborhoods become well protected and poor neighborhoods become more crime infested. Police work harder on cases that they are paid more for. If your parents are murdered and you pay the cops $100 to work on it, you're still gonna be behind the rich people who paid $1000 for an escort to the airport.
What if the cops do something wrong? Who's going to arrest them? And the courts? Do the cops have to obey the courts? What if they don't?
A system of justice and public protection cannot work if it receives personal payments. The burden, just like the benefit, needs to be spread out over the entire community.
Craig
01-24-2005, 10:58 AM
Tell us about it. I've never been and have only read about this social welfare utopia. Was it really bad?I wouldn't exactly say it was bad, but on the converse, it's wasn't really good either.
Being there was basically living to work. Some people were nice and friendly, but it was quite obvious that I wasn't part of the group. It was also obvious that I wouldn't be accepted by most no matter what I did. There wasn't as much to do, especially as most places in Sweden closed much earlier than they do here.
Taxes are excessive, but you actually get some services (unlike other places with high tax burdens *cough* California *cough*). Healthcare was great (or so I hear, but I didn't really have a need to use it). Education was free (although at the time I didn't also know it was free for non-citizens). The transportation system (for Stockholm) was much better than in the USA. Weather was great in the summer, sucked in the winter. Housing is affordable (at least compared to my current location).
I was concerned about my long term employment prospects also. I had serious reservations about whether I could get another job if anything happened. Also, being there severely limited my prospects for advancing. While in theory it's harder to lose your job there, the companies can get rid of people under the right circumstances (which happened in ~2001-2002). Of course, we all known the typical rules, visible outsiders get preferential choice in the axing. Plus staying in Sweden and learning the language wouldn't have too much utility if I can't really become part of Swedish society. In the USA, even if I am not accepted as an American, I can gain some value out of knowing American English.
Overall, had I known about the USA with Bush coming to power, maybe in retrospect I should have stayed there. However, if I did, I think I would have probably lost my job during the downturn and have relocated myself elsewhere (after staying in Sweden or Germany for a postgraduate degree).
So it's as racist as the US and more so in terms of career advancement. My sister-in-law was told the same thing in Amsterdam where she worked for two years. She's the highest ranked Asian woman in her multinational corporation and was told point blank that she will never be a vice president because of her race and gender. One good thing about Northern Europe is that they'e very upfront about racism unlike in the US.
The social welfare utopia sounds wonderful though. Despite the racism you spoke of she absolutely loves Amsterdam.
YuheiCarreau
01-26-2005, 11:20 PM
So it's as racist as the US and more so in terms of career advancement. My sister-in-law was told the same thing in Amsterdam where she worked for two years. She's the highest ranked Asian woman in her multinational corporation and was told point blank that she will never be a vice president because of her race and gender. One good thing about Northern Europe is that they'e very upfront about racism unlike in the US.
The social welfare utopia sounds wonderful though. Despite the racism you spoke of she absolutely loves Amsterdam.
I think White Americans are less upfront about racism for two reasons, the first being that they're so conditioned to dismissing and looking down on non-Whites that overlooking one for promotion is an unconcious act. The second is that in the odd instance that they are able to recognize racism in their thought process, they flash back to their fourth grade lesson about Martin Luther King: "racism is bad, m-kay" and realize they'd better keep that shit to themselves.
Whereas in Europe, where there's been far less racial mixing (and thus far less racial tension) as compared to the US, a non-White person sticks out like a tumor and they treat him/her like one. I've met many Europeans who think that, because their countries have socialized medicine, legal abortion, and no death penalty, that they are far more socially progressive than the US - which is not entirely unjustified, but a wrong assumption nonetheless. Why? Because in matters of race, I often feel that they're a hundred and fifty years behind...
ChaCha
01-26-2005, 11:23 PM
Depends which european country youre talking about. The French are like that to EVERYONE not just asians. Italians on the other hand are overall open minded, frank about what they think, and also accepting.
kuilong
01-27-2005, 12:10 PM
Depends which european country youre talking about. The French are like that to EVERYONE not just asians. Italians on the other hand are overall open minded, frank about what they think, and also accepting.
And the Chinese... the Chinese are good at math.
OH yeah!!! can't ya tell I like this thread??? ok, so my my sis-in-law works in Amsterdam two years and now my bro has the best HEALTH INsurance he ever had in his life--any doctor he wants to see, no deductibles, no co-pays just because his wife has ex-pat status at that company!!!! they live in seattle.
hooligan
01-30-2005, 10:18 PM
And the Chinese... the Chinese are good at math.
No way, we smoke a lot of pot.
Fine if no one cares about the best health insurance even if you aren't a citizen even if you don't live there... :rolleyes: :tongue:
Filiprish
06-09-2005, 08:35 AM
I'll have to read this article, democratic socialism seems interesting.
Swede
06-18-2005, 09:50 AM
Mr. Lum: If youīre going to learn swedish, i sincerely wish you luck. Itīs even hard for us born here. The grammatics are just plain silly. To every rule, there are about 20 exceptions.
Example: One apple, many apples. One bookstore, many bookboxes.
I still donīt get that one. Itīs great in the way that when you know it, you can learn european languages fairly easily, as it is composed of borrowed words and rules, though itīs hard for other people to learn swedish itself.
About the cold? Donīt worry, just... donīt go to norrland, thatīs where itīs cold, up to -45C. Itīs warm in the summer though, up to 30C (youīll have to excuse me, I donīt know the fahrenheit system).
Enough on that. I must say that I liked the article, itīs nice to see some positive things on Sweden for a change. Most Iīve found on the net is about the faults done during WWII and such.
"A silicon valley with snow" :P
I donīt like where the next election is going, though. A conservative right wing party is currently the biggest of all, itīs against immigration and gays in all ways.
Iīve personally never been to the US, but frankly, much of what Iīve heard isnīt good. Especially not the food. No offense, but I just canīt see how pancakes can be eaten for breakfast, or how people willingly can drink root beer. Again, no offense. And if the schools here really are better than those in the US, I canīt help but feel sorry for you. In my old school (I finished the swedish class nine last week) we had books from 1974. Itīs fun to look at a map and realise that many of these countries donīt exist, nd even more are missing. Not good right before an exam on the countries of Asia (47 in the test), Africa (42) and, most of all, Europe (37 I think, though ten or so were missing in the book).
I know this isnīt too much about politics, but Iīm tired, I may return soon. Youīll have to excuse my misspelling and grammatic errors, but Iīm only 16.
haplesshobo
06-18-2005, 08:12 PM
OK this time it's you guys that said you don't like facts. You really can't get anywhere with people like that. So you can go on believing that the earth is flat and that the universe was created in 6 literal days. I'll just stick to my facts.
Oh please... This is like the bannana calling the sun yellow.
Like you're not just as blind and fanatical to rhetoric despite the facts as we've all seen with some of your statements where you just refuse to deal with the facts on the table.
Personally, I think these democratic socialist countries are a dead end. I think we talked about this before in another thread. Its only countries with homogenous and small populations with lots of natural resources, like Norway, which will be able to afford this kind of state in the next 20+ years.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.