NationStates Jolt Archive

This world is an uncertain realm filled whit danger. Honour undermined by the pursuit of power. Freedom sacrificed when the weak are oppressed by the strong.But there are those who oppose these powerful forces.Who dedicate thier lives to thruth, honour and freedom. These men and women are know as social democrats.

I hope you join them some day!

I hope I don't. I hope the taco man comes soon.

I thought about it. But I decided to make some tacos instead. :)

Okay, so what is a social democrat?

They're "democratic socialists" that also believe in capitalism.

No thanks, I'd rather stay independent... Of Capitalism.

Who dedicate thier lives to thruth, honour and freedom. These men and women are know as social democrats.
Or possibly The League of Justice.

(Although Superman always struck me as a bit of a facist.)

Okay, so what is a social democrat? Are you in favour of not killing people for fun and profit? If so you can be my friend.

I tend to avoid anything that starts with the word “Social” and ends with the suffix “-crat”.

You see. “People Are Stupid” and “Stupid People In Large Numbers Are Dangerous”. They also vote.

They're "democratic socialists" that also believe in capitalism.

we dont believe capitalism

No thanks, I'd rather stay independent... Of Capitalism.
Freedom sacrificed when the weak are oppressed by the strong its waht capitalism stand for. So we dont believe in it.

Freedom sacrificed when the weak are oppressed by the strong its waht capitalism stand for. So we dont believe in it.
The individual's potential is sacrificed when we turn everyone into equals.

Or possibly The League of Justice.

(Although Superman always struck me as a bit of a facist.)

Okay, so what is a social democrat? Are you in favour of not killing people for fun and profit? If so you can be my friend.

we dont like violence. we believe violence breeds violence.

we dont believe capitalism

Then you aren't a "social democrat". By definition, social democrats believe in a mixed economy, a compromise between socialism and capitalism - "bourgeois" or "champagne" socialism, as many leftists view it. You are likely a socialist of some description if you don't believe in capitalism at all.

The individual's potential is sacrificed when we turn everyone into equals.

no we dont want everybody to be robots.

we want to help people to fulfil its dream.

I had some money and I used that money to make more money. Am I a capitalist?

no we dont want everybody to be robots.

we want to help people to fulfil its dream.
By raping the individual's dream? By forcing everyone into equality? Is that not more robotic than letting the individual have the potential to make or break his future?

Then you aren't a "social democrat". By definition, social democrats believe in a mixed economy, a compromise between socialism and capitalism - "bourgeois" or "champagne" socialism, as many leftists view it. You are likely a socialist of some description if you don't believe in capitalism at all.

yes i belive in mixed economy but i dont want the company have the power in the land.

Yes in dis way we are for private company.

yes i belive in mixed economy but i dont want the company have the power in the land.

Yes in dis way we are for private company.

Okay. You're a social democrat then. Carry on. :p

I had some money and I used that money to make more money. Am I a capitalist?

Its okej to have money. what its wrong are when people bee rish when thay oppress other poeple.

Its okej to have money. what its wrong are when people bee rish when thay oppress other poeple.

You aren't going to eliminate the oppressive and heirarchical nature of capitalism with compromise. The only way to destroy that system is by giving the workers direct power.

Okay. You're a social democrat then. Carry on. :p

My party have own companys like newpapers and publishing house

we dont believe capitalism

thanks for being honest... socialism and capitalism are at odds.

You aren't going to eliminate the oppressive and heirarchical nature of capitalism with compromise. The only way to destroy that system is by giving the workers direct power.

dis is the goal when we have found the system we can do it in we have some ideas.

only extremist think day have the answer to every question.

My ideological teacher say. " thay always going to be social injustice only what group ho is oppress going to change. Our goal is not to give one group power its to see justice for all".

By definition, social democrats believe in a mixed economy, a compromise between socialism and capitalism - "bourgeois" or "champagne" socialism, as many leftists view it.
Of course, in the perspective of different coutries' beliefs, the concepts of "left" and "right" may vary a little, but social democracy is a left-wing concept. This way, I only understand your statement replacing "leftist" by "non-democratic socialist" or a believer in the so-called "real socialism".
For one, I consider myself a social-democrat and, here in Europe, social-democratic parties (or "labour" parties, in some countries) are definitely left-wing parties, as opposed to "christian-democratic" parties (or "conservative"). Of course, I am refering to the ideological program, not to what are, many times the actual policies of such parties.

I disagree with the democratic party, and often times, their ideas disqust me.

I think ill stay Consertitive ;) .

You aren't going to eliminate the oppressive and heirarchical nature of capitalism with compromise. The only way to destroy that system is by giving the workers direct power.

...and in so doing, ruin your economy for everyone in the country. There has yet to be a Communist country that had a good economy. You can't punish entrepreneurialism, totally disregard financial freedom, without reaping the torrent of crap headed for your economy.

I am. :)

*Gets out a watch and starts to swing it while whispering menacingly*

You don't want to be a social democrat...go all the way! Become a socialist...SO-O-CIAL-IST...yes...social democrats are wimps...you know you want to destroy capitalism really...

Ahem. Anyway, inequality is an inherent part of capitalism, and so although government intervention may "soften" the system's failures, it will ultimately fail. And that's why you should be a socialist.

Social Democrat: Liberal Capitalist who usually support the idea of a welfare state helping the poor and less fortunate.(Except in America)

Democratic Socialist: Supports a socialist state that is run as a democracy opposed to a communist dictatorship.

Green: Supports protection of the environment. Can be either a capitalist or socialist depending on personal views. Most Greens though tend to be socialists but their are some capitalist greens.

Anarcho-Communist: Communism as a anarchial state meaning that they would have absolute freedoms. Unlike marxist-communism the state is not run by a party or a dictator. Also a person can choose not to be in the system.

I tend to run between a Democratic Socialist/Green but some of views are a little towards anarcho-communism.

*Gets out a watch and starts to swing it while whispering menacingly*

You don't want to be a social democrat...go all the way! Become a socialist...SO-O-CIAL-IST...yes...social democrats are wimps...you know you want to destroy capitalism really...

Ahem. Anyway, inequality is an inherent part of capitalism, and so although government intervention may "soften" the system's failures, it will ultimately fail. And that's why you should be a socialist.
Isn't inequality what allows individuals to have the potential to excell?

Equality amongst everyone means that I'm equal to the jerk in my class who has a .7 GPA, even though I have a 4.17 GPA.

Where's the economic superiority of that?

the way things should be:

The rich need the middle class and poor, just like the middle class and poor need the rich: the rich provide jobs and/or investment opportunities for the middle class and poor; and the middle class and poor provide labor/middle management for the rich, as well as being good consumers for the products/companies the rich own.

So:

- Poor/middle-class man, stop hating the hand that feeds you... be grateful that the rich guy you currently despise had the wherewithal and balls to start a company, for without that company you might not have a job.

- Rich man, stop hating the poor/middle class. Yes, they might take your money via the welfare state, but they allow your business ventures to be successful by buying the products/services and filling your labor need.

So there... quit hating.

I'm a Communist and have no reason to support an ideology that wants compromises with the capitalist exploiters.

Social Democrat: Liberal Capitalist who usually support the idea of a welfare state helping the poor and less fortunate.(Except in America)

As important as that, there is the belief that all human being must have equal opportunities, regardless of their social or economic background.
I support equal opportunities, as every social democrat does, not equality, that's economically wrong, doesn't allow the search for efficiency and excelence.

Isn't inequality what allows individuals to have the potential to excell?

Equality amongst everyone means that I'm equal to the jerk in my class who has a .7 GPA, even though I have a 4.17 GPA.

Where's the economic superiority of that?

Colodia, to simplify:

Socialism is for the poor, the dumb, the person who does not try... it is for levelling the playing field, not allowing anyone to excel or fail. If capitalism is a wasteland of broken dreams, socialism is void of dreams because you can't dream in a socialist state -- you're stuck in your place.

Capitalism is for those who are smart, aggressive, hard-working, or otherwise able... it allows those people to excel. It also allows people (most of whom lack the above virtues) to fail.

Of course, in the perspective of different coutries' beliefs, the concepts of "left" and "right" may vary a little, but social democracy is a left-wing concept. This way, I only understand your statement replacing "leftist" by "non-democratic socialist" or a believer in the so-called "real socialism".
For one, I consider myself a social-democrat and, here in Europe, social-democratic parties (or "labour" parties, in some countries) are definitely left-wing parties, as opposed to "christian-democratic" parties (or "conservative"). Of course, I am refering to the ideological program, not to what are, many times the actual policies of such parties.

I view it as at best, a "centre-left" concept. And i'm also wary of "social democratic" parties such as the British and Australian Labor Parties that have sold out to business interests and no longer represent the working man in anything more than name (as you noted, the policies differ from the supposed ideology). So yes, I generally refuse to regard social democratism as a left-wing movement. Preferable to absolute neo-liberalism? Absolutely. Offering a sense of social justice? Sometimes. But a good alternative? Not really.


...and in so doing, ruin your economy for everyone in the country. There has yet to be a Communist country that had a good economy. You can't punish entrepreneurialism, totally disregard financial freedom, without reaping the torrent of crap headed for your economy.

That's because every "communist" country has risen from a dirt-poor economy. I agree that socialism is not a valid developmental model.

Socialism is for the poor, the dumb, the person who does not try... it is for levelling the playing field, not allowing anyone to excel or fail. If capitalism is a wasteland of broken dreams, socialism is void of dreams because you can't dream in a socialist state -- you're stuck in your place.
Damn I think I saw a movie about that where people's souls were sucked out of their body and forced to stay in their place....

@ Frangland. But the proletariat are paid less than the value of their labour so that the bourgeoisie can make a profit: they are thereby robbed.

@ Colodia: Inequality is caused by privelege. Capitalism is not a level playing field; the rich will always have more opportunities than the poor. Everyone has equal human rights, everyone has a potential to contribute in their own way to society, everyone should have equal work and be rewarded for it equally.

@ Allemonde: Slight problem with your definitions. A Marxist does not necessarily believe in a dictatorship. The difference between Marxists and democratic socialists is in the transition to communism - Marxists believe it should be a revolution, democratic socialists belive it should be democratic reform. It's basically revolution v. reform.

@ Colodia: Inequality is caused by privelege. Capitalism is not a level playing field; the rich will always have more opportunities than the poor. Everyone has equal human rights, everyone has a potential to contribute in their own way to society, everyone should have equal work and be rewarded for it equally
No, inequality is based on individual potential.

I am a perfect example. My parents? Immigrants from India and Colombia. Most certainly didn't have a lot of money to work with. They worked hard, I was raised in a middle-class enviornment. Now they are divorced and I'll soon be in a lower-middle-class enviornment. My GPA remains up there.

Your telling me that I will suddenly begin failing my classes and will have no chance in society?

Because that's utter bullshit, isn't it?

@ Frangland. But the proletariat are paid less than the value of their labour so that the bourgeoisie can make a profit: they are thereby robbed.

@ Colodia: Inequality is caused by privelege. Capitalism is not a level playing field; the rich will always have more opportunities than the poor. Everyone has equal human rights, everyone has a potential to contribute in their own way to society, everyone should have equal work and be rewarded for it equally.

@ Allemonde: Slight problem with your definitions. A Marxist does not necessarily believe in a dictatorship. The difference between Marxists and democratic socialists is in the transition to communism - Marxists believe it should be a revolution, democratic socialists belive it should be democratic reform. It's basically revolution v. reform.

1)Who decides the value of labor? Consumers and investors...

2)The largest variable that inequality depends on, in a free country, is ability. Freedom (to succeed or fail) is another big one. Drive is a third. We have the freedom to use our ability and drive to become successful. Would you want to marginalize ability/drive and curtail freedom?

As important as that, there is the belief that all human being must have equal opportunities, regardless of their social or economic background.
I support equal opportunities, as every social democrat does, not equality, that's economically wrong, doesn't allow the search for efficiency and excelence.

Problem is that right know most social democratic nations are economically moving towards the right. (UK Labour Party, American Democratic). In the U.s their is virtually no disticntion between the democratic and republican parties. It's beginning to cause a large riff between the rich and poor. In Eurpoe this move towards the economic right is making fascistic paries like the BNP & Nationale Frounte more popular.

Efficancy and high productivity is good but when it comes at the expense of working people it leads to high-dissfaction of the people. America has high productivty but has low wages, stressful work conditions and long work hours. This is leading to higher alcoholism, drug addiction, TV addiction and higher crime.

@Allemonde: Slight problem with your definitions. A Marxist does not necessarily believe in a dictatorship. The difference between Marxists and democratic socialists is in the transition to communism - Marxists believe it should be a revolution, democratic socialists belive it should be democratic reform. It's basically revolution v. reform.

Unfortuantly most do end up as dictatorships(China, USSR, Cambodia). Usually the party and the party leader take over the state and rule the nation as a dicatorship of a single party. Know i know that isn't what Marx was writing but somehow Marx's prinicples were corrupted by Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It would be intresting to see what would have happenend if Troskty had became the leader of the USSR he probaly would of been more democratic.

It was my understanding that BNP & National Front are more economically left and more socially right (Hence fascism). Am I wrong?

By raping the individual's dream? By forcing everyone into equality? Is that not more robotic than letting the individual have the potential to make or break his future?

we want individu make his future and dream but we olso have to stop strong from oppresse the weak becuse you have not the right to oppress somebody in the namne of freedom.

It was my understanding that BNP & National Front are more economically left and more socially right (Hence fascism). Am I wrong?

No you are correct. Fascism usually is a mix of Kenysian economics and extreme authoritairinism. Italian Fascism was more economically right than Nazism. The Nazis uses money to build public works and gave money to people to start factories. Italian fascism didn't do that instead allowed corporations to become more monoplized by supporting certian companies. Italy actually during the period actually became poorer than most of the scandnavian nations. Germany did recover but needed to millitarly gain territory to exand it's economy.

The BNP is actually like 10 on the authortarian/social liberal scale. and -2 on the captialist/socialist scale, making them a authortarian social with a mixed/planned economy.

For a true communistic/socialistic society where everyone is equal in all ways (and I mean all ways), read Harrison Bergeron (http://centre.telemanage.ca/links.nsf/articles/481D5B5D819567AC85256A38000A150F) , by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Kinda scary, if you ask me.

we want individu make his future and dream but we olso have to stop strong from oppresse the weak becuse you have not the right to oppress somebody in the namne of freedom.
Your optimism is commended. Your political model works very well, since the Swiss are a hardworking, intelligent, peaceful people. You have been for centuries. I'm sure it's being employed with reasonable success there.

But this political model would not work for we Americans. You see, far too many of us are lazy, opportunistic, stupid, and violent. Capitalism is the stick that pokes us until we get out of bed in the morning, and go to work. A safety net the likes of which Sweden employs would certainly leave too large a portion of our citizens as unemployed, lazy stoners, watching porn or Oprah at home, and pigging out on Dorito's or pizza. It wouldn't affect their pride in the least, either, to live like this on their fellow citizen's tax dollars. In America, your system wouldn't be so pretty, once enacted.

I may not have everything I ever wanted, and I may never, but I have a chance. I am allowed to dream. I am allowed to better myself, or not. Capitalism makes me angry at times, but instead of saying the system is bad, I look at myself, and realise that I have been lazy. No matter what someone's status, there are people out there willing to help them better themselves, and these people CHOOSE to do this. Freedom gives us the right to compete, to rise and fall based on our own abilities. If I start with almost nothing, I can still enjoy life. Even the homeless in my country can get food every day, and a bed to sleep in every night. They can get training for a job, and even get help applying for a job. In many areas, there are people with compassion who will buy them a suit, and train them in interview taking. This is all possible because those who have, have learned to increase it, and some have learned to, of their own free will, share it. To force anyone to share their profits removes the draw of earning profit. If I know that by doing nothing every day, I can have a house, food, transportation, and a monetary stipend, why strive? Why should I spend 8 to 10 years learning to be a doctor if I get paid the same to be a taxi cab driver or a garbage man? Without largely varied methods of compensation, no one would be willing to do the harder jobs... we would become a nation of useless human beings. Capitalism is far from perfect, but I still prefer it to communism of any sort. The rich must choose to help the poor, or it removes the desire to acheive the income neccessary to be able to help the poor. That is why any communist or socialist based ideology will always end in a poor nation. Who cares about earning money if the poor slob who does nothing gets half of what the business entrepreneur spend 20 years of his life building? The countries that have this type of economy keep the lazy, the power hungry (to lead the nation) and run off everyone who knows how to really work hard, because they will be better rewarded in a free market nation! :eek:

Truthfully, I wouldn't mind if the church became more socialist in nature. Not where everything belonged to everyone, but everything (and everyone) belonged to God, and through God, all things were given unto the needy. That's how the church was when it was originally founded, and, IMHO, that's how it should be.

The church was not entirely communal... there were some that owned property, so obviously it had some capatilism, but at the same time, they sold what they had if others had need, so it was a sharing, like I posted in my previous post.

The church was not entirely communal... there were some that owned property, so obviously it had some capatilism, but at the same time, they sold what they had if others had need, so it was a sharing, like I posted in my previous post.

That is, until people started using it for their own gain. They twisted the values of the church and now we have modern history.

everyone should have equal work and be rewarded for it equally.

So.. uh.. everyone should have to have equal work and recieve the same salary, no matter what job it is?

@ Allemonde: Slight problem with your definitions. A Marxist does not necessarily believe in a dictatorship. The difference between Marxists and democratic socialists is in the transition to communism - Marxists believe it should be a revolution, democratic socialists belive it should be democratic reform. It's basically revolution v. reform.

Oh yes, Marxists do not believe in dictatorships. They wish to place all of the power into the hands of the workers. Ofcourse, after the worker's revolution or whatever glorious name you call it, it is decided that it is in the worker's best interests to give the power to the Party.

This world is an uncertain realm filled whit danger. Honour undermined by the pursuit of power. Freedom sacrificed when the weak are oppressed by the strong.But there are those who oppose these powerful forces.Who dedicate thier lives to thruth, honour and freedom. These men and women are know as social democrats.

I hope you join them some day!
I'm Socialist. And I believe in Democracy. you have my support.

Eichen & Yahweh Sabbaoth are correct when they say that this could never happen in America. I don't want to say why for fear of offending someone. This dosen't mean that we shouldn't try to stop the spread of Ameri-capitalism which really isn't true capitalism since the government spends $300 billion a year on corporate welfare to pay CEO's & executive salaries while they screw the workers. In truth America is a borderline economic fascist/right-wing nation and moving more towards totalitarianism.

thanks for being honest... socialism and capitalism are at odds.
I disagree. Real life shows that there is a happy medium between the two.

...and in so doing, ruin your economy for everyone in the country. There has yet to be a Communist country that had a good economy. You can't punish entrepreneurialism, totally disregard financial freedom, without reaping the torrent of crap headed for your economy.
Well, technically there has never been a communist country. But I agree, socialism is fundamentally flawed, because anytime it is implemented it will invitably collapse due to American intervention. ;)

But this political model would not work for we Americans. You see, far too many of us are lazy, opportunistic, stupid, and violent. Capitalism is the stick that pokes us until we get out of bed in the morning, and go to work. A safety net the likes of which Sweden employs would certainly leave too large a portion of our citizens as unemployed, lazy stoners, watching porn or Oprah at home, and pigging out on Dorito's or pizza. It wouldn't affect their pride in the least, either, to live like this on their fellow citizen's tax dollars. In America, your system wouldn't be so pretty, once enacted.
Do you really think this? DO you think that Americans are so much lazier than Swedish people?

For a true communistic/socialistic society where everyone is equal in all ways (and I mean all ways), read Harrison Bergeron (http://centre.telemanage.ca/links.nsf/articles/481D5B5D819567AC85256A38000A150F) , by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Kinda scary, if you ask me.

But based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of equality. I've read it before, I've read the Communist Manifesto, and it's clear that what Vonnegut is describing is not a socialist state.

So.. uh.. everyone should have to have equal work and recieve the same salary, no matter what job it is?
Well...uh...yes! If work is distributed fairly, then so should payment.

Oh yes, Marxists do not believe in dictatorships. They wish to place all of the power into the hands of the workers. Ofcourse, after the worker's revolution or whatever glorious name you call it, it is decided that it is in the worker's best interests to give the power to the Party.

I can see you don't understand what Marxism is.

Someone said Americans are lazier than Swedes. WRONG.

As of today, some 1 MILLION Swedes are unemployed, living off welfare, or in early retirement. We have 9 million citizens. 1/9th of our country does pretty much nothing. That's called social security.

Sooner or later it's gonna fail, turning Sweden into a Banana Republic, but seing as we don't have Bananas, it'll probably be apples or lingonberries or something.

To Sweden1974: I'll never join you! And Göran Persson is fat!

For a true communistic/socialistic society where everyone is equal in all ways (and I mean all ways), read Harrison Bergeron (http://centre.telemanage.ca/links.nsf/articles/481D5B5D819567AC85256A38000A150F) , by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Kinda scary, if you ask me.

Greatest satire short story ever. I love it. It's a movie too, you know. With Sean Astin, our favourite Hobbit.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113264/

I disagree. Real life shows that there is a happy medium between the two.

sure, if you cut them in half

pure capitalism and pure socialism do not jive... one favors financial freedom, the other financial equality

Someone said Americans are lazier than Swedes. WRONG.

As of today, some 1 MILLION Swedes are unemployed, living off welfare, or in early retirement. We have 9 million citizens. 1/9th of our country does pretty much nothing. That's called social security.

Sooner or later it's gonna fail, turning Sweden into a Banana Republic, but seing as we don't have Bananas, it'll probably be apples or lingonberries or something.

To Sweden1974: I'll never join you! And Göran Persson is fat!
Damn, this isn't the pretty picture we Americans receive about Sweden.
So who's lying here, the "Great Sweden" side, or the groups that say their system is failing?

Join the social democrats, because the state knows what's best for you!

Someone said Americans are lazier than Swedes. WRONG.

As of today, some 1 MILLION Swedes are unemployed, living off welfare, or in early retirement. We have 9 million citizens. 1/9th of our country does pretty much nothing. That's called social security.

Sooner or later it's gonna fail, turning Sweden into a Banana Republic, but seing as we don't have Bananas, it'll probably be apples or lingonberries or something.

To Sweden1974: I'll never join you! And Göran Persson is fat!

Sweden's population is about 10 million

if that 1,000,000 unemployed stat is correct, that'd put Sweden at 10% unemployment rate, about double that of the US.

Increase welfare, and increase unemployment, and decrease production...

Your optimism is commended. Your political model works very well, since the Swiss are a hardworking, intelligent, peaceful people.
The Swiss!? I´m Swiss? Where´s the chocolate and ko-ko-clocks :p

I myself is a social democrat, and seeing as the countries run by social democrats are in the top of the UN's 'Best countries to live in' list, I´d say it works fairly well. If you doubt it, here are some facts about Sweden (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sw), both good and bad, and you tell me if it seems good or bad...

Edit: Woo! 300 posts!

Sweden's population is about 10 million

if that 1,000,000 unemployed stat is correct, that'd put Sweden at 10% unemployment rate, about double that of the US.

Increase welfare, and increase unemployment, and decrease production...
Actual umemployment rates. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_une)

Marxism is founded on idiotic economics. The labor theory of value is utter crap, exchange value isn't derived by some mysterious unquantifiable ammount of labor put into a good or service, but by the forces of supply and demand and an individual's subjective valuation of a particular product.

A price-coordinated economy allocates resources far more efficiently because it takes advantage of the vast ammount of knowledge diffused throughout a society. No state, no matter how massive and efficient, can possibly allocate resources as efficiently as a free market economy.

sure, if you cut them in half

pure capitalism and pure socialism do not jive... one favors financial freedom, the other financial equality
I agree. Neither extremes work out well in real life.

Damn, this isn't the pretty picture we Americans receive about Sweden.
So who's lying here, the "Great Sweden" side, or the groups that say their system is failing?
Well, the Swedish welfare system has been in place since the early 1930s, and their economy has gone from strength to strength. Additionally, this is verified by the continued democratic support for the status quo by the population.

I prolly would be a social democrat myself.

I think that business needs limitations placed on them,

ie: if you own a company and you can pay someone $5 an hr to do the work why wouldn't you, hence unions who have gotten us (the workers) a usually fair and reasonable deal.
There is a current run to break all the unions in australia, which is being run on the divide and conquer line, in talking to many people they say to me why should those union workers get paid $45/hr when I'm here slaving for $18/hr, lazy bastards, hence when govt tries to break them the unions are getting less support each time.

I've often tried to theorise a model that i think would work to keep everyone happy and it often hurts my little brain.
All people really need is to feel comfortable and secure, decent wages and working conditions, by all means let people strive to have more than their fellow man but dont let them do it over the broken backs and families of same fellow man.
Which is the way i see capitalism working, anyone heard of the W.T.O lending money to poor third world countries on the proviso they open up factories example nike factories and allow there people to work there for substandard wages.

Actual umemployment rates. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_une)

Wow Sweden's unemployment is very low!.....Also Norway has the highest GNP in the world followed by Luxembourg. Kinda throws the whole socialism will cause an economic collapse idea out the window.

Yeah, there=sw a reason sweden and norway are constantly high on th UN\s lists... The system works, though as we dont get very many millionaires, its viewed by many americans as a bad ideology...

Someone said Americans are lazier than Swedes. WRONG.

As of today, some 1 MILLION Swedes are unemployed, living off welfare, or in early retirement. We have 9 million citizens. 1/9th of our country does pretty much nothing. That's called social security.

ÖHHHH....
17,1% of Swedes are 0-14 years old
17,5% of Swedes are 65 years or over
You like child labour?

Define Social Democraticism.

Personally, I see Social Democratism as something like New Labour. Genuinely capitalist, but kind of hides it behind a welfare state. As opposed to Democratic Socialism, which is Marxism in a Multi-party Parliamentary Democracy.

Which is why I hate political jargon like that. Parties call themselves something which they aren't. Very confusing.

ÖHHHH....
17,1% of Swedes are 0-14 years old
17,5% of Swedes are 65 years or over
You like child labour?
The 'Ö' might confuse some people, you know...

Personally, I see Social Democratism as something like New Labour. Genuinely capitalist, but kind of hides it behind a welfare state. As opposed to Democratic Socialism, which is Marxism in a Multi-party Parliamentary Democracy.
Social democratism isn´t genuinely capitalist, which can be seen on the fact that Sweden doesn´t have too many millionaires (*cough*Ingvar Kamprad*cough*) or huge corporations (IKEA, Volvo, Ericsson and Saab being a few of the exceptions), but there are few who live below the poverty line (living of $1/day or something like that). We also have few criminals, as there is little to gain from it, and the suburbs of major cities (Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö) are pretty clean, and there aren´t that many problems with living there.
Yes, it is expensive here ($3 for a cup of coffee isn´t unusual, though it is great coffee), but people make enough money to be fine anyway.

Marxism is founded on idiotic economics. The labor theory of value is utter crap, exchange value isn't derived by some mysterious unquantifiable ammount of labor put into a good or service, but by the forces of supply and demand and an individual's subjective valuation of a particular product.

Now that you have demonstrated your ignorance, please never post on economic theory ever again.

The 'Ö' might confuse some people, you know...



Well it won't confuse Hata-alla. It's more common than Å anyway...(and ååhhh might have confused him too) :D

Yeah, that´s true. But still...

Yes, it is expensive here ($3 for a cup of coffee isn´t unusual, though it is great coffee), but people make enough money to be fine anyway.

That's comparable to Starbucks or most fancy coffee places in America. It would be intresting to break off the New England states(Maine, Massachesuts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Conneticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) and run them as a Scandanavian social democracy. The two main parties would a social democratic party and a democratic-socialist party. If you didn't like living there you could always immirgrate back to the U.S. This new nation would have 3 major economic centers: NYC, Boston and Philadelphia. and 5 secondary economic centers: Pittsburgh, Newark, Camden, Providence, Buffalo & Hartford.

Capital: Philadephia
Government Constitutional Liberal Democracy
Head of State: President, 7 year term.
Head of Government: Prime Minister, 4 year term