The real face of democratic socialism

I migrated from India 46 years ago. I worked as an engineer for three and half years there before coming over. I have seen the Indian economy rising from dire poverty, which gave me multi facet perspective. My mother tongue is a regional language, called Gujarati, and the second one, called Hindi, is India's national language.

To me, democracy is the best format of government, so far. Since autocracy can act more swiftly and decisively due to its highly concentrated decision making power, the rest of the world used to think that democracy has no chance of survival against it. What it forgot to consider is that the governance of democracy is more in tune with the well being of all its citizens, and so it receives highly motivated support of its population, and can sustain itself against all kinds of foreign tyrannies. The results of the conflicts over the last hundred year period prove this: monarchy and dictatorship are all but dead, and communism is dying, but democracy is alive and spreading.

Entrenched big business will resist any change in the mode of capitalism fiercely, dragging the struggle for a generation or two, until overwhelming popular consensus is achieved. It is human nature to resist change. No entity associated with life, be it a living being, a business, a system, or an idea, ever wants to compromise its existence. Two hundred plus years of unrestrained enterprise has made us affluent and a super power. But now the existing system of capitalism is getting in the way of society’s well being. Past cultures provide vivid examples of outmoded systems resisting modifications; India’s cast system, China’s Confucius inspired submissive social culture, glory aimed brutality of Rome, Sparta’s extreme militancy, and many others. The world, including the West, mesmerized by the prosperity and the conquests of the West of the last few centuries, wants to follow the western models without much doubt. Most of us change by soul-searching caused by pain. Longer the time a system has been successful, the harder it tends to resist modification. Wide spread, deep social pains of long durations result in revolts and revolutions. Higher level of objectivity takes smaller pains to change. It took two agonizing world wars for the historically belligerent nations to learn the lesson of cooperative coexistence. Let us do it with smaller amount of pain this time. Historically, effective leaders with vision have diagnosed and remedied ailments early, avoiding devastating upheavals.

 

Yes, I know about those languages. I have several Indian friends and I studied and practiced Hinduism with them for several years at a temple near me.

Our Gettysburg Address mentions "government of the people, by the people, for the people". That is democracy. And that is what we do not have. But that is exactly, precisely what socialism is.

You say "communism is dying". I take that to mean that governments created by communist parties and ruled by them, are failing, and that is true. But there are popular details associated with communism and socialism that are mostly confused and which completely contradict what Marx wrote. And that confusion is a direct result of government and pro-capitalist writers and theorists sowing that confusion intentionally. Maybe we will discuss some of the truth of it all some time. Meanwhile I hope you saw my reply to you in post #47.

 

There is a bit of confusion between comfort and satisfaction I think. Similar ideas but with some differences. Both however tend to be the point at which achievement and striving ends. Comfort slowly destroys drive and determination; satisfaction tends to make one immune to their call. There are plenty of people who are economically as comfortable as one can be but they are not comfortable with their achievements and desire even greater rewards not because they require them for sustenance, but because they have become little more that another set of trophies. Serena Williams is now worth millions what does another trophy mean to she who has dozens? Everything. Steve Jobs died still striving for the best man can make. Bill Gates no longer runs Microsoft but he isn't setting back and taking things easy he's still searching for new boundaries to overthrow. For truly creative people it isn't about the money or even the acclaim it's about the next challenge. The hardest transition in the world is that from all star, widely acclaimed athlete to average retired guy with money.

 

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax


11/27/2014Richard J. Maybury
Each year at this time, schoolchildren all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the Pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America, and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620–21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hard-working or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years because they refused to work in the field. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened? After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that were most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of the famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609–10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty. Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth.

 

As a Swede I can confirm that democratic socialism is a huuuuuge failure that ruins more than it helps.

 

Country - GDP per capita

Norway - - - 68,591
Switzerland - 58,647
USA - - - - - - 56,084
Netherlands - 49,624
Sweden - - - - 48,199
Germany - - - 46,974
Canada - - - - 45,602
UK - - - - - - - 41,499

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

-------------------------
Satisfaction index:
Denmark Rank 90 (the highest)
Sweden Rank 96
USA Rank 112

http://geography-resources.wikispaces.com/file/view/Satisfaction+with+Life+Index.pdf

---------------------------
Quality of Life Index for Country 2017

USA - 179.73
Sweden - 172.74
Canada - 167.18
Russia - 85.93

Sweden not so bad!

 

No serious economist takes GDP seriously. It is simply a meassurement governments use to boast about their achievements. Only the trade offs that are taxed are considered when calculating GDP, this means that if there was a small village where everyone was entirely self-sufficient and therefore did not need trade would have a GDP of zero. This would be the case even if this village had a life expectancy of 102.

Furthermore, I could easily make the GDP of any place to skyrocket; if I look after your kid and you look after mine and we both pay each other a billion dollars, the GDP would hit the roof (despite the actual profit here being +-0)

 

First then, check my post again. I added more data.

Second, on what basis, then, do you say democratic socialism is a huge failure? Private personal opinion? Conditions in Sweden? Partisan needs?

 

Conditions in Sweden.

 

Those numbers are bollox. Satisfaction with what? Latest reports from BRÅ (Council for Crime Prevention), show that more and more people are feeling unsafe when being outside. In certain parts of the country, women can not even go out for a jog without being srxually harrassed and the overall numbers of violent crime is increasing.

Quality of Life is, just like level of satisfaction, highly subjective phenomenons that cannot be shown in numbers. If you listen to Swedes and follow debates and media, it is obvipus things are very bad.

 

Great. I think the Satisfaction Index and the Quality of Life Index cover that.

 

Nope. As I pointed out those numbers ate highly insufficient and very skewed as they are a poor representation of reality.

Happiness and satisfaction can not be done justice in numbers. All that really matters here is how people percieve their life and in that aspect Sweden is neither happy nor satisfied.

 

No, you didn't mention those two indices.

Satisfaction is, of course, a perception! So what is more important to people regarding whether people perceive their conditions as a "huuuuuge failure" or as highly satisfying? Satisfaction is everything. It's all that matters.

It's beginning to look like you have a partisan axe to grind against democratic socialism, and that means "lacking objectivity".

 

I have lived in Sweden all my life. I have first hand experience and know more about every aspect of Swedish society and the shortcomings of Swedish Soc-Democracy than you ever will.

Only one being partisan here is you.

 

LOL!!!!!!! You are one of the most partisan, intolerant posters here. Your opinion of your experience means little because it's biased.

 

Biased to the degree that I am Swedish.

 

Then tell me without bias what communism is.

 

A failure.

 

Then you have bias or you have ignorance of the subject because communism has never existed.

 

Haven't heard that one before.

Anyhow. Fact remains thatbSweden is not as happy you want to depict it as being.

 

High satisfaction says it all.

 

Satisfication with what? What does that index even meassure? How do they conduct/on what do they base their numbers?

 

I leave you to research it.

 

Looooool. You don't even know. Do you?

Anyways, Sweden is actually 7th on that list.

 

I'm just done with this nonsense.