The real face of democratic socialism

I have been to South America. I have also been to other places where there is democratic socialism. This is why I do not see it as a positive thing. Poverty, corruption and high crime are all hallmarks of democratic socialism. Those who want this type of society in the US are clueless about the reality of it.

We can see in these places there is no middle class. The government is corrupt and wealthy. It looks like this is where we are heading.

I believe things would not be as bad at the beginning of socialism which is why the older I get, the less concerned I am about it. I am feathering my nest now while I can. By the time the US is in the crapper I will be gone or too old to care. Then the younger folks who supported democratic socialism will have to deal with it. That seems like justice to me.

 

Young people dealing with the problems they themselves create is justice.

Unfortunately for them, they will also have to deal with the garbage old people leave behind. That is not justice but old people are too old to care.

 

I do agree somewhat but that is how it works. Every generation deals with what is left behind but I at least want to live long enough to see the younger socialism supporters get what they want.

 

You can’t make a case for any political party based on most South American nations, there’re run by despotic dictators whatever they choose to call themselves. Regrettably many politicians, both left and right, fail to abide to the principles of their party and become stooges for big business, I’m afraid the money talks louder than values.

 

True but governments tend to become power hungry. This is just the dark side of human nature and ,in my opinion, why socialism fails. I have been to other socialist countries and it is pretty much the same.

 

"Democratic Socialism" is a mix of capitalist businesses and socialist-type businesses. That is not the problem. The problem is found in who is in charge; who runs the country. Is it a government that favors the capitalists, or one that favors socialist expansion? Or is it a government that is simply corrupt and not very democratic. Maybe graft is the way of life there. But to lay a blanket label of "corruption and high crime are all hallmarks of democratic socialism" on it is as wrong and corrupt as the country that practices it. Do Denmark and The Netherlands and Iceland and Norway also fit your description of corrupt systems ruled by high crime?

I think you were premature in your condemnation of the system.

 

Then mankind needs to find a way to prevent that from happening.

 

Then there is Sweden and Norway. Please reply about the Socialist Scandies. Thanks.

The Latins have a history of large land and wealth families and everyone else.

Also consider how America often will try sabotage the economy of another nation
in the hopes of bringing down the government. The Lawyers' Coup in Brazil recently is really sad. Well this time it wasn't the colonels Attempts on Venezuela & Bolivia. Obviously Cuba.
So I would not blame the lack of a Latin, Middle Class on Socialism.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth
doombug, than are dreamt of in your economics
​

Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

China.
Denmark.
Finland.
Netherlands.
Canada.
Sweden.
Norway.
Ireland.

The last time I checked, China was kicking out butt in capitalist markets.

Technically, none of the SA countries are listed as socialist.

We just endured an economic collapse that nearly sent the world into a 25 year global depression. This was a result of capitalism run amok. Capitalism has the capacity to destroy the world's economy. So it has problems too.

The key is that all real systems are a balance of socialism and capitalism. It is naive to think we choose one or the other.

 

Why is it that the nations colonized by Britain are generally ok while those by Spain are mostly cesspools?

 

I agree. Corruption in the government is at the heart of it but in a socialist government the politicians have too much power so who is to hold them accountable? This is the downfall of it.

I agree with you that private business can corrupt the government also. Companies tend to get too greedy but if the government is controlled by the people there is a check on their power. The key is not allwoing the government or private business get more powerful than the people. Keeping governemnt small and streamlined is how this is done.

 

I agree. Keep the power in the hands of the people. People should be free, independent and not dependent on the government taking care of them.

 

Sweden and Norway have not been socialist long enough to suffer the worst of it. They have been in the beginning good times of socialism but will end up like other failed socialist nations. This is why I hope we hold off before becoming like them. I want to reap the beneifits of the start of socialism but I hope I am long gone when it gets crappy.

 

Sorry but China is not a good example for socialism. Sure they have the advantage of our lousy trade deals and manipulate their currency to gain advantage but I do not want to go live there.

 

It is the unrestrained capitalism that is the culprit, not the socialism.

The United States of America was founded on the basis of diffusion of state’s power, curtailing the power’s potential for injustice. The dazzling success of the system has made the concepts of democracy and capitalism popular around the world. The existing form of capitalism worked very well for a while, because then, wealth making power could not converge easily into a few hands. Industrialization has changed that. Now a few rich have undesirably high power to manipulate wealth distribution and politics, and to influence social values.

Sward used to be greed’s tool to acquire wealth and power. Democracy detached sward from greed. But with unrestrained capitalism, greed uses money as its weapon. Too much concentration of greedy power of wealth in a few hands causes poverty and associated fears for masses. Poverty is the worst form of torture. All fears are detrimental to happiness. Societies, with just distribution of wealth, have been very content and creative, throughout the history.

A community cannot function without some socialism. By definition, socialism is nothing but taking away some individual freedom for the good of the whole community. Even law of land is socialism. But in-here we are addressing financial socialism. Countries around the world try it in varying degrees and by different combinations. But so far most of the experiments have tried to shift the control from money to authority. USSR was an extreme example of this. This cannot work for long, because human greed for power, wealth and fame, has a high tendency to take over the process. The axiom, ‘the rule that rules the least is the best’ applies to any power, whether it stems from force of authority or that of wealth. A community left virtually to its own devices has the highest potential of prosperity, only proportional to its level of ideological social justice. Additionally, relatively free and prosperous atmosphere allows voices of wisdom to be heard louder, thereby enhancing positive social values.

What we need is a way to defuse the power of money on economic decision-making, releasing the economic factors from the narrow channels of money flow that keep enriching the economically high and mighty. This needs to be effected without blocking individual’s ability to acquire wealth, which motivates economic production. It is best to achieve this economic power diffusion with least interference from other entities, like continued meddling by the government.

This can be achieved by limiting the number of persons any business can employ. In conjunction with this there has to be a limit to the maximum percentage interest an individual can own in all other businesses.

A revolution almost always has wide spread economic hardship at its base. Too much wealth in the hands of a few robs democracy of its effectiveness. The present worldwide wave of expression of dissatisfaction for the existing political establishments is only the beginning. This is more visible in the well developed economies, because of the fact that in a mature economy the greed of the rich is more rampant, due to the smaller number of available new conceptual opportunities. Man’s pursuit of happiness is ever existing formidable force. History is nothing but a story of mankind’s pursuit of happiness. Only the means and methods keep evolving. This force initiates new currents in accordance with the perceived changes in the reality. Each new generation brings forth clearer perspective of the prevailing reality. The majority of the world population feeling safer than before has shifted its focus to achieving comfort. The biggest obstacle to comfortable living, the common man sees now, is the unjust distribution of wealth. As a result the demand for more profound socialism is forming in the mind of the world masses. Often, at the beginning, revolting masses are acutely aware of their pain but not clear about remedy. We are in the early phase of Karl Marx’s ‘Class War’. But we can use a less fierce and very effective remedy than the one Marx recommended. Unless the real underlying decease is addressed, treating the symptoms only with political adjustments will not mollify the masses. The citizens having louder voice in democratic governments, the democracies will lead the way, bearing the bigger brunt. Fortunately, since in democracies the spirit of law is not in cahoots with tyrannies, the revolution is liable to be less violent. But the descent is growing in size for sure. It seems like the next lesson on humanity’s curriculum is that, ‘unchecked commercial greed is detrimental to community’s happiness’.

 

I would say unchecked greed is a problem. I would also say it is a problem not only with capitalism but also socialism. While most people agree on wanting a society that works well for everyone, how that is achieved is where the disagreement lies. While capitalism is not perfect, socialism has pitfalls that are far worse. Look at the last century that was full of power hungry governments. They did more damage to mankind than any company could ever do.

 

It's rather difficult to argue that 2008 was due to capitalism. The financial system we have and capitalism are not at all the same thing. Collusion with the state is not capitalist. Moral hazards caused by banker bailouts are not capitalist. Fractional reserve banking is not capitalist.

2008 was a failure of corporatism more than anything, and I think that's something both capitalists and socialists can get behind dismantling.

 

All governments accrue more and more power over time while simultaneously becoming less and less able to operate effectively. In the end they all begin to suffer from Hammer syndrome. The smaller and less populous the country the longer you can make it work but in the end you always reach the same point diminished accountability excessive power.

 

Scandinavian countries are more Capitalist than the USA in important ways, and less in others.

 

I agree. Part of that difference is that Sweden has only one level of government issuing rules and regulations while we have four.

 

If you look at my opinion, I am totally against handing over the reins of socialism to government. I am looking for one law restraining the capitalism, and then the government keeping its hands off. You let the government micromanage anything, and it turns into a monkey business in time. It is like me managing your personal situation. I could never have the full perspective of your pain or of your strong and week points. Let the society itself handle it beyond that single law.

Try this for size:

1. 
   No business can employ more than one thousand persons.
   
   (Underdeveloped economies may start out with smaller numbers. The initial retardation of progress, very probable in their cases, caused by such a system, will be easily taken over soon, since much more mental resources of the community would be applied to progress.)
   
   
2. An individual can:
   
   Own one business totally (100%),
   
   Own the next business up to 40%,
   
   And then invest no more than 8% each in any number of other businesses.
   
   
3. Non-personnel entities (businesses, organizations, governments, etc.) can invest no more than 8% in any business. A pension fund tied to one business can invest fully in its mother business, and can invest no more than 8% in any other business.

Thus, no individual can control financial destiny of more than 2 thousand employees. The 40% control over the second business can ensure crucial immediate needs for the main business. For the rest, even if seven or more individuals/investment pools form a group to control many businesses, the high number of members required will make it unrealistic for the group to function harmoniously for long, especially beyond a generation, since pride, greed or fear in the participants will raise its head along the line.

Such a scheme would spread usage of money to many hands, minimizing its potential to exploit the society, without blocking any individual from accumulating wealth. If a scheme like this were in place at an early stage of industrialization, workers wouldn’t have lived pitiful life in filthy slums.
Such a scheme will need to be implemented gradually; say for the first five years a business above the limit can hire one employee to replace every two lost, then over the next five years one for three and so on, until at the end of a set duration (say 30 years – by which time a business would have recycled almost all of its work force) or until the limit is reached, whichever comes first. After the grace period the limit would be rigidly enforced for all business. This will allow large enterprises to down-structure gradually, and to keep disposing off excess equipment by retiring and by liquidating, with least amount of disruption to individual enterprises and to overall economy. The capital beyond the limits would seek out other promising businesses during the grace period. From the day of the deadline the investment limits would be operative.

During the grace period the beyond limits capital will have ample time to shift gradually and methodically, since the down structuring large businesses would tend to achieve high profit potential through increased vigilance, and since other promising avenues of investment would keep opening up. The general atmosphere will be that of high hope rather than panic.

The following should be some of the results of such a scheme:

For the community:

• We all engage in economic activities to derive the largest gains possible. A business organization is a pyramid, where the stake holders and the top organization levels having the control over the distribution, tend to take much. The seepage tapers down as the money flows downward. Very tall pyramids make the low levels comparatively dry. Not much trickles down in an unrestrained trickle-down-economy. Shorter pyramids would let fairer shares of profit to flow down. And the completion created by the huge number of businesses would add to this effect.
  
  
• Larger portion of population would become economically comfortable, thereby enhancing creativity, resulting in higher level of overall contentment.
  
  
• Higher appreciation for individual skills, to make businesses competitive, will become the norm. Wages will rise to approach the employees’ values to the business. Demand will rise for exceptional skills/unique abilities (A high value employee within a tier can make 2-10 times higher wages than an average coworker.). Medium rank employees retiring with million-dollar bank account, today’s money, will not be so unheard of.
  
  
• This will reduce wastage of our most precious resource; human potential.
  
  
• The benefits of wider spread of money will raise the standard of living of masses and reduce the number of poor.
  
  
• Services like education and health care will be made more affordable by wider community focus and competition.
  
  
• Government regulations and interference would decrease, raising economic efficiency.
  
  For individuals:
  
  
• Better standard of leaving would lessen worries.
  
  
• When there are only a handful of entities to compete with, competitors think in terms of rank, but when there are thousands of entities to compete with for a few different levels, class/status becomes the aim. After reaching a comfortable level, when it is perceived that his/her potential financial plateau has been reached, the focus of the person shifts to family and friends, and to self expression in noble aspects of life; arts, music, literature, science, social work, sports, etc.
  
  
• The social atmosphere of a community with short status-pyramid, with each stratum containing no less than a few thousand individuals, remains relatively humble and cohesive. The ultra status concept does not develop, avoiding superiority-inferiority spectrum.
  
  
• Higher worker appreciation in terms of recognition and remuneration would make pride of performance popular, thereby increasing work satisfaction and in turn creativity and productivity.
  
  
• Dedication to their causes on the part of individuals will rise, resulting in higher loyalty to larger collective causes, like charity efforts and the good of the country.
  
  For the government:
  
  
• Increased affluence would enlarge the tax base, providing more for safety, security and comfort of the nation.
  
  
• Defused special interest lobbying would lighten its grip on legislation, thereby making the governments more honest and more effective.
  
  
• Character would receive higher focus in elections, as the impact of special interest contributions declines.
  
  
• Just distribution of wealth, resulting more charitable attitudes, inherent in humans, will reduce the needs for economic oversight and social programs would make the government that much smaller, providing room for higher efficiency.
  
  
• Lighter lobbying would ease off the pressure keeping taxes unfair.
  
  For the economy:
  
  
• The number of businesses will multiply many fold, making competition broader, thereby adding quality and values, and making market-cornering much more difficult.
  
  The number of small/local businesses would increase many fold. The combined effect would enhance opportunities for creative energies of community, thereby increasing its total wealth.
  
  
• Large projects would employ pyramids of businesses. Manufacturing and service businesses will be employee oriented, while suppliers and heavy equipment renters will be capital oriented.
  
  
• The number of foreign and domestic trade businesses will grow.
  
  
• Watch-dog companies in each category (management, labor, material supply, engineering, etc. – just like existing credit bureaus), would crop up, encouraging higher efficiencies.
  
  
• Investment firms to accommodate the maximum 8% investment mode will flourish.
  
  
• Companies providing special services like research and product development will become more numerous.
  
  
• Economic swings caused by recycling of obsolete business concepts and methods, which is an inherent character of free enterprise, would occur more continuously in smaller doses, thereby making economic swings shallow, affording stability to economy, making inflations and deflations shallow.

A large business can produce more cheaply, when in tough competition, than a cluster of small businesses. But in unrestricted free enterprise, giant businesses tend to quell down competition by mergers and absorptions. Then in complacent times wasteful lethargy and inefficiency seeps in easily. On the other hand a small business tends to remain vigilant due to closer watch of its stake holders, afforded by shorter pyramid of the organization. In some commodities the system may put us at a disadvantage for a time against giant foreign businesses. But higher creativity and innovations generated by broader participation of collective mind will override the disadvantage soon enough by improving the products, finding cheaper substitutes, moving to higher technology items, etc. The desire for profit would shift its focus from squeezing consumer to creatively adding values. Euphoric motivation growing from the new hope would make the system start bearing fruits quickly, and the pace would keep accelerating until the process is close to saturation. In less than two generations from the time the system is adopted, the transformation of the community should be awesome

 

Scandinavia is a small economy hanging on the coattails of other larger economies. They are in dire need of proving their system, which keeps the governments on their toes and humble for now. Our government is proud and not in the need to prove anything to the world. Their micromanagement is much more prone to inefficiency and ulterior motives.

No entity associated with life, be it a living being, a business, a system, or an idea, ever wants to compromise its existence. Governments only strive to get larger. Departments never want shrink. Larger a government, more inefficient and lethargic it gets. Also there is always a chance of ulterior motives playing role.

Democracy is the best format available, since its governance is more in tune with the well being of all citizens. But the activities of a government should be confined mainly to security from outside factors, order within and disaster relief. It should not try to micromanage civilian systems. It should only watch out for trouble spots. Its micromanagement creates wrong/ineffective controls, hurdles and red tape. It should only make blanket laws on society related issues. A rule that rules the least is the best. Governments are hardly ever proactive, are slow in reacting, and often come up with off or bad remedies.

 

How do we fix that? How do we keep power honest?

 

Honestly I'm not sure you can. All you can do is disconnect people from the continuous loop at some point. Term limits was an attempt to do that. But that is only of value if you don't have a largely permanent bureaucracy.

 

Minor correction for now. Comfort for the majority of people doesn't enhance creativity it increases sloth, drunkenness, and boredom. The most creative people I've known were the busiest.