Karl Marx inherits that Hegelian dialectic, and with it, a disdain for the notion of an underlying invariant human nature. Sometimes Marxists express their views by contrasting “nature” with “history.” Sometimes they use the phrase “existence precedes consciousness.” The point, in either case, is that who a person is, is determined by where and when he is — social context takes precedence over innate behavior; or, in other words, the main feature of human nature is adaptability. "Human Nature" is often used as a counter argument to Marxism. However, it is not that Marxists entirely reject the concept of human nature, rather they contend that many of the behaviours exhibited by humans in Western capitalist societies - particularly excessive self-interest, and lack of social responsibility - are by no means fixed or innate. In my opinion Sweden id in the socialist stage of the transission from capitalism to communism and whether or not the Swedish model follows along the exact lines of the Marxist theory or not, getting America to where the Swedes are economically and politically would advance us to the stage of socialism which is by far better than staying with the capitalist system.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

OK so you have tackled the criticism that I said I don't necessarily support, and the nurture over nature argument is one I am inclined to agree with. However, what about the planner, surely it would require someone of a benevolence that is not attributed to human beings?

Japan has a long, long history of incorporating new things into its culture that work. Much more so than any other country. And they are still not the poster-country for democracy. Not to mention their economy is almost a command one.
Some Arab cultures in ancient, ancient times had a similar culture. At some point they were the pinnacle of civilation. That was before the crusades. Once the West tried to force itself on them once, it was not to be trusted again.
Yes, cultures change, but we cannot predict how. Your planned democratization is abouit as effective as planned economics. Only a communist could have dreamed up such a thing. The connection makes sense.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Actually I screwed up there somewhere. Not that you'll notice since you seem to believe in the mutability and universalism of culture. But historically I'm not so sure there actually was an Arab culture that embraced new things. I'm thinking of Persian cultures.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

__________________
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. - F.A. Hayek

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

There is always hope, as long as one can think.

Give me an example. They seem to me to be remarkably xenophobic prior to WWII. Their worship of their own ancestry doesnt scream "openness" to me.

Why not? What happened to "the Japanese have always embraced new things"?

We wont know until we try. And the alternatives are worse.

And we know it has suceeded before.

The empirical evidence does not support that conclusion.

While it is true that humans are adaptable, that does not mean that such radical changes can take place in the span of a generation or even several generations. And since there is no apparent evolutionary imperitive for such changes, they are unlikely to happen.

But that is unlikely to happen. Because those same ideals prevent them from competing with us. It is more likely that America will convert them eventually.

Part of the reason for that is because they do not require a large military budget. America supplements the militaries of all free democracies...we defend them against threats they would not have been able to handle on their own (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, ect..). Without our umbrella of protection, they would have been swallowed long ago.

Yet despite this additional burden, America has still been able to maintain one of the highest standards of living in the world, even by their own measure (and their own measure is very subjective).

Would they be allowed to sell their shares? If not, would the workers be allowed to change the restrictions that prevent them from selling their shares?

Thats the catch...the only way such systems could work is by restricting freedoms. Authoritarianism (probably totalitarianism) would be required to make it work at all. Because greed is human nature, and it is inevitable that some or most workers would eventually want to exploit the demand for some shares over others.

There is no way around that that will still allow workers a choice.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

No Sadistic Savior, youre thinking of Stalinism with the whole totalitarianism/authoritarianism. I was thinking more along the lines of Democratic Socialism.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

How is neoconservatism not suffering from the same sickness as communism?
1) You believe in the inequality of cultures, but not the differences in them.
2) You believe that there is a formula to manipulate all cultures into a single perfect archetype.
3) The way to do it is by force and expansion from the top down.
So you have differences on the economic ideals. So what? The totalitarianism in the name of equality is still there.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

"Would they be allowed to sell their shares? If not, would the workers be allowed to change the restrictions that prevent them from selling their shares?

Thats the catch...the only way such systems could work is by restricting freedoms"

The capitalist system restricts far more freedoms than this system would. It is undeniable that a rich person has more options avaliable to them than a poor person, therefore they have more freedom, so where is the freedom for the poor? The system I have suggested combines the equality of a communist system with the dynamism of a capitalist system the only sacrafice is the selfishness and greed of a capitalist system. And please do not try and argue that selfishness is a freedom, because nearly all people agree that your freedom ends when it affects that of another person and selfishness certainly does restrict the freedom of another person.

Many of those who describe themselves as "socialists" often argue that socialism necessarily implies democracy, thus making "democratic socialism" a redundant term. The fact that one specific movement is called Democratic Socialism does not mean that other branches of socialism must be any less democratic. However, the term is often used by those who wish to contrast this form of socialism with Communism or other ideologies that Democratic Socialists consider dictatorial ideologies in practice that, in theory, also claim to be socialist. The terms "Democratic Socialism" and "Social Democracy" have often been used interchangeably, and, indeed, many have considered them synonymous until recently. Today, however, they usually denote two different things: Social Democracy is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with only some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended 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, either by gradually reforming capitalism from within, or via some form of revolutionary transformation. Thus, Democratic Socialism can be either an evolutionary socialist movement or a revolutionary movement. This tension between the revolutionary and evolutionary tendencies of democratic socialism can be seen in the Socialist Party USA, which has members who advocate both types of positions (although the party statement of principles does use the word "revolution" to describe its position). Revolutionary democratic socialists accuse those who favor evolution of supporting a kind of "socialism from above" that is achieved via legislation and which does not truly abolish the capitalist system. Evolutionary democratic socialists accuse supporters of revolution of being impractical and of supporting pie-in-the-sky approaches. Evolutionary democratic socialists and social democrats both typically advocate at least a welfare state, although some social democrats, being influenced by the Third Way, would be willing to consider other means of delivering a social safety net for the poorest in society. Revolutionary democratic socialists support a welfare state, not as a means toward achieving socialism, but as a way of providing relief until revolutionary change takes place, and also as a means of mobilizing the populace towards revolutionary ideals. Democratic socialists maintain a commitment to the re-distribution of wealth and power and social ownership of most major industry, and some believe in a planned economy; these are all concepts which social democrats have largely abandoned. In addition, many democratic socialists retain a Marxist analysis (though often a reformist one), while social democrats reject Marxism entirely. Democratic socialist parties appeared before the World War I, when no single country could be described as democratic in the full modern use of the term, because of electoral discrimination on the basis of gender, race or wealth. What frequently distinguished these democratic socialists from others was a willingness to work through a parliamentary democracy (even if people were still disenfranchised) to both improve the lives of working classes and win the vote, rather than resort to revolution (the overthrow of the state). Revolutionary Democratic Socialism attracted greater support a few decades later, when many democratic socialists became disillusioned with evolutionary socialism, because social democracy, the largest evolutionary socialist movement, had failed to abolish capitalism and had in many cases abandoned the goal of building a socialist society. Revolutionary democratic socialists also believe that the political structures within existing capitalist societies serve as an impediment to full democracy, which they believe can only achieved by establishing a new political structure built from the bottom up and based on popular organizations that emerge during democratic and socialist struggles.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois