There was a threat about creating parties for the Political Forum.. People seemed to accept the idea, but they still did not seem take it too seriously.

I write this article partly, because I want to present you (especially the American members) the social democratic ideal, which is so commonly accepted in here Europe..

The party description, which I present, is merely a description of my ideal party instead of some already existiting party.

Secondly I want to say, that I know that many of Americans are afraid and scared of the word socialism. For this I would like to point out, that the social democrats were the most fierce and strongest enemies of the communists in the modernizing Europe. There are two reasons, where the one was that they both appeared for the same audience: workers and the compassionate middle. The other was ideological: social democrats were fundamentally democrats and loved freedom, and they shared the common hate against totalitarism and it's oppression.

From the old time the social democratic movement has made many turns in its road of ideology. First they sacrificed the idea of the revolution, then the dictatorship of the proletariat and last the planned economics as the economic system. One may not find so many things to be proud with this development, but they still conserved their most valuable idea, which was the good of many.

It was the dream of the just and happy society. The utopists had seen this society in the 1900th and 1800th century in their visions of the distant future. In their views it was the society, where the poverty, diseases and injustice had been removed. It was only dream that time, but in the 20th century, the political leaders and activists wanted to make it a reality.

The practial answer for their wishes was the idea of the welfare state.

The idea in the welfare state - as I see it - is the following. In this model, the people and the goverment, which represents people, accepts the idea of social responsibility. The goverment acquires a role in the society supporting the people, when this help is seen needed and practical. In this model, the society does not only give a man the right to reach for happiness, but also an opportunity for a life worth living.

Typically welfare states provide people rights alien to the libertarian models of democracy. These rights might be the right for education, life, health or a right for happiness.

The modern welfare states provides also typically multiparty democracies and more or less controlled market economics. The whole educational system is typically free and the state usually also support studying, as well it provides the basic financial security against diseases and unemployement.

Good examples of the welfare states would be the Scandinavian countries. They all implement a similar kind of social model known as Scandinavian or the Nordic model.

Still, of course the welfare state is not only the jewel of the social democratic movement. Typically also the social wing of the liberal demorats have embraced this model. One example is Canada.

Commonly, people have been most fond of this model. In Scandinavia we have relatively insignificant social problems and we lead in many meters measuring the social well-being. We have our happy, comfortable and calm societies and we feel good about it. A describing note could be that all of the Finnish parties (even the right wing) supports the existance of the welfare state.

The emotional support for this model raises commonly from the social democratic values. Such are solidarity, compassion and the social responsibility - of course not forgetting - the individual freedom, rule of law and democracy.

Still, to be honest I'm somewhat alien to the union wing of the Finnish SDP. I have typically voted the (Finnish) Green, who have a similar social agenda. I have also been impressed by the Green's ex-partyleader and his morally concistent, calm and analyzing style.

In my ideal way there would be an emphasize in the understading how the society and the economics work. I see no good in the ideological trenches. For me, the only ideological guideline what is needed is the good of people. Other values and ideas have only value in supporting this ultimate goal. In this way, I have a strong technocratic and pragmatic emphasis, but these only serving the guiding idea (~ the social well-being).

As other guidelines I would underline the sanity (~ truth, the guardkeeper of everything else), democracy (how else we could know the common good?) and individual liberty (man knows best his best).

As a side note, I personally don't see problems in even a little harsh taxation, if only the social benefit is greater the economic price. My belief is the extra money for the wealthy won't create the extra happiness, but instead the extra money for the less fortunate makes easily a difference between a misery and a happy life.

..

Any Ideas?

Anyone want to join?

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

While Id be less centralised than the Finns or Swedes Id have to be in the Social Democratic bloc. Its the only way for democracy to work effectively in a capitalist system.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

including the "good for the many". Socialism has never worked, and never will. That's why socialism has been so diluted, the ideas don't work, but some things are not so easy to kill.

It sounds really arrogant to say this, but I think the main reason most Americans dont embrace this model is because we value our freedom more than other democracies do.

While your model does alleviate a lot of problems, it comes at a price. The price being slower advancement, and fewer choices. Americans will be unwilling to pay that price for the most part. It is not worth it to us. We need room to breath.

Hmm..

I'm not certain, if you really read my post.

I would see socialism as an ideal, where the state has a social interest ~ so to maximize the common welfare. I would see it as a purpose, instead of some clearly defined way, how to build a society. It is a philosophical concept - a concept of will, instead of way.

And you accused it of failing? And how can will fail? Well - the obvious solution is when it fails to achieve its stated interests... But - on the other hand - this is only a practical question, not some mystical determinism, which can only result in failure..

In case you attacked the idea of the welfare state, which I presented as a tool for achieving social improvements, then you are obviously wrong. The welfare state has been working very well for decades. Good example of the welfare states would be the Nordic countries of Sweden, Finland, Norway etc. If you check statistics then - as I mentioned before - we lead the world in many meters measuring social well-being.

If you talked about some mythical socialism as an economic model or the failed communism - then - we are obviously talking about completely different subjects.

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

This is a good and valid argument.. In the bottom line it is a value question..

How should I say it?..

This is my truth, tell me yours.. Values are barely a subject for any real debate..

I suppose that the selection of ideology (and values) must be done with the heart.. One must choose the ideas and values they find most emotionally rewarding, enduring and right..

Still, there were strong socialistic movements in the history of the U.S. Certainly, these values and ideas are not so distant for the American people as one could assume

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

Most Americans would agree that there needs to be a basic safety net. Everyone should have a minimum standard of shelter, food and education.

The disagreement is on the degree. Europeans seem to believe that everyone is entitled to a comfortable place to live. To good food. To good education.

Americans will never embrace this IMO. The view of most of us is that you should not starve. You should not have to live on the street. You need enough access to education to allow you to crawl out of a hole...but there is no requirement that it be easy or convenient. That seems to be what Europeans consider acceptable...easy and convenient.

I dont trust the "Social Democrats" although they beat the Republicans any day. Tell me comrade, what do you plan to do about capitalist oppression? You'll never beat it through "reform", you need revolution.

__________________
“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

But because our system is better for the workers than yours, I would say its a better shot.

BTW I am a social democrat, and would love to join your party.

And I live in the US.

You need to read Sir Thomas More's Utopia and decide for yourself whether any people in the world could live in a communistic society. Personally, I can't imagine a pure communistic society existing without two main properties: (1) a small population, (2) an authoritarian government to stop free riders and to keep control.

The type of communism you would like to see is impossible.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller