Social Democracy

Post Reply New Topic

Seeing few people supporting Socialism and other supporting Capitalism, which those claim that Socialism doesn't work and only Capitalism works, pretty much one side arguing against the other, but that makes me wonder, how about Social Democracy? and I ask this to the general PPR population, about their thoughts of a mixed economy such as Social Democracy as an example.

I have been inclined for a while to this type of economic system to be better, given that it includes both elements, capitalism and socialism, because I see that elements from capitalism are benefitial but some ideas from socialism are as well, and given that few european countries already have this system which seems to go well for them. I tend to conclude that this is likely a fair system.

I problem I have observed with this idea though is that many americans would accuse this system to be marxism, given that they seem to have problems separating soviet comunism from other socialist ideas, though this doesn't seem to be fully socialist in the strict sense.

But that's my own somehow vague perspective on this.

What are your thoughts and/or analysis on this?

Tough question... Social Democracy is better than Capitalism, but it's not going the whole way. I would like to take it to an entire new level.

I chose no system is perfect, even though I think many of them work...just not perfectly. However, I really understand nothing of economic systems, so should just stay out of these matters.

"Perfect" is something of an oxymoron. really.

I would argue that the welfare state you've described isn't legitimately a "mixed economy." The private sector still controls production, and decisions are made by the market. The only difference is that taxes are used to help out poor people. Social Democracy, to me, is not socialism but just welfare statism. The governments of the Baltic states have not nationalized industry, and consistently rank very high in the Heritage Foundations index of economic freedom. They're just regular capitalist countries with somewhat more spending on welfare programs than the US has.

I don't see any real contradiction between an extensive social welfare network and capitalism, at least not more than there is between capitalism and government. Since I'm not an anarchist, I'll have to admit that there is no inconsistency in allowing for welfare programs within a capitalistic framework.

EDIT: And to answer the poll question, I think a truly mixed economy would fail quite badly.

1) You are talking about the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and not about the Baltic Nations (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania)?

2) You have also other forms of mixed economies: Germany, France and Austria have considerable state share in the industry. Volkswagen is e.g. 25% state owned, there are state owned banks etc.. The state has in this countries considerable a share in transport and utility providers, as well as steel mills and other companies, even some wine producer, producer of luxury porcelain (Meissen and KPM are state owned), Spas, and other. The portfolio of government holdings in this three countries is quite colourful and sometimes particular funny to read.



I am not that certain - it depends.

Yes, this is correct. Of late I have been putting names in the wrong places, to great embarrassment.


Interesting. I know the German economy is very strong, the French one not quite so much. I would have to read more on the specifics of European economics to be able to discuss it competently.


I would think that a mixed economy would present some interesting problems–the government being involved in enterprise could lead to some problems. What happens to private entrepreneurs who compete with government firms? What about trade laws that might favour government-run businesses? It seems at the very least a conflict of interest to have the government involved in such matters.

Mmmm Talking of Leftist Pragmatists

Trade laws are not a national matter: Trade law is EU-legislation. But: There is long ongoing struggle between the EU and these three countries in this respect - filled up km of files in Brussels, Paris, Vienna and Berlin/Bonn.

But currently it backfires: The losses of the state-owned banks are going directly into the budgets and took some German states into considerable difficulties.

Please note that Yes is in the minority. A mixed economy may be the lesser of evils but it sure is not the greater of the good. On the other hand a pure Capitalist economy has never existed so we really do not know how good that would be. One thing is for absolutely certain. A centrally controlled economy in which every detail is planned is utterly impossible. The combinatorial magnitude of managing such an economy renders total central control impossible.

The only economies that can be centrally controlled are village economies scaled to to roots and berries barter system.

ruveyn

Quite so. There are many ways of having a mixed economy. My guess is that the more central the regulation, the greater the probability of failure. If a central authority tries to regulate the minutia of the economy it will fail simply because of the combinatoric complexity.

If the mix is largely providing some welfare and a "safety net", it might not be so bad.

ruveyn

Economic systems are the same as gov'ts: It only takes time for someone to exploit it and thus destabilize the system. I mean, Reagonomics was awesome for 25 years, it's only now completely failing. We underwent the biggest economic growth in human history.

However, the same rules that allowed companies to make tons of money allowed the eventual exploitation of the system. It only takes time for someone to figure out how to cheat. It's simple human nature.

I think that different forms of government have application at different scales... households tend to run as a monarchy or dictatorship (even if both parents share the role, the child are still subject to their direction); neighborhoods and towns on a communal model; the state bears the weight of social responsibility and the democratic nation then holds the pieces together and integrates the elements.


M.

nothing will ever work perfectly. that is the definition of life. no species are 100%

theres always a zebra whos not fast enough, always a lion not fast enough. people will never be perfect, systems will never be perfect.

Somehow the image of those two meeting each other sounds like a sumo pot of fail.

i wanna watch that on youtube! failure lion vs failure zebra