Fabulous Coverage

Well done Mr. Killian. This is a top notch description of what everyone except monopoly capitalists know. Michael Moore covered northern Europe 20 years ago in his weekly TV series The Awful Truth (cancelled but still available on DVD) , and many people have tried repeatedly to demonstrate how successful (and FAIR) social democracies are for the majority of citizens. This adds to that body of work.

Why is the truth so hard to get out? We're back to looking at media monopoly owned by billionaires who have ZERO interest in changing our current plutocracy, and their corporate buddies who help own society (see Not a Conspiracy Theory by Donald Gutstein).

Social change comes from below, never from our elites. So we can only hope that the thousands of disenfranchised people will read and think and organize so that one day we too can live like the northern Europeans.

Excellent review.

Not much different from Canada.

"The Moderate Party is a centre-right, liberal conservative political party in Sweden. Fredrik Reinfeldt is the Prime Minister of Sweden (2006–present).

Following the 2006 general election, where the party gained 26.23% of the vote, the party forms the major part of the government together with the other parties in the centre-right Alliance for Sweden: the Centre Party, the Liberal People's Party and the Christian Democrats.

The Party supports free markets and personal freedom and has historically been the essential force for privatizations, deregulations, tax cuts and a reduction of the public-sector growth rate. However, it still embrace most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. Other issues emphasized by the party are such as actions against crime, increasing and promoting the value of working, and quality in the educational system. "

Sweden:
GDP - per capita:
$36,600 (2009 est.)
Canada:
$38,200 (2009 est.)
Sweden Unemployment rate:
8.3% (2009 est.)
Canada Unemployment rate:
8.3% (2009 est.)

Instead of the commercial Gallup produced Happiness Index, here's one from a registered charity, the NEF. (The New Economics Foundation (NEF) is an independent British think-tank.[1]

NEF was founded in 1986 by the leaders of The Other Economic Summit (TOES) with the aim of working for a "new model of wealth creation, based on equality, diversity and economic stability".)

2009 Happy Planet Index
53 Sweden 48.0
88 Norway 40.4
89 Canada 39.4
105 Denmark 35.5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index

Clicking on Crawford Killian's link, where he says that Canada slipped down to #10 (tied with Denmark). we see that this a business-group study and the number one reason they cite that Canada is less competitive, the number most problematic factor for doing business in Canada is tax rates. Fortunately for us, corruption was listed last, at the bottom.

I would say that a political

I would say that a political party in any Scandinavian country that is declared "on the right" is still to the left in the North American way of thinking. My experience working with Scandinavians is that they don't think of right/left issues; they think more about what is pragmatic, progressive, common sense, and what is for the best for their country and their people.

Van Isle

You might want to check out the Sweden Democrats. They won 20 seats in the September election and may hold the balance of power.

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/6484-after-the-election-sweden-is-in-denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Democrats

Sweden is where 10,000 rule the rest who are "Middle Class"

I lived in Norway and Denmark for 6 years. They're not much different from Sweden in embracing "tryghed" which is loosely translated as sfety/security. Even though both Sweden and Denmark are ruled by the Center Right they are still guided by the "tryghed" political culture Any radical haircut of the Welfare State will mean the end of their tenure. Trimming is viewed as acceptable because there are a lot who abuse the system. When I worked in a cardboard box factory in Oslo (1979) Sick Leave was 100% of your wage. And yes workers fiddled it for all it was worth.

At the same time Scandinavia allows for a private hospital sector which is illegal in Canada. Unionized nurses operate private clinics in Stockholm. In the public sector every time I visited the doctor in Denmark or Norway I paid a small user fee. If you're sick in Sweden and need hospital care you will pay a small fee there too. It's capped and low income people are reimbursed but what would people say if they tried that here. AMERICAN HEALTH CARE!!

Auto insurance in Sweden is private. Taxes on corporations low. Its the consumer who pays - try HST at 25% for example. The Social Democrats nationalized only one firm (electrical) from 1932 to 1976 at a time when government ownership effected by Social Democrats in the rest of the West was de rigeur. I've got brochures from the Saskatchewan CCF from the 50's extolling the virtues of a government run Shoe factory. I think the Swedes would have laughed at that one.

The Danish Left - a coalition pact between the Social Democrats and the Socialist Peoples Party - which is vying for power in the next election have an alternative plan to government cutbacks - Let's all work an hour longer a week! Ho ho try that one here.

The Mirage of Social Democracy...

"Swedes Went Right Wing In September Election
It isn't quite as rosy as the author would have us believe." P. Markunas

Which is the point that Social Democratic Capitalism's supporters are seeking to gloss over in the current period. While it has been slower coming in these Scandinavian countries, the Social Democratic State is under threat and erosion there as well, from the growing power and influence of The Ruling Class Right. (And Scandinavians, while indeed a pragmatic people, in my experience of them, know very well the differences between right and left. Some folks just see what they want to see, here and everywhere.)

And as I have said elsewhere, Scandinavian/Swedish social democracy is still Capitalism, with the same "class" social issues, if some better mitigated, and part of the Global Capitalism Dominance Axis, including NATO, and are there in Afghanistan serving the US Empire cause along with ourselves, Denmark etc. (In hopes of a "resources return" from this imperialist venture eventually, once the US conquest attempt succeeds, as everyone thought it would back when... IF, which is looking more and more like an extremely remote likelihood. Making these social democratic states a party to Western Imperialism no less, in their invasion/exploitation attempts of everywhere else in the world. (Especially if you are perceived at least, weaker and more vulnerable.)

We are merely moving away from our own old Social Democratic State model of Capitalism faster than these countries... which is temporarily making them look better in the rear view mirror of our more neocon version of Capitalism.

What is going to have to be dealt with here, and destined to become more and more apparent, is the "class social relationships and balance of power" in capitalism... which Social Democracy absolutely refuses to deal with, and seeks to create obfuscating smoke and mirrors about. Until this class social and power relationship issue is dealt with in capitalism, even what passes for social democratic progress is always under threat of undoing, such as is being done EVERYWHERE, including in Sweden, in our time.

No one is being entirely spared in this current capitalist decline period, and it is a kind foolishness to expect otherwise, and a dishonesty to claim.

The Man...

Of course there are working class elements who "milk" the Social Democratic State. It is still capitalism. There is no sense of "ownership" of the economy or The State. And the mass of them are still wage slaves to an "external" system.

And this state of social affairs will exist, of the working class "milking" The System every chance they get, until "the class relationship and power issue" is finally dealt with... And this is because we feel no real sense of "loyalty" to it, let along "ownership". (Though we do say what we feel we have to say when pressed. Our livelihoods depend on giving the right answer.)

We are "milked" all the time, no less than milk cows in a large industrial dairy. Were dairy cattle capable, and actually they do have their own ways of getting back, believe it or not, you can be sure they would "milk" the dairy farmer as well. (They are always looking for an opportunity to give you a bit of a kick or shove, to steal grain and other food stuffs etc.)

Right on, says I. Do it every chance you get. Social Democracy is still The Man.

But especially, Steal From The Rich.

Sweden's Economy doesn't beat ours.

"Financial Post · Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2010

OTTAWA — Despite the recent slowdown, the International Monetary Fund said Wednesday it still sees Canada to be the leader in economic growth among major industrialized countries this year and next.

The finding is contained in the organization’s latest world economic outlook, released Wednesday, which suggested growth in the emerging markets would advance three times faster than rich nations next year.

The IMF forecast indicated the Canadian economy is set to grow 3.1% this year and 2.7% in 2011, which would be tops among major industrialized economies. Plus, next year’s expected advance of 2.7% would be ahead of the average 2.2% growth anticipated for the other big industrialized economies, such as Japan, the United States and Europe."

...and unemployment at 7.5% in 2011.
Sweden: 2.6% growth and 8.2% unemployment in 2011.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/index.htm
Chapter 2.

That's cute showing Ms Walsh

That's cute showing Ms Walsh visiting IKEA in Poor No More with the notion that it replicates the Swedish social security net ... lovely what the film omitted: the genius of marketing the "Scandinavian Way" when IKEA ceased to be a Swedish company long ago, with head office in Holland at nearly zero income tax (3.4% on 553 million Euros in 2006) due to it's registration as a charity in Holland, Luxembourg and Curacao. Mr. Kamprad who is a founding member lives in Switzerland and pays little income tax.

As for the happiness index ... well New Scientist depicted the denizens of hopelessly corrupt Nigeria as the happiest people in the world some 10 years ago. And that's probably for the same reason as for Scandinavians - low expectations and being pleasantly surprised when things go right.

Less poverty

Sweden's homeless population less than the Lower Mainland's.

Only 1,650 people in Sweden actually sleep in shelters, hostels or "in the rough".

Good quote from the column

"Social democracy really has just a few premises: a democratic parliamentary state that regulates the economy in the interests of the citizens rather than the stockholders; a system of social services that keep everyone healthy, educated and engaged in society."

This couldn't be more different from what the Conservatives and Liberals believe in. Both parties believe in punishing those that can't afford to buy private islands.

Social Democracy vs. Marxism?????

RE: During the golden age, conservatism was universally rejected. The debate was between Marxists and liberals -- another term for social democrats. Like U.S. Republicans, British and Canadian Conservatives basically endorsed the social democratic idea.

I'm astounded by the silliness of this remark. While it's true that Conservatives and Republicans supported -- to a lesser degree, mind you -- the basic tenets of social democracy, the idea that the debate was between SD and Marxism -- Marxism? -- is absurd. Perhsps that was the debate in the lala land the author of this article inhabited, but here in the real world, Marxists never made even a dent in the polls, not in Canada, not in the U.S., and not in Europe (with the very particular exceptions of France and Italy). After 1956, communism was entirely discredited. Marxism was and remains a fixture at the Universities, and maybe in some unions, but nowhere else, and thank God for that. And I say this as a lifelong social democrat.

And We Are Back...

The old postwar Social Democratic Capitalist State still clings on as a remnanat of its old self only, everywhere in western capitalism, like nature only exists here and there as "park remnants" of its old self in large urban concrete landscapes. Each, Social Democracy and Nature in Big City parks, only being the distant "echo illusion" of itself in another time and place.

And the reason for this is because the observation, "During the golden age, conservatism was universally rejected. The debate was between Marxists and liberals -- another term for social democrats. Like U.S. Republicans, British and Canadian Conservatives basically endorsed the social democratic idea." is basically true. (Even though Marxists were pushed, shoved and driven out of the subsequent picture by the Cold War and McCarthyism everywhere, including the old CCF morph called the NDP, in one form or another, throughout the capitalist world, whether said Marxists agreed with Soviet policy or not.)

And that in our time, the Party to Capitalism that "formally" manifests Social Democracy, the NDP, is desperately trying to become a part of the formally Liberal Party in Canada for example, is what less than subtley exposes this "closet" reality. Social Democracy is really just "another" one of the many faces of capitalism, trotted out in its "good times", which it uses to "buy off" the working class, and control them by other means than naked oppression. Because in its "good times" in can afford to and still make a killing on the stock market and in finance etc.

But ehh, we are living through another time, but one of many, more than the good times, when the good times are gone, or fading fast in the rear view mirror. Life is tougher and going to get even more tough.... and we Marxists are back. 8-D Like the black sheep of the family. With our own particular view of the world. 8-D lol.

Suck it up you Social Dem mofos. :-) Which I say as a life long Marxist (of my own sorts.) :-)

Great article but...

Great article Crawfird and TYEE but it brought out every wyner to say hay our system is better and I can prove it with the very gov. that you detest and you know they fix the data.

Listen our economy could take a lesson from scandanavia governements. Take the best and utilize it here. But no, our government is not in it for us. You people know that and say that endlessly in your free press. Thank you TYEE.

You have to be an incredible icehole not look at other economies that just may be doing better than us. Get off your patriotic horse and start thinking clearer people.

You all sound like programed robots.

I suppose you will say Brazil is not smart to have sugar cane ethanol for their vehicles big and small. Only country not oil dependent.

Guess the caption for NA and canada is true, in canada they say,

"Our problem is not what to do; it is how to talk about it."

Keep talking and not showing up at the election poll that you can be assured canada will not go forward like other entreprenuerial countries you seem to discount.

I guess your right Dave 85% of canadians do not think clear. Look at the crooked political parties they elect.

How do they do it? Taxes and the legacy of cowardice

A 25% sales tax can fund a remarkable number of programs. Do you think there's a chance in hell that Canadians or British Columbians would accept this?

Historically, it's worth considering how Sweden built this social state out of the ashes of World War II: they did it by appeasing the Nazis, and standing by idle while the rest of Europe bore the brunt and footed the bill for the defeat of Nazism.

Our system ISN'T Better

As Frank points out, more people are without a permanent address in Greater Victoria or on Greater Vancouver than there are in the whole country of Sweden: In Canada we don't even give these people the dignity of naming them - they're simply 'the homeless'.

As for the VAT in northern Europe, there is NO COMPARISON between the tax system here and the tax system there - until we have a similar marginal rate of tax (Sweden's was about 56% in 2002 and Canada's was more than 10% less. Furthermore, Northern European countries have much higher payroll taxes that apply to more workers than we do here.

They pay for their social services – here we just grumble about them and resent those of our fellow citizens who need them from time to time.

Frank's figures seem to be off, way off

They also pay when they receive health-care.

Also;
According to a National Welfare Board (Socialstyrelsen) report from 2006, there are 17,800 homeless people across Sweden.

http://www.thelocal.se/24752/20100203/

Meanwhile, in Beautiful British Columbia:

" According to the figures released on Thursday (April 2010), there were 428 people found living on the streets of Vancouver "

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/04/08/bc-vancouver-homeless-count-results.html#ixzz11ilq6rQN

Taxes

Canada: Income: 53% Sales Tax BC/HST: 12%
Sweden: Income: 29%-59% Sales Tax: 25%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Wrong

The top marginal tax rate (2010 - combining federal and provincial tax) in British Columbia is 43.70% on ordinary income over 127,021. Of course, if you're a plutocrat and get your money from interest, dividenda and capital gains, it's quite another picture.

The definition of 'homeless' is quite different in the two countries..In fact, unlike Canadian people who have no homes, most of Sweden's homeless people are not Swedish.

In fact, Swedish statistics also include the following:
'1. A person is referred to emergency accommodation, sheltered
accommodation/hostel, short-term accommodation or is sleeping rough.
2. A person is admitted to or registered at
• a prison
• a treatment unit
or
• supported accommodation within social services, county council, private care provider, community home or National Board of Institutional Care institution and is intended for discharge within three months after the measurement period but does not have any accommodation arranged
before being discharged or moving out.
3. A person is admitted to or registered in
• a treatment unit
or
• supported accommodation within social services, county council, private care provider, community home or National Board of Institutional Care institution and is not intended for discharge within three months but does not have any accommodation arranged in the event that he/she should be discharged or should move out at some future time.
4. A person lives temporarily and without contract with friends,
acquaintances, family, relatives or has a temporary (shorter than
three months after the measurement period) lodging or subletting
contract and on the basis of this situation has sought help or been in
contact with the authority or organisation providing information during the measurement period.'

If we used the same measurment criteria in this country, what do you think the number of homeless people would be?

In fact, belonging in several of the categories of Swedish homeless persons would be, in this backward country - and especially in this in humane and heartless province, an occasion for celebration.

Give your heads a shake.

(data taken from: HOMELESSNESS in Sweden)
http://www.feantsa.org/files/indicators_wg/ETHOS2006/200613123.pdf

G West

quote:
"The definition of 'homeless' is quite different in the two countries..In fact, unlike Canadian people who have no homes, most of Sweden's homeless people are not Swedish."

Thanks to you, GWest. for the clarification. I didn't realize that when those good people from Vancouver were going around seeking out the homeless for their count that they asked for ID. Proof that the poor people roughing it were indeed bona fide Canadian citizens. I am surprised that this racist style of profiling would apply to the homeless on our streets. Such an indignity, I'm shocked.

As a compassionate nation we must in future seek to find shelter for the unfortunate people in our city no matter whether they have the correct 'papers' or not!

Give your heads a shake.

r'man

The figures you cite include people living with friends and so on. They are included as homeless in Sweden's figures because they cast a very wide net.

As for the Lower Mainland's, the Tyee has published several stories on the homeless count in Vancouver and all of those figures are way higher than yours.

My figure for Sweden comes from the same source as yours, however, this is what that article says if you had read the whole thing :

"Although the overall number of homeless people has climbed sharply, the number of people actually sleeping rough has not risen. However, the number who live in different kinds of hostels and shelters has increased from around 500 to 1,650. "

Frank

You used to defend the CBC and it's reporting. Nevertheless, even if you want to multiply it by ten it's still less the Sweden's for the whole country and we know that not many people live in Sweden's north except for the Laplanders.

What about about this racial profiling? I don't like that a bit.

Highjacking words

There was a time early last century when the word 'socialism' was bastardized for political purposes by both Eastern Europe and the USA, albeit for different purposes.

Germany and Russia used socialism's good name to attract followers while en route to installing totalitarian governments. America sullied the word to demonize German and Russian politics, and to steer its own people from desiring a socially conscientious state. I know the force of this propaganda still haunts America today.

So what have we learned from it all? Not much it seems. Here are two quotes to consider:

1. "The debate was between Marxists and liberals -- another term for social democrats."

2. "Social democracy really has just a few premises: a democratic parliamentary state that regulates the economy in the interests of the citizens rather than the stockholders; a system of social services that keep everyone healthy, educated and engaged in society."

Here the word 'democrat' (referencing democracy I would contend) has been highjacked by the social democrats. The Canadian and Scandinavian systems referred to are forms of 'social liberalism'. Both sought/seek some social justice, but within the parameters of liberal ideology. These nations are governed for the 'best'erment of individuals, for those with the riches and the power.

True Democracy was still born.

realisticman: OTTAWA — Despite the recent slowdown, the International Monetary Fund said Wednesday it still sees Canada to be the leader in economic growth among major industrialized countries this year and next.

Exactly what the people need to know from the IMF! Economic growth is the hallmark of a healthy nation -- provided many hidden costs of that 'economic growth' are not revealed to, or understood by, the people. And these hidden costs to our climate, our ecology and our humanity are never considered in the IMF computations, nor by our corporatocracy governments. The truth is these enormous costs are legally shifted from the corporations which hoard the profits, and allocated to the planet and its inhabitants everywhere. It stands to reason that when you own the government which drafts the laws, you ensure the laws are always drafted in your favour.

r'man

You're not counting what Sweden counts.

If you count all the people living on the street or in hostels or shelters you get a far bigger number in Vancouver than in Sweden.

Playing with stats is fun but if you use them honestly it can be illuminating.

By the way

The last count in Vancouver alone, not counting the other 16 or so municipalities making up the GVRD, is roughly 1800. I would assume the count for the GVRD would therefore be at least double that.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/vancouver-homeless-tally-increases-12-in-two-years/article1528504/

Swedish Property Bubble

I have lived in Sweden a number of years - there are many things I can admire like the equality of the sexes, social welfare of children, family first policies.

Sweden is not without it's flaws - there are many; there is a property bubble going on in southern Sweden that can potentially dwarf what is going on here in Canada. Swedish culture is xenophobic - a Finn is considered an outsider - a person with a different skin colour has no hope in hell of integrating.

Sweden is rapidly loosing the industries which previously contributed to the national wealth and afforded the social policies - industries are migrating to Asia or Eastern Europe - there is a malaise that the country cannot keep-up with the uprising Asian nation: the current property bubble gives an inflated sense of wealth.

Just to clarify...

75 percent of the homeless in Sweden are male and the majority were born in Sweden. However, people with a foreign background are over-represented in the figures: 26% of the country's homeless were born abroad, compared to 12% of the population as a whole.

Please Clarify

We must compare apples to apples. What is the demographic profile of the homeless in Vancouver?

Homelessness vs democracy

How did the debate shift from government policy to homelessness? I agree homelessness is a symptom of government policy but it's the policy that should be debated not who has more homeless persons. Let's get back on track here and point out one unmistakable fact. The right wing/plutocrats/elites could care less who's homeless as long as it isn't them. Until it is, there will never be a change until and unless the left get out and vote. How to get the vote out is what the left should be focusing on. Not how far to the right they can go without losing total support from the core voters.

Sweden

In Sweden the homeless are far better off than they are here. Far more support is provided, so much so that some worry there is not enough incentive to leave that situation. (Probably rubbish of course)

Being unemployed in Sweden is not the end of the world like it is in Canada. Swedes are not being forced to work at full-time jobs that don't even provide a standard of living equivalent to the poverty line.

In Sweden, there's a middle class, in Canada its deteriorating. Poor people in Canada call themselves "middle class" now. Such is the effect of media propaganda.

In Sweden corporations are part of the solution, in Canada they're not even Canadian.

The Grass is always Greener

I lived in Scandinavia for quite a few years. It is a nice place. It's perfect for Scandinavians because they grew up in a culture that underpins their social and political desires and direction. Even the recent second thoughts about bringing in so many immigrants is part and parcel of their culture, or more to the point, the maintenance of their culture.

Go ahead and live there for a while. I did. I moved back.

More on Reform and Revolution...

"Sweden is rapidly loosing the industries which previously contributed to the national wealth and afforded the social policies - industries are migrating to Asia or Eastern Europe - there is a malaise that the country cannot keep-up with the uprising Asian nation: the current property bubble gives an inflated sense of wealth." losgatos

Many good and balanced comments here re Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, especially from losgatos above and Dr. Alexander.

But what is made clear here, coming out of the entire discussion, I think, is the the Social Democratic State of Capitalism everywhere, throughout the "western world", is in serious trouble and coming apart at the seams and edges. And this is so because capitalism everywhere is in trouble for largely the same reasons, de-industrialization, collapsing resource and overall environment bases, and/or financial collapse issues for similar reasons, exacerbated by the greed and corruption of the late ruling class of capitalism.

And what further drives and exacerbates it is, the interlocked nature of global capitalist economies such that they are more vulnerable even, than would be self-reliant national economies alone... if not as materially "wealthy", largely an illusion and inequitably distributed in any case, even in social democracies.

Capitalism is in a deep funk/crisis, its ruling class knows it, and is turning increasingly, as it prudently can, toward Neocon Conservative (neo-liberal economic) policies, with a growing tendency out of its Security State developments, that point to a "fascist" development impulse underneath it all.

The time for the slow drip, trickle down "reform" of capitalism, starting at the economic level, is over. It is time to build the movements and take the bolder steps toward moving beyond capitalism... thereafter carrying out structural and other reforms on a firmer, more sound and secure footing... once the ruling class is brought under control.

First though, these "reformist" illusions of social democracy, and perhaps even some Marxists, need to be debated and moved beyond... before the main task itself can be begin to be dealt with.

Which is why I personally welcome this "Simpson" development within the NDP caucus. It tells me that perhaps the debate has found its way into the inner sanctum of the NDP itself... the mother of reformist social democracy in this country.

in a perfect world

so few billionairs,if we close our eyes and wish really hard - maybe 1%
of the population could hold 99.9% of the wealth.Then there would be no reason what so ever, to think,plan or act." In the wealthy we trust?"

Capitalism's not in trouble. We're all Social Democrats.

The financial system is struggling to find an equilibrium but the philosophy of capitalism is increasingly being implemented world-wide. What is changing is the gigantic wholesale shift of manufacturing to Asia and those jobs are never coming back. In fact, it's happening so quickly that some jobs in China have shifted to Bangladesh because wages there are lower than in China.

This simply means that unless the relatively smaller industrialised west can move into more and more technologically advanced industries, through advanced education and training, the only things left are services and resources.

Socialism, even in it's tamest form, will not be the answer. Even Jack Layton said yesterday: "I am the leader of Canada’s social democratic party and proud of it,” he said.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/07/john-ivison-taking-the-socialist-out-of-the-ndp/#ixzz11o7ZM5Fa

When your enemy supports you...

Read your enemies like realisticman here. Do you think he really means you well?

When he is onside with "social democracy", and he supports you, you should know that something is seriously wrong with your social democratic analysis, policies and understanding of what's happening. When the extremist right, in the form of serious Conservatives, manifest sympathy for "social democracy", Carole James etc., it is time for a major rethink and change of direction.

I appreciate your presence here realisticman. You are of much assistance to me and my politico-economic ends. :-)

Unrealisticmen...

When he says that you are all Social Democrats, all the parties to capitalism, including the NDP, except for the closet jackboots and swastikas in the Conservative Party, he is correct... you know that. Which has nothing really to do with democracy, only the ruling class sanctioned version of it. Which is smoke and mirrors, and bullshit.

Social Democracy

Coyoteman, members of my family died fighting those jackboots and swastikas you speak of, so that people like you and me and all of us would not have to live under that tyranny.

Your other alternative has been tried too.

"Since Fidel Castro stepped back into the public spotlight in July 2010, he has successfully attracted attention and world interest.

His statement on the Cuban model, and other recent comments on economic systems, suggest that he does not think the Cuban model of socialism has worked well, but that other socialist models may work better for Cuba -- such as those being developed in China, Vietnam and elsewhere. Fidel and his younger brother Raul have made similar comments before. Raul Castro in particular has been trying to soften the hardline Communists for some time on economic issues in particular. Fidel Castro's remarks here will help further this, and perhaps we'll see more privatisation in Cuba's economy. Already, the Cuban government has announced that it will allow foreign investors to purchase land in Cuba and has allowed some small businesses. Its move to close 500,000 state jobs is often interpreted to be part of the plan to shrink the state's hold on the country's economy, and develop the private sector. "

Social democracy is what, almost everyone, strives for.

Social Democracy....

...while preferable to the casino capitalism that is now in force in N. America and much of Europe is still capitalism, and the capitalists still exploit the working class, albeit to a lesser degree.

For a fascinating, and depressing, look at what's in store when the capitalists run free check out what the British Tories (in a coalition with the Liberal-Democrats, no doubt) are doing to the UK.

They are tearing the place to pieces in an all out war on the poor, working class and public sector employees. They are planning cuts to a degree that even "Maggot" Thatcher would not have dared.

They want to tear down what's left of the social safety net (which, incidentally, the Labour Party, supposed "social democrats") began to destroy under Tony Blair's "Nu Labour" regime...and make a bunch of billionaires and millionaires even richer, all on the backs of the public sector, "workshy", "benefit scroungers" and "undeserving poor". Disgusting stuff.

If Steven Harper and his Conservatives get a majority I fear this is the kind of decimation we can expect in Canada as well.

For further reading I suggest the Guardian newspaper's Comment is Free (CiF) section. The articles and blogs, and especially the comments left by readers, are an eye opener indeed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree

Not anymore...

realisticman: "Social democracy is what, almost everyone, strives for."

Social democracy went out of vogue with the collapse of the USSR. The Soviet Union, imperfect as it was, provided a balance that prevented the capitalists from openly robbing the working classes blind, so raw capitalism was tempered, for a while, with a few socialist aspects.

Cut to 2010 and, barring a few holdouts, social democracy is all but dead. Chicago school capitalism as espoused by Milton Freedman, Friedrich Hayek and their ilk is the new norm.

Those few countries that are reluctant to let the capitalists take them to the cleaners are under attack from all sides.

Say what?

Tell me all about the working classes of the defunct Soviet Union that pine for the good old days when raw capitalism was tempered; along with enough loaves of bread on the store shelves.

The political game insists people remain national chattel

realisticman ~ "the philosophy of capitalism is increasingly being implemented world-wide."

Of course it is, capitalism is adopted either through imperial coercion or because the gang of political crooks taking on capitalism see how much more efficient the system is at robbing the people and the nation of its wealth.

coyoteman ~

Read your enemies like realisticman here. Do you think he really means you well? When he is onside with "social democracy", and he supports you, you should know that something is seriously wrong with your social democratic analysis, policies and understanding of what's happening.

The political parties pretending to be 'social democrats' have simply stolen its ideological logo. If the NDP, for example, had any designs on representing the people, they would have immediately instilled things like all votes free in the House, fixed terms, effective recall, local referendums, proper tax laws, corporate accountability, etc. But the fact is these faux social democrats are feasting whether in the seat of power or not. Just being a part of the political fraud is payment enough for these people.

Capitalism - One example for samuidave.

"From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth. In 1991, the nation liberalised its economy and has since moved towards a free-market economy. The policy change in 1991 came after an acute balance of payments crisis, and the emphasis since then has been to use foreign trade and foreign investment as integral parts of India's economy. Currently, India's economic system is portrayed as a capitalist model with the influx of private enterprise.
During the late 2000s, India's economic growth averaged 7.5% a year. Over the past decade, hourly wage rates in India have more than doubled. According to a 2007 McKinsey Global Institute report, since 1985, India's robust economic growth has shifted 431 million Indians out of poverty and by 2030, India's middle class population will rise to more than 580 million people."

Wiki.

You don't have to believe me, just ask any one of the 431 million in India who's wages have more than doubled in the past decade, since socialism has been replaced with a market economy (capitalism) and who are now in the largest middle class group in the world. Pretty soon the middle class will become the majority in India and India is only just starting to get into gear. One thing is certain. They will not be voting any time soon, in the world's largest democracy, to go back to the stagnant days of mass poverty and socialism.

Relevance or Irrelevance?

"If the NDP, for example, had any designs on representing the people, they would have immediately instilled things like all votes free in the House, fixed terms, effective recall, local referendums, proper tax laws, corporate accountability, etc. But the fact is these faux social democrats are feasting whether in the seat of power or not. Just being a part of the political fraud is payment enough for these people." samovar.

That is certainly the real world evidence I'm seeing.

Though the NDP now, it seems on the surface of it anyway, as the current crises of capitalism continue to roll out... wave upon wave, now with a war over currencies that is the sound of global implosion and a coming inter-capitalism "real war"... the NDP may be coming to a momentous crossroad, where it has a decision to make. IF the BC branch of the party is certainly any indicator. And the choice is whether to continue with this pursuit of being just "another centrist party to capitalism" OR, to break with the social democratic model and become something quite different... that actually contributes to and assists the "working people's movement" that needs to be built in preparation for taking capitalism and the capitalist monopoly in the economy on.

IF they choose the latter course, and take up the cause of forging a new "economic democracy" model, and a movement of the working class such as can actually achieve it, and such that will change the real circumstances and power position of "the people", then the NDP has a valuable/useful place in the building of the future. Otherwise, it is irrelevant, like all the other parties to capitalism.

My view.

Politics

takes account of two things only, though each has two faces.

The first is concerned with manufacturing civilization's appurtenances at the highest possible profit and the lowest possible cost of labour. If this proposition was not true then there would be no billionaires (and possibly no millionaires) and civilization would not exist; but civilization, such as it is, and billionaires co-exist.

The second involves the provision of bread and circuses, as the easiest and cheapest way in which politics of any kind wins approval from the public and dissuades the same public from violent objection to hunger pangs and cruel ringmasters.

Politics can then be changed only by persuasion, never by imposition, through true democratic choice, and must always be progressive in nature or it will eventually be abrogated by those subjected to its vagaries. Which is why we keep trying to vote the bastards out, only to replace them with clones.

Someday we'll get it right.

realisticman, you miss the historic picture ...

of governmental power. You give government a birthright within society. You accept the social-contract theorists' rhetoric: the state keeps people safe from the 'hooligans everywhere'. You are not alone. Virtually everyone does the same thing for good, but not rationally sound, reason.

Discussing political matters within that narrow view, I reach various conclusions about how to tweak the system for the majority's betterment. But if you read closely, you will see I routinely declare the political paradigm broken. I also make it no secret that I am a pacifist. Both of these understandings are in congruence with my philosophical view.

So I now ask you to zoom-out from our failed statism project and look back historically. Consider marked production advances, government, and its control of human capital.

Let's first define 'government'. Government is the organization within a defined area that holds the lawful right to enforce state policy compliance by initiating violence. This right to initiate violence uniquely defines the 'state' from all other entities.

From there consider how people have been 'enslaved' in various ways by government: from the agricultural Egyptians to the philosophical Romans, from Britain's period of Enclosure to the Industrial Revolution. At each of these times the treatment of human capital by government was relaxed: from chained and flogged slaves to being mercenaries for the city-states and eventually empire; from serfs for feudal lordships onto private land and business holdings.

This has been a good thing in itself; but the 'increased freedoms' were never allowed out of a sense of compassion for the people. They were allowed because the increased freedoms allowed the controllers of human capital a better opportunity to acquire more riches for themselves.

Eventually the increasing excess production due to these production developments gave way to a feeding frenzy in the ever-expanding government and its friends. In time, that existing form of government either collapses (loss of legitimacy or cannot sustain itself), or finds a better way. So another form is developed, or borrowed, to replace it. This is social-economic evolution.

In short, currently the best known tactic for a state to extract wealth from its human capital is capitalism. But when it collapses and the ensuing revolution takes root, a new form of governance will arise.

Or, if we are lucky and we collectively become well-educated in history, politics, philosophy, theology and economics, we might see that a stateless society really is nothing to fear. Contrary to the myth, the biggest threat to us, as people, is not other people at large, but other people operating behind the monopolistic right to initiate force -- statism.

States all survive because of violence. By instilling fear within the hearts and minds of the people, and by offering state protection for a cost, it coerces compliance.

A Stateless Society

Were it to occur here it would immediately be reborn in a microcosm as my neighbours would agree to assist those in need such as the young and the elderly among us and ourselves. Agreement would also be found as we organise and assign responsibilities to those best able to carry out essential tasks. Some would be suited to the mechanics of maintaining dwellings, others to preparing sustenance. Some might write poetry. Others might keep records and inventories. Security might well be considered and someone could well be assigned responsibility for it.

After consultations one would probably plan planting of food crops and others volunteer to assist in the planting and harvesting. Another group might have created a different plan with resulting capabilities and products that we could share or trade with, were we to have sufficient excess of our harvest or our capabilities and voila, two mini organisations are now doing business together. As they inevitably grow they become known by a name. Eventually someone calls one, or both, a state.

It could all happen in the blink of an eye. One could sleep right through and completely miss the fleeting phenomenon of the momentary stateless society.