4 ms·

To quote: >But we expect that people will trust us to reinvent their world with software even though we can't make our own city livable. Where does it propose

• gadders 11y ago
  I think you answered your own question there.
  • gjm11 11y ago
    It is only in the United States that "modern Scandinavian-style social democracy" is apparently indistinguishable from socialism. Socialism means large-scale state ownership -- or some other kind of collective ownership by The People -- of "the means of production", in the hope of controlling production to match need. Scandinavian-style social democracy means high taxes, a generous welfare state, and quite a lot of government regulation, in the hope of keeping people safe, healthy, and adequately fed and housed. You might worry that there might be a slippery slope from the latter to the former, but they aren't at all the same.
    • morgante 11y ago
      Uh, considering that many major European parties explicitly identify as "socialists," I'm not sure it's the US that's confused. It's the US that is confused with the notion that socialism == communism.
      • VLM 11y ago
        Its kind of like how countries with "Democratic" in the name usually aren't democracies. Or "Peoples" in the name usually means the general public are not even remotely in charge. Politically, names don't mean much.
        • morgante 11y ago
          They do when everyone else agrees. They call themselves socialist, other people call them socialist, and their policies match most definitions of socialism. Tell me again why you think we shouldn't rightfully classify many European parties as socialist?
      • jessaustin 11y ago
        Perhaps 'gjm11 is caught on Pinker's euphemism treadmill? If "socialist" is no longer a word we can use in polite company, how will we signify that political and economic arrangement?
        • gjm11 11y ago
          I don't think I'm caught on the euphemism treadmill; I have no problem describing some systems and some people as socialist. (And, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't regard it as an insult to do so.) I just don't think it applies accurately to Scandinavian-style social democracy.
          • jessaustin 11y ago
            That's reasonable. If you wouldn't mind, you could help understanding by pointing to particular aspects of the Scandinavian style that disqualify the "socialist" classification. After all, there are some people on HN who unironically describe USA as "socialist".
      • gjm11 11y ago
        (Apologies for the tardy reply.) Many European parties have things like "social democratic" in their name. They advocate social-democrat politics. Some European parties have "socialist" in their name. They mostly advocate socialist politics. The social democrats have typically had more electoral success than the socialists. That is why the nations of Europe frequently implement social democracy and less often implement socialism. So, e.g., none of the parties currently represented in the Swedish parliament has "socialist" in its name, but the largest is the "Swedish Social Democratic Party". (There is a "Left Party", which I think is an actually socialist party.) In Denmark there is a party called the "Social Democrats" which is, guess what?, a social democratic party; there is also a (much smaller) "Socialist People's Party" further to the left. I think that one is actually a leftier social democratic party, but then Denmark also has a centre-right party called "Left" :-). Norway's main social-democrat party is called the Labour Party, but they also have a "Socialist Left Party" which is actually socialist.
    • gadders 11y ago
      All those things you have described are classed as socialism in the UK as well.