3 ms·

Social Democracy Overnight: Why is this desirable, outside of theory? The whole of history indicates to us that collectivism works either on small scales, or as

Social Democracy Overnight: Why is this desirable, outside of theory? The whole of history indicates to us that collectivism works either on small scales, or as a disguised totalitarianism. Here we observe the not-so-subtle attempt to shift the debate from "social democracy" to "collectivism", as if the two terms are synonyms. We also see a denial that mixed economies with strong social safety nets can ever work on, say, the scale of a nation. Despite plenty of evidence available, in the real world, that they can.

stcredzero 8y ago
Here we observe the not-so-subtle attempt to shift the debate from "social democracy" to "collectivism", as if the two terms are synonyms. Exactly what is the difference between "social democracy" and "socialism?" In particular, how is there a system of checks and balances to keep the voters from appropriating everything, thus handing all of the power to the central government and thus initiating totalitarianism? We also see a denial that mixed economies with strong social safety nets can ever work on, say, the scale of a nation. Despite plenty of evidence available, in the real world, that they can. It can be argued that all existing economies are mixed economies.
- AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
  For starters Social Democracy is a Liberal form of governance where people are afforded a strong social safety net, but where the means of production and private property remain in the hands of the Capitalists while Socialism is an economic theory whereby the means of production are owned by the people who work them and not by private ownership.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  how is there a system of checks and balances to keep the voters from appropriating everything The US doesn't have one of those. Literally. The people of the United States can, without consent of Congress or the President or the Supreme Court, do everything you just said, via the amendment-convention process (Congress does not have the option to deny a convention when at least 2/3 of states call for it). Once the convention's underway, even state legislatures can be bypassed by conventions in the states. Thus it's possible to get amendments into the US Constitution without them ever having been voted on or even considered by Congress or the state legislatures. And if you're worried about a populist wave "appropriating everything" in other countries, why not worry about it in the US? It's just as possible.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The US doesn't have one of those. Another way of saying it, the only check and balance is political. After the founding, there was another check and balance, in that the voting public, comprised solely of landowners, would never have voted for socialism.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      Ask the Roman Republic how the "wisdom" of governance by the landed gentry worked out.

stcredzero 8y ago

Here we observe the not-so-subtle attempt to shift the debate from "social democracy" to "collectivism", as if the two terms are synonyms. Exactly what is the difference between "social democracy" and "socialism?" In particular, how is there a system of checks and balances to keep the voters from appropriating everything, thus handing all of the power to the central government and thus initiating totalitarianism? We also see a denial that mixed economies with strong social safety nets can ever work on, say, the scale of a nation. Despite plenty of evidence available, in the real world, that they can. It can be argued that all existing economies are mixed economies.

AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
For starters Social Democracy is a Liberal form of governance where people are afforded a strong social safety net, but where the means of production and private property remain in the hands of the Capitalists while Socialism is an economic theory whereby the means of production are owned by the people who work them and not by private ownership.
ubernostrum 8y ago
how is there a system of checks and balances to keep the voters from appropriating everything The US doesn't have one of those. Literally. The people of the United States can, without consent of Congress or the President or the Supreme Court, do everything you just said, via the amendment-convention process (Congress does not have the option to deny a convention when at least 2/3 of states call for it). Once the convention's underway, even state legislatures can be bypassed by conventions in the states. Thus it's possible to get amendments into the US Constitution without them ever having been voted on or even considered by Congress or the state legislatures. And if you're worried about a populist wave "appropriating everything" in other countries, why not worry about it in the US? It's just as possible.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The US doesn't have one of those. Another way of saying it, the only check and balance is political. After the founding, there was another check and balance, in that the voting public, comprised solely of landowners, would never have voted for socialism.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Ask the Roman Republic how the "wisdom" of governance by the landed gentry worked out.