2 ms·

It's not just about the parties, but about the systems. Dutch social democratic parties haven't been in power in ages, but the foundation of our economy is soci

by mcv 1y ago

It's not just about the parties, but about the systems. Dutch social democratic parties haven't been in power in ages, but the foundation of our economy is social democratic, and right-wing parties don't dare to touch it. People like not having to worry about paid sick leave, maternity leave, unemployment, healthcare, disability, and a million other little things. That stuff is the fabric of our society. All over northern Europe, you find high taxes, strong social safety nets, good healthcare, little violence, high levels of happiness and personal freedom, and high GDPs. This is the combination that works. And the US was also on this path after WW2, but reverted course during the Reagan years, with all the consequences you see today.

roenxi 1y ago
And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? They are one of the major names in the history of the limited-liability stock corporation, we've already had the VOC invoked in this thread. Pretty easy to see that representing the blood steeped face of capitalism. They still have stock exchanges in Amsterdam, so they haven't sworn off the shareholders. Having a welfare state isn't capitalism but having one isn't the complete antithesis of capitalism. It is easy to see how a society could simultaneously support the VOC and a welfare state. Really easy, in fact - the VOC was mostly external and welfare is mostly internal, the systems don't need to interact at all. It is impossible to hold the Dutch up as a group who have rid themselves of the blood-steeped history of capitalism when they are (1) a poster child of the blood-steeped history of capitalism (2) still supporting and encouraging capitalists. And (3) your comment could be interpreted as saying the social democrats don't actually hold power. At best that just establishes that capitalism isn't fundamentally steeped in blood since the Dutch have theoretically learned to behave responsibly over the centuries. And to throw in a (4) have they apologised and made reparations for the VOC? It isn't obvious they've even repudiated the blood-soaked history of capitalism although maybe they have; I don't track Dutch politics. I suppose the real question here is what exactly do you think "social democracy" is if not just standard democracy + welfare?
- mcv 1y ago
  > And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? Who is saying that? Nobody. > They are one of the major names in the history of the limited-liability stock corporation, we've already had the VOC invoked in this thread. That's quite some time ago, though. That's not what we do today. What's your point with this? > Having a welfare state isn't capitalism but having one isn't the complete antithesis of capitalism. Exactly. It's about finding the right balance between the best parts of different ideas, while avoiding the worst parts. > It is easy to see how a society could simultaneously support the VOC and a welfare state. But it didn't. There was extreme poverty in the Dutch Republic during the days of the VOC. It was neither social, nor a democracy. > At best that just establishes that capitalism isn't fundamentally steeped in blood since the Dutch have theoretically learned to behave responsibly over the centuries. How does that undo the blood? It's that responsibility that's putting the brakes on the excesses of capitalism. > I suppose the real question here is what exactly do you think "social democracy" is if not just standard democracy + welfare? I'm really wondering what you think social democracy is, with a rant like that. It's certainly more than democracy + welfare, although those are definitely big parts of it. It's regulation, it's capitalism within responsible limits, it's cooperation and negotiation between unions and corporations. And it's government investment where it's necessary. That last part is something governments like to do less and less since neoliberalism, and they're also rolling back too much of the regulation. It's undeniable that they've been weakening the social democratic system, but the core of it is still there. It's proven itself effective enough that all the toxic shit the right has been spewing about the left, even the right-wing parties don't truly dare to dismantle it.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    >> > And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? > Who is saying that? Nobody. Well a few comments ago you had that throwaway that the social democrats were less blood-steeped than the capitalists. Then you've held up, as social democrats, a group of capitalists with a long bloody history of capitalism and as far as I know never really did anything much to repudiate that history. And still practice capitalism today. You can still notionally buy shares from the same stock exchange that hosted the VOC [0]. And the follow up is me being a bit bemused. If the social democrats are the blood-steeped capitalists, how are they less blood steeped than the capitalists? Which capitalists are the blood-seeped ones if not the British, French and Dutch? I'd assumed you were talking about those 3 and the Americans until you held the Dutch up as a counterexample to bloodied capitalists. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Amsterdam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Amsterdam - Great read

by mcv 1y ago

roenxi 1y ago

And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? They are one of the major names in the history of the limited-liability stock corporation, we've already had the VOC invoked in this thread. Pretty easy to see that representing the blood steeped face of capitalism. They still have stock exchanges in Amsterdam, so they haven't sworn off the shareholders. Having a welfare state isn't capitalism but having one isn't the complete antithesis of capitalism. It is easy to see how a society could simultaneously support the VOC and a welfare state. Really easy, in fact - the VOC was mostly external and welfare is mostly internal, the systems don't need to interact at all. It is impossible to hold the Dutch up as a group who have rid themselves of the blood-steeped history of capitalism when they are (1) a poster child of the blood-steeped history of capitalism (2) still supporting and encouraging capitalists. And (3) your comment could be interpreted as saying the social democrats don't actually hold power. At best that just establishes that capitalism isn't fundamentally steeped in blood since the Dutch have theoretically learned to behave responsibly over the centuries. And to throw in a (4) have they apologised and made reparations for the VOC? It isn't obvious they've even repudiated the blood-soaked history of capitalism although maybe they have; I don't track Dutch politics. I suppose the real question here is what exactly do you think "social democracy" is if not just standard democracy + welfare?

mcv 1y ago
> And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? Who is saying that? Nobody. > They are one of the major names in the history of the limited-liability stock corporation, we've already had the VOC invoked in this thread. That's quite some time ago, though. That's not what we do today. What's your point with this? > Having a welfare state isn't capitalism but having one isn't the complete antithesis of capitalism. Exactly. It's about finding the right balance between the best parts of different ideas, while avoiding the worst parts. > It is easy to see how a society could simultaneously support the VOC and a welfare state. But it didn't. There was extreme poverty in the Dutch Republic during the days of the VOC. It was neither social, nor a democracy. > At best that just establishes that capitalism isn't fundamentally steeped in blood since the Dutch have theoretically learned to behave responsibly over the centuries. How does that undo the blood? It's that responsibility that's putting the brakes on the excesses of capitalism. > I suppose the real question here is what exactly do you think "social democracy" is if not just standard democracy + welfare? I'm really wondering what you think social democracy is, with a rant like that. It's certainly more than democracy + welfare, although those are definitely big parts of it. It's regulation, it's capitalism within responsible limits, it's cooperation and negotiation between unions and corporations. And it's government investment where it's necessary. That last part is something governments like to do less and less since neoliberalism, and they're also rolling back too much of the regulation. It's undeniable that they've been weakening the social democratic system, but the core of it is still there. It's proven itself effective enough that all the toxic shit the right has been spewing about the left, even the right-wing parties don't truly dare to dismantle it.
- roenxi 1y ago
  >> > And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? > Who is saying that? Nobody. Well a few comments ago you had that throwaway that the social democrats were less blood-steeped than the capitalists. Then you've held up, as social democrats, a group of capitalists with a long bloody history of capitalism and as far as I know never really did anything much to repudiate that history. And still practice capitalism today. You can still notionally buy shares from the same stock exchange that hosted the VOC [0]. And the follow up is me being a bit bemused. If the social democrats are the blood-steeped capitalists, how are they less blood steeped than the capitalists? Which capitalists are the blood-seeped ones if not the British, French and Dutch? I'd assumed you were talking about those 3 and the Americans until you held the Dutch up as a counterexample to bloodied capitalists. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Amsterdam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Amsterdam - Great read