You know, he’s right. The Queen of Britain for example regularly veto’s laws and sabotages the democratic process. :rolleyes: What is also strange, is that the UK’s apparently ‘fake’ democracy has more diverse (as in, more than just 2 worth speaking of) political parties than the USA’s apparently ‘genuine’ democracy.
Because they don’t own it (or have been instructed to direct it’s marketing strategy by the owners). That’s the difference between socialism and capitalism. As a capitalist, I start a small company with the capital I am able to collect. It’s my company. Just because I hire some employees to perform labor for me, that doesn’t make the company theirs any more than the housekeeper is part owner of my home. In socialism…well…who would start the company in the first place?
You are conflating socialism as an economic practice with Marxist political dogma. It should go without serious challenge that the attempts to apply Marxist theory and derivations therefrom in practice have been uniform failures. The most effective socialist nations are those that have leaned toward a market economy with the socialist aspects largely limited to protecting labor interests and providing a guaranteed minimum of services and sustenance to the population at large.
This is freshman dormroom bullshit session fantasy. No socialist state has ever made any significant move toward dissolving the governing body, and in fact the majority of revolutionary socialist movements have rapidly developed into repressive authoritarian regimes typically centered around a strong cult of personality and persecutory oppression of a designated minority, with only the most facile implementation of democratic representation of the working class.
“Mandrake, have you ever heard of fluoridation, fluoridation of water?”
Stranger
Nor should it. I didn’t realize there were any other options available for an able-bodied, lucid adult.
Did I miss the exit for the free food, clothing, shelter, medical care and ESPN community a ways back? Must have been when I looked down to change the radio station.
Regulatory economics is a complex field, and unfortunately a lot of people have a thin understanding of it, and that lack of understanding has infected our political debate. So, you have people making nonsensical statements like “leave it to the market” or “regulation is socialism.”
Whether or not something should be regulated and what type of regulation should occur is highly dependent on the nature of the good or service, in my view. I tend to favor an economy that is as Pareto efficient as possible, so my preference is to have regulations that limit Pareto inefficiency, which would include regulations designed to limit externality problems and regulations designed to limit information assymetry problems.
As I said, this is complex stuff, though.
Yes, it is. Modern monarchies may not hold much political power (this as a result of agreements with the bourgeoisie as a rising, increasingly powerful class in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) but they are still supported by tax revenue - money that could be better used for social programs like education, medical care, unemployment insurance, and so on.
No. Socialism is not purely economic. It is also political and very clearly advocates for the basis of economic and political power being with the working class.
I refer you to my earlier comments about the nature of the state. It is possible to have a socialist republic, but that only while the revolution is spreading around the world and until the rule of the working class is finally firmly secured. A socialist republic is a temporary measure.
Which is exactly what I was saying earlier: your work isn’t your own.
Those selfsame employees. The employer-employee relationship isn’t an equal two-way street. The employer needs employees in order to make a profit, but the employees don’t need the employer to run a company.
Socialism is both economic (a cooperative world economy) and political (the rule of the working class). Attempts to limit socialism to the purely economic sphere lead to the mistaken conclusions stated here by others that this or that policy is socialist.
Only for those who unhesitatingly accept those nations’ (or their opponents’) claims that they are socialist with no critical examination whatsoever.
Which doesn’t protect said countries from the crises that capitalism cannot prevent, such as the current one. Yesterday in Sweden, one of the country’s largest unions agreed to a 20% wage cut for employees it represents in the auto industry. While their justification is that is saves jobs, this “rob Peter to pay Paul” approach is hardly protecting labor interests.
Out of all the so-called socialist or communist countries, the only one that had an actual working-class revolution was Russia. The soviets, originally economic bodies put together by workers to take over factories and workplaces, sprang up independently of any political party as a result of the economic and political crisis resulting from the First World War, and numerous political parties (Bolsheviks included) fought for political leadership within them. It was as a result of arguing for workers taking political power as well as economic power (which they already had) that made the October Revolution possible.
Eastern Europe, on the other hand, got its postwar system on the tips of Russian bayonets; China achieved its system by telling the working class to sit down and let Mao handle it; Cuba and North Korea much the same way. In every case the country or region in question was rapidly isolated (whether by force or choice) and this is lethal to socialism, which is meant to be a worldwide system. Stalin’s Russia was not a logical consequence of Marxism - one important clue here being that Stalin murdered the leaders who actually made the revolution in 1917 - and cannot be accepted as genuine socialism by anyone who seriously looks into the matter.
Heh heh… I see what you did there. In all seriousness, however, would you kindly point me to the referendum by which Sweden chose to retain the monarchy, and what the results were?
No referendums have been held.
But the republicans put resolutions before the chamber each year. And every year it gets voted down 250/50.
http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/?nid=3154&rm=2004/05&bet=KU23
Many people believe that the circus surrounding a President would not be an improvement, We already have people bred for holding a scissors.
You have confounded socialism with marxism.
They are not the same.
“Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.” [Stolen from wikipedia on socialism]
thats socialism
Marxism is the hippie bastard child of marx and socialism.
There ought to be one. I sincerely doubt the monarchy would receive 83% support from the general population!
Quoting from Wikipedia has its limitations, especially when the quote you choose is clarified and partially contradicted a mere two paragraphs later:
Marxism is socialism. Marx’s work lies at the roots of the modern socialist movement and is not a ‘hippie bastard child’, as you call it.
Then you show your ignorance of Sweden and the Swedish people. Unlike many countries with a monarchy, for example the UK, the Swedes do really seem to like their royal family.
As long as Olentzero continues to prove complete ignorance of the true meaning of the words socialism and monarchy, I see no point in continuing the discussion. And you will note how he totally ignored the complete skewering he got from Stranger. 
No the polls done yearly indicate a number somewhere around 75-80% SO I guess you got me there.
As you say, marx is at the roots of modern socialism. But its no longer the same thing (if it where why have two words).
Modern socialism as it applies to european countries is properly called social democracy or reformed socialism.
THe only people looking for the revolution of the worker class theese days are high school students, people in academia or journalists.
ie, not the worker. because…
Well the worker likes getting payed and beeing able to buy large screen tvs.
'S funny, I was sitting at breakfast here in Vällingby, just northwest of Stockholm, reading Dagens Nyheter the other day, and the headline editorial said the monarchy was neither democratic nor humane. I dunno, you’d think living in Sweden and reading what the Swedes themselves had to say about things might be a good way to get a grip on what makes 'em tick. I could be wrong, though.
So, your definition of ignoring is ‘directly quoting from someone in a post and addressing particular arguments’? You’ll forgive me, then, if I hold your definitions of ‘socialism’ and ‘monarchy’ to be equally suspect.
And you base this assertion on what, now?
I take it you didn’t notice OPINION written in big letters on the page?
Quite noticeable as well that the opinion piece didn’t attempt to discuss whether the monarchy is popular, just whether it is relevant and/or democratic.
It is quite possible to live in a country and yet be completely unaware of what the population thinks. My Parents do it all the time.
Right. Opinion. As in “what people think”.
What a person thinks. Out of a country of nine million. Hardly earth-shattering proof of a large anti-monarchy movement.
Opinion pieces are also often given to people whose views run against the norm in an effort to make us think about things.
Fine, please prove my ignorance. Not only poll results, but questions asked and, if possible, information on the people asked.
What that still won’t prove, however, is whether a monarchy is compatible with socialism. Which was my original point, but perhaps the offhand comment is easier for you to address than the main argument.
Well Westrogothia says she knows of such polls so I’ll leave that to her.
A discussion that I had neither taken part in nor expressed an opinion either way in, so chill out with the smack talk.
Flinging accusations of ignorance then bowing out when called to back up your assertions. Real smooth.
Not quite as smooth as accusing me of concentrating on an “offhand remark” and then talking smack regarding it when I should instead be concentrating on a discussion I had been no part of.
Someone else says she had the data. I’m happy to let her come out with it. I don’t have to do everything myself, do I?
Bear in mind she also linked to the vote in the Riksdag, the house of a representative democracy, which comes down at 231/27, A split that is remarkably close to this 83% figure. Note also that all of the No votes in that vote were from the increasingly irrelevant Christian Democrats.