5 Reasons Why We Need Sweden's Democratic Socialism...

[_honorentheos]

You confuse the argument. It isn't a debate about whose point is more reasonable anymore than it is about whose is more purple. It's whether or not the subject is served by tossing out broad comparisons between life expectancy as if that information is actually helpful or is instead an example of a reductionist fallacy. If you feel having done so speaks for your intent, then sure, we agree the discussion should be sufficient for judging the matter.

[_Icarus]

Sweden is democratic socialist was the original claim. Which is nonsense as that isn't a government type.

Capitalism isn't a government type either. Is capitalism not a thing?

My point is there is no purely Capitalist country any more than there is a purely Socialist country. Even the most Capitalist countries still have government oversight regulating industry but people still call it Capitalist. Democratic Socialism as it exists in most European countries is a mixture which allows for the free market and private ownership, but it strives for equality via democratic means. Typically this involves advocating for more, not total, government control. That necessity has never become more obvious than today.

The United States is now a Plutocracy controlled by a small minority of the wealthiest elite. They buy elections, they buy politicians, who in turn write legislation that funnels more money back into their pockets. It is an ongoing circle of corruption and this has never been more obvious than in the era of Donald Trump. The result is an increased inequality gap quality because the laws and the policies are designed to benefit the wealthy and keep the poor in their place. This is why Republicans have no problem with making us pay billions for corporate welfare, but will froth at the mouth if you mention increased funding for an expanded safety net for the poor.

The system is completely broken and the message that is coming loud and clear is that we're basically living with an autocrat as President who now controls every branch of government and who brazenly defies our laws with reckless abandon. He's kidnapped and caged children and got his Christian constituents to make excuses for him. He's attacked our Constitutionally sanctioned free press and got FOX News to agree with him. He's violated civil rights of US citizens who are regularly assumed to be illegal immigrants and he's managed to win support of Libertarians. He's endangered our very lives with political stunts in Iran and now with the new Coronavirus, etc. This is the kind of authoritarianism Republicans always warned we would be flirting with if we ever elected a Socialist, but they don't understand that in our Constitutional Republic, the President has only power the people give him. But they're accepting tyranny now with eyes wide open and with a crap eating grin on their faces simply because they want to see how the season finale of The Apprentice will end.

Inequality is getting worse in America, people are still dying because they can't afford insurance, they're still going bankrupt trying to pay health expenses, they're still being handcuffed at the bottom of the economic ladder because of never ending student loan debt, etc. Wages have been stagnant for decades while productivity skyrockets, etc. This is why many people are turning towards Democratic Socialism as a solution. Democratic Socialists want the people to have more power. They want a larger welfare state in a capitalist society.

According to Mark A. Peterson, a professor of public policy, political science, and law at UCLA, Democratic socialism is "a call for the democratically-elected to use the public sector to promote greater equality and opportunity." Those who identify as Democratic socialists believe in giving everyone the chance to find equal economic footing, and see free or low-cost health care, tuition-free public education, and universal child care as means to that end.

[_Icarus]

I agree in that it's one indicator, but let's not pretend lifestyle isn't another. If we were to compare and contrast a host of lifestyle data points between Sweden and the US I'm sure there'd be massive (no pun intended) discrepancies.

- Doc

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but maybe you are suggesting that Europeans live longer healthier lives because they're more responsible with their health. But I've seen from first hand experience that no continent smokes or drinks more than Europe does. When Is served my mission in Madrid Spain, I was blown away by how literally everyone in the country smoked. Even kids walking in the streets with their parents, wasn't uncommon. And then there was the blood sausage and alcohol. Ugh.

I think that countries with universal care have better preventative measures in place which probably better explains life expectancy. I remember watching Michael Moore's SICKO years ago and a segment of was him interviewing medical professionals in the UK. The doctors there would actually be incentivized with more pay if they got patients to quit smoking, or to lose weight, etc. A huge portion of their health care industry is on preventive measures whereas here in the USA, even people with insurance don't go to the doctor because they don't want to pay the deductibles.

[_honorentheos]

Sweden is democratic socialist was the original claim. Which is nonsense as that isn't a government type.

Capitalism isn't a government type either. Is capitalism not a thing?

I would make the same argument, and have, in real life. Once told a baby boomer CEO capitalism didn't give a damn about his self-marketing because the markets were saying very different things which set him off on a Trumpian diatribe about how capitalism was the best and if I favored socialism then? He didn't like then being told he was confusing democracy with capitalism, and also demonstrating why the results he was getting from the market were in conflict with his own opinion of why things weren't going the way he thought they should be going. It seems most people who lived through the cold war don't get that, though, and seem to think because the Soviets represented a form of communism that makes the West capitalists as a form of government rather than referring to an economic approach. Fall out from a multi-decade war I guess.

Anyway, you aren't making an argument by then describing social democratic views as an equivalent term. Unless, of course, we mean both have been reduced to political partisan branding. In which case, sure. They are similar and things: political brands.

According to Mark A. Peterson, a professor of public policy, political science, and law at UCLA, Democratic socialism is "a call for the democratically-elected to use the public sector to promote greater equality and opportunity." Those who identify as Democratic socialists believe in giving everyone the chance to find equal economic footing, and see free or low-cost health care, tuition-free public education, and universal child care as means to that end.

So here's a definition we can work with, but you are still describing a political brand. Brand identity and association with the brand isn't telling anyone much contrasted with the way the correct use of capitalism or socialism has understood meaning when it comes to economic theories. A democratic socialist is a socialist who is elected through democratic means who would socialize major aspects of the government? Ok. That makes them a socialist.