7 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Socialism vs. Social Democracy, By
This review is from: They Rule: The 1% vs. Democracy (Paperback)
This is in many ways a very good book, good writing, good research, good values, good ideas. But there is one problem which Paul Street shares with many other Leftists, including those he quotes, he fails to distinguish between socialism and social democracy. In fact, social democracy is not listed in his index at all and never discussed. He is, like many Leftists, a socialist, and would favor a transition to a socialist society or at least he thinks he would. Socialism means government ownership of the means of production and like communism, entails denying people economic rights, specifically the right to engage in business as an individual, a partnership or a corporation. This in turn requires enforcement, in practice a police state. The 39 countries (see Wikipedia List of socialist states) that have called themselves socialist or communist have been police states of one sort or another. Social democratic countries which allow private businesses are all democratic and not police states. Too many Leftists don't seem to understand this or at least don't qualify their definitions of socialism to deal with this problem. Social democracy as practiced especially in the Nordic countries has a large public sector but allows for private enterprise, regulated by the government and offset by strong unions. In most of these countries, unions represent 3/4 or more of the working classes. A police state is not required. Many social democrats believe the private sector will gradually disappear but, in fact, Nordic corporations are generally healthy. When international surveys about quality of life or happiness are done, the social democracies always rate at the top.
This is an important issue because the advocacy of socialism by Leftists gives conservatives justification in attacking Leftists for being totalitarian. Many Leftists defended communists and the Soviet Union and China for things that were indefensible and in the process discredited the entire Left agenda. It is important for Leftists to understand social democracy and never confuse this issue. Perhaps many people consider this an issue of terminology only and assume that socialism means democratic socialism that would be tolerant and allow significant diversity in economic life. If this would be the case, then you are talking about social democracy, not socialism and that is what you should call it. If government owned facilities were controlled by workers as in Mondragon or large coops, that would be a positive thing but is irrelevant to the issue of whether private businesses would be allowed in a socialist system.
The book may have other problems as well -- e.g., not very clear thinking about how to make substantial changes in US politics, etc. but this is a common problem in this literature. There are over 2000 "progressive" organizations in the US but very little organizing is going on, this is a large part of the problem.
Good books and information on social democracy can be found here:
mwir-socialdemocracy.blogspot.com/
Midwest Independent Research
This is an important issue because the advocacy of socialism by Leftists gives conservatives justification in attacking Leftists for being totalitarian. Many Leftists defended communists and the Soviet Union and China for things that were indefensible and in the process discredited the entire Left agenda. It is important for Leftists to understand social democracy and never confuse this issue. Perhaps many people consider this an issue of terminology only and assume that socialism means democratic socialism that would be tolerant and allow significant diversity in economic life. If this would be the case, then you are talking about social democracy, not socialism and that is what you should call it. If government owned facilities were controlled by workers as in Mondragon or large coops, that would be a positive thing but is irrelevant to the issue of whether private businesses would be allowed in a socialist system.
The book may have other problems as well -- e.g., not very clear thinking about how to make substantial changes in US politics, etc. but this is a common problem in this literature. There are over 2000 "progressive" organizations in the US but very little organizing is going on, this is a large part of the problem.
Good books and information on social democracy can be found here:
mwir-socialdemocracy.blogspot.com/
Midwest Independent Research
They Rule: The 1% vs. Democracy
![[Add comment]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/reviews/comment._CB192249938_.gif){kind=small}
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 36 posts in this discussion
Initial post:
Jul 11, 2015, 3:38:58 PM PDT
Michael Smith says:
Socialism doesn't mean government control, it means workers' control. Social democracy means capitalism with redistribution. Venezuela is a socialist country, and it is not a police state, although Washington is doing its best to turn it into one.
In reply to an earlier post on
Jul 11, 2015, 5:09:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2015, 3:27:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2015, 3:27:30 AM PDT
doug korty says:
Venezuela is not a full socialist country, the government has nationalized some industries, expropriation without compensation is not uncommon, but not all and not all small business or farms. The economy is not in very good condition; not a great success story. Nor is it a great example of worker democracy. You might want to do more research. Of the 38 countries that have called themselves socialist or communist, all have been police states of one sort or another.
Bolivia and Ecuador would be better examples for your purpose but neither of them are full socialist countries either. If a country retains democratic features and has socialist economic aspects, it will be social democratic. To call it capitalist is to miss the point.
By the way, "The 2008 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index rated Venezuela as a "Hybrid Regime", and as the least democratic state in South America.[1] Some human rights organizations have expressed concern about attacks against journalists, harassment of human rights defenders and poor prison conditions" from Wikipedia Human Rights in Venezuela.
The only fully socialist country in the Western Hemisphere is Cuba which has been a dictatorship for over 50 years (from Wikipedia):
The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón").[125][126] Human Rights Watch has stated that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[127]
The European Union (EU) in 2003 accused the Cuban government of "continuing flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms".[128] The United States continues an embargo against Cuba "so long as it continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights",[129] though the UN General Assembly has, since 1992, passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and claiming it to be in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.[130] Cuba considers the embargo itself to be in violation of human rights.[131] On December 17, 2014, United States President Barack Obama announced the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba, pushing for Congress to put an end to the embargo.[132]
Cuba had the second-highest number of imprisoned journalists of any nation in 2008 (China had the highest) according to various sources, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Human Rights Watch.[133][134]
Cuban dissidents face arrest and imprisonment. In the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reported that Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of 40 maximum-security prisons, 30 minimum-security prisons, and over 200 work camps.[135] According to Human Rights Watch, Cuba's prison population is confined in "substandard and unhealthy conditions, where prisoners face physical and sexual abuse."[135]
In 2005, the president of the EU made a declaration on behalf of member states and other regional countries:[136]
"The EU has noted with grave concern the situation of political prisoners, Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, Victor Rolando Arroyo and Felix Navarro, all in extremely poor health through hunger strikes undertaken in protest at the conditions in which they are being held.
The EU calls on the Cuban authorities to take immediate action to improve the conditions of detention of these individuals and other political prisoners who are being held in circumstances that fall below the UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners.
The EU reiterates its urgent request to Cuba to release unconditionally all political prisoners still detained."
In July 2010, the unofficial Cuban Human Rights Commission said there were 167 political prisoners in Cuba, a fall from 201 at the start of the year. The head of the commission stated that long prison sentences were being replaced by harassment and intimidation.[137]
Bolivia and Ecuador would be better examples for your purpose but neither of them are full socialist countries either. If a country retains democratic features and has socialist economic aspects, it will be social democratic. To call it capitalist is to miss the point.
By the way, "The 2008 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index rated Venezuela as a "Hybrid Regime", and as the least democratic state in South America.[1] Some human rights organizations have expressed concern about attacks against journalists, harassment of human rights defenders and poor prison conditions" from Wikipedia Human Rights in Venezuela.
The only fully socialist country in the Western Hemisphere is Cuba which has been a dictatorship for over 50 years (from Wikipedia):
The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón").[125][126] Human Rights Watch has stated that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[127]
The European Union (EU) in 2003 accused the Cuban government of "continuing flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms".[128] The United States continues an embargo against Cuba "so long as it continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights",[129] though the UN General Assembly has, since 1992, passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and claiming it to be in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.[130] Cuba considers the embargo itself to be in violation of human rights.[131] On December 17, 2014, United States President Barack Obama announced the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba, pushing for Congress to put an end to the embargo.[132]
Cuba had the second-highest number of imprisoned journalists of any nation in 2008 (China had the highest) according to various sources, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Human Rights Watch.[133][134]
Cuban dissidents face arrest and imprisonment. In the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reported that Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of 40 maximum-security prisons, 30 minimum-security prisons, and over 200 work camps.[135] According to Human Rights Watch, Cuba's prison population is confined in "substandard and unhealthy conditions, where prisoners face physical and sexual abuse."[135]
In 2005, the president of the EU made a declaration on behalf of member states and other regional countries:[136]
"The EU has noted with grave concern the situation of political prisoners, Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, Victor Rolando Arroyo and Felix Navarro, all in extremely poor health through hunger strikes undertaken in protest at the conditions in which they are being held.
The EU calls on the Cuban authorities to take immediate action to improve the conditions of detention of these individuals and other political prisoners who are being held in circumstances that fall below the UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners.
The EU reiterates its urgent request to Cuba to release unconditionally all political prisoners still detained."
In July 2010, the unofficial Cuban Human Rights Commission said there were 167 political prisoners in Cuba, a fall from 201 at the start of the year. The head of the commission stated that long prison sentences were being replaced by harassment and intimidation.[137]
In reply to an earlier post on
Jul 11, 2015, 6:24:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2015, 6:25:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2015, 6:25:19 PM PDT
Erroll says:
doug k
To quote that great hero of the conservatives, Ronald Reagan, there you go again as when you write of Venezuela:
"The economy is not in very good condition; not a great success story."
The irony is that while you are eager to condemn Venezuela you totally ignore the fact that the economy in the less than egalitarian United States is designed, as Paul Street incisively points out in his book, to benefit the 1 % who have no hesitation in exploiting the working class and the poor who oftentimes have to work two or three jobs in order to make ends meet. This then logically means that the American people should be able to hear from genuine leftist candidates running for president who can inform them that there are other economic systems such as true socialism which can benefit the masses instead of the elites.
I attempted to basically point this out before but you chose to re-print your review which caused my comments to conveniently disappear from view. Apparently you are not too keen upon allowing people to come to the realization, as Street notes in his well written book, that capitalism is one of the most rapacious and exploitative economic systems which has been devised by man and that the American people should be allowed to hear from third party candidates who can alert them to the fact that authentic socialism means that people do not have to get ripped off by the 1 % and that a true socialist like a Stewart Alexander who ran for president in 2012 has more to offer them than the representatives of the GOP and the Savage Mules.
To quote that great hero of the conservatives, Ronald Reagan, there you go again as when you write of Venezuela:
"The economy is not in very good condition; not a great success story."
The irony is that while you are eager to condemn Venezuela you totally ignore the fact that the economy in the less than egalitarian United States is designed, as Paul Street incisively points out in his book, to benefit the 1 % who have no hesitation in exploiting the working class and the poor who oftentimes have to work two or three jobs in order to make ends meet. This then logically means that the American people should be able to hear from genuine leftist candidates running for president who can inform them that there are other economic systems such as true socialism which can benefit the masses instead of the elites.
I attempted to basically point this out before but you chose to re-print your review which caused my comments to conveniently disappear from view. Apparently you are not too keen upon allowing people to come to the realization, as Street notes in his well written book, that capitalism is one of the most rapacious and exploitative economic systems which has been devised by man and that the American people should be allowed to hear from third party candidates who can alert them to the fact that authentic socialism means that people do not have to get ripped off by the 1 % and that a true socialist like a Stewart Alexander who ran for president in 2012 has more to offer them than the representatives of the GOP and the Savage Mules.
In reply to an earlier post on
Jul 12, 2015, 3:22:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2015, 5:08:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2015, 5:08:56 AM PDT
doug korty says:
Once again you totally miss the point and spout irrelevancies. I agree with Street's critique of the US and I support social democracy. I don't support socialist or communist dictatorships and police states. When a government takes over an economy and outlaws private economic activity, the logical result every time is a police state. Study history instead of spouting slogans. Go to Cuba now that you can. Stewart Alexander, hello????? He received 43,319 votes.
38 socialist and communist countries -- police states and dictatorships, people consistently tried to escape.
15 social democratic countries consistently rated as best places to live with happiest people. Where exactly is your argument?
What you should ask these "democratic" socialists like Alexander and Bernie is, When you achieve your utopia, how will you stop people from starting their own business? Will you use police power, put them in prison? That is what every other socialist country has done. Most socialist countries have given up socialism, however, ironically often the dictatorship has lingered on as in Russia and China. As Orwell pointed out, utopian visions have a way of leading people astray.
38 socialist and communist countries -- police states and dictatorships, people consistently tried to escape.
15 social democratic countries consistently rated as best places to live with happiest people. Where exactly is your argument?
What you should ask these "democratic" socialists like Alexander and Bernie is, When you achieve your utopia, how will you stop people from starting their own business? Will you use police power, put them in prison? That is what every other socialist country has done. Most socialist countries have given up socialism, however, ironically often the dictatorship has lingered on as in Russia and China. As Orwell pointed out, utopian visions have a way of leading people astray.
In reply to an earlier post on
Jul 12, 2015, 7:38:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2015, 7:39:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2015, 7:39:02 AM PDT
Erroll says:
To borrow from your words, it is you who once again appears to have missed the point. You write that Stewart Alexander received 43,319 votes without ever wondering why this happened. And the reason why is that the Commission on Presidential Debates made sure that no American would ever hear his criticisms of capitalism since he was not allowed to share the same stage with Obama and Romney. And as with so many Americans, both liberal and conservative, you make the mistake of calling Bernie Sanders a socialist. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, if Sanders were actually a true socialist then he would not be running for president under the Democratic banner which, as we know, [or should know] is one of the two major corporate, war-making parties in the less than egalitarian United States and which is certainly anathema to the true ideals of socialism.
There is a section in a document called The Declaration of Independence which declares that:
" ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive ..., it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
But the chances that the American people might actually seek to affect change in their type of government is extremely unlikely when the people who control the information in the U.S. will not allow anyone, from a Stewart Alexander to a Ralph Nader, to ever challenge the establishment. And that point, despite your claim, is most relevant and germane to this discussion.
There is a section in a document called The Declaration of Independence which declares that:
" ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive ..., it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
But the chances that the American people might actually seek to affect change in their type of government is extremely unlikely when the people who control the information in the U.S. will not allow anyone, from a Stewart Alexander to a Ralph Nader, to ever challenge the establishment. And that point, despite your claim, is most relevant and germane to this discussion.
In reply to an earlier post on
Jul 12, 2015, 7:41:08 AM PDT
doug korty says:
You apparently don't read anything I write. I won't waste any more time with you.
In reply to an earlier post on
Jul 12, 2015, 7:43:30 AM PDT
Erroll says:
doug k
You opine that:
"I won't waste any more time with you."
Good idea as this may be the most sensible thing which you have written.
All the best.
You opine that:
"I won't waste any more time with you."
Good idea as this may be the most sensible thing which you have written.
All the best.
In reply to an earlier post on
Jul 12, 2015, 7:46:37 AM PDT
doug korty says:
You can always tell when someone doesn't have any argument, they never address the points they need to address, hoping those points will evaporate like everything else in their brains.
In reply to an earlier post on
Jul 12, 2015, 8:02:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2016, 7:06:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2016, 7:06:57 AM PDT
Erroll says:
doug k
This is all very confusing as you previously stated that you had no intention of wasting your time with me. And yet here you are doing just that. Despite your claim, I tried to point out, time after time, that it would be best if people actually got to hear what socialism actually is instead of relying upon the hysteria which they have heard for decades by the corporate media and by people such as yourself. This may sound quaint to you but I do believe that in a democracy people should have a right to hear from many different points view in order to discover what the truth may be from what they have been told.
This is all very confusing as you previously stated that you had no intention of wasting your time with me. And yet here you are doing just that. Despite your claim, I tried to point out, time after time, that it would be best if people actually got to hear what socialism actually is instead of relying upon the hysteria which they have heard for decades by the corporate media and by people such as yourself. This may sound quaint to you but I do believe that in a democracy people should have a right to hear from many different points view in order to discover what the truth may be from what they have been told.
