Nearly all major industrialized nations employ some form of social democracy, as there exists no purely captialist economy in the world, with even the most free-market driven economies like the U.S. being mixed economies, with public transportation, public education, and Social Security. Yet, for the purpose of this thread, I'm going to call the European model, "Social Democracy", and the American alternative, "American-style Capitalism". Under the European model, approximately half of GDP or more is consumed by government, and government regulation is at a high level, intended to protect consumers and workers against economic insecurity, while hampering labor and capital mobility and competition, thus reducing the economic efficiency of the free market. Generous welfare states provide a lot for citizens, and re-distribute income so that all can share in a more equitable level of prosperity, but such a system requires a high level of taxation, meaning that high taxes reduce the incentives to and capital available for investment, work, and savings, thus reducing long term economic growth, and limiting future income potential for government.
The question is, which alternative is superior? Please advance your arguments. In my opinion, a healthy medium between France's model, and the American model is best.
I would maintain the American model, while adjusting a few aspects of it. For instance, I would strengthen Social Security (which includes retirement benefits, disability benefits, unemployment insurance, and survivor's insurance for society), and create a national health insurance program. The rest, I would leave as is, because I believe the American model has proven to be more effective in terms of economic growth, inflation, unemployment and overall national wealth.
Uriel
I think I, too, would go for a middle road between the the two.
Benjamin [inactive]
Do you view 'social democracy' as the only viable alternative to 'American-style capitalism'?
Uriel
No, he's just comparing those particular two. Sure, we could also compare either to a theocracy or despotic oligarchy, but we're not.
Benjamin [inactive]
I just feel that there are other options which are appropriate for being considered here.
I usually see 'social democracy' as something that's sort of in between the American model and democratic socialism and perhaps actually a bit closer to the American model. Essentially, it takes a fairly liberal (in the European sense) economic agenda, and combines it with some social provisions and relatively progressive policies on things such as homosexuality etc. Many traditionally left-wing political parties in Europe have more towards this (i.e. to the right) in recent years most notably Labour in Britain, and to a somewhat lesser extent the SDP in Germany; Sιgolθne Royal wasn't a traditional left-wing candidate in France either.
I'm an advocate of Green politics, and will join the Scottish Green Party as soon as I've moved to Scotland later this month. In this system, sustainability, the environment and human rights are prioritised over short-term economic growth, on the grounds that we will all benefit in the long run. It also emphasises the need to support local economic activity in order for local communities to be more self-sufficient, whilst reducing the negative impacts of globalisation through regulation of multinationals.
The Scottish Green Party (and perhaps others) advocate introducing a citizen's income in order to help people off the benefit trap all people would receive a minimum income to cover basic living costs, regardless of how much money they earn/have. This way, all work pays, thereby encouraging people to find jobs whilst no-one starves either.
(Contrary to popular belief, I'm actually not a communist, and I have many views which are arguably neither socialist nor left-wing).
Loic
Benjamin wrote:
(Contrary to popular belief, I'm actually not a communist, and I have many views which are arguably neither socialist nor left-wing).
Like what, for example? That a Fabian attitude towards education is erroneous and that grammar schools have a role to play in the education sector?
I personally do not believe in unnecessary giving out of goodies. It only enfeebles the strong work ethic which might have otherwise exist. I can accept the argument for some sort of handouts given to the destitute and poor although I really believe that this is not the responsibility of the state, but that of the private sector e.g. St Vincent de Paul society.
Benjamin [inactive]
Loic wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
(Contrary to popular belief, I'm actually not a communist, and I have many views which are arguably neither socialist nor left-wing).
Like what, for example? That a Fabian attitude towards education is erroneous and that grammar schools have a role to play in the education sector?
Decentralisation what the LibDems call 'putting trust in people and empowering communities' and what the Greens call 'creating a more locally-based, sustainable and democratic society' is not socialist in the traditional sense, and is arguably a right-wing ideology. The ultimate idea (from the Green perspective) is to encourage communities to be as self-sufficient as possible in order to be sustainable without excessive interference from the central government or from large companies. Essentially, although I'd certainly want to regulate large supermarket chains such as Tesco as they have many practices which exploit people and are unenvironmentally-friendly, I might not want to impose too much regulation on the local fish market, or on the small independently-run shop down the road, since I'd want to promote local business.
This is also the (official) reason for why I and the Scottish Green Party would campaign for a 'yes' vote in a referendum on Scottish independence, and why the European Green Party sit with the European Free Alliance (which includes parties such as the SNP) in the European Parliament. On the other hand, groups such as the Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Workers' Party, the Socialist Labour Party, and politicians such as George Galloway, are fundamentally and ideologically opposed to this sort of thing in their view, it is inherently 'unsocialist' since it would apparently 'divide' the work-class unnecessarily.
greg in noord-frankrijk
Benjamin wrote:
Decentralisation — what the LibDems call 'putting trust in people and empowering communities' and what the Greens call 'creating a more locally-based, sustainable and democratic society' — is not socialist in the traditional sense, and is arguably a right-wing ideology.
It doesn't have to. In France it was the socialists who first launched decentralisation (or an attempt to do so) in 1983. The socialists wanted to demolish all right-wing institutional strongholds and hypercentralisation was considered one. But I agree : « empowering communities » is often the langue de bois syntagm for privatisation (preferrably money-making entities → the rest remaining at the State's expense), communautarism, tribalism & demagoguery.
Benjamin wrote:
(...) I might not want to impose too much regulation on the local fish market, or on the small independently-run shop down the road, since I'd want to promote local business.
Minimal regulation is necessary, though : health-related issues, workers' protection, consumers' protection etc.
Benjamin [inactive]
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Decentralisation what the LibDems call 'putting trust in people and empowering communities' and what the Greens call 'creating a more locally-based, sustainable and democratic society' is not socialist in the traditional sense, and is arguably a right-wing ideology.
It doesn't have to. In France it was the socialists who first launched decentralisation (or an attempt to do so) in 1983. The socialists wanted to demolish all right-wing institutional strongholds and hypercentralisation was considered one.
Likewise, it was Margaret Thatcher who advocated hypercentralisation by abolishing the Greater London Council, reducing the powers of local councillors, totally dismissing any suggestion of Scottish devolution, and focusing economic policy almost entirely on Southeast England.
greg wrote:
But I agree : « empowering communities » is often the langue de bois syntagm for privatisation (preferrably money-making entities ? the rest remaining at the State's expense), communautarism, tribalism & demagoguery.
Yes or when the government gives up responsibility for public services. However, this sort of thing is not the Greens' motivation for supporting decentralisation. (I'm not sure what the purpose of the LibDems really is these days).
greg wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
(...) I might not want to impose too much regulation on the local fish market, or on the small independently-run shop down the road, since I'd want to promote local business.
Minimal regulation is necessary, though : health-related issues, workers' protection, consumers' protection etc.
