tmidgett wrote:but the differences between one party and another are acute.

I don't really disagree with you on this except within the context of this thread: they will both maintain capitalism and make sure it's not challenged

Kerry is certainly not going to topple any of America's politico-economic structures. What he could do, however, is move the collective political conscience in a direction that could open the door for more progressive candidates in the future

si

change does happen perceptibly, if slowly

the cumulative effect of clinton to kerry to whomever can mean social and political evolution, even if you have a bush or two thrown in there every now and then

it certainly meant such to have reagan/bush I in the WH for 12yrs

I don't really disagree with you on this except within the context of this thread: they will both maintain capitalism and make sure it's not challenged

si

i guess bush is 'challenging' capitalism by stretching the middle class to the breaking point. i don't think that is his intention, however.

guy,

is there a french or overall european 'take' on the netherlands and the structure of its government, economy, society in general?

it's tempting, from here, to idealize certain aspects of it. but i do not know that it is held up as an example among european nations.

tm

I was actually wondering the same thing. Democratic Socialism in the Netherlands, right? (google) - right.

I think I remember reading years ago about some of the economic regulations in the Netherlands, something along the lines of:

The owner of a company can't make X times more than the lowest-paid worker.

Economic redistribution is managed by the graduated income tax, which can get quite high for the wealthiest.

The Netherlands is a lot smaller than the US. If their model works, it doesn't mean it would work here, but it's damn interesting to read about other ways of managing enterprise.

I don't hanker for anarchy, but I understand the frustration that leads some to advocate wiping the board clean and starting anew.

Me, I want to find ways to manage/effectively limit capitalism as it stands today - and that doesn't rule out a huge overhaul of our current regulation system. It would have to be done consistently and globally, so I don't doubt the unlikelihood of it all. NEXT: world hunger! done by dinner time!

Criticism is necessary and good, but criticism with ideas for other ways to go is even better.

tmidgett wrote: but i do not know that it is held up as an example among european nations.

er, not at all I might say. and it's not that i'm specially biased against or for them nor that I am uninformed, the netherlands rarely get checked in the press around here or TV. The last time I remember was that their extreme right wing gay leader Pym Fortuyn was shot to death, at the time I thought "huh, I did not know that NL was a right wing country" because if he didn't die they were saying he would win the elections.

http://english.pravda.ru/politics/2002/05/17/28870.html

Just to make sure I asked my lover, she is belgian, it drew a blank also. after a while she came up with "they liberalized pot smoking" so I said "do you consider this to be a notable achievement that shows that one society is more advanced ?" she said yes. didn't want to argue too much with her (we have enough political fights like that) because she is pregnant, I was just polling europe for you.

Let it only be said that the only two times I saw her smoke pot she went green and fainted within 10 minutes.
...

As for the word "socialist" being attached to anybody nowadays... it's just marketing bullshit: look at Tony fucking Blair, he's supposed to be a socialist, ah ah. And as for believing in democracy, well it happens that we were in London last year to visit stuff and instead we ended up walking for five hours with ONE MILLION people and that social democrat asshole Blair still went and destroyed all that was left of peace in the devastated middle east.

Hello Guy, by democratic socialism I mean a very specific political/economic state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

and/or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat

It's all very muddy between the two above, not least because the two terms are often used interchangeably and yet are quite different in their end goals:

"...the goal of reforms is to make capitalism more equitable and that this makes the abolition of capitalism unnecessary. Thus social democracy can be distinguished in this sense from democratic socialism, which seeks to bring about a fully socialist state via electoral means..."

Nrg. But a commonality lies in achieving greater economic equality through regulation of the market.

Theoretically.

No argument that the dominant parties here or there fail to represent this.

This is a very RA! RA! argument for social democracy and I'm not espousing everything in this paper, but the opening does describe the theorized position of social democracy better than the above links:

http://www.geocities.com/kew1788/SocialDemocracy.htm

...Scandinavian Social Democratic nations are suffering high unemployment and downward pressure on wages due to globalization. Capitalists flock to nations with the cheapest labor. Wage controls and trade isolationism are not the answer. Today’s global free market has rendered wage controls obsolete.

Social Democracy accepts the capitalist free market as the most efficient system, yet admits capitalists cannot be trusted. The Public Interest and Common Good require wise stewardship from public agencies....

Social Democracy is strong regulation of corporations, strong progressive tax, strong stewardship of ecosystems and social infrastructure, prevention of tax shelters and prevention of campaign finance corruption. Social Democracy is why Scandinavian nations enjoy the highest quality of life in the world. Social Democracy is designed not to maximize profit, but to provide high quality of life to the greatest number of citizens. Ultimately, the only true measure of wealth is high quality of life.

GuyMercier wrote:

tmidgett wrote:from here, it looks like there's a big fucking difference between one party and the other

you're a bit too close
well, this is not to say that - even from here - it is not apparent that we would be all momentarily better off if you guys did not vote for the other guy, in fact I do urge you all to vote kerry please, but, as I said, the relapse will be only momentary (I fear)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/368rqgqt.asp

I can hardly qualify anything the Weekly Standard may have to say as truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

I'd really like to vote for a candidate who is against this fucking bullshit war. If my choices are Bush and Kerry then I am fucked.

It looks like I will be writing in Kucinich.

Jung, Kerry is too worried about public opinion to speak out against the war. I think you may rest assured, however, that he will not try to invade Iran. Bush, on the other hand...

Kucinich is a man of fine ideals, I'll agree, but he could never lead this country. I went through a Kucinich phase during the primaries, and then I saw him debate, and didn't know whether to laugh or be disappointed.

And social democracy... oh, if only. But we live in a country where people say, "Socialized healthcare? Get your head out of your ass! It's a pipe dream." Such people invariably have deep pockets, and social power in the form of good educations and rhetorical skills. And I'm not just talking about politicians.

Scandanavian countries are tiny compared to the US. Perhaps we could hope for some state power in regulating healthcare, but as for a national social democracy in the near future, it's hardly even worth talking about at this point.

Realism can be saddening, 'tis true.