Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonCoquixote

(13,950 posts)
30. my reply
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 11:44 AM
Aug 2013
Scandinavia might CURRENTLY have a fairly robust and controlled capitalism, but the question MUST be asked, for how long? Norway, et. al. could QUITE possibly look like us in 20 years.

For the better part of the century, Scandinavia has resisted the urges to run with Anglo-Saxon Capitalism, it is not buying the "austerity"medicine that London or Berlin is trying to push. Sweden manages to even have a monarchy and the social support system that is held up as the world's exemplar, one that even makes the French jealous.

However, there is a greater point, of course the capitalists will try to destroy social support systems, and even if they call themselves communists, they still will, because when ANY group of people are held unaccountable, they will GAME the system. After all, who would have thought that the Chinese, the nation that keeps Marx's grave clean, the last nation to affirmatively hold on to Communism, would become the world's great enabler of the robber barons, the great source for cheap, disposable, union-free labor? Even the Chinese are worrying about Vietnam, because that other great hero of Communism is actively trying to undercut their labor cost, attracting people who want even CHEAPER labor.

The reason I support the Social democratic model is that no one group is really in a position to take the money and run; they have to work with each other. Communism does need to be added to the soup of ideas, but it cannot be the whole recipe, any more than Capitalism will be, because, call them Suburbans Silver Spoons, call them Soviet Nomenklatura, there will always be elitists whose main skill is learnign to rig a system to their favor, and the only defenses against that is a system that is too varied and too complex for any one group to infect.

I do look forward to your second reply.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

In a word, yes. Proud Public Servant Jul 2013 #1
In a word, no. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2013 #2
Perhaps. TBF Jul 2013 #3
hmmm pretty interesting limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #7
Marx and Engels wrote each other letters talking about the problem. Starry Messenger Jul 2013 #4
Thanks for the links limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #11
In a word, maybe. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #5
So the middle class in some places may turn out to have been sort of temporary. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #8
Well to me that's the crux of this question...... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #9
Yeah it really seems that way. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #10
There's a lot of history behind ALL of these reform/revolution arguments.... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #12
Yeah this is limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #13
Well I'm not so sure that eminent domain couldn't be used.... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #14
They should be using eminent domain for that. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #16
reform vs revolution DonCoquixote Aug 2013 #28
Just a quick reply as I have to go to work in a few.......... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #29
my reply DonCoquixote Aug 2013 #30
Well once again, I don't think that it's a guarantee that the ....... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #31
Marx didn't get industry. joshcryer Jul 2013 #6
"at no point in history did new productive facilities actually change the mode of production" BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #20
That's a Jensen view. joshcryer Aug 2013 #21
i appreciate the name-dropping BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #22
I don't reject that notion. joshcryer Aug 2013 #23
"Ideally historical materialism would've said, BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #24
it was actually utopian socialists, e.g. the saint simonians - BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #25
I didn't say historical materialism said that. joshcryer Aug 2013 #32
i'm sorry historical materialism didnt say what you wanted it to say BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #33
What do you think "new productive faculties" are? joshcryer Aug 2013 #34
you remain wrong about the "new productive faculties" BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #36
Capitalism is inherently hierarchical. joshcryer Aug 2013 #37
what is workplace alienation? BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #38
Eh. Disengagement commenced. joshcryer Aug 2013 #39
Three things changed since Marx that were firsts in history Taverner Aug 2013 #15
Coal, oil and gas certainly did fuel the development of modern society. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #17
The Peak Oil Hypothesis still holds Taverner Aug 2013 #18
no BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #19
Yes he did, for a couple of reasons Warpy Aug 2013 #26
Not at all. David__77 Aug 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»Did Marx underestimate th...»Reply #30