/lit/ - Literature

>>16622658
>>16622658
But you are wrong see.

The problem of defining socialism is in the distribution of the means of production. The Soviet Union may have boasted that the means of production was held collectively and not by private (bourgeoise) interests. But any midwit can figure out that this isn't true, production was run by the politburo and by career partymembers, essentially the whole country was one joint stock corporation.

So we come to a conclusion that in capitalism AND in socialism production is ran by a few rich assholes in either the financial district or the Kremlin.

Now where does scandinavia come in, well i can only speak for my country Sweden, Here the LO (our associated labor unions) repressent 90% of the labor associated with its union, these (democratic) unions unsurprisingly are a very powerful force, and they are actually involved in co-managing our industries and our workplaces, along with the private interests. And at the same time they fund and essentially run the social democrat party.

So what we get is a system where politics, private interests and workers are all entangled in comanaging the entire economy in a "solidaristic" way, in which is FAR more inclusive than what the Soviets or the Chinese ever could dream of.

Add to this our social welfare and you have a system not as utopian as Marx would be happy with, but well on its way. Also your point that welfare impedes economic output, i think Keynes has something to say too you.

When government spends money in the economy, say building a bridge, it employs and pays a bunch of people, these people than go to the shoestore and the pub and spends their money. Thus government spending creates life in the economy, and every dollar the government spends it recieves 5.