> Please do not mix up communism and what became reality under this name in
>the USSR. Marx' concepts were very different from the way it turned out in
>the end. What happened in the USSR is often referred to as socialism
>(which, again, isn't social democracy).
OK Uli,
In my period of classical education the distinction was made between
socialism as an economic philosophy and communism as a political philosophy
that imposed socialism at gunpoint.
The model with which I've had closest (but ancient: 1966/67) contact is
Swedish democracy. (I'm a strong believer in proportional representation.
In single seat legislatures {eg: US}, it is theoretically possible for
50.01% of the voting population to gain 100% of the elective offices...OK,
over time in the case of the Senate). My wife became pregnant with our
first child while I was a graduate student at the University of Stockholm's
Institute of English Speaking Students (jag can inte talle Svenska så
bra)...actually my daughter, Kirsten, was conceived in Luxor; but that's
another story. Bottom line here is all prenatal care my wife needed was
provided without out-of-pocket expense to us. I had already learned to
love Swedes; this I took as a social statement: "We, the citizens of
Sweden, have made a bond that every child born into our society shall have
access to basic medical care and support."
This is, in part, why I referred earlier to the "weakness" of socialism and
not its "failure." Socialism is really based on the same sharing-of-risk
principles as Lloyds of London, applied to society as a whole without (in
theory; but possibly not in human implementation) the capitalistic
middleman taking a cut. And one can see it paying off: I haven't looked
latelay; but the last I knew Sweden's infant mortality rate was well below
that of the US.
Rob Cozens, CCW
http://www.serendipitysoftware.com/who.html
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
