Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: socialism and such Message-ID: <321@fisher.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Sep-84 09:02:06 EDT Article-I.D.: fisher.321 Posted: Tue Sep 25 09:02:06 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 19:46:44 EDT References: <4343@utzoo.UUCP>, <1123@dciem.UUCP> <4354@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics Lines: 29 [This sentence is false.] I'd like to correct Henry Spencer. BOTH Socialism and Social Democracy are idealogies. Socialism holds that labor ought to own the means of production, directly (workers as share-holders) or indirectly (nationalization, the far more usual method). Social Democracy holds that redistribution of income is a legitmate means to promote social ends, so long as political rights are preserved. While the two MAY overlap, they are distinct. Western European parties with either the label "Social Democrats" or "Socialist" are almost all really Social Democratic. Eastern European states and most of the LDC's actually practice Socialism. Now for an illuminating example: "Socialist" Sweden is far less socialistic than "Gaullist" France was. Before Mitterand, the French government directly owned industries accounting for 16% of France's GNP (under Mitterand, it has risen to 18%). Under Swedish "Socialism", redistribution of wealth is practiced vigorously, though the government operates a far smaller share of the economy. How to tell the difference? A country is socialistic to the extent of government ownership of the means of production as a percentage of the GNP, while a nation is social democratic to the extent of government spending as a percentage of the GNP. Watch out for them Saudis! They're the Socialists! David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david