![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is not as long as I intended it to be, and I've left out a few major concepts, but it has the gist of it. Flist, what think you?
The question: do you think the economy of a state has an influence on its social policies?
My response:
First, marxism and socialism are not the same thing. Marxism is state-controlled economies while socialism involves some regulation of certain aspects of the economy. Both Europe and Canada have free markets - just not as free as the American market. The limits put on the market by governments are those that the market is not going to put on itself, that will benefit society as a whole - things like health care, education, and workers' rights.
It's not the economy that has an influence on social policies so much as the driving economic ideal. The ideal in the U.S. is of free-market capitalism, where anyone with enough drive and charisma and hard work can create a business empire. It's a very go-it-alone attitude - everyone is expected to make it to the top with minimal help from everyone else. If various forces kick you down, you're expected to pull yourself up and make a go of it again. It's expected that there will be winners and losers - that's implied by the idea of competition. (See http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm )
The socialist ideal is slightly different. A socialist economic policy sees the role of governments and the free market economy as supporting a better standard of living, not just for the people creating the free market but for everyone involved. Thus, companies pay a health care tax to the government, which then provides health care, not just for the employees of that company but for everyone else as well. This ideal recognizes that people can't always pull themselves up from a fall without help, and that some people will never produce very much economically but can still be benefits to society. (For example: my husband used to work for a downtown soup kitchen in our city. The clients were mostly semi-transient, moving from one cheap flop apartment to another, or homeless. We often watch the local news, and anytime they do a segment about volunteer work in the community, he recognizes someone from the soup kitchen. These people couldn't get jobs, so they were on welfare - but most of them volunteered extensively. This is a contribution that is not recognized very well by a free market economy, but is allowed for by a socialist state.)
So, a free market ideal sees those seeking social help as wimps who didn't work hard enough and who don't deserve help, while a socialist ideal sees those seekers as people who need a leg up to get going. A socialist ideal is, in my estimation, the more humane outlook of the two, and lends itself well to caring about other liberal values such as gay rights.
The question: do you think the economy of a state has an influence on its social policies?
My response:
First, marxism and socialism are not the same thing. Marxism is state-controlled economies while socialism involves some regulation of certain aspects of the economy. Both Europe and Canada have free markets - just not as free as the American market. The limits put on the market by governments are those that the market is not going to put on itself, that will benefit society as a whole - things like health care, education, and workers' rights.
It's not the economy that has an influence on social policies so much as the driving economic ideal. The ideal in the U.S. is of free-market capitalism, where anyone with enough drive and charisma and hard work can create a business empire. It's a very go-it-alone attitude - everyone is expected to make it to the top with minimal help from everyone else. If various forces kick you down, you're expected to pull yourself up and make a go of it again. It's expected that there will be winners and losers - that's implied by the idea of competition. (See http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm )
The socialist ideal is slightly different. A socialist economic policy sees the role of governments and the free market economy as supporting a better standard of living, not just for the people creating the free market but for everyone involved. Thus, companies pay a health care tax to the government, which then provides health care, not just for the employees of that company but for everyone else as well. This ideal recognizes that people can't always pull themselves up from a fall without help, and that some people will never produce very much economically but can still be benefits to society. (For example: my husband used to work for a downtown soup kitchen in our city. The clients were mostly semi-transient, moving from one cheap flop apartment to another, or homeless. We often watch the local news, and anytime they do a segment about volunteer work in the community, he recognizes someone from the soup kitchen. These people couldn't get jobs, so they were on welfare - but most of them volunteered extensively. This is a contribution that is not recognized very well by a free market economy, but is allowed for by a socialist state.)
So, a free market ideal sees those seeking social help as wimps who didn't work hard enough and who don't deserve help, while a socialist ideal sees those seekers as people who need a leg up to get going. A socialist ideal is, in my estimation, the more humane outlook of the two, and lends itself well to caring about other liberal values such as gay rights.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}