From: etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se 
Subject: Re: Business (was Re: Immigrants and emplo
Reply-To: etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:07:36 GMT

In article 14334@eua.ericsson.se, euafri@eua.ericsson.se (Fredrik.Ostman) writes:
>etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se  writes:
>>euafri@eua.ericsson.se (Fredrik.Ostman) writes:


>
>>Of course we can't give them all the credit for the economical growth 
>>in Sweden between 1945 and ~1965 
>
>We can't give socialism *any* credit for it. During these years they didn't
>implement much of it. There was a kind of consensus called the Swedish
>Model.
>

I'm starting to believe that you are that kind of "Ny Demokrati" type that can't see the difference between socialism in Soviet and in a democratic country like Sweden. The difference is huge my friend. I hope you can prove I am wrong in this fear of your capacity of understanding such distinctions.

Soviet has proved that socialism and dictatorship is a disasterous combination. It doesn't prove that degrees of socialism in a democratic system can not work.

>>USA today have had riots due to that large groups of people find their 
>>situation hopeless, the same things have happened in GB this spring.
>
>I think these are cultural things. Lots of immigrant groups have entered
>the American society from the bottom, and climbed up. The latest were
>Coreans. The N... never seem to get much richer. I haven't heard a
>really good explanation, there are probably several coinciding factors.
>The riots were, as I remember, about the *legal* system of USA.
>
You are probably (and hopefully) one of very few persons that believe that the riots only were protests against a legal decision. Even President Bush has stated a different opinion than yours.

>>And besides there are strong indications that the present American 
>>middle class is economically weaker than the previous generation - 
>>for the first time ever in USA.
>
>Also, the state/federal/government sector is larger than ever. There
>is a lot of socialism in USA, too, you know.
>
Yes I know, but I don't believe that's the origin of their present problems. It also points out my first poster - all Western countries have some degree of socialism (if we define socialism as that the state have some level of control of the economic system) and the reason is that this has proved to be necessary.

>>>Also another thing -- even with the non-monetary problems partial socialism
>>>claims to solve, like unemployment, social conflicts, racial conflicts, 
>>>the low interest/ability/ratio in "weak groups" to study at the university,
>>>criminality, and even diseases, IT HAS FAILED.
>
>>True, but also the pure liberal/capitalist solutions have F A I L E D.
>
>Talk a while with my friend Virgil, and he'll tell you there are
>grades in hell.
>--
>
Do you mean that there is no idea in trying to improve our society? That only the fittest and strongest should survive? Please tell me I've misinterpreted your sentence about your friend Virgil. Even if there is no answer to unemployments, racial conflicts etc. it is MUCH better to try to solve these problems than not. Not to try would be a giant step back in the human evaluaton. 

  ______                     _~
> (_/_ _  _  _/) _  . /)     / ) , _/)     _
>__/ _/(_(/_(/__/(_/_/Z_    (_/_/)_/__/))_(I_/)_


John

Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic