social democracy or communism--a matter of perceiption of luck?

[danyboy27]

basicly, to me, i think the core of the debate is all about how people perceive luck.

Basicly, social democrat believe in a lot of stuff communists do but i think the main obstacle is luck Perceiption.

A communist will never accept that luck should determine your chances of succes in the world while a social democrat will.

the success of an individual in that society is litteraly determined by luck.

All those success stories of people who made it to the top from the bottom are always a matter of luck.

if an individual is born in a poor family but receive a good parental education, he can indeed make it to the top, but again this is greatly influenced by luck.
IF the kid parent are both alchoolics then maybe someone else will teach him some values; a priest, a teacher etc etc. but then again, this is a matter of luck, there are also serious odds that person could be influenced by really bad individual (religious extremists, criminal gangs,)

to me, its all about luck perceiption at the end.

For social democrat, luck is blind, for communists, luck is something that shouldnt determine what an individual worth.

[Robert]

I think that that is very perspicacious, though there have always been "lucky" people in every society, right, left, and in between.

We also have the "problem" of a work ethic, in many societies (most, I suspect) that tells us that "the harder we work, the luckier we get." Obviously it doesn't work every time, but you have to find some way to reward industry and initiative in order to have a society the majority will support. We've had this debate before. The left thinks that people will show just as much initiative if there is no concept of property.

I don't believe it. I could be wrong.

[Zanthorus]

I think it's also a matter of wether or not you believe in the existence of a vampire class that accumulates wealth at the expense of society and justifies this by giving itself fancy sounding jobs which in reality are only useful in the context of the capitalist mode of production. Social-democrats also seem to have faith in the existence of benevolent/enlightened leaders leading us to prosperity whereas communists believe in the power of the masses.

[danyboy27]

I think it's also a matter of wether or not you believe in the existence of a vampire class that accumulates wealth at the expense of society and justifies this by giving itself fancy sounding jobs which in reality are only useful in the context of the capitalist mode of production. Social-democrats also seem to have faith in the existence of benevolent/enlightened leaders leading us to prosperity whereas communists believe in the power of the masses.

most social democrats will actually agree that classes and exploiting classes exist.

theirs justification for the existances of thoses classes is that people can become part of it if they are ingenious and work hard.

the thing is, the odds of being in complete disavantage in that world is far more greater than everything else.

wich mean the ones that make it to the top are lucky people, nothing more nothing less.

lucky to have a good education/parental care/relations/being born in a country with more ressources etc etc.

For social democrat, this is fair and acceptable, beccause they think luck is fair in the sense that everybody have opportunies to raise to the top.
they think by creating social services, this will patch the people who have bad odds.

communist-wise, luck is something that shouldnt determine our personnal welfare or our social status.

communists know or should know that the odds are against a majority of people on this planet.

i have a decent appartement, a decent job,running water,clean food good living conditions and only 11% of the planet have been lucky enough to access to those basic commodities so far.

what the point of accepting the luck game if you got plenty of ressources to give those commodities to everyone on earth?

[Green Dragon]

Basicly, social democrat believe in a lot of stuff communists do but i think the main obstacle is luck Perceiption.


I think the main obstacle of the Social Democrats is that they have been unable to figure out how to get to the promised land, WITHOUT resorting to the actions one saw in the USSR, China, N. Korea ect. ect.

[danyboy27]

I think the main obstacle of the Social Democrats is that they have been unable to figure out how to get to the promised land, WITHOUT resorting to the actions one saw in the USSR, China, N. Korea ect. ect.

i didnt know the promised land was a world with even more class, authoritatism and statism.
tanks for the head up.

social democracy is incompatible with the capitalist system and cannot substain itself for a lot of time. Each time a good move is made, it require more state control, more state control, less money for the buiseness. less money for the buisness less dynamism in that phony world of economics. In order to fix the problem social democrats cut state control, put thousand of people in misery beccause they made them slave of the statism system, wich allow thing to continue the way it is.

has i said earlier, capitalism is a mad dog. you cant really control it, and everytime you give it some slack in order to calm him down, he go and kill people.

[Bud Struggle]

the success of an individual in that society is litteraly determined by luck.

All those success stories of people who made it to the top from the bottom are always a matter of luck.

Before this thread slides away let me make a comment about how I see luck in a Capitalist society.

Luck in business is exactly the same as luck in poker. (Let me say this example is for us first worlders not starving people in the Sudan, etc.) Sometimes people are dealt good hands and sometimes people are delt pretty bad hands--but in poker no matter what hands they are dealt some people win more of the time than others. And it's not about luck--and luck does help, of course, but there's skill involved. For some big time poker players to win as much as they do--lots of skill is involved.

A good businessman like a good poker player has to take the cards he's given and has to work them to make the most out of what he's given.

[danyboy27]

Before this thread slides away let me make a comment about how I see luck in a Capitalist society.

Luck in business is exactly the same as luck in poker. (Let me say this example is for us first worlders not starving people in the Sudan, etc.) Sometimes people are dealt good hands and sometimes people are delt pretty bad hands--but in poker no matter what hands they are dealt some people win more of the time than others. And it's not about luck--and luck does help, of course, but there's skill involved. For some big time poker players to win as much as they do--lots of skill is involved.

A good businessman like a good poker player has to take the cards he's given and has to work them to make the most out of what he's given.

then you believe luck is completly neutral.

but its not. you received values from your family, you had that luck that MANY people didnt and beccause of it, you where able to make it to the top.

you started without any strikes, most people start life with 1 or even 2 strike against them, factor they cant influence that litteraly determine their futures lives.

luck shouldnt determine who live in a slum and who make it to the top.

this is unfair and brutish.

[Bud Struggle]

then you believe luck is completly neutral.

but its not. you received values from your family, you had that luck that MANY people didnt and beccause of it, you where able to make it to the top.

you started without any strikes, most people start life with 1 or even 2 strike against them, factor they cant influence that litteraly determine their futures lives.

luck shouldnt determine who live in a slum and who make it to the top.

this is unfair and brutish.

I'm not saying luck is neutral. I'm saying everybody gets dealt different cards in life and what matters isn't what cards you were dealt--but how you play them. And yea, some people get great parents and some don't--and there's nothing Communism or anything else is going to do to change that. But people have overcome that. Some people are born poor and some people overcome that.

Overcoming things isn't easy--but it is challenging and rewarding and it's wat makes life interesting. In the end though what makes a quality life isn't what you have--it's what you give. It's much more (and I mean MUCH MORE) rewarding to be a good husband and father than make a pile of money. Money makes things easier sometimes--but never better. It certainly doesn't make you happy--only other people do that.

Yea, luck could bring you quantities of things but it could never bring you quality--that you have to do for yourself.

[danyboy27]

I'm not saying luck is neutral. I'm saying everybody gets dealt different cards in life and what matters isn't what cards you were dealt--but how you play them. And yea, some people get great parents and some don't--and there's nothing Communism or anything else is going to do to change that. But people have overcome that. Some people are born poor and some people overcome that.

Overcoming things isn't easy--but it is challenging and rewarding and it's wat makes life interesting. In the end though what makes a quality life isn't what you have--it's what you give. It's much more (and I mean MUCH MORE) rewarding to be a good husband and father than make a pile of money. Money makes things easier sometimes--but never better. It certainly doesn't make you happy--only other people do that.

Yea, luck could bring you quantities of things but it could never bring you quality--that you have to do for yourself.
the problem is, the game is rigged.
like in poker, if your hand suck you are dead anyway, dosnt really matter how you play your card.
you got a minorirty of player with perfect hand or even a good hand, the majority are fucked.

having differents opportunities is okay, but it shouldnt determine if you starve or live well.

that just wrong and sick.

[RGacky3]

The left thinks that people will show just as much initiative if there is no concept of property.

I don't believe it. I could be wrong.

YOu don't have to believe it, look at the unemployment rates and productivity rates of countries where hte citizens don't have to work (in other words social democracies with extensive walfare systems) such as Norway, you'll find they is more productivity and less unemployment than in the United States or England. Sooooo, your wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

the problem is, the game is rigged.
like in poker, if your hand suck you are dead anyway, dosnt really matter how you play your card.
you got a minorirty of player with perfect hand or even a good hand, the majority are fucked. No the game isn't rigged. It's all about how you play your hand. There are people that can loose money with Royal Flushes and there are people that can win fortunes with Jack high.
That's what makes gambling and business so exciting and fun. (Not that my wife allows me to gamble. :( )


having differents opportunities is okay, but it shouldnt determine if you starve or live well.

that just wrong and sick. I'll agree with that.

[RGacky3]

No the game isn't rigged. It's all about how you play your hand. There are people that can loose money with Royal Flushes and there are people that can win fortunes with Jack high.
That's what makes gambling and business so exciting and fun. (Not that my wife allows me to gamble. :( )


Yes it is rigged, because the rich not only have all the chips, they also have decks of cards at their disposal, most people just have one or 2 cards. Its not gambling, its class control. Look at the statistics of wealth, and you'll see capitalism is far from a poker game.


I'll agree with that.

Wel your a step above the right wing in the United States, many of whome disagree with you (a stance which blows my mind, how a human can actually have that sort of stance).

[Bud Struggle]

Yes it is rigged, because the rich not only have all the chips, they also have decks of cards at their disposal, most people just have one or 2 cards. Its not gambling, its class control. Look at the statistics of wealth, and you'll see capitalism is far from a poker game.


Who cares about the statistics? Sure some people get better cards--but what of it? The thing is what are YOU going to do with the cards that you are dealt?

I don't care who has what--my only concern is what am I going to do for myself? And then nothing else matters--and you get get off of your butt and do whatever you need to do to be successful. It's hard and all of that, but if you really want to work for something it certainly not impossible. And I know nothing is guaranteed, but that's part of the fun of it. Life wouldn't be any fun without a bit of risk.

(I'm not talking about some third world country. Those people don't have the opportunity we have--but here (USA) we can do just about whatever we want.)

[RGacky3]

(I'm not talking about some third world country. Those people don't have the opportunity we have--but here (USA) we can do just about whatever we want.)

First of all, the thrid world IS the third world because of the USA, second a lot of the US is like parts of the 3rd world.

But of coarse as far as you are personally concerned, you gotta look out for number one with what you got, but that does'nt justify a system does it? Also risk is fun when you have something to risk, in other words being shot at is risky, its not fun, gambling with some excess money is fun. YOu have opportunities in dictatorships as well, so what?

[danyboy27]

Who cares about the statistics? Sure some people get better cards--but what of it? The thing is what are YOU going to do with the cards that you are dealt?
)

that definitively not the issue. i think i live well, but what happen to the other people concern me has well. i really dont care if other people got some advantages over me, nobody perfect, what worry me is that, a lot of peoples have everything, and other have nothing, and this is completly unfair.
many people could have more cards, people who could have potential if they whernt raised in a verry bad environnement, this is a social version of russian roulette, and this is brutish.



I don't care who has what--my only concern is what am I going to do for myself? And then nothing else matters--and you get get off of your butt and do whatever you need to do to be successful. It's hard and all of that, but if you really want to work for something it certainly not impossible. And I know nothing is guaranteed, but that's part of the fun of it. Life wouldn't be any fun without a bit of risk.
)
this is indeed verry important to use our potential the best we can, especially if you consider we only have 1 life.

The problem is that, many people, even in the first world have at some point have to choose between education and a good living.

how sick and retarded is that?
if i want to be more educated i have to put myself in debts for decades, eat crappy food, live in a shithole, and work like a creazy to be able to eat, and all that to be told in the future that i am overqualified for the current market.

i am 100% for people to do effort, study well and all, but this is just retarded to think that beccause i am poor, beccause i had the wrong ticket, i will be forced to break my body and soul appart to gain some knowledge to maybe have a crappy job to payback all the loan i will have accumulated over the years.




(I'm not talking about some third world country. Those people don't have the opportunity we have--but here (USA) we can do just about whatever we want.)
if you are born in the right family.

[Bud Struggle]

that definitively not the issue. i think i live well, but what happen to the other people concern me has well. i really dont care if other people got some advantages over me, nobody perfect, Fair enough.



what worry me is that, a lot of peoples have everything, and other have nothing, and this is completly unfair. And there should be a process for changing that. That is why I am a Social Democrat.



many people could have more cards, people who could have potential if they whernt raised in a verry bad environnement, this is a social version of russian roulette, and this is brutish. And here's the real problem and it isn't about money. There are poor people that do a wonderful job of creating a life for themselves--look at my thread about the "Middle Class" there is an entire segment of Americans that are poor but completely happy. Money has nothing to do with it. Some people lead a better quality of life--because they CHOOSE to. Money doesn't play into the equasion at all. The problem happens when people who don't choose to life a good life (and that's their choice)--have children who then have piss poor lives (and that's NOT their choice.)

The question you are raising is more Sociological than Socialist. And I honestly don't think money is the issue. Here's what I think would solve the problem--and I know no one is going to agree with me--but that's why I'm OI ;)--a stable two parent households preferably with only one parent working and a good religious or at least moral basis for their lives. There I said it.



this is indeed verry important to use our potential the best we can, especially if you consider we only have 1 life.

The problem is that, many people, even in the first world have at some point have to choose between education and a good living.

how sick and retarded is that? That's true. And that IS a big issue. I and my brother (with a home based business) along with my working class parents put us through one of the most expensive colleges in the US in the late 70's and the early 80's and it was a struggle but it didn't kill us and I started life without any debt. (Poor but without debt.)

I don't think that would be possible now. It actually looks like putting my two kids through my alma mater will cost about a half million dollars. I honestly don't see my two little Sugar and Spices forking over that kind of cash without daddy's help.


if i want to be more educated i have to put myself in debts for decades, eat crappy food, live in a shithole, and work like a creazy to be able to eat, and all that to be told in the future that i am overqualified for the current market. That appears to be the case. On the other hand all these colleges are are extremely selective and are accepting just a fraction of kids that apply--there seems to be lots of people out there with money that can afford these schools. After that--I don't know what to tell you.


i am 100% for people to do effort, study well and all, but this is just retarded to think that beccause i am poor, beccause i had the wrong ticket, i will be forced to break my body and soul appart to gain some knowledge to maybe have a crappy job to payback all the loan i will have accumulated over the years. You know, that's a good question. I wonder what the rate of return for a college education is. FWIW what a rich guy told me when I was applying to college--"always go the the best school you can get into and the money will come."


if you are born in the right family. It doesn't have to be a rich family--it has to be a good one.

[RGacky3]

And there should be a process for changing that. That is why I am a Social Democrat.

Wow, I always seen to forget that, you do realize that Fox news would consider you a far left radical :D, (because human decency is a far left radical concept).


And here's the real problem and it isn't about money. There are poor people that do a wonderful job of creating a life for themselves--look at my thread about the "Middle Class" there is an entire segment of Americans that are poor but completely happy. Money has nothing to do with it. Some people lead a better quality of life--because they CHOOSE to. Money doesn't play into the equasion at all. The problem happens when people who don't choose to life a good life (and that's their choice)--have children who then have piss poor lives (and that's NOT their choice.)

The question you are raising is more Sociological than Socialist. And I honestly don't think money is the issue. Here's what I think would solve the problem--and I know no one is going to agree with me--but that's why I'm OI ;)--a stable two parent households preferably with only one parent working and a good religious or at least moral basis for their lives. There I said it.

I 100% agree with you, I know some wealthy people that are misserable, have broken families, no meaning in their life and so on, I also know desperately poor people with great families and good meaning in their lives. But thats not the point.

There are also people who are happy and live good lives in totalitarian regiems, many people who do.

THat fact does not justify totalitarian regeims nor does it justify class regeims. That being said, most poor peope have many many grievences and sufferings that they do not deserve, thats what we are fighting against. We arn't saying its impossible to be poor and happy, we are saying no one should be poor.

As far as college goes, its all good, if you can get into it, (many people cannot), also keep in mind the way the system is set up, the vast majority WILL end up lower class, no matter how hard they work, there is only so much room at the top. And a college education no longer garantees a decent life, the world is a much more compllicated case, and for that we have to thank the vast worldwide corporate capitalism set up.

But keep that in mind, its not "work hard and you'll make it" there is only so much room at the top.

[革命者]

I think the distinction you could make between the perceptions of luck is that for those striving for socialism and communism there is no luck involved; there is a chance that you betray your class and become a part of the exploiting class, but there is no luck involved. You just so choose to exploit people for your own pleasures.

That's also why many proletarians can be happy, because they have a clearer conscience. That's also why many exploiters are frequently unhappy because they don't, and they try to alleviate this lack of joy of life by using 'their' riches for pleasure. This is typical of the first world.

Proletarians have their natural joy of life frustrated by the unjust done onto them and others by the exploiters. For every pleasure to suppress their bad conscience, they institute feelings of pain and frustration for others. That's relative impoverishment.

Socialists and communists therefore think that society should be restructured so that this zero-sum game is put to an end, and all people can uninhibitedly feel joy of life, by keeping a clear conscience.

Then there is absolute impoverishment. In short: if you starve to death your joy of life is impacted by your conditions.

Of course, the two types are normally used in tandem; if you steal the surplus from those with nothing but the ability to produce, you impact the conditions under which we live as much as the feeling of joy we have from having a clear conscience.

Social Democrats feel that an elite should increase our happiness by creating more chances for people who are less fortunate/lucky than they are. That to me is like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces while in a morass.

[Bud Struggle]

Social Democrats feel that an elite should increase our happiness by creating more chances for people who are less fortunate/lucky than they are. That to me is like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces while in a morass.

No Social Democrats see that people are "gifted" differently--and that is just a fact of life. But those with greater gifts should share with those with lesser gifts. It's really not a matter of luck (for the most part--there's always a Paris Hilton or two) but it's a matter of gifts. And hard work--in general people tha make buckets of money get a good plan and work hard at it.

[革命者]

No Social Democrats see that people are "gifted" differently--and that is just a fact of life. But those with greater gifts should share with those with lesser gifts. It's really not a matter of luck (for the most part--there's always a Paris Hilton or two) but it's a matter of gifts. And hard work--in general people tha make buckets of money get a good plan and work hard at it.Shouldn't we just create an equal distribution of gifts here? I see your views on society more like those of Christian Democracy (the Protestant, anti-revolutionary type).

[Bud Struggle]

Shouldn't we just create an equal distribution of gifts here? I see your views on society more like those of Christian Democracy (the Protestant, anti-revolutionary type).

Indeed it is Christian Democracy (more Catholic than Protestant--but definitely anti-Revolutionary.) I rather not say "Christian" because of the negitive connotation the word has is these here parts. :(

The question is--why should there be a moral imperative to distribute gifts equally? As long as everyone has enough to live well, what's wrong with a bit of incentive for those willing to do a bit more?

A steady evolution to a Democratic Socialist state makes much more sense than some "Revolution" with all sorts of people jumping up and down in their underwear waving an autumatic machine guns and then some "Vanguards" made up of who knows what all wearing big hats and silenceing opposition and the five seconds of "people's soviets" and then 60 years of totalitarianism. That has nonsense never worked for all of the "People's Revolutions" that have gone down before--I have no reason Revolution #68 (or so) is going to be the charmer.

Apply a bit or reasoning to Communism and you have something that makes sense rather than to worry about the difference between an aristocrat and and an aristocrat of labor. Too much of Communism these days is just total Commiespeak jibberish.

Let's make Communism make sense to people. It sure isn't winning over any minds and hearts the way things are going now--that's for sure. (Aristocrats of labor. :rolleyes:)

[革命者]

Good question. The moral imperative is one that Christ has popularised more than anyone, phrasing it as: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."; the ethic of recipocracy.

This doesn't allow for exploiters and exploited because they do not live by this rule.

The only solution is giving others the same opportunities that you have; distributing the gifts equally.

This needs you to defy the Catholic and Protestant, anti-revolutionary dogma that God has gifted us differently. It's not that we are born unequally gifted, but the social conditions that we are placed under at birth define the gift we receive. So we can and, following the principle Christ reminded us of, should change these social conditions to create equal chances for all; giving everyone an equal gift.

Christ was a socialist.

[Bud Struggle]

Good question. The moral imperative is one that Christ has popularised more than anyone, phrasing it as: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."; the ethic of recipocracy.

This doesn't allow for exploiters and exploited because they do not live by this rule.

The only solution is giving others the same opportunities that you have; distributing the gifts equally. Well I agree with most of the above except I rather think that opportunity shopuld be distributed equally--trying to distribute gifts would be an inpossible task.


This needs you to defy the Catholic and Protestant, anti-revolutionary dogma that God has gifted us differently. It's not that we are born unequally gifted, but the social conditions that we are placed under at birth define the gift we receive. So we can and, following the principle Christ reminded us of, should change these social conditions to create equal chances for all; giving everyone an equal gift.

Christ was a socialist. No I don't think we need Revolution--I just don't think it will happen and even if it doesn happen I don't think a fair Communist world would follow it. I just think the odds that some sort of horror would take place are just to great. (I could be wrong, but so could you.) I think the best and surest way to equality is the slow evolution of government and business to the understanding that all people are created equal and all need to be given an equal chance. Basically Christian Social Democracy.

[革命者]

Equal chances means equal gifts. But I guess we agree on that despite our different use of terms.

Revolution is the only way to achieve that. It's true that society is changing regardless, but the point is that all people should learn to change with it; that's what socialism has to achieve, canalising that change so that all people embrace it. Giving people a perspective of the future. That's why we need revolution to restructure society to institutionalise change.

It's a choice between that, or more wars between those who oppose change and those who embrace it, leading to many more deaths and suffering on both sides and of those who are under the conditions of ruin after every war and no ease of mind and joy of life of those accomplices who stand idly by, looking for quick pleasures to forget being a part of the problem, to forget human suffering.

[Bud Struggle]

Equal chances means equal gifts. But I guess we agree on that despite our different use of terms. Nothing to argue about with you here. :)


Revolution is the only way to achieve that.
My problem with Revolution is completely practical. First of all I don't think it will ever happen (the age of Revolutions, at least in major countries, is over) and even if it did happen I don't think there would be a Communist ending. And even if by some miracle the world became Communist I think the counter-Revolution wouldn't be far behind.
There's too great a chance for 1884 in the Revolution scenario while the Social Democratic scenario looks like a pretty sure thing for the world to get most of what it wants.

[革命者]

My problem with Revolution is completely practical. First of all I don't think it will ever happen (the age of Revolutions, at least in major countries, is over) and even if it did happen I don't think there would be a Communist ending. And even if by some miracle the world became Communist I think the counter-Revolution wouldn't be far behind.
There's too great a chance for 1884 in the Revolution scenario while the Social Democratic scenario looks like a pretty sure thing for the world to get most of what it wants.I do fully agree that a revolution is dangerous and can have disastrous consequences. We should be mindful what we wish for.

But it's a choice between that or the continuation of mass impoverishment and the resulting conflicts. Conflicts which would go on forever and that will grow heavier when the need for change is becoming more apparent, the lack thereof more distressful and repression more refined.

Repressing a drive for change doesn't make it go away; it builds up behind every dam of repression till it bursts into war and conflict, unto a new, more-refined, stronger dam, till it bursts again. Till progress has run its course or until infinity. This rough way towards the future should be smoothed by institutionalising change, canalising it, into the very essence of our society. If we fail we should try again.

Social Democracy only makes the dams more accommodating, but they will burst anyway, having greater force behind them than ever, creating greater conflicts than ever. But the dams will continue to break.

And if you might think this is the end of history: let's pray to God it isn't.

[RGacky3]

My problem with Revolution is completely practical. First of all I don't think it will ever happen (the age of Revolutions, at least in major countries, is over) and even if it did happen I don't think there would be a Communist ending. And even if by some miracle the world became Communist I think the counter-Revolution wouldn't be far behind.
There's too great a chance for 1884 in the Revolution scenario while the Social Democratic scenario looks like a pretty sure thing for the world to get most of what it wants.

The problem is, that social democrats sometimes miss, and also one reason social-democracy has had a hard time recently in some countries, is that capitalist power very often trumps democratic power, and unless the social-democracy is set up in a correct way, in a way where A: The state is extremely democratic, and B: The state has investment power and capital power to where they cannot be threatened by capitalists.


Indeed it is Christian Democracy (more Catholic than Protestant--but definitely anti-Revolutionary.) I rather not say "Christian" because of the negitive connotation the word has is these here parts.

I'd just like to point out that the bible has the first recorded social-democracy like society, (Isrealite tything laws, bans on intrest, and other mosaic laws), and the first case of communism (first centure christian societies, that had a each according to his kind centuries before marx, and communal property), but thats just a side point.


The question is--why should there be a moral imperative to distribute gifts equally? As long as everyone has enough to live well, what's wrong with a bit of incentive for those willing to do a bit more?

Something important to clear up about social-democracy, the starting point, IS NOT "we should help those less fortunate" that is fine and charitable, and a great part of it. The starting point is Democracy is the most important thing, i.e. the economy should have democratic control, THAT is the starting point, the argument IS not should the government help the poor, it should start with "who should have control" the helping hte poor comes next.

One reason the Norwegian social-democracy has done so well, is because very powerful industries are socialized, not just the more social part of the economy.

You can't just have a welfare state, you can't just have government help, you need, powerful democratic institutions, a economically strong democratic state, and public control of major industries, and strong democratic unions.