|
Part of the problem here is that the word "socialism" is an intergral part of the communist lexicon and hierarchy. Most of the major communist philosophers identify socialism as a predecessor to a communist state. Some even used the two terms interchangably (thanks, Uncle Joe). The Soviet Union was never a communist country by this definition but a socialist one, as reflected in its very name and the fact that it had a government.
That said, I think that we can all agree that the type of socialism that we're talking about here exists outside of the communist matrix, at least for the purposes of this discussion. If that's not right, let me know and I'll add my thoughts on that.
Western socialism exists to level the playing field, at least in its pure form. All governments have at least some socialist qualities in that they do provide some services to all citizens on an equal basis (infrastructure, etc.). Taken to the heights of the Swedish example, the extremes of the economic scale are closer together than non-socialist countries. The rich are not as rich but the poor are not as poor.
With the understanding that a "pure" socialist government is impossible and that if that hurdle were overcome a worldwide socialist system could never be imposed, nations would share wealth with one another to raise the global standard of living through taxation of corporations and individuals. I imagine that there would be some sort of right to work laws with less of a variation of income from state to state.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|