Red

4) The main reason Nordic countries have such high employment rates is that a larger percentage of women have paid jobs.

 

I don't understand this statement at all. another way of writing it would be "The main reason Nordic countries have such high employment rates is that more people have paid jobs", right?.*

 

How does more women being employed cause high employment, it looks more like an effect of high employment.

 

*I mean, I say this HOPING I am not going to encounter the Tigger effect, where people look for reasons to pick at me for perceived sexism. Do I need to protect myself from this yet again by pointing out NOTHING in my statement is a value judgement?. I guess I feel I do.

I think you're missing the part of the statement that says "larger percentage", in other words: It's in comparison with other countries. The thing is, there are clear gender differences in rates of employment, internationally - i.e. more men have paid jobs than women. This is, of course, mostly for historic reasons, connected to the cultural tradition of men being the "breadwinner of the family". In Nordic countries, more so than in most other countries, this has changed significantly, so a larger percentage of women have paid jobs. Whereas in for instance Italy, the tradition of men working, women staying at home is still going strong in large parts of society. So Italy has a far lower overall employment rate than Norway, but a comparable employment rates if we only count men.

The historic increase in the rate of women in paying jobs has coincided with the introduction of various welfare reforms, like access to kindergarten, paid parental leave etc, all of which have made it economically viable for women to have jobs while still raising kids. It's an excellent example of socialist policies actually working, and having a very positive effect both for individuals and for society as a whole. The productivity of a society with a larger employment rate among women is obviously going to be higher than in societies where most women stay at home. At the same time, it means that more women are

Fuck. I forgot to take any of your advice.

What happened?

1) I'm at a loss as to what you see as the difference between your "elected officials" and what I'm describing.

2) Noone's saying changing society is magic. To me, the only way to achieve a more democratic, socialist system, is by a lot of people organizing and pushing for change. That in itself will impact how the new system works.

3) I'm all for direct democracy where it's practical, but reality is that a LOT of decisions in modern societies depend on hugely technical problems which require quite a lot of specialized knowledge. An example: The technical setup of the Oslo Univeristy's server-park is a big economic question, as it requires quite a lot of investment. There are a number of choices to be made as to hardware, software, security systems etc that I wouldn't have the first clue about. So me voting for one proposal over another doesn't really make any sense. What I CAN have an opinion about are the underlying principles behond the design, such as open access, privacy, free distribution etc. For the rest we actually need to allow the experts to duke it out. The same can be said about almost anything. The thing is, power is EVERYWHERE, and you can't realistically get rid of it. So what you need is to have a powerstructure which is as democratic and transparent as possible.

4) The main reason Nordic countries have such high employment rates is that a larger percentage of women have paid jobs. That's just a fact. And a very GOOD one, IMHO.

Christian: Since I fail to see how water corruption in the very capitalist city of Flint, Michigan is a valid criticism of socialist democracy, I'm at a loss as to where we really disagree. You say you want elected officials, which is what I do too. Maybe you place more emphasis on direct democracy than me? I think it has it's place, for sure, but also has severe limitations, since many processes are so technical as to make meaningful direct democracy difficult. People have to have lives, not just go to endless meetings, after all. Maybe we also disagree on the degree of decentralization? I'm all for it, but I think it has its limits. Some systems are by their nature better suited for national organization, like railways, power grids, communication systems etc. Since that necessitates some sort of at the very least regional coordination, I think you will also need some sort of regional/national democratic structure.

As for the discussion about unemployment rates, I think a better measure of the inclusiveness of the labour market is emplyment rates, rather than UNemployment rates. The US has an employment rate of 62,7%, Norway's is 74,7%, Sweden's is 75%. Italy's employment rate is an abysmal 56,8%. The reason this is more accurate is that a lot of people who don't have a job don't register as unemployed, for various reasons.

in the end the killing of the elite in socialist revolution is just the logical conclusion of what you described, killing the ones that are tought and raised to control things and raise the rest of the society in a way that no such class emerges again.

What you're describing here is more like Stalinism than socialism. To me, socialism is the idea that the riches of society (like natural resources, factories, railways, hospitals etc etc) should be owned and controlled by the people. I don't think that can be done in any way without democracy, including freedom of speech, freedom of information and freedom of organization. Stalinist societies didn't have those things, and as a consequence weren't really socialist, but rather new class-based societies with the ruling party as the new elites.

the problem here is the assumption, that such brainwashing of everyone is possible (aside from the killing people stuff, of cause). i think the ideal idea behind it would conclude in, after the masses are structured in a way that a classless society is functional, the suicide of every member of the elite that forged the revolution (since in that point you are exactly right, that just a new class is forged in this societies).

I think the goal cannot be to have a "leaderless" society - there are just so many processes in modern societies that require decisions being made not collectively, but by people with deputized authority of some sort. Instead, the goal must be that leaders can always be democratically replaced, so that no person or group gets a monopoly on power. It is hypothetically possible that after a very long period of such a thouroughly democratic society, cultural codes would emerge which would do away with the need for elected leaders, in favor of just cooperative processes. That could be described as communism (or anarchism, if you prefer that term). However, in the foreseeable future, I think the only actual alternative to today's class-based system is a radical democratization of economic life.

it comes down to basically the kynic (i think it was) assumption, that the ideal gouverment would be a philosoph as a dictator. which translated to today would mabye be a benelovent sentient ai? because ideal human beings don't exist.

i think it would be best if trump got president and starts his nuclear war with the rest of the world and annihilates us all. fuck humans.

True, ideal humans don't exist. But that doesn't make better societies impossible. Even today, under global capitalism, there are vast differences. The (limited) democracies we have are infinetely preferrable to more autocratic variants, and show that democracy actually can work. What we need is to translate that to the larger economic sphere.

You can certainly pm me if you need, I'm sure plenty of others would say the same.

What she said!

Take care, Kate.

Yay for NZ!

You should get work at a cracker factory with material like that.

Oreolly?

Thanks!

When Jung was asked the same question, he replied "Oh, I just Donau"

Q: Which great river is Sigmund Freud's favorite?

A: Zat would be de Nile.

So, back in 2006, the male choir I'm a part of (we meet once a year to sing and party) had a concert in a very special place called the Emanuel Vigeland mausoleum. EV was the brother of Gustav Vigeland, the sculptor who made the statues in the Vigeland Park in central Oslo, among others this giant obelisk of naked people:

Like his brother, Emanuel was kinda megalomanic, to the degree that he built a huge mausoleum in his own backyard, where he was to be interred after death. He painted the walls of the mausoleum on the inside with stunning images like this one:

Really cool place. But the most salient point when it comes to singing is the acoustics. There is a roughly 13 second echo in that place. That's a LOT. It makes for very special concerts, any music with a high tempo just becomes muddled.

I basically had to write several new songs for the concert. Luckily we taped it, nad now I've put it all online.

You can listen to the music here.

I composed the second and fourth song, and wrote the arrangement for nos. 3 and 5.

Yeah, the rise of AFD is another in the long line of depressing wins for far-right/racist parties all across Europe. I'm trying not to go overboard, but I'm getting a serious 1930s vibe from all this.

Also, stuff like this.

February 1 in Iowa: "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

February 22 in Nevada: "I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks. It's true. … I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."

America will never elect someone who is ugly and hateful BEFORE the voting day. People should stop worrying, and have a little faith in their cousins.

 

Well, I mostly agree that the chances of Trump actually becoming president are small, but it's not out of the realms of possibility. But electability aside, I think the fact that a rather large portion of the US actively cheers for a politician who is very close to, if not actually being, a fascist, is quite worrying.

Yeah, don't be unreasonable.

He has to dance naked around it burning in his living room, while singing "Time After Time" by Cyndi Lauper.

 

But he doesn't have to say he likes it.

You sicko.

Do I have to videotape this?

Yay! Keep going that way, 7C!

I must say, Bernie Sanders' spectacular run is giving me quite a bit of unaccustomed hope for the direction at least parts of the US is taking. The fact that he's still in the race with a genuine bid to win, after the Democratic Powers That Be have pulled out all the stops to sink him is really heartening. I mean, he won Michigan! That probably means the K bros voted for him?

and he has to frame it, hang it on his wall and tell everyone who visits everytime, that this is his favorite thing EVER!

Now this is just going too far.

Yay! I'm happy to pay for it.

OK, I don't usually do this, but does anyone know someplace online where it's possible to read the new Lucifer comics? I've tried to get hold of them through my local comics shop, but they've fucked up and only given med #3, even though I've been promised several times that I'd get every issue. I'm trying real hard to do this legit, but it's proving increasingly vexing. Any help would be appreciated.

Since he straight up murders people he really IS a villain.

You're a big ol' softie.

Yeah, I've got time for this!