In 1932, the Swedish government began to protect what it considered the natural rights to life of Swedish citizens. While these "cradle to grave" services resulted in Sweden becoming one of the highest taxed nations in the world, it ensured that Swedish citizens received state sponsored health care, education, pensions and other basic life sustaining services.
The Difference Between a Government and an Economic SystemIt's important for Americans who fear socialism to remember that since 1932, Sweden has held open and democratic elections. Democracy has not suffered at all in Sweden.
When the Swedish Model was introduced, Swedes and their government had an unusually trusting relationship. This, combined with the fact that Swedes were known for their strong work ethic, enabled the model to work well for most of its existence.
However, as one might expect, much of the citizenry has begun to expect government generosity while forgetting how it is that the government has been able to be so generous for so many years. Too many Swedes have begun using the government sponsored social safety nets in lieu of seeking employment.
Between 1932 and 2006, The Social Democratic Party, the party that ushered in the Swedish Model, led the Swedish government for all but nine years. What should put Americans who fear the word "socialism" at ease with that word is that, in 2006, Swedes saw that the pendulum of generosity had swung too far toward the take and too far away from the give.
In the 2006 general election, Swedes expressed their distaste for some of their fellow Swede's behavior by voting the Social Democrats out of office and voting in the more centrist New Moderate Party.
The New Moderates aren't looking to obliterate the model. They know that Swedes still want to maintain the safety nets. They just want the government to create more incentives for people to work and, consequently, add to the financial inventory which the government can utilize to maintain the basic Swedish Model.
ConclusionThe word "social", in all of its variations, is not an intrinsically negative word. Consequently, "socialism" isn't an intrinsically negative word nor an intrinsically negative economic system under a democratically elected government.
If the government of The FUSA socialized healthcare or otherwise made it available to all of its citizens, the nation would not be in danger of morphing into a Soviet style government which was always misnamed "communism". In fact, communism, as envisioned by Marx, Engels or Trotsky will never gain a foot hold in any nation state because of humanity's basic desire to have more than some predetermined base line.
Sweden and other European nations, as well as some Latin American nations, have shown that degrees of socialism within a government and the loss of democracy are mutually exclusive.
If Americans want to keep all of the money they earn in lieu of providing for fellow Americans who are in need, so be it. However, they should promote that way of life from a position of knowledge and not based upon misinformation expressed by the extremely wealthy.
They should also keep in mind that whatever services Americans enable their government to provide might include one or more services that they may someday need.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
