>I would thus prefer a much smaller task of implementing safeguards
>against abuses into the existing system (just like social democrats did
>it in Sweden, for example), than a more ambitious system of scrapping
>the existing system altogether and building a new one. I think that the
>latter is way too much work and there is no guarantee that, when the
>dust settles, we will get anything much better from what can attain
>under the good and tried social democracy (whose track records has been
>proved).
>
>Wojtek
They used to say that when West German workers went to the bargaining table, there was an invisible third party there--East Germany. I'm not convinced the Swedish labor movement, strong though it has been, would've been able to extract the concessions it has (in terms of public services and social welfare) if it were not for the threat of communism. (Hence the ongoing battle now to stop the rollbacks, in Sweden no different from the rest of W. Europe.)
Well, it would be nice to think one could make a sort of choice about this. We haven't been able to protect already existing safeguards in the U.S., which is leading to more and more upheaval and turmoil in people's lives and politically. Generally it's when the existing system is crashing down around our heads (in depression and war and domestic terror) that the desire and opportunity opens up to try something completely different. But I agree with your implication that the new has to come in some way from what exists.
Jenny Brown