>Most democracies have some element of nationalism (or some sort of
>chauvinism not based on national characteristics) in that there has
>to be a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, while a
>democracy usually makes decisions that affect outsiders.
But social democracy and/or democratic socialism offer(s) a different economic deal from liberal regimes like the US: generous benefits and a voice in investment decisions. By contrast, in principle, in a pure market economy, you show up and are paid in accordance with your marginal product. The society owes you nothing, and aside from exercising your consumer sovereignty, you have no say over the allocation of resources. So it seems to me the concept of citizenship is much more loaded in a socialist or social democratic environment; it's not only a matter of voting or running for office, it also entitles one to a rich set of material benefits. I don't see how they can avoid making a bigger deal out of citizenship than more laissez-faire democracies.
Doug