Is it Time for Socialism?

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

We are in a stagnating swamp of mass consumption and class division. Capitalism, it seems to me, has outgrown its initial usefulness and has become self-destructive.
Karl Marx has said that every society must pass through certain stages of 'evolution': feudalism, monarchy, capitalism, socialism. It is nearly impossible to bypass one or more stages (hence the mess that the USSR made of communism--their economy hadn't yet been built up by capitalism!), and it is also destructive to try and stop the evolution in its tracks--as is happening in America. Thanks to the Cold War, "socialism" has become almost a dirty word, synonymous with "dictatorship" and "oppression." Well, it doesn't have to be that way (look at Scandinavia.). I say it's time for some socialist-democratic grass roots regime change in America. Anyone with me?

[Massacure]

1. Only socialize important things like healthcare, and energy

Non important things can be left up to capitalism as well as it is well regulated.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Agreed, I believe in a free economy but...

There are some basic necessities that would be much better off without people profiting off of them.

[Selwynn]

107. What does "free enconomy" mean to you?

[cosmicvortex20]

233. Nope, and heres why.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

The most definitive total destruction of socialism ever...

[Selwynn]

268. Ah the great mouth piece of capitalism speaks

... ludvig von mises ... :puke:

Oh and, Che > von Mises. :)

http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/chevsmis.htm

[cosmicvortex20]

275. And heres the thread that will unravel the entire skirt...

Che is well aware of the calculation problem. He stresses that the problem of how to attain "a balance in the supply and demand of goods. . . and a true reflection of costs in prices. . . is one of the most serious problems confronting the socialist economy." Unfortunately he does not offer a complete solution.

This is the CENTRAL problem, and he cant offer a complete solution eh? He couldnt even offer a potentially marginal solution from what Ive seen. Besides, whatever he comes up with, whatever methods, their entirely arbitrary - and doesnt answer the fundamental question...

What gives HIM the right to make the decision?

[Selwynn]

279. The problem here is...

What gives von mises the right to make the decision?

No one can offer a complete solution to anything. Capitalism is riddled with holes and glaring unresolvable problems. The same guy, von mises, acknowledges this, pointing out that in his opinion the inevitable result of capitalism is an ever increasing disparity between rich and poor, till the point that the system implodes.

There is no perfect solution. And there is no single one manifestation of "socialism" or "capitalism." To falsely reduce it like that, and then pronounce its sweeping refutation is premature. The fact of the matter is, there are fundamental principles of socialism that must be incorporated into any just society. When they are absent, so is justice.

At the same time, there are principles of free economy that are important also. There is not sweeping absolutist critique of anything that holds much weight - life is far more complicated with that. In fact, von mises would most likely be fairly offended that his analysis was being construed into some kind of faux absolutism. American Capitalism is a broken failed system. Its failure is in its increasing bent toward fundamental injustice. At the root of the problem, is a wholesale rejection of the truths of socialism. A move toward a more socialist democracy is far from an discredited ideal - it is in fact much more in place in other parts of the word, and we could learn a thing or two from that.

That's really all I have to say on the matter.

[cosmicvortex20]

281. I agree somewhat...

American capitalism IS broken... I wont go into the different ways as I think we wont agree on that.

As for the straw man - "What gives mises the right to decide"... Mises was defending free markets, which is people trading freely. How the hell can he "impose" free trading? How can mises decide when you go buy shoes from nike?

You supposition that hes "deciding" for anyone is incorrect... hes defending your right to decide for yourself.

[Dob Bole]

2. yes, but Marx was wrong...

Marx has been proven wrong many times, because socialism has only been embraced by totalitarian regimes and not very often by democracies.

Another point Marx was wrong on was religion being the "opiate of the masses." A major reason that socialism has failed has been its stance against religion, since poor people who favor socialism also tend to be religous people.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

5. that wasn't socialism

the junk that happened in the Soviet Union and China and places like that wasn't really socialism...it was closer to fascism. And I also disagree with the stance against religion, but it's not an integral part of the philosophy of socialism.

[H2O Man]

16. It's important to know the correct definitions ....

First, "communism" is the government controlling business. Next, "fascism" is business controlling government.

We have "socialism" in many areas. Public schools, highways, human service agencies, and similar things are forms of socialism. Further, we have significant "socialism" with the current goovernment policies on big business. Let me explain: in the last 30 years, significant progress was made towards having business be responsible for their disposal of toxic wastes. If "company X" had dumped PCB contaminated oils, and TCE- contaminated solvents at a dump site in Community A, the EPA could force them to clean and remediate the damages. And, if company X refused, the EPA could clean the dump, and charge the company three times the expense. That was the law. Until Bush. Now it's not possible. In fact, the Community A becomes liable for the expenses of a clean-up of the dump site, made hazardous by company X. And that is, by every definition, socialism. I recognize it is not the type that people think of generally.

While the public schools-style of socialism is good in a mixed market economy, business should be "free market/competitive," with some government regulation. The obvious example is if Company X makes a mess, they own the clean-up costs.

[TexasSissy]

65. Here's the definition of "socialism":

Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.


As an American I find the idea of true socialism aborrhent. I wouldn't be able to own a business or work in all ways toward achieving the American Dream. I wouldn't be able to own my own home, in a true socialistic society. We would be very close to communistic. No way, no how would I be happy living under such conditions. In many ways it would be easier. But easy isn't what it's always about. It is not easy to get an education, own your own business, or pay taxes. It reminds me of a caged bird, who is given enough to prevent it from dying, but not given enough so that it can soar through the sky.

[H2O Man]

69. Websters -- good source.

I agree with much of what you say. But I sure do like to drive on the public highways, and I send my children to the same public school system I attended. Both are "true socialism," by Webster's first definition, and obviously don't fit "capitalism" (turnpikes were!).

But as far as business, the free market with a small amount of regulation seems to hold more advantages than a largely controlled market.

In the end, capitalism, socialism, and communism are "theories" that sound the best when we leave human nature out of the discussion. When human nature is injected, each of the three has the potential for very serious problems. Which has the greatest ability to resolve the problems? That depends upon what political system is involved .... which, at least in theory, is distinct from the purely economic system.

I like the United States the best. Plenty of problems, but we have the ability to solve them.

[Old_Growth]

102. Some remarks

That caged bird analogy you used reminds of how Capitalism treats the poor. Earning just enough to keep their meager lives going. You may say that at least they have opportunity to become wealthier under Capitalism, but not everybody can win under Capitalism. Somebody has to lose. And as Corporations continue to take more and more wealth and power it becomes harder and harder to reach that "American Dream".

Personally I'm for socialism or at least something like it because I don't believe in concepts of ownership. Why? Because I can't find anything resembling it in nature. Everything in nature was originally given freely to us. All that is required of us is to use our energy and intelligence to make it useful. Some men decided that this or that resource should only belong to himself so they could control it and gain wealth from it. Also what nature gives, she also takes away. Look at the destructive power of nature. Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, etc. You may be able to insure your possessions for their monetary value. But you can never save them from being destroyed when nature decides to destroy them. And it's this false belief in ownership that causes so much grief for people when they lose everything. Show me a poor man who can laugh at the demise of all his worldly possessions and I'll tell you he is a wise man indeed. Most people would cry like babies. But that's just my point of view on it all.

[vincent_vega_lives]

187. Nature.

Some of the most basic laws of nature exist in capitalism. Competition and territorialism abound in nature. It was Communism that fought to erase the natural instincts in man.

[rinsd]

137. That's really the whole point....

Those things came under the guise of socialism.

Arguing that it wasn't the real deal doesn't matter. The begininngs of the revolution were always so hopeful but the dictatorship of the proletariat never ends. That's been the reality problem for socialims/communism.

"I also disagree with the stance against religion, but it's not an integral part of the philosophy of socialism."

It inherently conflicts with the needs for the state to be dominant until the "people" are ready to rule. Again....the state has not relinquish said power when put into practice.

Socialism has worked best in a hybrid form such as you see in several European countries.

[Right Makes Might]

221. In real socialism and communism, the state is the people

That's why what they had in the Soviet Union from Kruschev on and in China from Deng on was not communism, which by definition is rule of the people. Just like what we have here isn't really democracy, which is supposed to be the same, with the difference being that Communism also includes control by the people in the economic as well as the political realm. Obviously, that wasn't the case.

The question at hand is whether or not socialism/communism is viable, and the only way to even start to tackle that question is to get a clear, truthful understanding of the history of s/c, which you're not bloody likely to get in a country where a bunch of rich bastards basically own all the media outlets.

A great modern communist thinker is Bob Avakian, chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party. There's a very interesting speech of his on video and DVD - they were passing out leaflets of info at the demo on Sunday. I've seen (apparently) the first two hours of a much longer speech he gave and he was clear, lucid, compassionate, fiery and intelligent. It may be a good place to start getting some info from "the other side."

[flaminbats]

225. huh?

I always envisioned Communism as where the far left meets the neoconservative right. Here is Communism as Lenin and Engels thought it should work "so long as the proletariat still uses the state it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the as such ceases to exist."

Democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, ie an organization for the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one section of the population against, another.

We set ourselves the ultimate aim of abolishing the state, ie, all organized and systematic violence, all use of violence against man in general.

In order to explain this it is necessary to examine the question of the economic basis of the withering away of the state.

From "What is to Be Done"...by Lenin

Neocons and Communist are only different in name. Both have promised to deliver a small government..withering away on the vine. But in practice..both have produced the largest, most wasteful, and least democratic governments in the history of mankind.

In reality, government will always exist as long as problems exist. The real question is should the government be ruled by the will of the people, or by those who only wish to rule the people?

[Right Makes Might]

230. The difference is who is in power and where it's going

from what I understand.

I believe what communists believe is that as long as you have a society divided into classes, one class or another will be in power. Under "ideal" communism - ie. real communism or communism in which the proletariat actually has power and not another ruling elite claiming the mantle of communism - the proletariat, along with anyone else who is not a member of the elite or elite wannabes, exercise power through the state.

Communists say that what we have in this country is a formal democratic system in which the appearance of majority rule is maintained while "the capitalist" class actually holds the real power in the economic, political, military, educational, media, etc. fields. Under communism, the proletariat will have state control.

The purpose of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is to eliminate classes, which will in turn eliminate the state, because the proletariat is the only class which seeks to abolish all exploitation. The purpose of the dictatorship (fundamental control) by any other class is to maintain those class divisions in order to keep exploiting others, which means maintaining a state.

[flaminbats]

235. this is why neocons and Commies love each other to pieces...

they believe the same bs, and even run government the same way.

It is only natural that the Republicans would want us to forget about our founding fathers, and buy into this sick hatred of democracy. Why should classes work together, government spend money wisely, or politicians listen to voters? Neocons know that if that happens, there won't be a Republican party in America...just like there is no longer a powerful Communist Party in Russia.

[Vladimir]

236. Indeed there is a Communist party in Russia

and if you ignore the array of Kremlin-made pupet parties allied behind Putin, it is easily the strongest and best organised party in the country.

Saying that communists and republicans are the same is akin to saying that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. Communists are pro-choice, support gay and minority rights, believe in social security... you may well take issue with Uncle Joe or the red chairman in China, but that does no justice at all to the likes of socialist progressives like Chavez, Castro, Allende, Tito. A multi-party or liberal democracy is not the only flavour of democracy out there.

[flaminbats]

239. You're right..we need to shoot down those dangerous Reds like dogs.

Saying that communists and republicans are the same is akin to saying that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. Communists are pro-choice, support gay and minority rights, believe in social security... you may well take issue with Uncle Joe or the red chairman in China, but that does no justice at all to the likes of socialist progressives like Chavez, Castro, Allende, Tito. A multi-party or liberal democracy is not the only flavour of democracy out there.

Hmmm so Republicans do believe in democracy, government that follows the will of the people, uses "organized and systematic violence" to subject parts of the population, and think that the best government is "the dictatorship of the proletariat!"

Does this make Kerry a Communist advocate of withering government, and Bush a big spending, big government utopian freak?

What drug are you smoking man, mind if I have a drag? :hippie:

[Vladimir]

240. I could ask you the same question

You have repeatedly equated communists and neocons, I tried to explain why this is not the case. What your last post meant, I have no idea at all... care to explain?

[flaminbats]

242. I disagree with your analysis...

I believe there are numerous differences between Kerry and Bush, just as there are differences between Kerry and Ho Chi Minh. Why...because Lenin and Bush promised to do the same thing, "to concentrate all its forces of destruction" against the state power, and to regard the problem, not as one of perfecting the state machine, but one of smashing and destroying it.

Or in the words of President Reagan "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

[Vladimir]

243. Who is talking about Lenin?

why does communism still get equated with 1920s Russia (not that Russia in the 1920s wasn't progressive by the standards of its time but that is a different issue)? No-one sane would suggest applying Das Capital or Lenin verbatim to today's problems, and no serious communists I know attempt this. You should read through the party policies and manifestoes of some modern communist parties.

Government can be both a problem and a solution, it depends on the type of government used. If you wish to abolish government, that makes you an Anarchist, not a Communist (though many of these things do indeed blend into each other in the utopian limit, but this is not of any interest for practical purposes).

[flaminbats]

244. Are you equating Reagan with anarchy...

or Communism with Homeland Security?

Forgive me, but Lenin and Marx were founders of the Communist Party. Saying that Lenin shouldn't be equated with Communism is like claiming that Reagan isn't connected with Republicans.

I agree with you that government can be both part of the solution and problem. I disagree with you on anarchy and communism, which is where the left and right extremes meet. Whether you call them anarchists or neocons...they have promised to give us small government, instead they give us massive spending and more bureaucracies!

[Vladimir]

245. They were the founders of one Communist party

and what is more in one country. They cannot be held to speak for all communists at all times in all countries. Communism is not some monolithic ideology that stands proud and true for all time, it is continuously evolving (as any ideology worth its salt must) to face the problems of the present. In the utopian limit communism does promise small government, but for all practical purposes this limit is of no importance because there is a long transitionary period during which a small government is neither feasible nor advocated by anyone. And indeed most communists I know accept that once we enter the transitionary phase, it is an open question whether the utopian ideal is either achievable or necessary.

[flaminbats]

267. the same is true of Republicans...

although many consider the modern GOP to be nothing more than a monolothic idealogy.

[Right Makes Might]

258. One difference between Bush and Lenin is that

Bush says he wants small government, but he really wants a powerful, invasive government that will continue in perpetuity while Lenin admits he wants a big government that will eventually disappear thanks to the people finally becoming the government.

Everyone knows Bush is full of shit. All he really wants to eliminate are social programs. He still wants as big a military and and as much government control of people's lives as he can get away with, along with a system of corporate welfare. No conservative ever advocated getting rid of the military or police - the tools of oppression needed to keep a system of exploitation going - just socialist-style programs.

Communists basically say the opposite - that certain basics must not be left to an anarchic system that neglects the welfare of many of it's members and that the eventual goal to work for is to eliminate all tools of oppression (the military) by eliminating the source of their necessity: classes.

[flaminbats]

272. Lenin hated government, most of all democracy..

Bush says he wants small government, but he really wants a powerful, invasive government that will continue in perpetuity while Lenin admits he wants a big government that will eventually disappear thanks to the people finally becoming the government.

Lenin had this to say about big government...it remains its fundamental and charectoristic of transforming the officials, the "servants of society," its organs, into the masters of society not only under a monarchy, but also in a democratic republic.

[Right Makes Might]

256. If Fascists love Communists, why do they always target them first?

In every fascist country, or, perhaps to be more accurate, every time a country turns fascist, the first group they go after are the communists. Remember Pastor Neimoller's poem:

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

One example: Fascist Germany (the Nazi's). One of the first steps in their rise to power was to burn the Reichstag and blame the Communists... after which they instated the "Emergency Decree" (their Patriot Act), rounded well known Communists and shot them.

Link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/the_rise_of_hitler_the_reichstag_burns.htm

A(nother) chilling parallel between 1930's Germany and 2000's U.S. is that the administration has put several well known Communists organizations on their "terrorist list," most important of which is the Communist party of Nepal which is leading an enormously popular people's war in Nepal. They've also issued warnings about the Revolutionary Communist Party of the US (headed by one of the most intelligent and insightful thinkers I've been fortunate to hear, Bob Avakian.)

As for past Communists "experiments," some earnest Communists, it's true, believe that the Soviet Union from Kruschev on is still Communist but imperfect, kind of similar to the sentiment many earnest Progressives in the West have that this is really a Democracy but imperfect, but both are wrong.

Democracy, "ideally", means that every person has equal power. That obviously is not the case. Obviously, what exists here is that the a small, powerful group, what Communists would call the "ruling class," has most of the power with the vast majority of us having at best the ability to make things a little bit difficult for them.

Communism, "ideally", is the reversal of the above - ie. that everyone in society (and that includes all classes) with the exception of the "ruling class" working together to transform society into a classless one.

Theoretically difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the capitalists is that the proletariat would actually work with all other classes (except the capitalists) in order to make this happen. In fact, it can only happen if all people, no matter what class, color, creed, religion, nationality, whatever, all work together - anything else will lead back to a class based society with a new exploiting class at the top. Some Communist thinkers believe that this is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union and China.

[flaminbats]

265. communists were an intrusion on the fascist dream..

Theoretically difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the capitalists is that the proletariat would actually work with all other classes (except the capitalists) in order to make this happen. In fact, it can only happen if all people, no matter what class, color, creed, religion, nationality, whatever, all work together - anything else will lead back to a class based society with a new exploiting class at the top. Some Communist thinkers believe that this is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union and China.

So do most capitalists...:smoke:

[stavka]

6. I'd hardly call Sweden "Totalitarian"

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

7. I didn't call Sweden totalitarian...

I used it as an example of the fact that socialism does not have to be totalitarian. Sorry if I was unclear.

[JVS]

91. Some would hardly call Sweden socialist

[pnorman]

17. "opiate of the masses."

Being less than a fervent admirer of so-called "Marxism", I'll still have to defend that phase, as used at that time. Then, the Vatican was still in it's anti-Enlightenment period ... ie: it was pretty well anti-EVERYTHING we now hold in some regard... liberalism, democracy, anarchism socialism, social democracy, etc. By and large, organized religion from the Protestant side wasn't all that much better. The forebearers of "Christian Socialism" as well as "Christian Anarchism" were present then, but were in a distinct and barely tolerated minority.

There was quite a bit of social welfare in the Papal Encyclical "Rerum Novarum (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm), but it was still explicitly ant-socialist & anti-democracy, as well as being proclaimed AFTER Marx's death. It's also generally believed to have formed much of the ideological underpinnings of Mussolini's Corporate State (classical Fascism).

pnorman

[Vladimir]

26. You make an important point when you say

'as used at that time'. Like any other document, Das Capital must be viewed within the socio-political context in which it was written or not at all. The real value of Marxism to me is not in an economic or social theory, but that it provides an excellent methodology for analysics social and political structures.

[pnorman]

29. As a "Chomsky-type socialist", I'm totally with you on that.

I have a CD containing almost almost all of Marx & Engels writings (in .PDF format). I'll be upgrading to a more powerful PDA pretty soon (Sony TH-55), and I'll probably get another Memory Stick to hold most of them. They'd be "dated" somewhat, but then so is Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Adan Smith and all the others who drew from the same Age of Enlightenment well that Marx & Engels did.

pnorman

[smirkymonkey]

31. Maybe poor people tend to be religious

because their lives on earth suck so much, and they have no place else to turn but the church and it's promises of a heavenly existence in the afterlife.

[bvar22]

33. only embraced by totalitarian regimes....????

What about Europe, especially the northern countries?

[Selwynn]

109. Marx wasn't all that wrong on things that mattered...

His critique of capitalism is being proven true every single day, and its only getting more true (therefore worse) each passing year. Capitalism has inherent in itself the seeds of its own total destruction.

Now, whether Marx had all the right ideas about alternatives to capitalism is another matter. He thought that real "communism" (as opposed to the tyrannical regimes we've seen embrace the label of communism) would emerge out of the ashes of capitalism, as a kind of next evolutionary leap forward in human societal participation...

Please, a Marx scholar correct me if I have unfairly stated anything here, but that is how I understand it.

I think we go a bit too far when we say Marx has been "proven" wrong. And by the way, there was nowhere Marx was more right than when he called religion an mass opiate. Look around my friend - see that this is true amongst the American people everywhere you turn. The religious right is taking over the country. Fundamentalism is the reason we have the administration we do today. Religious institutions and indoctrination keeps the masses blind and in line.

Note: I am not anti-faith. I have spiritual beliefs. But I also see quite clearly the truths in Marx's statement.

Sel

[vincent_vega_lives]

189. Are you kidding?

His critique of capitalism is being proven true every single day, and its only getting more true (therefore worse) each passing year. Capitalism has inherent in itself the seeds of its own total destruction.

Worse than in the 19th Century? The very age that spawned Marxism? Capitalism is far more tame today than it ever was in history.

[Vladimir]

196. Tell that to the third world n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

205. Good point, but different issue entirely

Show me a truly Democratic country in the third world. Many are Socialist dictatorships. ANY economic system can and will be corrupted when power remains in the hands of the few, socialist, capitalist or otherwise.

[Vladimir]

209. You misunderstand

the very worst excesses of our capitalism have been 'outsourced' to the third world sweatshops where compliant dictatorships provide our companies with a fertile ground for exploitation. We, with our capitalism and greed, are the ones actively blocking democracy in the third world at every turn.

[vincent_vega_lives]

228. Chicken before the egg?

As much as socialists would like you to believe, capitalism and greed are not synonymous. Corruption and greed can be and are rampant in Socialist systems around the world. Is it morally wrong for companies to exploit foreign workers? Certainly, however what we see as sweatshops are sometimes seen as 'opportunity' among st the indigenous population. It is a far more complicated situation than one would let on. Blocking democracy? What is to gain by preventing a consumer class from developing in the third world? Is it better to treat these countries like Cuba?

[Vladimir]

229. Cuba ain't doing so badly, the USA's best attempts nothwithstanding n/t

[flaminbats]

231. as much as neocons and Communists want you to believe...

democratic government and socialism are not synonymous. Nor are the free market and democracy natural adversaries.

A final note, Cuba does have a strong private sector...one where small business is currently thriving.

[vincent_vega_lives]

237. About Cuba

You both missed the point. Should the US restrict corporations from dealing with other nations like Cuba?

[Vladimir]

238. I'm not calling on the government to

restrict them, I am saying that it shouldn't actively support third world dictatorships which just so happen to willingly aid the exploitation of their populations for the profits of Western companies...

[flaminbats]

241. Not if they can do business in Cuba...

the irony is that our embargo is the biggest government intrusion now on Cuba's free market. At the same time, small businesses and sole proprietors have not been forced compete with the price advantages of massive corporations, and don't live with the fear being driven out of business by huge Walmart style chains.

[Selwynn]

206. This is some kind of joke, right?

Edit - in case its not, I'd like to recommend three books for you.

1) "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power"
2) "The Best Democracy Money can Buy"
3) "Understanding Power" a collection of lectures by Noam Chomsky

[rman]

124. where do you get those ideas?

Western Europe is nothing but social-democracy (though rapidly moving towards the Right).
Also the population of Western Europe is largely non-religious.

[noahmijo]

3. I'm not willing to give govt that much power

Likewise I understand that corporations are just as capable of wielding power over the govt (and ultimately over the people)

I support socializing healthcare, education, and public entities (firefighters, cops, ect) and energy as well, I totally believe that in a nation as rich as ours there should be no poverty, and the tax code should definitely be re-written, but that's as far towards Socialism as I'm willing to go personally.

[Darranar]

13. There is such a thing as decentralized socialism...

where companies are not controlled by the government but rather by the workers.

[H2O Man]

18. that is perhaps more likely to occure

in a free market economy, with some government regulation. It's actually a form of "communialism," which is distinct from "socialism."

[Darranar]

19. It is socialism...

socialism is control of the means of production - the companies - by the workers. That includes both a centralized system where a democratic government owns everything, or a decentralized system where the workers of each company control it, or something in between the two (probably what I would prefer).

[H2O Man]

20. Close.

By definition, socialism is an economic theory where the means of production and distribution are controlled by the government. You are correct in saying that, in theory, the government that controls production and distribution can be a local one, as opposed to a centralized one. The potential problems for this theory are that we are in a global economy, where goods and services are owned and distributed over huge areas. The concept of self-sufficient communities has unfortunately gone by the way-side.

[Selwynn]

110. That basically IS socialism.

So welcome to the party. :)

[Kanary]

4. Waaaaaaaaay past time

>>"socialism" has become almost a dirty word, synonymous with "dictatorship" and "oppression."

Of course. It was calculated that way, to scare people and keep them under control.

And, it worked.

Kanary

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

8. comrade!!

Kanary, you are a true comrade. :yourock:

Let's kick some rich-capitalist butt!

[wellstone_democrat]

10. every day it makes more and more sense

that's what out of control corporatism will do!

Soviet Union and Maoist China ran facistic cults-of-personality rather than socialism which is more democratic than anything.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

12. I soooooo agree!!!

THE MOST democratic system....the BEST idea in the history of politics!! (I'm quite an ardent socialist can you tell?!)
Argh. We're probably all on Ashcroft's watch list by now.

[vincent_vega_lives]

199. Socialism is no more democratic than anything else.

Socialism describes where economic ownership resides, not where governing authority derives. The "government" or the "corporation" are just synonyms with the "people" by proxy. In that regard the USSR was Leninist Socialism rather than Marxist.

[vincent_vega_lives]

211. I got news for you

The government is just a form of "corporation". Just one, that is massive and with bigger weapons. Facism is just a form of socialist-dictatorship.

[Vladimir]

24. Well said n/t

[robcon]

38. socialism is a dirty word

giving that much power to government is the death of freedom.

[wuushew]

44. Freedom means freedom to fail, which is unacceptable

Our current system allows many millions of people to not meet the most basic of Maslow's needs.

Freedom ranks less important than basic needs.

If you accept the basic tenet that government exists to advance the welfare and happiness of the majority of its' people then I can't see how the current system is anything but a failure.

[Kanary]

49. Ah, good ole' Maslow! Thanks for posting that..... a very wise man

who I wish was heard much more.

sigh.....

Kanary

[ConsAreLiars]

79. Maslow had some good insights.

One intersting thing to keep in mind is that the only "definition" of communism Marx ever provided was very close to a definition of "self-actualization." Maslow's daughter was more practical, and was active in the attempt to bring about radical social change. Unfortunately Abe himself corrupted his insight into into a excuse for selling Esalen-style vanity experiences to high-rollers.

[Vladimir]

48. So they aren't free in Sweden? n/t

[Nadienne]

112. That depends on what you believe socialism is.

If you allow it to be defined by the kind of people who benefit from capitalism, then of course they will turn it into a dirty word.

Even here, on this thread, there are several different definitions of socialism, and most of them are similar but different from what I think of as socialism. Some seem to assume that socialism says the government ought to be the supreme arbitrator - which I don't believe would be a terrible thing, if the government truly protects the interests of its citizens. (IE, if the government really is of, for, and by the people.) But governments can be corrupted. Anything can be corrupted.

I think socialism is more about people being in direct control of their lives - in direct control over how much money they earn, for example. A socialist society knows that in the long run, we as individuals benefit greatly even if we make individual sacrifices for the common good. Even if you don't have kids, the quality of your life will improve if the quality of public education improves.

[Selwynn]

117. a) I questing your understanding of socialism b) capitalism gives power

to the government, tons of power, in all the wrong ways. Right now the government has huge and massive power to do things without the direct consent of the people. It uses that power to build a huge military industrial complex and pursue hegemony, and spread its imperialistic control across the world in terms of military and economic domination.

American Capitalism gives much power to Corporations, who then exert extreme power over the lives of the people. We're long past the death of real freedom. We have all the trappings, but real freedom has been snuffed out by capitalistic corporate American and the neo-fascist exploitation of the working class.

Socialism is not some kind of absolute. There is a wide spectrum of implementations. FDR was labeled a socialist because of his emphasis on working class welfare and his governments involvement in their plight. Right now countries like Canada or some in western Europe are considered socialist democracies because of their commitment to providing for the working class and keeping in check the domination of the wealthy elite (I'm not naive - I'm not saying its being done perfectly).

The government has too much power. The real issue is what KIND of power do you want your government to have, or how do you want your government to use its power? Do you want it to use its power as it is used now - for the militarization of the nation, for global domination through military force in some places, and through economic exploitation in other places, for the continuing execution of ruthless class warfare, for the degradation and dehumanization of the working class, for an American where over a third of its citizens live in poverty, where millions and millions are jobless, where children go hungry and can't get access to quality health care or education all so that the wealthiest 1% can go on making their billions and billions off the backs of everyone else? Is that the kind of government you want? Because that's the kind of government we've got.

And that is power used unjustly.

The alternative is a government that sees its role as the regulator and check to business, and as the protector of the poor. We already have a well-regulated market. It is not "free" that is a myth and a joke. But the regulations we do have favor increasing the discrepancy between the ridiculously wealthy and the desperately impoverished. The regulations we need are those which protect the rights of the working class and that improve their conditions, disseminate wealth more equitably and promote the GENERAL WELFARE - not the welfare of the especially privileged only.

Capitalism run unchecked, combined with extreme psychopathic selfishness, overwhelming ignorance and an impoverished sense of empathy for the suffering of others have already killed real freedom in America. Social ideals are what will save it.

And again, there is a huge spectrum of "socialism" - simply because we're talking about ideals that benefit many in society instead of just a few, and the government's responsibility to provide for its people doesn't mean we're talking about becoming the next Soviet Union. If you think that, you need to read more.

Sel

[vincent_vega_lives]

232. Lots of good points but a few questions...

American Capitalism gives much power to Corporations, who then exert extreme power over the lives of the people. Explain exactly what form this extreme power takes.


We're long past the death of real freedom.
Define 'real freedom'.


The government has too much power. The real issue is what KIND of power do you want your government to have, or how do you want your government to use its power? How do you prevent a truly socialist government from becoming an uber-state? When you take control of all cooperations, property and wealth out of the hands of individuals?

Right now countries like Canada or some in western Europe are considered socialist democracies because of their commitment to providing for the working class and keeping in check the domination of the wealthy elite. How do you differentiate between Socialist-democracy and heavily regulated democratic-capitalism?

Do you want it to use its power as it is used now - for the militarization of the nation, for global domination through military force in some places, and through economic exploitation in other places, for the continuing execution of ruthless class warfare, for the degradation and dehumanization of the working class, for an American where over a third of its citizens live in poverty, where millions and millions are jobless, where children go hungry and can't get access to quality health care or education all so that the wealthiest 1% can go on making their billions and billions off the backs of everyone else? Is that the kind of government you want? Because that's the kind of government we've got.

I still maintain US capitalism is in much better shape now than it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

And that is power used unjustly.
Isn't that a problem with government and not the market?

The alternative is a government that sees its role as the regulator and check to business, and as the protector of the poor. We already have a well-regulated market. It is not "free" that is a myth and a joke. But the regulations we do have favor increasing the discrepancy between the ridiculously wealthy and the desperately impoverished. The regulations we need are those which protect the rights of the working class and that improve their conditions, disseminate wealth more equitably and promote the GENERAL WELFARE - not the welfare of the especially privileged only.

I agree with you here.

Capitalism run unchecked, combined with extreme psychopathic selfishness, overwhelming ignorance and an impoverished sense of empathy for the suffering of others have already killed real freedom in America.
I don't agree with you here. If these failings occur it is because of a failure of our legislative and executive Representatives. We are after all a nation of laws.

[JanMichael]

9. Just about. US Capitalism is digging its own grave.

The delicate balancing act between Public and Private interests is being rocked.

I think that people forget how ast these changes are happening. The New Deal was not so long ago, the Tech Boom is truly young, Public Universities with open enrollment (And easy financing) are mear babies, The Post Depression Banking System is eating its own, and so on.

This nation is young, this economic system is young, period.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Socialist democracy

[Briarius]

14. Way past time

I think that Americans would support it too, if it were called something else. Maybe I'm being optimistic, believing most people want to help one another, but I think that if we could get past the labels, people would support it

[coalition_unwilling]

135. I call it "economic democracy"

Where workers control the means of production through one man, one vote. However, there remains the fact that the U.S. has 3% of the world's population but consumes roughly 25% of annual global non-renewable resource consumption each year. So socialism, or "economic democracy", needs to have a global, i.e., non-nationalist dimension, imo.

[Deja Q]

15. I am for 'societyism' and a participatory society

It's a new term that will be appealing and not terrifying when uttered.

It is time for change.

Thanks to the upcoming oil crisis, we HAVE to change how we live. Societyism can do just that.

But can people alter their viewpoint regarding the root of all evil, otherwise known as money? A participatory society that encourages people to co-operate to live instead of this jobless economic cesspool we now live in is a foreign concept to them.

[dumpster_baby]

21. Need a mix of socialism and capitalism, with much more socialism than now

yes, we need to look to Sweden, Denmark, Scandanavia.

More than HALF of all Finns live in government subsidized housing. Yet they have a capitalist economy; hell, almost 30% of all cell phones are made or designed in Finland.

Swedes do not have to worry about their future--they have a plush social safety net, with far far more time off they we have. Yet, Volvos and Ikea furniture is everywhere.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Way, way, past due. We are so far behind the rest.

The obvious fact is that capitalism doesn't work..except for the capitalists. The people of the world are awakening to idea that fattening the bank accounts of the greedy 5% at the expense of the other 95% who do the work is unworkable and wrong.

It's coming, the worker ants are coming to their senses.

[mr blur]

23. When isn't it?

And I mean Socialism, not state capitalism or any of the other failed experiments. As a 'disabled' person I'm so glad that I live in a country (UK) where healthcare, for example, is available to all regardless of whether they have money, insurance or influence.

[Kanary]

28. I envy you.

As another "disabled" person, but misassigned to the US, I have nothing to look forward to except a hastened death because of the greed of those at the top, and the uncaring of the rest.

The uncaring hurts the most, and has made me just want out.

Too bad no other country will take us as refugees from a hostile environment.

Kanary

[The Revolution]

27. Its always time for socialism

Capitalism is the root cause of so many of the problems we see in the world today. Why don't we have fair media? The media is out to make profits. Why are workers still struggling to earn a decent wage? The capitalists refuse to give up any of their wealth, even though their income is hundreds of times larger than that of the people they employ.

Lots of people don't have health insurance! Lots of people have no place to live! Lots of people can't even afford food! This is simply unacceptable. There's no reason for it to be this way.

A few quotes I like:

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy,accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men, in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
--Albert Einstein ("Why Socialism?", 1949)

"The earth is for all the people. That is the demand.
The machinery of production and distribution for all the people. That is the demand.
The collective ownership and control of industry and its democratic management in the interest of all the people. That is the demand.
The elimination of rent, interest, profit and the production of wealth to satisfy the wants of all the people. That is the demand.
Cooperative industry in which all shall work together in harmony as the basis of a new social order, a higher civilization, a real republic. That is the demand.
The end of class struggles and class rule, of master and slave, or ignorance and vice, of poverty and shame, of cruelty and crime -- the birth of freedom, the dawn of Brotherhood, the beginning of MAN. That is the demand. "
--Eugene Debs (1903, Speaking before the Western Federation of Miners)

"Fascism after all is only a development of capitalism, and the mildest democracy, so-called, is liable to turn into Fascism when the pinch comes. I do not see how one can oppose Fascism except by working for the overthrow of capitalism, starting, of course, in one’s own country."
-- George Orwell

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. I'd be for democratic socialism, like they have in Europe

not for the Soviet kind that turned into state capitalism and dicatatorship.

[Kanary]

37. to untangle that confusion........

There are two different animals you have mentioned........

1. The financial

2. The governing

When you mix those two in your mind, it leads to confusion.

"The Soviet Kind" was NOT the fault (completely) of the financial socialism...... it was the totalian system of government.

Two different things.

Kanary

[PaDem]

32. I'd look at socializing healthcare and........

absolutely would advocate for a completely socialized military. Groups like Lockhead Martin are way too powerful, and war is way too serious to have company after company influencing politicians to go to war so they can make a few bucks.

[rman]

128. hm yes...

Just think about it. There's a war on; a national emergency of sorts. The whole economy is made to switch gears in order to accomodate the increased production of tools for war. The population is asked to make due with less. But lo and behold, there's a small fraction of society that makes enormous profits off of this. Why should this be? We're all in it together so why not all work at cost-price, which of course would include decent salaries for everyone involved, but should it enable a few to accumulate huge riches?
I am willing to bet that once no profit can be made off of war (other the "winning" the war - whatever that's worth), far less wars will be fought.

[Dirk39]

34. I'm with you

I'm with you: capitalism looks nice in theory, but it simply doesn't work in the real world:-)
Although I'm surprised once more about the illusions, U.S. people seem to have about Europe. We are under full neoliberal attack. Sweden might still be somehow an exception, but we're facing the same agenda of outsourcing, privatisation of public gods, deregulation, hire and fire, lowering wages, destroy the Unions etc. all over Europe.
I never believed that socialism and democracy are opponents. Look at Russia now: would you call this a democracy? After 15 years of free market brutalism the live-expectancy rate is about 8 years lower than under communism. The lack of democracy wasn't so much a problem of communism but of Russia, it seems.
If there are still history books in the future, maybe people will speak of the last 25 Years that started with Reagan and Thatcher as the biggest economic genocide in the history of mankind. And most people didn't care and didn't understand what was happening. Like always.

I'm quite optimistic now, 'cause in my entire life I would not have expected so many people to oppose the neoliberal Reagonomics as they do now in Germany.And these are people, who mostly never were into politics before.
"For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above."

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Vladimir]

35. You are very right n/t

[Kanary]

41. Whoa! That's one heck of a statistic! 8 years lower life expectancy?

ohmygawd!

Is there, by any chance, a reference for that? That is *really* an important piece of info!

Thanks sooo much for that.

Kanary, rather stunned.....

[Vladimir]

50. Here you go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1102275.stm

gives the link to the current statistics and

http://www.carnegie.ru/ru/pubs/books/volume/26279711tm-summary.pdf

gives a link to older info. Here are the headlines:

highest ever life expectancy was in 1987, when it reached 65/75 (m/f)

in 1994 it hit a bottom of 57.5/71

today it stands at 61/73

so not quite eight years today but it did slump by that much at one point. It is still significantly lower of course, and with Russia facing an AIDS epidemic this can only get worse.

[makhno]

59. Russia

Since 1992, Russia has been at the forefront of the global "free market" revolution. For a glimpse of America's bipartisan neocon future, take a look at our Eastern experiment in market democracy.

[Kanary]

66. Fantastic --Thanks! That is very sad, but it's good to have

the statistics.

Certainly says a lot about what capitalistic economies can do to people. I think the stress alone is a huge factor.

I hope Cleita sees this one.....

thanks again!

Kanary

[Vladimir]

68. I am not certain the transition to capitalism

is the only thing to blame here Kanary, as Russia had problems with mortality, especially alcohol related, before also. But it is noticable that the good work done in the mid to late 80s to correct these issues went down the drain with the USSR...

here are some more statistics for you...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774532.html

[Kanary]

118. No, it's probably not. Usually simple connections leave out much.

But, it's a powerful statement, even though I am not equipped to do protracted analysis of it.

Again, thanks for the info!

Kanary

[donkeyotay]

220. hello Dirk from Germany

"If there are still history books in the future, maybe people will speak of the last 25 Years that started with Reagan and Thatcher as the biggest economic genocide in the history of mankind. And most people didn't care and didn't understand what was happening. Like always."

That's right, "economic genocide." Millions of Russians died after the break up of the Soviet Union. Really, genocide is the only word for it, but it's never mentioned in American media.

Post-Reagan generations here think "socialism" is a dirty word; it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. But the cold war was fought against communism, which I see as different in that it was a totalitarian system, while most European countries - and yes, even America - WERE socialist.

I think it's socialism to have public schools, public roadways, and public utilities for example. I don't think there was anything wrong with any of that, but in the brave new world of corporate rule people had to be convinced that there was no such thing as a public good.

Capitalism can be totalitarian (fascism) just as socialism can be totalitarian (communism) and it's the totalitarian part that's bad. To my mind socialism represents the idea of balancing the private sector with the public good.

[wuushew]

36. Yes Amerikan capitalism has become too efficient for its own good

The American worker is simply unable to compete against one billion plus workers in the rest of the developing world for a variety of reasons. The so called replacement jobs which are sighted by conservatives simply will not exist in the quality of pay or numbers necessary to prevent impoverishment in America.

Computer programmers are not needed in millions of more positions than they are now. Grocery checkers and bank tellers face the prospect of reduced employment because of technical innovation. Efficiency in any society is desirable as long as the gains of that efficiency offset the costs. The increased profits the corporations now enjoy are simply accumulating in vastly greater amounts at the top of society where they do little good.

I don't care what it takes, I simply want massive redistribution of wealth in any form. I would be willing to take a low paying artistic or tourism job if the government paid for basic necessities like housing, food and medicine. The government needs to provide services and or jobs or hundreds of millions of people in the country will face a grim future.

[robcon]

39. I disagree

wuushew wrote: "The American worker is simply unable to compete against one billion plus workers in the rest of the developing world for a variety of reasons. "

What's the evidence, wuushew? There is no evidence whatsoever that the world can't raise its standards of living by adoopting capitalism, free markets and liberal democracy.

As far as I know, there is no country who has adopted these standards who hasn't raised its standard of living.

[wuushew]

42. "Free" markets are a relatively recent invention

adopted with most success where the difference in the labor costs are minimized, such as the EU. For decades upon decades the United States had very high tariff rates for all manner of products. The ultimate goal of free trade is to facilitate greater efficiency by allowing comparative advantage between countries. Canada producing lumber products and the United States producing finished goods is a simplistic example. However when a American factory goes to China the only advantage is the labor cost. The material requirements, manufacturing knowledge and transportation costs are all easily met.

While labor costs may eventually equalize two facts remain. From an environmental standpoint if the entire globe practiced our standard of living we would be facing an ecological catastrophe tomorrow. And secondly we currently enjoy a great standard of living by consuming more than our fair share of raw materials, fossil fuels etc. If the the rest of the world started to demand these resources in equal amounts then this model of affluence based on exploitation would no longer be valid. While I do agree global wealth should be more fairly distributed I fail to see the synergistic affects inherent from some aspects of free trade.

I am merely exercising my self-interest within the political organization I exist with in. Outsourcing helps ownership which is always outnumbered by the proletariat. Given that fact what we our currently experiencing is a massive failure of economic populism at the very least.

[H2O Man]

51. Free markets are not

a relatively recent invention. Not at all. It's important to know the definitions of the terms you use.

[wuushew]

55. markets in the sense of international trade

sorry for the confusion, I should know better with my business degree and all. ;-)

[H2O Man]

58. International trade policies

are obviously important. But the degree of "socialism" within the USA is not based on international trade. The other person had spoken of a free market economy -- which in industrial/post industrial society always includes some degree of government regulation.

If you have a degree in business, then I think you'd agree that "socialism" for big business, a policy of both Reagan and especially Bush2, is far worse for communities in the USA than a free market with a little regulation.

[makhno]

61. Travel around the CIS

Talk to people there then come back and tell with a straight face they want your capitalism, free markets and liberal democracy bullshit. What they want is bread on the table.

[barb162]

212. try taking a look around you

Americans are losing their jobs right and left. The job loss numbers in this country are very understated as people take crappy low-pay part-time jobs with no benefits just to put food on the table.

[leesa]

40. Well, capitalism is certainly a failure.

Those countries with a more socialist approach to life are fairing MUCH better.

[seabeyond]

43. wont vote socialism. market economy isnt the porblem

it is the people protecting us sold out. we just need to get the power back

[makhno]

62. Market economy

Market economy creates the conditions which allow a wealthy owner class to control the political environment of the country. Why do you think the people protecting us sold out? Could it be because we can offer them nothing comparable to the benefits they get out of selling us out? The people need to control the purse strings in this country, and that means socialized ownership of the means of production. You piss us off, the money stops flowing.

Politicians want to make a deal with "business"? Well, let "business" be us.

[Nadienne]

125. Well said. I agree. (n/t)

[Selwynn]

120. Read "the corporation" and "the best democracy money can buy" and then...

...tell me if you still believe that.

[Malva Zebrina]

45. I think for the benefit of all there are pl;aces in society that need to

be socialized. I think that if all in the society are healthy, that benefits all inthe society. I think that if all in a society are properly educated and are literate, that benefits a society. So the pooling of money for those causes is defintately a benefit for all.

If an employer employs a healty , literate employee, it can only be to his benefit.

Problem is that here we seem to have developed a selfish population whose belief is that they should only contribute to their own welfare and not to the welfare of others in the society. This, in the long run, does not benefit a society as does the pooling of resources for the whole.

This shortsited view in my opinion, is childish selfishness. A failure to recognize that we are only here for a short time and that we must , if we have any sense of responsibility or conscience, must leave something for the next generations that is postive.

Selfishness, or excesses of greedy corporations does not do that.

[NeoConsSuck]

46. Capitalism is like a shark..

it must always move forward, or die. It can't stagnate, there *must* always be growth, which is impossible in the long term.

That is why non-capitalist countries must be attacked and changed. No coincidence amerika threatens Cuba, North Korea etc.. Those populations are not participating in the free market system, and capitalist countries won't stand for it.

Capitalism is pure evil, there is no other way to sugar coat it.

[John_Shadows_1]

47. It's the only way to deal with Peak Oil...

... we're going to have to re-appropriate the wealth of the rich into new forms of federally-subsidized energy production.

Also , socialized health care is the only solution - and it works great in France.

[Placebo]

52. NO IT ISN'T.

Never, never, never, never, NEVER, would I allow this great nation to go Socialist. I'd die trying to prevent it.

[HEyHEY]

53. Better dead than red eh Nation?

;-)


Depends on the degree of socialism. I am very against communism, but I believe government needs a jiminy cricket to run properly

[Placebo]

56. Better dead than red, U GOT IT!

:yourock:

[dumpster_baby]

88. still operating under the influence of all that old propaganda, huh?

Let me ask you something: is it possible that rich people and corporations manipulated you when you were young?

[wuushew]

54. Why?

The socialist movement was a major political force in the early 20th century. Milwaukee had a socialist mayor.

[Placebo]

57. I don't see any reason why it's necessary.

I like our current system, sure it's not perfect, sure there are things we need to fix, but i would never abandon our heritage in favour of socialism.

[H2O Man]

60. We have plenty of "socialism"

in our society. We've had public education since Senator Daniel Dickinson, from Binghamton, NY, advocated for federal aide to local schools in the pre-Civil War era. It was opposed at first as a danger to the free markets that the merchants, (early free market capitalists).

Of course, we could take public highways. We're looking at pre-1800. There had been the turnpike system, which were privately owned roads, where the property owner was liable for up-keep of the section on their property. The concept of tax-dollars for transportation was nothing other than socialism for the merchants, as the trade system that was the foundation of the economy was in large part the highways. Of course, the canal system of the northeast, and the railroads, were literally based on "socialism" for the rich.

The concepts of capitalism, socialism, and communism are primarily associated with industrial society. For the USA, an interesting period is the post-Civil War. Many think of the "manifest destiny" experience as being families on stage coaches, taking advantage of the 1862 Homestead Act. But the west was won on the rails. Further, the politicians in Washington, DC gave the railroad robber barons --between 1865 and 1900 -- more land than the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin combined. That is not capitalism, and it's not free market.

[Nadienne]

214. I once saw a description of capitalism as

rewarding the winner with all the eggs.

Capitalism is competition, right?

And competitions have winners and losers, right?

And winners get bigger, and losers get smaller, right? Some say that, because of capitalism, those companies that are big deserve your business. They only got that way by being the best.

And with their increase in success, they gain wealth.

Which they use to buy politicians.

Isn't this what capitalism is? What it causes?

[H2O Man]

226. You are right in that

what you describe is one very real potential. And unregulated capitalism will always move in that direction. We can agree that in theory, capitalism is far more perfect than in practice. The down side is that this is equally true for socialism and communism. One significant difference is that when you point out the brutality in historic examples of socialism and communism, American "socialists" say, "But that's not real socialism." Baloney. Is real socialism a always in the future but never real phenomenon, like the Second Coming? Naw! All three of these "-isms" are industrial age theories, with potential good and bad in each. And history has shown that to be true for each of the three.

[Nadienne]

257. Let me make sure I understand...

None of the theories are perfect... Capitalism relies on regulation in order for it to work the way it was intended...

Which I can believe and understand.

The Achilles Heel for capitalism is exactly the same as that of socialism and communism - it depends on an uncorrupt government.

So now, two questions: Do you think capitalism is a better theory than socialism? And if so, why?

[H2O Man]

273. I think those are great questions.

I favor a large degree of socialized education and medical services. If K through 12 are worthy of public investment, I think society should open up higher education for free, or for a very small fee.

Human services need to be in large part public services. That's socialism. I worked as a psychiatric social worker for decades. I know the amount of benefit society reaps. I also know that bureaucracy can feed too much at the public trough.

There are other things that have historically worked better in a free market, with regulation. However, giving corporations the rights of "personhood" is simply wrong, and is always abused.

I recognize that capitalism runs the highest risk for "consumerism" and that the mass-consumption of products is not a good thing. Yet even though I know this, I recognize that I am at times part of the problem. I saw that someone in my family left a shovel outside today, but I didn't bring it in. That will lessen the shovel's life, and I'll have to buy another one sooner. My father, from the Great Depression era, never left a shovel out. Silly example, perhaps, but it's real.

Perhaps the ideal should be a mixed economy.

[Nadienne]

282. I generally tend to favor socialism over capitalism

(as you have probably noticed).

One of the reasons why is that capitalism seems to celebrate greed, selfishness, ruthlessness. They call it "ambition". It is to the point where not being greedy is thought of as being lazy.

Case in point: My boss makes his money by encouraging managers to encourage door-to-door disability insurance agents to make more sales. Merely making a comfortable living is "irresponsible" in his opinion. Of course, their greed gives him more wealth. Ironically, I, one of his personal secretaries, am barely making ends meet. If I work harder, he keeps more of his wealth, but I won't necessarily get paid more. And even if I did, the personal cost would be like me giving $20 of myself in order to make $10.

But I'm not naive. In order for my ideal (socialism with a government directly accountable to its citizens) to work, everyone must make a consious effort to choose selflessness over selfishness. It probably won't happen in my lifetime.

Even capitalism hinges on the government being accountable to its citizens.

In any case, a mixed economy would probably be better than what we have now.

A story about mass consumerism: My boyfriend would rather buy cheap shoes that he knows won't last him very long than buy good shoes and take care of them because in the long run it is cheaper to buy the cheap shoes and throw them out when he's done with them than it is to buy expensive shoes that will last years and years, but that he has to spend money and time maintaining. Even high ideals are vulnerable to human nature. :shrug: And I can't even convince my boyfriend to wholly embrace this way of thinking. But I'm working on him> :)

[Kanary]

70. You'd rather just let people die, just to preserve some "tradition"?

:shrug:

[Selwynn]

122. Of course by "not perfect" we mean a total fucking disaster....

.. that has ruined billions of lives all over the planet.

By the way -- our heritage IS socialism.

[dumpster_baby]

74. I used to be one of you. But I switched, and our numbers are growing

Join us....

[Placebo]

78. Thanks...

but no thanks. :pals:

[Selwynn]

121. Define Socialist for me, in your own words - I don't need google's answer

In your own words define socialism for me...

[TexasSissy]

63. Nope. We live in a capitalistic democracy. It should stay that way, IMO.

Otherwise, there would be no American Dream to work toward....and none to be had.

Capitalism has it bad points, as does any economic system. But so far, it seems to be working very well, as is democracy.

What we need is a non-radical leader, is all.

Is there a party in the U.S. that is close to socialistic in its platform or ideals? The Democratic Party is not, but I would think that there would be a party for the socialists to vote for.

[wuushew]

64. The American dream is not born out by studies

the rate of upward class mobility is shrinking. Also there is no statistical correlation between profits and CEO compensation. Ownership has too much power to accumulate wealth.

[TexasSissy]

67. Upward mobility is the radical leader thing I mentioned.

What companies pay their CEOs - I don't know that it MUST be tied to profits (although I believe it SHOULD be). As far as ownership having too much power to accumulate wealth - socialism doesn't solve that. It merely transfers the ownership from one corporation to a government entity.

I think that rational leaders can hold these things in check to a great extent. The system isn't perfect, but it seems to work. And yes, there is the American Dream, still. But the substance of the dream is changing. In America, for instance, a single woman can aspire to, and achieve, home ownership. This is not true in most countries in the world. Capitalism makes it true.

[H2O Man]

71. "upward mobility"

is generally a myth. It had a limited reality in human history. Perhaps the only significant era was in the 1800s and early 1900s, with immigrant populations in the USA.

Most people around the globe remain at the same general level as their parents had in society. The real differences come from the changes in culture; for example, hunting & gathering; agricultural; herding; industrial; and high-tech. The change from one to another marks change.

The second biggest factor involves the relationship between urban and rural populations. The urban centers always need to access large amounts of the rural natural resources (think intitially of food products and "man hours" of labor). These factors influence the concepts of upward mobility and quality of life more directly than some of the others mentioned on this post. The rural populations are affected the same if a business that exploits them is owned by the urban center's government or by its workers. The Sami, for example, have been treated equally bad by all of the Euro-Asian nation-states.

[wuushew]

72. Good post

I am glad you mentioned man-hours as a value unit. I believe workers would accumulate wealth based on the their ability and rareness of skills. Such a society would still continue to offer incentive by offering education and rewards based on merit. The key area everybody should take away from tonight's discussion is that wealth on it's own compounds in value and the serves to enrich the the wealthy with income which they have not truly earned. This situation could be solved by elimination of the ownership class or simply a return to rationally based taxation levels. In either situation the wealth stripped from those of privilege should at the very least give a base level of human needs to all those in society.

[camero]

76. Also

If everyone had the American Dream of a large house and 2 cars in the driveway, we would need 9-10 Earth's to have the resources for this much consumption. Capitalism is the most wasteful of all the economic theories.

[SeattleJazz]

81. I agree with this 100%

Again, Europe tells us all we need to know about what happens when you take Socialism too far.

In the end, no economic system is going to be perfect. I wish some of us would get a grasp on that!

[Vladimir]

83. The poor have access to healthcare?

Workers have rights?
There is decent education for all?

Europe tells us all we need to know about what happens when you take Socialism too far

whatever could you mean?

[SeattleJazz]

146. I mean...

High unemployment.
Stagnating economy.
Waiting lists for even basic medical services.
Overregulation of businesses; especially small business.

And as I said on another thread, socialist governments are no less immune to graft and corruption than capitalist-friendly governments like the United States.

I suppose I have ultimately just heard too many bad stories from ex-pats out of Europe who say that, with all its problems, the U.S. is still preferable. Methinks those advocating socialism here at D.U. have a falsely rosy picture of what socialism in practice looks like.

[Vladimir]

152. Hey I live in Britian

and my parents live in Austria, and I lived in Sweden when I was a kid. And neither unemployment nor waiting lists are a problem there. Being a student I don't know about business, but the low low low interest rates here in the UK don't seem to be hurting anyone...

[KelleyKramer]

195. Those are bullshit Republican talking pionts

And as you can see from the response from someone who has lived in several European countries.. Those Repub talking pionts are nothing but lies.

PS About the 'failing' economies over there.. for some strange reason they have a Euro dollar that is kicking the US dollars ass.

[Darranar]

277. Sweden has less unemployment than the US...

Sweden's unemployment rate: 4.6%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

United States' unemployment rate: 6.2%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

[Kanary]

113. Your easy dismissal of poor folk is appalling.

Yet, you will be expecting their votes.

Maybe you need to do some soul searching.

[SeattleJazz]

148. Huh?

Who is dismissing the poor?

I was poor once, yah know. Made less than $10K the first year of my marriage, in 1993-1994. Maybe it would have been nice to have the government swoop in and rescue me. But the truth is, my wife and I worked hard and got some education and voila, we're not poor anymore. We're not six-figures rich, either, but we do pretty good for a one-income family of three. (my wife has chosen to stay home with our baby daughter during the formative years)

[bread_and_roses]

85. Working very well?

We are destroying the earth with the unregulated greed of corporations polluting, destroying habitats, poisoning the seas, etc. etc. etc.

The gap between rich and poor continues to grow with an ever-shrinking middle class.

Social mobility is a carrot dangled for a very few while most people remain in the income class that they are born in.

We have millions of uninsured and one of the highest (I think THE highest but don't have time to look it up right now) infant mortality rates of any Western industrial nation.

The poverty rate continues to grow and our inner-cities resemble third world nations.

Our press is bought, owned, and run for the benefit of the wealthiest 2 or 3% of the population.

We have one of the lowest voter turnouts of any advanced Democracy.

This is doing well? You and I must have different definitions of working well.

edited to add:

AND: We are engaged in a war of naked economic and military aggression, killing many thousands of civilians, blowing infants to bits and are hated around the world for our foreign policy in support of multiple right-wing, murdering, torturing dictators.

I do not call that working well.

[H2O Man]

87. While the problems you describe

are very real, and demand our immediate attention, they will change ...how? By "socialism"? Hmmmm. Again, right now one of our most pressing problems is the destruction of the environment. Let's look at that one example closely.

For 30 years, we have worked towards holding the business that creates the toxic waste dump sites responsible for the clean-up. That's part of free enterprise: a business owns the profits, and also owns the losses. If the clean-up costs $16 million, the business foots the bill. If the business refuses to clean it, the EPA could do the clean-up, and charge the business 3 times the amount in penalties.

But Bush did away with that. He stripped the EPA of the ability to force a clean-up, or to do it and charge the business. The financial responsibility of the clean-up no longer rests with the responsible party. And it no longer falls on the EPA. It falls on the state and/or community. That is, by definition, decentralized socialism.

One out of four Americans lives close enough to a toxic waste dump site that meets the standards to be a "Superfund Site" that it impacts their health. This is particularly true for children. There are no capitalist children or socialist children, no democratic children and no republican children, as environmental attorney Robert Kennedy is fond of saying. We don't want American children absorbing PCBs or TCE into their body tissues. Without any question, these dump sites get cleaned up more often, and more thoroughly, under a free market than under socialism.

[bread_and_roses]

89. "Clean-up" is really too little too late

The point is to prevent environmental destruction and poisoning life, and the "free-market" is not interested, since its' life-blood is short-term profit and damn the consequences.

The "free-market" presumes that the profit movtive will impell capitalists to take sustainablity into account, but we don't see that happening: the insane and unsustainable US appetite for fossil fuel based energy being a case in point.

Yes, all is worse under the current oligarchic regime, with their faith-based hellish model of free-marketer-ism and social control. The EPA is an anti-free-market enforcer, since it has the power (given legislative authority) to both regulate and fine.

Since you clearly understand and are concerned about the effects of "free-market" pollution and environmental devastation, and clearly seem to support the regulation that could avert it, I am confused by your seeming simultaeneous advocacy of a "free-marketism" that clearly opposes any interference in the market.

[H2O Man]

92. I think all but one

of my posts specifically says that the free market always has some government regulation. Always. There is no such thing as a free market without some government regulation. The only question is what role the government plays: to protect the interests of the public, or the business. In theory, it can do both; in practice, it has to favor one.

I worked for over 20 years getting a defense industry to clean and remediate the damage to a 120-acre toxic waste dump site in rural upstate NY. The case went into federal court, and tested the MSW policy of the EPA. (See a history in the Environmental Reporter, Vol30,No.6, page 257; or see USDC Northern District: USA v AlliedSignal/Amphenol 97-CV-0436, and the appeal) I am not bluffing on this issue. I know from first-hand experience that the free-marker can force a clean-up, while "socialized" policy simply does not.

For another related explanation, please read Robert Kennedy Jr's new book, "Crimes Against Nature," in which he goes into fascinating detail on the economics of environmental protection.

Also, please understand that I favor socialized medicine and education. If, for example, our society gains from public education from K to 12, it makes sense that college should be available under the same circumstance. While I'm fine with the idea of "private" schools and medical services for those who can afford them, our country simply cannot afford to not provide public health and education.

[bread_and_roses]

95. Not questioning your environmentalist credentials

But still confused as to how you get from the necessity of regulating business re: pollution to "the free-marker can force a clean-up, while "socialized" policy simply does not." However, your point obviously makes sense to you, so I will chalk my failure to understand your logic up to my own inadeqacy.

[H2O Man]

98. No, no ....

If I'm not making my point clear, keep asking me. This is important. And it's not a right vs wrong thing .... we're on the same side.

In a small hamlet in Delaware County in upstate New York, one of the major military industrial complexe's weapons producers dumped massive amounts of the most deadly of chemical wastes into a series of legal and illegal dumpsites. This included disposing of thousands og gallons of PCB-contaminated oil and TCE directly into the water reservoir.

The clean-up costs for one spot, which is less than 1/2 an acre, is $16 million. There are over 120 acres of contaminated "plume."

Under free enterprise/free market policy, if a business makes a mess on its own property, it has to sure it doesn't have the potential to damage neighboring properties. If it even threatens to, the business has to take all steps necessary to prevent that. This is the best example of a government regulation implicit in free markets.

Now, in the case I'm talking about, the business should foot the bill for the entire clean-up. That should include a "buy out" of damaged neighboring property. It should include all associated medical bills. It should include being held responsible for totally ruining the hamlet's water reservoir. That is part of the free enterprise system.

But that system has been devastated by Bush since 2000. Under the current policy of the federal government, the business in the exact same circumstance is not liable for the damages. Either the state or county of municipality is. That is "socialism" -- but people do not recognize it, because it benefits the richest. It makes a business free to damage their property and their neighbors', and not be responsible .... because of a socialized environmental policy that harms the innocent and protects the guilty.

This is why I keep stressing that people need to understand the actual definitions of the terms being tossed around here. I think we share the same goals -- no one on this thread wants to see the big businesses dumping wastes unregulated and without being held responsible. We want community control. We want the responsible party to pay for a dump that damages other's property. But I can say for sure that the free enterprise/market is the best route for that.

One of the best points on the side of those on this thread advocating for socialism is the idea of "consumerism" being a threat to our communities. Yet consumerism poses exactly the same threat under capitalism, socialism, and communism. Actually, communalism offers the best alternative to consumerism.

[bread_and_roses]

259. At last, I at least understand your point

"But that system has been devastated by Bush since 2000. Under the current policy of the federal government, the business in the exact same circumstance is not liable for the damages. Either the state or county of municipality is. That is "socialism" -- but people do not recognize it, because it benefits the richest. It makes a business free to damage their property and their neighbors', and not be responsible .... because of a socialized environmental policy that harms the innocent and protects the guilty."

You are essentially saying that we have "socialism for the rich" (or for Corporations)because their costs are subsidized by the taxes of the community. Yes, of course, that is what has happened to our system...but it is not at all "socialism" because while costs are borne by the populace, profits are private.

I think that the phrase "welfare for the rich/corporations" conveys better the current state of subsidized risk, privatized profit.

And of course, I agree that stringent regulation and enforcement, with the costs of clean-up borne by the business that polluted, are absolute necessities if our current system is not to destroy our environment and indeed, the planet. The only way to make business environmentally responsible in a "capitalist" economy is to make it prohibitively expensive to be otherwise by draconian, profit-consuming fines and clean-up costs.

However, I am not sure that this is an argument for "free-markets" (a phrase that you yourself does not reflect any current reality) vs. socialism. Are you saying that there is no way in a socialist system to mandate responsible environmental policies for industry? I rather doubt that.

"Should US become socialist" is not a subject I've spent any time thinking about, since my work tends to keep me rooted in the here and now. Certainly I think that health care should be "socialized" via a National Health system, and increasingly I tend to think that energy will have to be nationalized as well if we are not to have people freezing to death.

[Vladimir]

90. If the business was state-owned, that would

be decentralised socialism. Since its a private business, I would call it oligarchic theft...

[H2O Man]

96. Well, that isn't necessarily so ......

That depend on which state owns it. If It's owned by the nation-state, it certainly isn't decentralized. To qualify as decentralized, one needs to take it to the community level. It's not possible for it to be "owned" at the community level, because it is a business that is run as part of a much larger business.

I love the song "Imagine." I wish that the world was what that song describes, and think we should work towards that goal. In the mean time, we're here in the real world. We need to think about what works best for communities. I do not tend to invest much energy worrying about the wealthy; they are able to fend for themselves.

I have, however, spend a considerable amount of time and effort working on behalf of middle class and poor communities who have very real experiences with PCB contaminated oils and solvants like TCE in their water supply. If one has a water reservoir catch fire when someone throws a cigarette butt in it, or if there is oil coming up through the ground on your lawn, or if a spring shower kills every fish in a lake down the road, "theories" don't mean so much. Reality does. And the reality is that the free market allows the best route for cleaning environmental messes.

[Vladimir]

97. Well your idea that the company

should clean its own mess up is like an extra corporation tax, which would be more of a market-socialist idea than a free-market one. Indeed you could even implement it as a tax, with companies that produce environmental waste paying extra in tax and the government then cleaning it up. Whether this would be better or not would be a matter of the particular situation in question - I am not a great believer in general solutions. But in this sense Bush's move, which is to liberated the company of the obligation to clean this mess up, is analogous to lowering corporate tax. Definitely not a socialist move.

As I said, in a socialist system (decentralised or not), the company would itself be government owned (at whichever level), and the issue wouldn't arise because the company's 'profits' would automatically go to the government anyway.

[H2O Man]

99. Nope.

That tax would be unfair to businesses that are responsible, and would benefit those who pollute.

Take it down one more step. We live in a small neighborhood. One of our neighbors has a business that produces a lot of waste products. He piles them on a corner of his property, and in time they spill over onto your property and mine. Now, should we all be equally responsible for the clean-up? Have a neighborhood tax to pay for it? Or shopuld the guilty party alone be held responsible?

The answer is really clear when we look at it that way. And, you know what? That's exactly what it has come down to today. You can make a good case for socialized medicine, education, and other services. But in many areas -- the environment being one -- free market capitalism with some reulation is in everyone in our neighborhood's best interest .... except that fellow who wants you and I to pay for his mess.

[Vladimir]

100. No he should pay an extra tax

what I was suggesting is that you can collect an environmental tax from those companies that pollute, based on how much they pollute. This is similar to a system where the tax you pay on your car is graded by how much your car pollutes the environment. If you don't pollute, you don't pay (like solar cars for example). Indeed I am not even proposing that this is how it should be done, just that the government regulation of the market to force companies to clean up their mess is directly analogous to an extra tax bracket.

I have no problem whatsoever with a regulated market - if there is to be a market it has to be regulated. Indeed I do not even really have a problem with the system as you described before Bush. What I do have a problem with is you calling Bush's move socialist, because it is not. Removing a financial obligation to the government from a private company is not socialism. Bush has removed a layer of regulation from the market and the community is stuck with the bill because they have to live there. That is not socialism by any recognised definition of the word.

[H2O Man]

103. Actually, it is.

That does not make socialism any better or worse. It simply shows that very bad people will always do very bad things. People like Bush abuse any and every system.

As far as the definition, it is absolutely "socialism". We all on occassion are held prisoner by unexamined assumptions, and this is a case in point for many, many sincere people. But I can assure you that any knowledgeable economist will agree that it is socialism, and most will agree that it is the most unfair and abusive potential of socialism. Only the Bush folks enjoy it.

You might be interested in a piece a wrote for Playboy in the early 1980s called "Christian Manifesto," which examined the potential for social justice under capitalism, socialism, and communism. I'll have to look back to see when that was published.

[Vladimir]

106. Well we will

have to agree to disagree... I guess you and I know different economists. In any case, ever read Ackerman's Social Justice in a Liberal state? Great book.

[H2O Man]

153. Oh, that's not really a disagreement.

It's a discussion of a definition of a word. Socialism has meaning. If a person wants it to mean 4 out of 5 of its actual meanings, and another person says that it actually means 5 out of 5, its not a disagreement. But what is important is that we probably have pretty similar values and goals.

[Vladimir]

154. I suspect we do, yes n/t

:toast:

[H2O Man]

159. If we were discussing what is

a nicer shape, and you said a square and I said a circle, we would be having a disagreement. If you said a circle is square with four right angles, it's not a disagreement. (grin) The policy of this administration is by correct definition a form of socialism that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the masses. You might enjoy RFK Jr's book, Crimes Against Nature, which goes into far greater detail. Neve too late to learn.

[Vladimir]

160. Well one wonders

is Bush:

1) taking on the responsibility to clean up the costs himself, i.e. guarnateeing that the state will clean up the mess that corporations make, or:

2) is he simply removing the ability of the EPA to force a clean up and leaving it up to the municipalities and states to regulate the clean up?

The first would be socialism (of a particularly perverse kind), the second would be deragulation. I have been working off the assumption that its No.2 but I reread your original post and it seemed unclear... which is it?

[H2O Man]

163. A combination of the two.

The ability of the EPA to enforce the law has been striped, both by over-turning 30 years of federal law, and by not funding the EPA so that it can do the clean-ups and charge the industries. More later ....

[Vladimir]

165. Well if it is a combination of the two...

then it is a matter of opinion! lol

;)

[H2O Man]

171. Not at all!

Deregulation can and does occure in any economy independant of if it's a capitalist, socialist, or communist-based economy. It doesn't play into the definition of socialism at all.

It's simple: in the past, the business was legally responsible to clean up its own messes. Now the municiple governments are. I'm not bluffing or trying to manipulate with things like deregulation. Read the Environmental Reporter Vol 30 No 6, page 257, or the USA v AlliedSignal/Amphenol case (two decisions: one on 8-25-99, the second on11-3-99).

I grew up in a large Irish family. I'm very used to people who I like using the old twisting tactic. Nothing wrong in admitting an error.

[Vladimir]

174. Well maybe if all of your posts

didn't have a distinctly patronising tone, i may have dropped this long ago... in any case if you are saying the municipal governements are now legally required by the federal government to clean it up, then yes, you were correct and I misunderstood. Incidentally, can I look up the references online somewhere?

[H2O Man]

177. "Patronising"?

You know, my best friends all tell me I have that problem .... so I'll admit to it. I did mention I grew up in a large Irish family. (grin) I try not to be patronizing, and am sorry if I came off that way.

I can tell you the case was U.S.v. AlliedSignol Inc N D NY., No 97-0436, 5/15/99. Heard by Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy in Binghamton. I don't have an internet sight; I've got the actual case in front of me. I worked with Mark Sullivan out of Pace, some with RFK, and a number of attorneys from EPA and DoJ. It was an intense experience. The attorneys for the numerous military industries made me seem humble! The case tested the EPA's MSW policy (1998).

The future for the clean-ups of even the most criminal of behaviors is now being placed on the victims of the crimes.

[Vladimir]

178. Thanks

I'll follow that up, its interesting.

[H2O Man]

180. Also, you might like

"Crimes Against Nature." I think it is the single best indictment of this administration I've read. What impresses me the most is that even most conservatives and republicans have concerns about the environment. There are obviously many serious and pressing issues facing us today. But we won't have the chance to confront them if we continue to follow the Bush policies on the environment. That, of course, includes the quality of the food that Americans are consuming. Bush & friends have done severe damage to the food that American children will be eatting for school lunches. Most of the mass-produced meat products are not fit to feed a cat or dog.

[Vladimir]

181. Is BSE a disaster waiting to happen in the States then?

I remember reading fast-food nation a few years back, it scared the shit out of me.

[H2O Man]

184. I think we face several

potential disasers relating to environmental issues. I think that Molly Ivan's "Bushwhacked" had chapters on beef that summed it up best: "feces is feces whether it'sfibrous or not ..."(pg 147) And Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" gives fair warning what new diseases we may face in the next decade.... not because an evil scientist creates them in a lab, but because of the stupidity and greed inherent in a mass-consumption society. We'll kill off the big organisms, and the tiny ones will kill us. The laws of nature are serious business.

[Vladimir]

186. Guns Germs and Steel has been sitting

on my table for a few months now. I should probably find the time to actually read it :)

[bread_and_roses]

217. It is excellent and a good read

as well. Among the most interesting examinations of the development of technology in different parts of the world that I've ever read (to quality, no expert here, just a lay reader of history/historical analysis/archeo & anthro pology, etc.). His analysis rests on geographic and plant/animal features of different environments - NOT on supposed innate or cultural "differences" of the humans inhabiting those environments. My summation makes it sound dry and boring, but I thought it a lively and interesting book.

[Kanary]

116. It's interesting that you describe the "most pressing problem"

as the environment.

People dying needlessly don't seem to register on your scale.

At least the Kennedys were more caring.

Kanary

[Selwynn]

126. Corporate "capitalism" is irreconcilable with the American Dream..

In fact, it is directly contrary to it. It is the slow and creeping death of liberty.

The fact that you can say that so far Capitalism seems to be working very well only indicates to me how blindly out of touch with reality you happen to be. American Corporate Capitalism is the reason the world is falling apart. It is the reason why billions and billions of the poorest in the world stay poor, it an accelerant to all of the worlds conflicts and tensions as we continuously push our agenda of global imperialism.

At home we have the capacity and the resources to elevate ALL of our poor out of poverty, provide the best education in the word free to our citizens, grantee a living wage and a place to live and health care for all, and we choose - we choose - not to do that, so that the wealthiest power elite can continue to exploit the working class for the sake of their multi-billion dollar fortunes.

Corporate Capitalism is the worst plague to ever be visited on man. It is far, far, far, from the hopes and visions of our founding fathers - in fact most of them specifically warned against the evils of corporatism and of greed run amok.

Sel

[flaminbats]

73. Is it time for a free market?

What is free market..anarchy, lawlessness,terrorism, economic chaos, corporate dictatorship, black markets, and crime families?

What is socialism...federal interest rates, a single government currency, federal copyright laws, regulation of interstate commerce, no taxation without representation, allowing people to have the same rights as corporations, public education, an Interstate Highway System, environmental protection, law and order, homeland security, hospitals for veterans, burning the government flag, denouncing a national God, the Internet, or not pledging allegiance to one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all? :shrug:

[SeattleJazz]

80. Agreed! Socialism has been here for a long, long time!

No, not to the degree seen in Europe. Then again, I am not sure Europe offers a good model. I don't want to pay 60% or 70% taxes just to have awful healthcare with waiting lists and beyond-horrible, beyond-HMO service, while the unemployment rate skyrockets, the government-dependent economy stagnates, and businesses slowly strangle under impossible overregulation.

I'm not saying I have the solution, and I am not saying we cannot do better. But just screaming "Socialism NOW!" is hardly a solution, either. Like Communism, Socialism has been tried in the laboratory of Europe, and the results have been mixed, if not downright terrible.

Since the days of the New Deal the U.S. has enjoyed Socialism Lite, and honestly, I think we've done pretty good.

[Solon]

84. Awful care in Europe?

PLEASE spare me, they still have HOME visits in Britian, when was the last time a doctor could spare time to see you at home when so disabled to not make it to the doctor's office?

[dumpster_baby]

86. I think you know you are wrong

you wrote:
No, not to the degree seen in Europe. Then again, I am not sure Europe offers a good model.


They would not trade their system for ours in a million years. Heck, Canadians live right next door to us; they know what our system is. Yet, when polled, over 90% prefer their system (universal healthcare ) to ours....



I don't want to pay 60% or 70% taxes just to have awful healthcare with waiting lists and beyond-horrible, beyond-HMO service, while the unemployment rate skyrockets, the government-dependent economy stagnates, and businesses slowly strangle under impossible overregulation.


Well, you won't pay 60% unless you make a lot of money. Personally, I would GLADLY pay the kind of taxes the Europeans pay--most people there pay just a little more than we do, and they get so much more. But you already knew that, right?

[Deja Q]

93. So you don't mind paying 60-70%+ of your income to the HMO that

gives you awful healthcare? And NO HEALTHCARE when you can't pay for it?

The US healthcare system is not exactly the best and the price is too high.

Sorry, but 'socialized medicine' is not an evil term nor an evil concept.

This all depends, of course, on one's income. Given how corporate america is socially engineering th middle class out of existence to create one gigantic lower class that can't possibly begin to support itself on those pathetic $7/hr wages (try $12/hr minimum)...

[Kanary]

111. 'Fraid you've bought the RW spin, meant to scare you. It worked.

Try actually *talking* to Europeans. There have been some posting here on DU. They are *Horrified* at what we are dealing with here in the US, and wouldn't trade their system for anything.

You think "we've done pretty good" because you aren't one who is in need. Try talking to some of us on the bottom rung. The needless suffering, not to mentiion the unnecessary deaths, are shameful for such a rich country.

I would hope your fellow citizens would matter to you, and not just your own interests. *THAT'S* the difference in Europe.

Kanary

[SeattleJazz]

151. Kanary

Go read one of my earlier responses to your "what about the poor people?!" cry.

First of all, I work for a damn hospital so I think I know what I am talking about when I talk about how good I think our healthcare in the U.S. is.

Second, I know what it's like to be poor. My wife is also a bad asthmatic, and the first year we were together we had no health insurance to speak of. Yeah, we had some big bills to pay for those asthma visits to the E.R. But damn I was sure glad the E.R. was available, along with all the medicines she needed, as well as an open room when they had to keep her for a few days. And plenty of doctors and nurses to go around.

Again, I've heard too many bad stories from ex-pats out of Europe who tell me that with all its problems, the U.S. healthcare system is preferable to the state systems of the Continent.

If we could find a way to socialize medicine and maintain our high doctor-patient ratio, or customer/provider service level, absolutely no waiting lists whatsoever, and taxes under 40%, then maybe I'd go for it. But I don't see it happening.

P.S: eventually we paid off our medical bills, and right now, my health insurance is subsidized almost entirely by my employer. And all it took was me getting a little bit of an education so that I could get a good job.

[Kanary]

246. Hurrah for you. NOt everyone can "make it". The system isn't built that

way.

And, yes, your info is incorrect.

RW spin.

Kanary

[flaminbats]

131. just ditch the Constitution, murder all Democrats, make Bush dictator...

and no more problems.

after all, why should the public have any say in how their tax dollars are spent? It isn't their government, it's the corporations' government.

Government should work like a corporation, the more you pay in taxes...the more representation you should receive. Why should public tax dollars be spent for what the ignorant majority wants anyway? Didn't those stupid dumb-asses vote fur Gore anyways? Who cares if you earned those tax dollars, the rich should own it all and deserve better military protection than the rest of us!

Too bad socialism is so damned free market, otherwise you might support it!
All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

[Bjornsdotter]

132. Awful health care?

....Strange, I've never had "awful" healthcare in Sweden.

Where exactly in Europe did/do you live?

Cheers,
Kim :toast:

[flaminbats]

133. Doesn't that poster live in Russia?

most neocons consider Russia to be dangerously socialist now that Communism is gone.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

262. do you mean me?

Krasnaya Lastochka? Well, no, I live in Oklahoma. I'm not even an ethnic Russian. However, my mind has taken up residence in Russia, and I have what I call "russkaya dusha", Russian soul

[flaminbats]

263. I fear not comrade...

soon we may all be drinking vodka and buried beneath layers of snow ;)

[Deja Q]

94. Uh, we have liberty and justice for all?!

We use the worst traits of both systems.

We need to start using the best traits.

[flaminbats]

101. no...

just suggesting that not pledging allegiance to one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all might be considered a form of socialism. :wow:

[Selwynn]

127. I agree - what we need however is just socialism, and more of it.

[camero]

75. Past Time

But it won't happen until people realize that the source of all wealth is from the earth itself, which is everyone's and no one person's in particular.

Some have come to this realization already, as some have nationalized their country's natural resources. It'll take a major calamity for this country to come to that realization.

[Kanary]

77. Chief Joseph was right.

Too bad we didn't listen.

Kanary

[Cascadian]

82. I advocate Democratic Socialism in America but with a difference.

The problem with regular Democratic Socialism that I have is we should not regulate people and we should not have huge centralized, bureaucratic services. These services should be streamlined and localized to better serve the population.

My view of Democratic Socialism would advocate social justice for all as well as quality education, sound and strong enviromental policies as well as a non-aligned America (meaning no more NATO!). The difference is I would advocate a more decentralized system as opposed to a monolithic bureaucratic agency or agencies to provide these things. I would want to see programs given out on a more localized system to better serve the people and they would run these agencies. I also firmly believe in personal liberties and a socialist democracy does not have to force people to conform and regluate. That is one of the downsides. I advocate freedom for the individual as long as they are not harming or infringing on anybody else. That must be maintained. However, if a person needs assistance and help then a safety net must be maintained.

In a nutshell, I am essentially a democratic-libertarian-socialist. All have there place in society.

John

[La Lioness Priyanka]

104. i am a socialist but i prefer capitalism to feudalism

best poster i saw at the protest....VOTE FOR KERRY!!!

[wadestock]

105. Capitalism only has to be TWEAKED...Clinton proved that...

This is the message that has been lost by the democratic party.

A REVOLUTION (of sorts) is NOT realistic. Yes I know when you see how bad it gets with W you can almost sign up for something like this....but think back to Clinton and realize that things can be tremendously improved just by getting W out and performing a number of smart "tweaks".

Tweak #1 - Taxes - You simply tweak the upper rate to 40% (or closer to 50% ideally). Just like magic, the great capitalistic machine starts reinvesting in its most important asset, the middle class. (Even more ideally would be to establish an upper upper rate on the 1/10th of 1% that would bring another boatload of money)

Tweak #2 - Social security - is not a good program overall and the dems should find a way to establish a good "means test". Phase out the belief that this is a "retirement system". Meanwhile a decent housing plan for the elderly could take the place of thinking that social security can house those elderly that have no other source of income.

Tweak #3 - Health care - Don't try to establish a non-profit plan or coverage for all, we'll never get it through. Be realistic. Start with what Edwards recommended as a good way to get things going....give preventative care to children. Then phase in adults. Preventative care is a wonderful investment that noone can argue with. It's good business sense.

Tweak #4 - Our decadent capitalistic behavior - Won't change over nite after 20 years of Reaganism....but we can start with Kerry's idea about taxing corporations that outsource. There's plenty of other tweaks that might help in general.

Tweak #5 - Education - Don't start with massive tax giveaways for college. Tweak it progressively up.

Tweak #6 - Defense and war on terror - We're going to be living with huge defense budgets well into the future, but the important tweak is to go on the defensive, not the offensive. Kerry will have this well in hand. Make incremental improvements in homeland security and airport security.

When we start to think in terms of chunks that are palatable, you'll find the general masses will begin to understand the notion that "government change can be good". Right now the masses have been brainwashed by Limbaugh et al into thinking that NO government is the solutions (of course we know this is a guise)....but the point is....get back on track to show these incremental improvements are beneficial....

[Kanary]

123. People died because of Clinton's "tweaks"

but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

That is the big difference between Europe and the US...... Europeans still have the old-fashioned notion of caring about others besides themselves.

Quaint.

Kanary

[wadestock]

134. Come again?

"People died because of Clinton's "tweaks" but that doesn't seem to matter to you".....

Yes people in Europe have it all over us in terms of culture. Socialism doesn't magically create culture.

You want to "save our system"....you do it the way I described...in tweaks...sorry to throw a wet rag on your post.

[wuushew]

136. Welfare reform was a huge mistake by Clinton

now that the benefits are running out we can see the magnitude of the error. Also the institution of welfare has to a large degree shifted to trying to get employement disability. This is a real pervesion of the system which undermines the needs of those who truly qualify for it.

Nixon was more liberal than Clinton on this issue as he actually proposed a negative income tax. That still is a great idea even though it was formulated by conservative loon Milton Friedman.

[wadestock]

139. TOTAL QUALITY approach is all I'm saying....

I said he proved that "tweaks" could work....especially in the vital area of tax tweaks. Notice how those modest tweaks up were responsible for about 1/3 of getting back to a balanced budget from what I've read. In the case of welfare reform he decided to meet the Republicans more in the middle, just a tweak in the wrong direction from your perspective.

Clinton as you know was an overachiever and wanted to go out with everyone giving him recognition paralleling JFK.....so yes...there were some "over the top" initiatives.

The point of this is that America can be turned around without expousing revolutionary change. I thought the greatest point in this is that through incremental improvements you can bring back credibility to the notion that government CAN do something right.

Pick up a book on Total Quality and you'll find that this is in fact how the best corporations turn "their ships around" and find out a way how to do better business. This is simply how we as a COUNTRY have to do business.

[Kanary]

247. When "saving this system" is coldly and calculatingly letting people die

then maybe it shouldn't be saved.

I never, ever thought I'd hear Dems be so cold-hearted. This is *VERY* upsetting.

No wonder so many people have started turning their backs on the Dems.

Kanary

[Right Makes Might]

108. Socialism does not equate with totalitarianism

It seems like many people are conflating the two. First off, why does the idea of working things out with others have to equal some sort of insect-like mass group think? Why is freedom defined as a negative - as the lack of having to listen to others? Does freedom from our responsibility to those we depend on to meet all our needs really equal freedom?

How about freedom from poverty? Freedom from the anarchy of the current economic system which makes $5000 segways for people who have nothing better to do than waste money while most of the world can't even get enough to eat?

Secondly, how many of us really feel fulfilled, as if we're living to our fullest potential or on the way there? Even for those of us relatively well off have to endure life-sucking work, not to mention the vast majority of humans who don't even have that.

Maybe it's time to work together and plan things out, rather than leaving it in the hands of people like Bush and his backers who don't give a shit about anything but their own self interests.

[Commendatori]

114. I would not socialize health care

I'm all for helping the poor, but I would never sign off on any plan that stopped me from choosing my own doctor, and I do not believe any politician (Democrats included) that promise a system where doctors make decisions instead of bureaucrats.

Setting up a system that provides insurance for people who can't afford it is a great idea. Herding the entire country into some huge crappy system is another. I have been in HMO plans, and knowing what I know, I am more than willing to spend the extra cash to see the doctor of my choice; I am not willing to support anyone who tells me that my choices and the quality of my health care has to be reduced to make it "fair" for everyone.

Regardless of what we're being promised by this politician or that, I guarantee you that it will be the government, not doctors, deciding if a treatment is authorized or not and / or if it is cost-effective, and I will never support such a system. That's WAY too much power to grant to any government.

[Right Makes Might]

115. Should you get your choice at the expense of others having any healthcare?

first off.

Second - if a government really is "of the people, by the people" you would have a say... you would actually be part of the decision making process.

[Commendatori]

119. Welcome to DU, but

oh, PLEASE.

Am I part in the decision making process as to where my tax money goes?

Also, should you get your choice of car to buy if others don't have cars?

What's wrong with just helping the people who NEED help instead of forcing everyone into one system?

[Right Makes Might]

130. You're certainly not part of any decisions now

under the current system, no. But for socialism to work, and not degenerate back into what we have, it would be utterly dependent on the full participation of every single person.

My gut feeling about someone wasting money when people are starving is anger tempered with understanding - we do the best we can. Many people don't get how much we are all linked, how the privileges we enjoy are built on the foundation of exploitation and suffering for the vast majority of the planet, and further, of our interdependence on each other. That understanding is the first step to changing all of that.

Pastor Neimoller (of the poem "First they came for the Communists... then when they came for me" fame) made a comment after being released from a concentration camp. He said that if he and other Protestants had spoken up maybe 10 thousand would have lost their heads, but that they could have saved millions. It's our responsibility to do what we can which is how history will (rightly) judge us, much in the same way the Germans were judged.



First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

- by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945


And thanks for the welcome :)

(Edit: I changed the version of the poem (there are multiple versions) to the one I believe is the original. Also, I thought he was a type of Protestant, but it appears that he wasn't. I remember he was a reactionary head of a religious organization who originally supported Hitler and the Nazi's until they tried to horn in on "his turf" and absorb his church into a state sponsored church with an ideology closely aligned with the Nazi's anti-Semitic, right-wing extremist program.)

[Nadienne]

140. How would socialized health care restrict anyone's choices for doctors?

Insurance companies limit the options of their customers. I am only covered if I visit certain doctors. It sounds like your complaints are more appropriate for the current health care system. Perhaps I am ignorant. Maybe you can help me understand...

[SeattleJazz]

143. Hear hear!

Exactly how I feel. The kind of socialism many here seem to advocate is the kind of socialism I am afraid of because it robs you of choices. If we can find a way to socialize so that I still get choices, fine. But it seems to me, in practical application, the more socialized a country gets, the fewer choices the public gets, in terms of healthcare, in terms of many different things.

[Selwynn]

266. Wow I'm seeing a huge ammount of "Ignoreds" in this chain....

...

[Nadienne]

138. So you favor a system where insurance companies make decisions

about your medical care?

[Commendatori]

142. Given only those two choices, yes, because

I'm still allowed to choose my own doctor. An insurance company will not arrest me and charge me for seeing a doctor not assigned to me. An insurance company will not fine me $5,000 for not having health insurance. I read Hillary's plan, and I believe that letting government run the show in a nationwide HMO system in which everyone is forced to participate would be as bad for the country as four more years of Bush.

Did you read the plan? It scared the shit out of me, and has deprived me of trust in the government for a national system. Let's just help the poor and, outside of tax money to finance such help, leave the people who don't need help the hell alone.

[Nadienne]

150. If socialized health care is really a nation-wide HMO

then I wouldn't be in favor of it, either. I was under the impression that socialized medicine cuts out the middle man (ie, insurance companies; you pay them, and they tell you when, if, and how much they pay you back for it).

If the government funds everyone's health, then the only reason a doctor would need to know who you are is so that they have access to your medical history. This is what I am in favor of. This is what I would call socialized health care...

[eridani]

248. Hillary's plan was NOT NOT NOT NOT socialized medicine, dammit!!

It was a huge government subsidy to large private insurance companies which involved begging them to pretty please insure more people. It was opposed by single payer activists and smaller insurance companies (they of Harry and Louise fame).

And why shouldn't you be forced to pay for health insurance? You are forced to pay property taxes for fire protection, either directly or through your landlord, and health insurance isn't the slightest bit different. The difference between Hillary's plan and single payer is that in the latter, you have 100% free choice of provider and it's a fraction of the cost since you don't have to subsidize a class of parasites.

[Commendatori]

252. "Subsidy"

A "subsidy" does not provide for jail terms of up to 15 years for getting health care outside your HMO. A "subsidy" does not dictate the number of doctors of certain specialties within a given geographical area. A "subsidy" would not fine people $5,000 for failing to join or $5,000 for being late on premium payments.

Please read the plan, as I have, before telling me what it is.

As for being forced to buy health insurance, why not force people to have fire insurance as well? Why not force them to buy meal cards, so as to ensure proper nutrition every day (thus putting less strain on the health care system? Why not force smokers to buy nicotine patches? Sure, car insurance is mandatory, but driving is listed as a privilege, whereas living is not. Since you've decided to list "property taxes for fire protection (as if that's all they're used for)" to support making a good idea a mandatory one, why not go the extra mile and force kids, through the powers of government, to take a vitamin and eat at least one 16-oz bowl of a government-approved soup every day?

Just because an idea is good doesn't automatically mean the government should force it on everyone. Being forced to wear seat belts may be a good idea, but my sister's husband died because of one. There are people who have enough money to afford accidents that choose not to buy insurance - it may be stupid, but as long as they're paying taxes to help the poor I don't give a shit what they do with their money. I'd rather simply have the government help the poor and leave the rest of us alone; if you want the government forcing behavior on people, more power to you, but eventually there will be some new law that really cuts into a freedom you care about.

[eridani]

261. You are forced to pay for the fire department already

Try not paying your property tax and see what happens to you. No different from being forced to pay for the means to save people who are having heart attacks or banged up in car wrecks. Very few people ever have fires. Getting expensively sick is somewhat more likely than having a fire, but those people are still a minority. If you want service in the event of serious illness available to you, you should be required to pay for it.

[rman]

141. What makes you think you could not choose

your own doctor, under socialized healthcare?

"Socialized" simply means that society shares the cost of keeping society healthy. In the end we all pay something for healthcare anyway, be it socialized or privitized. The question is whether or not there should be a middle man who makes a fortune on taking care of people's health; whether some significant part of the money we spoon up for healthcare (part of taxes) should end up in the pockets of a few, or whether it should be spend on actual health care.

[Commendatori]

147. Under ideal conditions, sure.

But look at what they tried in 1993. Check out the fines and what they're for. Fifteen years in jail for getting health care outside of your HMO?

There's only so far I want the government's foot in the door. I ask again: what's wrong with just helping those who need it and leaving those who don't alone?

[Commendatori]

254. Did you read the Hillary plan?

Under that plan, not only would you have not had a choice of your own doctor, but you would have been subjected to a prison term of up to 15 years for getting health care from a doctor you were not authorized to see. Read the plan - it's frightening. That was enough to make me never trust the idea of a mandatory plan again.

[flaminbats]

144. I doubt you'll have to worry about government doctors anytime soon!

This is why Kerry's plan is the best way to start. It has the support of southern Democrats like John Breaux, and it allows the uninsured to buy into the same variety of high quality plans that members of Congress now have. And unlike the Bush-Cheney plan, these insurance companies couldn't set premiums or deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

In other words..Kerry, not Bush, agrees with you on this!

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=137&contentid=252792

[Commendatori]

149. What does Bush have to do with this?

I'm not for the Bush plan to begin with. All I've said from the start is that I am for helping the poor, but for leaving everyone else alone. I do not want any part of a plan in which ewveryone is forced to participate, which the 1993 plan would have been.

[flaminbats]

162. Good...

then you'll love the Kerry plan!

If you don't want Federal Health benefits, you can stay uninsured...otherwise you can voluntarily participate. What does Bush have to do with this? The Bush plan forces people with pre-existing conditions to go without coverage or to have only crappy options.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/08/08_530.html

[Commendatori]

166. To be honest, I wasn't even aware that

Bush was offering one. He's lost so much GOP support for his guest-worker plan and Medicare expansion that I never imagined he'd support any "bullshit income redistribution program" like helping the poor in any form; it's not like he has much of his base left.

I'm all for helping the poor, but once you get my tax money, leave ME the fuck alone. That 1993 plan was so bad that I found myself agreeing with Republicans on a social issue, and the thought of it still haunts me.

Appreciate the link.

[flaminbats]

179. so you believe people with medical problems shouldn't buy healthcare?

That was the Republican position in 1994. No compromise, no moderation, and no private sector options for those who need them the most. Republicans rabidly opposed the Cooper-Grandy approach, and even pissed on the moderate proposals put together by John Chaffee and Bob Dole. In other words, Republicans don't believe in economic freedom, they just want your money...and wonder why you should expect anything in return! :smoke:

[Commendatori]

183. Hell, no, I'm not for that either.

That's the second reference to Republicans throw at me today (the other was about Bush's plan), and it leads me to wonder: does my thinking that Hillary's plan was a pile of shit automatically make me a Repug?

I don't know how many times I have to say this: help the poor, leave everyone else alone. I'm all for the poor getting health care, I am against everyone in the nation being forced into a plan.

Is this the only acceptable outcome to Democrats - that everyone be forced into a mandatory plan? Why can't we just help those who need help and leave other people alone?

[flaminbats]

200. earth calling blueoyster...

Is this the only acceptable outcome to Democrats - that everyone be forced into a mandatory plan? Why can't we just help those who need help and leave other people alone?

Try reading the Kerry plan, then you might understand it is entirely voluntary. Not one element of the Kerry plan is manditory, unlike the Bush plan which forces employers into unregulated healthcare options.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=103&subid=111&contentid=251186

And I thought we were agreeing on this issue! :eyes:

[Commendatori]

203. I was actually referring to your references to

Bush and Republicans, whom I don't support.

As for the Kerry proposal, let me be honest: it sounds good, but I do not believe that this is what will actually be put up for vote. Republican or Democrat, I believe politicians on both sides want more control over health care than this. This would not be the first time people were fed a line during a campaign.

This is why I'm so hell-bent on this point: no mandatory system. Kerry gets my vote no matter what, because he's running against an asshole, but that doesn't mean I believe what Kerry says - it only means I think he'd be better by default.

[flaminbats]

213. I agree that just believing any politician is a bad idea...

this is why we have elections. If politicians run on an agenda, but fail to deliver..we can always throw them out!

I see the Kerry-Breaux healthcare plan as an understanding that even with a Democratic Congress, the Clinton healthcare plan could not pass. This is an agenda based on the priorities of most Americans, while having support from the more conservative elements of our party.

[Commendatori]

216. I hope you're right, because another

failed attempt to pass horrifying crap like they tried in 1993 will be nothing more than a waste of time, and nothing will get done at all.

I've always believed that health care is a carrot on a stick for politicians to hang in front of us - we've had so much time to do something about it, and nothing ever gets done. It's a lot easier and more lucrative to run on promises of health care than it is to fix the problems.

Part of me thinks the 1993 plan was designed to tank for that very reason, and part of me thinks that neither Kerry nor Bush intend to really solve the problem at all - if we're lucky, you're right and this theory of mine is wrong. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

[wuushew]

218. What are your solutions to improving healthcare in this country?

n/t

[Commendatori]

223. The most concrete thing I can say

is what I've said: help the poor, but leave everyone else alone. I'd have some sort of task force to study options, but given the choice between our current mess and a system where everyone had to participate, I'd stick with what we have now and not rush into anything. Whatever we do, I want it to be a good bill that only helps people who NEED help.

[flaminbats]

227. So you don't support the Kerry plan...

by the way, it's the middleclass and uninsured workers who want help the most..not just the poor.

Many middleclass people can't get insured because of a pre-existing condition. Most low income workers aren't covered by Medicaid because they aren't on Welfare.

As a result these people are accumulating massive debts, and going without basic healthcare. If there anything more important or essential to protecting human life than having good health?

[Commendatori]

251. Please...

...that last sentence could and probably will be used to push the Bush plan as well. All I have been trying to do is say that I am against any mandatory plan, and now it's gone from having Republicans thrown into my face to having cliches thrown into my face.

As I have stated before, I do not believe Kerry's promises of this plan. I also don't think he could get something like that past a Republican congress, and he certainly couldn't get it past the Republicans if they keep the Senate. I believe the end version of the Kerry plan will be something mandatory. If I am wrong, I will probably support the plan. If I am right, I will not. If the government tells me that I have to sacrifice more tax dollars to help the poor get care, so be it, but I am not willing to sacrifice choice. How many different ways do I have to say that before people realize that what I am saying is not for or against any currently existing plan?

I have not been discussing the Kerry plan. All I have been saying is that I am against anything mandatory. Do I really need to start using caps to get that across?

This is unbelievably frustrating - it would have been better just to say "hell, yeah, any health care is good health care, and let the government tell me who my doctor is." It would have been a lie, but it wouldn't have led to such a repetitive discussion.

I will now say this one last time: I am all for helping the poor with health care, as long as it does not involve a plan in which everyone must participate. I am not referring to any currently suggested plan, although I have said (and maintain) that Hillary's plan was crap that deserved to get buried.

The above statement should not be taken as an endorsement or slam towards any currently existing plan, as I have not read any of them cover-to-cover as I did with Hillary's plan years ago. I am simply saying, again, that while I favor providing the poor with health care, I am against mandatory plans, and no cliche on health or protecting human life will automatically make me endorse a plan that I am not 100% familiar with and / or don't like.

Lastly, just in case I have not been clear: helping poor - good. Mandatory plan - bad.

[flaminbats]

264. What do you define as a mandatory plan?

please try and be fair, I have not thrown Republicans in your face. I have compared and contrasted the Kerry and Bush plans on healthcare. I have not accused you of being wrong, merely asked what you do or don't like about the Kerry-Breaux approach.

You stated that you have not read any of the healthcare plans, yet at every possible chance I have posted links that allow you to read every detail of these plans! Here is another opportunity to read the details of this approach to healthcare reform, a plan that Kerry originally picked up from Senator Breaux.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=103&subid=111&contentid=251186
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252792&kaid=111&subid=137

In regards to your premise on opposing the Kerry plan, because you don't believe him and it can't pass the Republican Congress...why even vote if this is how you feel? The reason I support Kerry is because I want a Democrat who will block the radical agenda of this Republican Congress and because Bush is a lier. One more time..the Kerry reform is not mandatory, it allows ANYONE who WANTS healthcare to VOLUNTARILY buy into the Federal Employees health plan. It does not force anyone who doesn't want it to have it..ie it does not force you to buy health insurance!


This approach has been studied, and endorsed by groups like FamiliesUSA and the DLC. Finally, when helping the poor...the middle-class and working class always pay the goddamn bill! Don't those who pay these taxes also deserve some help in return..when they want it?

[flaminbats]

219. don't just keep your fingers crossed...

hold these damned politicians accountable. If you support the Kerry plan, vote for him in 2004. If Congress doesn't pass it, vote against members that voted against the plan. Don't just hope for the best, make these bastards earn their pay! After all, it's our tax money....

Democracy only works when we all participate, the same is true in the private sector. The Clinton plan failed not because it was a massive government takeover, not because Clinton failed to find middle ground on that issue. It failed only because most voters didn't get involved!

[Vladimir]

156. But the NHS seems to work reasonably well

sure, there are problems here and there but its telling that in Britain, even those with private healthcare get sent by their insurance providers to the NHS for the real emergencies...

In any case, if you are an NHS user you can always pay extra to get one-off consultations or testing with any doctor you like.

[Commendatori]

169. Go to the BBC's website and search under "nhs."

Last time I checked it, all I got was links about this shortage, that shortage, this inadequacy, etc.

I still insist: help the poor, leave everyone else alone.

[Vladimir]

172. But it does leave you alone

it includes a right to choose your general practicioner by registering at their surgery, and change if you are not happy. Within a medium sized surgery you normally have the choice of 4 or 5 doctors and you can pick which one you see on a visit per visit basis. If you need to see a specialist, you are referred to one by your general practitioner, and you can even ask for a second opinion if the consultant you are sent to does not satisfy you. And as I say, you can pay extra to see any doctor you like, no waiting. The poor don't have as much choice as the rich, of course, but that would hardly be different under any system. As for the problems, yeah they exist, but value for money terms its spectacular - remember that the very top rate of tax in Britain is only 40%. I am not saying its perfect or even how I would model a health service, just that it can be done and work well.

[Commendatori]

175. It's certainly better than what Hillary wanted, but

are you sure about "you can pay extra to see any doctor you like, no waiting?" I believe that this is incorrect, plus the top tax rate you quote does not include the 10% for NHS.

Further, is NHS membership mandatory?

[Vladimir]

176. It is mandatory

But as I have already said, for emergecies you get sent to it by your service provider anyway. If you have a BUPA (popular private-health care provider) plan on top of your NHS one, they will send you to the NHS for any serious operations. There is no private health care provider in Britain who will take care of all operative and otherwise care that you may need because there is no real market for one. The reason why its mandatory is a redistributative one, i.e. so that you fund the poor being able to go and see a doctor. But you never have to see an NHS doctor if you don't want to.

I am certain of the paying extra business - I used it when I had a mild concussion and didn't want to wait a month for a head scan. I phoned up in the morning and was offered a scan that afternoon.

Incidentally, in Austria the system is even more what you would like. You go to a general practitioner of your choice, they refer you to a consultant of your choice and you get a refund from the state for the bill. It works pretty well.

PS you are right about the tax, I forgot the national insurance contribution is separate from the income tax here. But even so its not horrific.

[Commendatori]

182. Then I'd vote for Austria's system.

I didn't realize that you actually lived in England, so I'll take your word for the paying extra business, although my question focused on "no waiting," not the actual option to pay extra for better care.

I had HMO care for a while, and would never sacrifice being able to choose my own doctor to go through that shit again. I want the poor to be covered, but I'm not willing to join any mandatory health care program to do it or see my daughter forced into one. I want my daughter to outlive me. :) Austria's system seems passable, as long as there are some common sense controls on it that would prevent people from (for example) using ambulances as taxi services or demanding Viagra as a "right." I'm willing to pay more in tax to get people healthy, but not to get people laid.

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to support or vote for a mandatory system, even if they're happy with one in England.

[Vladimir]

185. Hey, your choice

its a free society, right? The Austrian system also involves an element of mandatory payments as a tax (of course, how else to redistribute) but as I say you have near total choice over your doctors. And no, you can't use ambulances as taxi services and the like, although I expect Viagra is available for free if you are impotent. Thing is, once you accept that you need a certain amount of tax to ensure the poorer elements of society get care, we are arguing over details, not principle. Me, I think choice is overrated, but that's why we vote.

PS To clarify further, in England you don't wait if you go private and have the cash, you just jump the queue if you like. This is because most consultants work part time for the state and part time private for extra money. You do wait with the state system though its never very long. For example:

To see a random general practitioner (gp) at your surgery: same day

To see a specific gp: can be same day in an emergancy, usually 2-3 days

How long you wait for a consultant varies wildly - there are plenty of horror stories but one must remember that only the horror stories ever get reported.

[Commendatori]

197. Choice is big with me

I've got to pay anyway, so I WILL pick my own doctor and my daughter's. The idea of our federal government forcing the entire country into one plan is completely abhorrent to me.

You wrote:

"To see a specific gp: can be same day in an emergancy, usually 2-3 days"

When I was in an HMO, I was unaware that I had acid reflux disease and thought my constant chest pains were something else. I tried to make an appointment and was told that my waiting time to see a cardiologist was going to be 13 days (!). Not willing to wait, I walked straight into the emergency room with my complaint. I cost myself $1400 or so, but it was worth every cent for the peace of mind.

You guys seem to have worked out some of the kinks, but I imagine it would be a nightmare here. With high waiting times, people will fake emergencies (I didn't fake mine, but I did overstate how much pain was involved). At least you still have SOME choice, though. What we almost got in 1993 would have deprived us of any, and threatened us with jail terms of up to 15 years if we got "unauthorized" health care.

It was around 1990 that I became a Democrat. That 1993 health plan almost made me register Independent.

[Vladimir]

201. I'm sure it would be a nightmare

all I'm saying is under certain circumstances, it could be done. The NHS is under constant attack here over choice, its a very very pertinent battle. They are reforming it to introduce even more choice into the system, but I think it will hurt the quality of healthcare that those who can't pay extra recieve. We shall see.

[Commendatori]

208. I appreciate the info, BTW

No political issue is more important to me than choice in health care; the day the government gets to tell me who gets to operate on me, much less my daughter, is the day I either become a criminal or leave the country.

[Vladimir]

210. Anytime n/t

[Selwynn]

129. The key my friends is J U S T I C E and M O R A L I T Y in government

If the hearts and minds of men and women in society were just and honorable, capitalism would work because there would be an inherent sense of self-regulation that says, "I care about making money and being financially successful, but not at the expense of healthy relationships to others, compassion, or good stewardship in my community."

If the hearts and minds of men and women would work, there would by default be more socialist principles in action. People would naturally work together to give quality education to all, and health care and good roads, etc.

The problem we face is that any system eventually fails without justice and morality at its center. Period. The very best systematic theory of governance falls apart under the weight of its own corruption without the presence of justice. Capitalism if not corrupted, would in fact have a heart - and it would in fact take care of the people, and it would by simple definition of justice include some socialist ideals of caretaking and concern of other members of society. Likewise, socialism if not corrupted, would in fact take care of the people and it would by simple definition of justice include some capitalist, i.e. free-er market ideals of opportunity and advancement.

The problem is not which system is better, the problem is which system better protects the people from corruption? In this world, all a governmental system is really about is protecting the masses from the bad men and women who seek to exploit them. There will be no perfect utopia - probably ever. But there will also not be another significant advance or breakthrough in societal evolution until JUSTICE and MORALITY are once more made the fundamental underpinnings of any new theory of government.

Capitalism without justice is evil - and that is what we have today. Socialism without justice is evil - and that is what we have seen in times past. What is missing, is justice.

[Cats Against Frist]

145. No.

Period. The biggest mistakes we've ever made is giving the government power -- on the left and the right. The welfare state, the police state -- all of it. I am a former state socialist, and I've seen the light.

The idea that you must protect others from themselves, is an impulse both behind the welfare state, as well as censorship, religious-right social engineering, protecting "the family," and all other programs where someone else attempts to decide what's good for everyone.

When the GOP spouts off about personal responsiblity, it makes me want to ralph, because not only are they hypocrites, but they're using it to blame those who receive entitlements.

I am for another kind of "personal responsibility," and that would be the "personal responsibility" of the middle classes, who basically hand-delivered their government and their resources into the hands of corpo-fascists, because of their greed, sloth, ignorance, laziness, prurience and instant gratification -- and the fact that they're chained hand and foot to the constructs of consumerism.

The rich didn't come and STEAL our money. The poor are not all noble. This is a complex situation, and the "memes" of the left and right are just useless propaganda. It is largely the middle class, the "worker drones," etc., that are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for lack of stewardship of their democracy, and their own lifestyles being driven by purchasing any bells and whistles that the ruling class puts out there. How do you think wealth got concentrated? How do you think the government became bought by the corporations? Without the middle class playing a LARGE role in this system, this system would never have come to be.

I am tired of saving the middle class from itself. As they march through the revolving door of Wal-Mart and purchase goods that are irresponsibly made, by irresponsible corporations that destroy the environment, treat workers like piss, and horde their wealth away from taxation and being pumped back in to help out the nation. As they watch stupid television shows, and beat themselves up because they're too fat, or their nose is too long, or they don't have three-toned psycho alien hair like some pop star.

Those of us on the left who want a little decency, a little maturity, a little transcendence, are always looking to the government to make more laws to solve the problem -- when the power is and has been in the hands of the PEOPLE, all along.

Putting too much power into government might help you feed the poor and protect the spotted owl, but the flip side of that is the police state, censorship, religious whack-jobs who want to re-write the Constitution, pre-emptive war, jail time for "consentual crime," etc.

I am with the left on outcome. I do not believe in social darwinism, racial/sexual inequality, I believe that gays should be able to enter into the same legal marriage contracts as heterosexuals, I believe in saving the environment, fair wages, health insurance for all, etc. -- but I don't believe the way to do this is to centralize everything and give the government more money and more power.

I think the answer is to DEcentralize, and boycott, and strike, and refuse to participate in any of the bullshit that goes against your principles. I know some of it is hard, and like one of the original respondents, I would prefer that energy, telecom and healthcare be nationalized, and everything else be a "free for all."

The middle class has the numbers. And they're slacking off on their responsibility. I think the time has come to end the government protections for the middle class. Maybe things will get worse, but maybe they'll get up off their asses, and do something about it.

[Right Makes Might]

157. Exactly - power must be in the hands of the people.

That's what a truly socialist government is - but, as was said earlier, under ideal conditions. We have to make sure that the government really is "of the people" then the state will equal the people.

[Nadienne]

167. Maybe getting off their asses and doing something about it

includes a revolution that leads to socialism... :)

[IrateCitizen]

170. Wow! That's quite a rant -- and many things I agree with...

If you take the time to read my post #164 below, you might get the idea that I share much of the angst that you do regarding increased centralization as the solution to our problems. However, I do think that one thing needs to be mentioned with regards to the "current state of affairs" and the middle class.

The centralization of government that took place during the Progressive Era was largely the result of the centralization of business interests that took place during the Gilded Age. And if they had NOT taken place with their culmination of FDR's New Deal and Truman's Fair Deal, there wouldn't even BE much of a middle class in this country.

That being said, I sadly find that I agree with your assessment of the American middle class almost 100%. The term "citizen" has been largely replaced by that of "consumer". The only freedom that matters to most people is the freedom to shop for more cheap junk and trinkets they don't need made by the hands of children in third world sweatshops. The same people who rant about those on welfare receive generous tax deductions for mortgage interest and health insurance costs. It's enough to drive you crazy if you think about it long enough.

Is there anything that can wake them up in time? I'm not hopeful. Personally, I think that the best we can do is for those of us who see these problems to take steps to re-orient our lives in accordance with our values, and to seek out others looking to do the same. The best case scenario is that, over time, enough people make this shift that we are able to turn this car around before it runs off a cliff. Worse would be that we at least have our alternative systems in place with the whole deal collapses. Worst case would be being overrun by armed Freepers after the collapse, but I don't think I'd want to be around for long after that, anyway.

[Selwynn]

202. In world where utopia is not possible, centralization is the only option

...a social government that regulates and restricts power and grantees certain basic rights to citizens is the worst form of government... except for every single other option out there, including anarchy.

Maybe one day we will be in a place where people can govern themselves, but until that time, a structure of socialistic democracy is the best of bad choices. Life would be far worse under your decentralized ideal today than it would be under a more centralized progressive government. Why? Because America is full of vehemently corrupt power-brokers and the only thing standing between them and the total domination of every working class citizen is the broken down sickly government we currently have.

Decentralization of federal government is just basically code for the total exploitation of corporations over people at the state level. That is why every big business lobbyist is for smaller federal government - because it is ten times easier to manipulate and control state government. And if you are talking about a larger revolution in our system of government, doing away with federal and state governments, then I must say I don't believe we are in a place where we can function in such a structure. That structure would be preferable and best *if* the hearts and minds of human beings were noble and pure. But they are not. The result of such a system is the people with the most power would horde to themselves every resource at the expense of everyone else and everyone else would have no recourse and no protection - other than violence.

No, in an imperfect world, a large socially oriented federally strong progressive government is the best we can hope for.

[IrateCitizen]

253. I never said that change should come immediately, Selwynn

I'm not a Trotskyist, so I don't necessarily believe in the idea of immediate, sudden, shocking change -- the equivalent of smashing all the existing institutions in the naive belief that better ones will immediately be formed in their place.

I would think that from the above post I made along with my post about values that it would be clear that I view such a change as being a long-term one. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't start working toward one right now, with the obvious first step being the basic values of decency by which we live with one another.

[Selwynn]

260. I didn't say you did. I just don't think change will come at all.

Not change that somehow allows us to exist in a decentralized world and call it anything remotely near "just."

[Selwynn]

190. So... libertarianism, then?

[IrateCitizen]

198. That's not at all what I'd derive from that post, Selwynn

The initial post was obviously filled with a great deal of outrage -- and much of it righteous, IMHO. However, much of the "decentralization" discussed is a main tenet of some pretty good schools of thought on instigating meaningful social change.

I would suggest you check out Social Power and Political Freedom by Gene Sharp. You might find some pretty interesting ideas in it along the lines of decentralizing power in order to give ordinary people more control over their lives. It probably comes much closer to achieving true social democracy or democratic socialism than any ideas for simply forcing change on the existing socioeconomic system.

[Selwynn]

204. I do not believe the human race can currently handle...

..the decentralization of power.

I respond to you up above with a more detailed explanation of why I think that.

[Nadienne]

155. Yes.

I, for one, am tired of watching good people exhaust themselves working their asses off "for the man".

I am tired of watching greedy, manipulative, lazy liars get rewarded for screwing over their customers and their employees.

I am tired of being warned about biting the hand that feeds me. MY OWN HANDS FEED ME. They feed me, and they make a rich man richer.

I am tired of watching politicians protect the wealthy - always at the expense of the working class. Their huges gains always come at the expense of the working class. You can't get something from nothing; someone pays for everything.

It's time for change. And I am with you.

[wurzel]

158. Socialism distributes poverty. Capitalism concentrates wealth.

What works is "managed capitalism". What we had here after WW11 until the Reagan tax cuts. Without private enterprise wealth will not be created. Without strong unions and a welfare state wealth will not be distributed.

[H2O Man]

161. Good post.

My father was from the CCC generation. He used to tell me that poverty shouldn't make people weak. Most people who are defined as "poor" in our country live at a far higher standard of living than most people in the past.

[IrateCitizen]

168. I wouldn't describe it as that simple, actually....

What we had post-WWII until the Reagan Years was largely the result of the US being the source of over half of the world's productive capacity. Certainly, the presence of unions and government programs helped, but they could not be sustained indefinitely. The Reagan Years primarily represented the decision this country made when forced to choose between a broad, prosperous middle class and the rich being able to remain that way. Prior to that, America was able to have BOTH.

John Kenneth Galbraith has some interesting thoughts on all of this. All the way back in the 1950's he was warning against the obsession that we had with "increasing production" along with the "manufacturing of desires" to sustain this constantly increasing production. Problem was, his theories did and continue to go against the prevailing "conventional wisdom" (a term he coined himself), so they are automatically discounted. But I would say that they might be even more needed today than they were back in the boom of the 1950's.

Please read my post #164 below and let me know what you think. It helps to address the groundwork needed for much of what someone like Galbraith puts forward in the way of economic philosophy.

[wurzel]

224. Reagan's tax cuts change behavior.

When tax rates were 75% on the rich, they would just as soon give this 75% in wages and deductible benefits like health care to workers. It also controlled salaries of CEOs. Reagan's tax cuts meant they got to keep 75%. And they did! And keeping 75% made it well worth their while to drive their incomes up as high as today.

[Selwynn]

191. Also known as socialist democracy.

[IrateCitizen]

164. I'd settle for a significant shift in values first...

The US is experiencing many of the negative effects of crony capitalism because it has increasingly become a society based on a rather perverse value system. We are largely conditioned to think of everything in individualistic terms rather than looking at our lives from a more collectivist standpoint. This is why the "great men of industry" of America such as J. Pierpont Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, Averill Harriman, etc. are largely lauded despite the fact that they built their fortunes by breaking the backs of those "beneath" them while simultaneously seeking to circumvent both the law and common decency. It's also why figures such as Eugene V. Debs and Emma Goldman, despite their prominence in the social movements around the turn of the 20th century, can only be found in "alternative" compilations of history such as Howard Zinn's landmark work, A People's History of the United States.

The problem with socialism as a theory is actually the same as the one that exists with capitalism, or any other "ism". All of them are material dialectics. Marx had little faith in the "masters of capital", but why on earth would he profess such greater faith in the proletariat so long as they continued to operate from the same material-driven value system?

It won't be until we substitute cooperation for competition, compassion for exploitation, charity for selfishness, farsightedness for blindness born from hubris, and giving for greed that we will be able to move past these kinds of debates and instead realize the dream of a more just society. Personally, I tend to believe that the economy that would result from a society driven by these more positive values would be naturally more socialistic in nature -- perhaps even communitarian on many levels. But I also don't think that somehow imposing a more socialistic system on people without working to change the way in which they view the world around them will actually solve anything. Just look at the wonders it did for the Soviets....

[H2O Man]

173. Very well said!

Very impressive. Reminds me of Rev. King saying that we need to move beyond the triplets of materialism, militarism, and racism. Yes, we need to have a change in tactics in our federal, state and local governments. We also need to change our behaviors in our homes and our daily lives.

[Selwynn]

193. Exactly what I was trying to say in my post about Justice and Morality

If your words help drive the point home more than mine, I welcome that.

PS - I realize miss seeing your posts IC.

[wurzel]

234. Decent societies produce decent people..

Decency has to be incorporated into laws or traditions. It cannot be left to individuals. However well meaning. Laws and traditions control the manufacture and distribution of wealth. Once these laws and traditions come under control of a few people, no matter what the "system", the result will be an indecent society such as developed in Russia, and now in the USA. The only successful system I have ever seen is where there is a balance of power among government, owners, and workers. This was the USA in the sixties. It is now France. This is why France is so hated by Global Corporations and this Administration. France is the closest thing in the Western World to a "Jeffersonian Democracy' of small urban businesses and small rural farms. And it works.

[UdoKier]

188. The lack of socialism isn't the biggest problem.

A socialist system would be just as compromised if it were infested with the kind of corrupt, craven people that typify today' society.

Without a common, genuine belief in the good of society at large, neither socialism nor our version of capitalism can work correctly.

I think it's time to spend a LOT more time on civics and ethics classes in school.

People need to understand that there are other standards of behavior besides the 10 commandments.

And personally, I'd rather TV were to censor programs that gorify cynicism and exploitation of people, rather than nudity or swear words.

The biggest problem is that in today's society, idealism is nearly dead.

[TX-RAT]

192. Never

[barb162]

194. Scandinavia system

is pretty good in my opinion. At least have a protectionist capitalist system ( to protect jobs) with social programs like health care, ss, ETC., included. I WOULD RESCIND THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS RE LOSS OF AMERICAN JOBS.

[Elginoid]

207. give it about another 8 years of republican rule...

and the peasants will be storming the bastille.

[barb162]

215. on cnn

during this RNC coverage, the DNC is running these good ads showing an empty factory with Bush's voice talking how great the economy is doing, how the economy is turning the corner and they run in big print over the empty factory scenes how many jobs have been lost under Bush. Capitalism in its most rapacious form sincethe 1920s is in effect now in this country.

[donkeyotay]

222. Hey Krasnaya, great post

I agree with your assessment that 1)capitalism has become self-destructive and 2) socialism was (deliberately) made into a dirty word.

Folks are afraid of it, but I think the destructive force of corporate rule is a much greater threat, at least for now, than any posed by a "socialist-democratic grass roots regime change," and I'm with you.

[flaminbats]

249. Is there any difference between the compassionate neocon and a communist?

From the "Essential Works of Lenin"...

That is why we have a right to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state; we must emphasize the protracted nature of this process and its dependence upon the rapidity of development of the higher phase of communism; and we leave the question of length of time, or the concrete forms of the whithering away, quite open, because no material is available to enable us to answer those questions.

The state will be able to wither away completely when society can apply the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," ie, when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social life and when their labor is so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability.

There will then be no need for society to make an exact calculation of the quantity of products to be distributed to each of its members; each will take freely "according to his needs."

Both claim that government is not the solution, but the problem. Both claim society could reach a point in which government is simply not needed. Both have blown the size of government to the point of insolvency in both Russia and the U.S..

[jtjathomps]

250. What about a $100/hour minimum wage? Why not? /NT

[F4 Pilot]

255. Life

Living under any idealogy sucks.

Human born to be free... Communism, Socialism, Capitalism,Islamism,Christianism are not good ways to depend on for life. Independence is what we need. and our mind can tell what to do...

[BonjourUSA]

269. We should talk about this idea with examples.

and we have to be clear about vocabulary : Communism means abolition of the private property. The state is the owner of all means of production and soil.

I can only talk about France system (even if it is not very different of other European ones) with two examples.
Public utilities : let's imagine I choose to live in the mountain, in a lost place. Electicité de France (public company of electicity) has to built a power line for me and I'll pay the same price if I lived in the center of Paris. That's the same for the phone.

Health : I can freely choose my doc, close to my home or anywhere else. I'll try to find the best one or this one I believe the best. This doc ask me a check or cash and I'll receive this money in return by the social security. If I need to stop my job because I'm too sick for working I'll receive 100% of my wage. if I have to go to hospital for a surgery, I can choose my hospital and my surgeon, I'll pay nothing at all (that's a little more complicated but the result is the same).

We live in a social-democracy, or in a socialist system as you like

[flaminbats]

274. Marx considered the state to be a parasite of freedom...

Communists believed in abolishment of the central state, and like Republicans, claimed local control should remain in the hands of the Commune.

"The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon and clogging the free movement of society. By this one act it would have initiated the regeneration of France...The Communal constitution brought the rural producers under the intellectual lead of the central towns of their districts, and there secured to them, in the workingmen, the natural trustees of their interests. The very existence of the Commune is involved, as a matter of course, local municipal liberty, but no longer as a check upon the now superseded state power."

[The Hair in my Nose]

270. Time for Socialism?

Never happen with a Congress full of multi-millionaires!

[dudeness]

271. as part of the "working class"

my attachment to the left of politics comes out of personal experience and has only become more entrenched through age.
labels ( socialism,capitalism ) are nice reference points for debate, but are somewhat meaningless to the less politically inclined. People have basic requirements to lead lives with some form of dignity..healthcare..education..employment..political freedom and more. What is required from our political leadership is the formation of a society that cares for one another, is non- exploitative and respect the human rights of all..neither capitalism or communism (in the forms we have seen these manifest themselves in) deliver that to the majority of people..if the name of political system that delivers these outcomes is called socialism, then in fact I am a socialist..

[Darranar]

276. Well, it depends on what one considers "socialism"...

socialism, to me, is the orienting of the economy to benefit the workers rather than the owners through high worker influence on the economy, generally through worker influence on company decisions and/or strong market regulation by a democratic government. This I wholeheartedly support.

Governments are, frankly, generally representative of the powerful classes in society, those with the most influence. The result of this is generally governments whose main interest is backing these powerful classes, which of course only makes those powerful classes even more powerful, and the cycle repeats itself. This is illustrated well by the system in the US today; subsidies and bailouts for corporations abound, as does massive spending for, say, the military, which in the end counts as little more than corporate welfare (both for those who are paid for military development and those who benefit from the military's actions around the world.) Concessions are, however, granted to the general populace, especially in those nations which have a variety of democratic forms (the US, for instance). This is done to silence dissent and prevent an overthrow of the system.

The solution to this problem is to, rather than let the government become subservient to these interests (which in the modern corporate capitalist system is basically big business), make those interests subservient to the government, or even better, subservient directly to the people - in essence, socialism. Socialism does not have to be complete and total; it fact, if it were it would likely cause problems. Complete government control of the economy leads to excessive bureaucracy and inefficiency, with the result being stagnant economies and huge amounts of wasted money. Complete worker control of companies would result in a sharp reduction in entrepreneurship - who would start a business, knowing that he or she would be forced to give it up to his or her workers as soon as he or she began hiring? Worker-owned companies might, but they would likely operate tentatively, since starting businesses means quite some risk that collective groups are far less likely to take than individuals. This could result in sluggish economies as well.

A more moderate socialist plan would be high levels of government control and regulation and high levels of direct worker influence, but ownership, in some industries, by private individuals. That means worker representation on company boards, but not only worker regulation; also prevention of environmental abuses and unfair market practices by corporations, and perhaps even high-level coordination, but not government ownership (of ALL the industries, that is. Some parts of the economy should be completely nationalized - health care, for instance).

This should include a redistribution of wealth, a system that allows the wealth of the world to be shared among the population, not horded by a small portion. Extremely high levels of inequality, like what exists in the US today, are unjust and need to be eliminated.

[neverborn]

278. No.

[FDRrocks]

280. European form of "Socialism"

with a bit more regulation of industry. I'd be way down with that.