• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Socialism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually it wouldn't, there's no mandate in Obama's plan. The health insurance industry will continue to make out like bandits.

A truly socialized health care plan would be more akin to Hillary's plans of the 90s and the recent primaries, which involved a mandate.

But even those ones didn't completely nationalize the insurance part of the equation.

They'd still be "mixed".

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen ANY serious proposal by a major candidate for socialized medecine in the states.

Keep in mind I'm a Canukistani - so I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to socialized medecine. No plan has even come close to being comparable to what we have here in Canada. Some have come "closer", but thats about it.
I absolutely agree.

The social insurance in the US today is possibly worse then the one we had in Germany in the 1880ies. Put forward by a certain Otto von Bismarck, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg, Prince of Bismarck.

The typical "European Socialist" Mr. McCain keeps on babbling to his mob, I assume. What a pinhead! :p

And at the same time the US health care system seems to be to most inefficient and expensive in the world. Not to reform it is downright insane.

The words "socialist", "leftist" etc. carry a very negative connotation in the US, correct? This is not the case in West Europe. Not at all.
 
I absolutely agree.

The social insurance in the US today is possibly worse then the one we had in Germany in the 1880ies. Put forward by a certain Otto von Bismarck, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg, Prince of Bismarck.

The typical "European Socialist" Mr. McCain keeps on babbling to his mob, I assume. What a pinhead! :p

And at the same time the US health care system seems to be to most inefficient and expensive in the world. Not to reform it is downright insane.

The words "socialist", "leftist" etc. carry a very negative connotation in the US, correct? This is not the case in West Europe. Not at all.


Let me explain the term socialism from an American Point of View:
If the US would adopt our German "Welfare State", the Republicans
would start a new Civil War.
 
Yes they'd go crazy for sure, "civil war" might be a tad strong but they'd definitely pull all the stops. What a lot of truthers and other alarmists forget is just how deeply ingrained the term "democracy" is in the American character. Sure, money has corrupted the system and choosing between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum may not change the lot of the poor all that much but if we look back over the last century it was democracy that brought about a whole host of changes that really did matter.

Our distance from these events and the glacial pace of change may cause us to forget that things like extending the vote to women, civil rights reforms, health and safety regulations for the workplace, the 8-hour work week - all these things happened democratically. A lot of it was incremental.

Sure, prohibition, the japanese internment and other things most people would deem negative (Malkin excepted) occured through democratic machinery as well - but the point is a civil war was tried once, with devastating consequences, and its not likely to occur anytime soon - if ever.

Take Tom Delay. The biggest dirty trickster and influence peddler of the Republican party. A truly odious figure whose stock and trade was wringing whatever he could out of democratic machinery. Other less criminal individuals observe quite closely the letter of the law, but trample all over the spirit. But even Delay was talking about a "permament majority", his vision was for a country that was finally wrested away from the effete, immoral, do-gooder liberals once and for all - not physically, but mentally. The mind of America would once again return to the values - as he perceived them - that were its guiding principles. And this mind would of course vote Republican - the treasonous liberals forever consigned to the fringes of electoral influence, all major battles would be played out within a conservative coalition of sorts, dominated by Republicans.

America can't go to socialized medecine right now - it just not going to happen in the current political environment. But it can take baby steps away from the market fundamentalism that has guided its health care policy implementation so far. Maybe they'll end up striking an interesting balance eventually - after all, there are systemic issues that plague public health care as well.

What I take heart from recently is the fact that it wasn't the classic Republican/Democrat battle this time around. Even McCain acknowledges that changes are needed. Sure, I think that in the end his version would end up being more similar to the status quo than Obama's, but the fact that political conditions have required him to modify the traditional REpublican approach is a positive sign. What I would look forward to if Obama's plan eventually gets implemented is the sky not falling a few years after it gets started. It will become the new status quo, and the lie would be given to the alarmist talk of his health care plan being "socialist" (code for "un-american" really). After a while, I think it would make further reforms easier, since Americans would get used to a little more regulation and maybe even come to demand its continuation.

Put another way, this is the dreaded "slippery slope" towards socialism and eventually its big brother communism that is spoken of in quavering fear in the right-wing media.

I just happen to see it as a splendid spiral whose endpoint would be somewhere in the center of the political spectrum. It is completely far-fetched and ridiculous to suggest that America has even the possibility of becoming a communist state, let alone a socialist one. Its just preposterous.

All of this is going to happen within a democratic framework though Oliver. It would seriously take a calamatous event a few orders of magnitude higher than that of 9/11 to shock the American public sufficiently enough to overcome this deeply ingrained and deeply felt American tradition. It is to them as beer drinking is to you Germans..;)
 
Last edited:
Is there a source for his McCain quote?

"Here's what I really believe," McCain said. "When you are—reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
 
Where capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks to establish equity by levelinbg the playing field. Freedom increases as prosperity increases, in a socialist system there can be neither.

Friedmanite twaddle based on the false assumption that capital itself can create wealth.

As to whether socialism could be "anything worse"... look no further than Venezuela to see the "ugly" side of socialism

Want to see ugly capitalism? Chile, Iraq and Iceland.
 
I would say China and Mexico are better examples of capitalism's ugliness. But Iceland?

Their current condition is the direct result of an American idiot selling the young people on the most idiotic form of capitalism in the world in 1984. Thery privatized and deregulated at a rate that would have made Reagan proud, were he able to understand what was going on.

The result was inevitible. A few people got monsterously wealthy for a while, but now everybody's money is worth about as much as Confederate dollars and the country is bankrupt.
 
It gets ugly when a society decides to follow one path or the other based on ideology with no real regard to pragmatism.

Sometimes the free market best allocates resources, sometimes it doesn't. Unfortunately, until the whole weird dichotomy is abandoned we will have less of a discussion and more silly rhetoric. Even during the height of the "Reagan Revolution" we had an argriculture policy so socialist that it would have made Che nervous...

Emerson said:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
 
I'm afraid of a socialist economy where all of the wealth is controlled by the government and government-controlled corporations. I'd rather live in a capitalist economy where all of the wealth is controlled by corporations and corporation-controlled government.
 
I'm afraid of a socialist economy where all of the wealth is controlled by the government and government-controlled corporations. I'd rather live in a capitalist economy where all of the wealth is controlled by corporations and corporation-controlled government.

Presumably, the former would still be a function of a democratically-driven society and could be changed if it doesn't work. But once corporations control the government, how would society reverse this short of a revolution?
 
Obama's proposed raising of the highest tax bracket in historical perspective:
<snip> (can't show image cause I'm a newbie)
A head of househould with a gross income of $200,000 would have paid 90% income tax in 1958 ???
It would have meant he'd only have a net income of $20,000 !

These seem very odd numbers to me. Surely the rich would have fled a country with such tax law ...
 
Presumably, the former would still be a function of a democratically-driven society and could be changed if it doesn't work. But once corporations control the government, how would society reverse this short of a revolution?

It was sarcasm.
 
That doesnt explain how capitalism is intrinsically right-wing.

This depends on defintions.

If we say capitalism = free market, then it really isn't.

If we say capitalism is the favoring of capital over labor, than it is.

As a free market requires some government regulation to exist, that regulation is going to have to balance the interests of capital, labor, and the consumer. We have to define fraud, coercion, voluntary, and so on. Caveat emptor is essentially a pro-capital defintion w/r/t fraud. The 40 hour workweek is a pro-labor aspect of coercion.

It just so happens that the free market under common law as it existed up until the early part of the 20th century was dramatically pro-capital, and in modern times "capitalists" like to point at this as some sort of state of nature, ignoring the intrinsic pro-capital essence of things like contributory negligence as pertains to the workplace. They argue that this skewed set of policy positions are an intrinsic part to the free market rather than a policy favoring capital that needed to be adjusted because it was leading to unrest and absurd abuses.

So we had a shift to the left to protect labor and the consumer. Labor regulations, protection of unions, workers compensation laws, laws requiring affirmative statements of fact to a consumer (labels on food items, etc.), regulation of essential industries such as medicine, and so forth.

What regulations are necessary to have a true "free market" can vary determined on these kinds of policy decisions, and protections can be broad or narrow. Broad protections have become more and more standard because they also benefit capital because it makes consumers more confident in purchase decisions when there is a reasonable reliance that they aren't being screwed. The increase in liquidity is generally worth more than the bother of labeling, especially for an honest company...



So in short, "free market" isn't a left or right concept, but IMO capitalism is, by favoring capital over all else, an intrinsic right wing position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom