Whats so bad about socialism?

[Tmy]

In the states "socialism" is this ugly word thats too close to communism. Whats so wrong with having socialist traits in certain areas? For example: health care.

If you made a list of the winner countries of the world wouldnt most of them be socialists.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Problem is, most USians only classify the US as a 'winner country' and everyone is a 'loser country'.

 

[Mike B.]

Would a "winner" country be a First World or industrialized country?

 

[Cain]

The short answer: Better dead than Red.

The longer answer:

Guns versus Butter

Maybe we don't have a universal healthcare system, and maybe we spend a higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than our cowardly neighbors to the north, but goddamn, at least we have the greatest, biggest, most fantastical military in the history of the world.

Who wants to help the local citizenary when you can blow ◊◊◊◊ up?

 

[jayrev]

I don't have any statistics to back this up, and I don't know how much is propaganda, but in the US we often hear of health care crises in nations with socialized health care systems such as long waiting periods for health care, obsolete technology, and people coming to the US to have medical procedures that aren't available to them in their contries. I would like to see responses from those who live in nations with socialized health care. How long do you have to wait for medical procedures? Do you think the care you get is adequate? How does the increase in taxation required to implement such a system compare with the cost of health insurance in the US?

Edited to add: Would such a system also require a change to the Malpractice laws?

 

[RedCoat]

Whats so wrong with having socialist traits in certain areas? For example: health care.

The basic idea of socialism, as I understand it, is that goods/services/wealth should be distributed on the basis of need to the population at large, regardless of ownership or contribution.

In practice, this appears to play out in the form of progressive taxation and manifold state-administered services that are "free" in the sense that they come out of the general treasury, not out of an individual's pocketbook.

(If either of these statements are in error, I invite correction. I am admittedly not an expert on this subject.)

The problem, as I see it, with adopting this sort of system results from the fact that the non-contributing beneficiaries will inevitably outnumber the contributors. This has been (I believe) clearly demonstared in an economic sense in the former Soviet Union. My argument is that the end effects in "micro" socialism (for select services, such as health care) is no different than macro (whole-economy, Soviet-style) socialism - the "takers" eventually outnumber the "givers".

Health care is just like any other good or service. When people talk about a "right" to health care, it puzzles me. I do not see why one would have a right to health care any more than a right to an automobile or a right to cable TV. It's a service - if you want it, you can pay for it, or perhaps someone will give it to you out of charity.

I invite commentary and critique; As I said, I am not an expert on political systems, so this is the analysis of an amateur.

Peace.

 

[Tmy]

We have socialized education system. As much as people bitch about it, it has been succsessful in educating the public. Our public colleges attract students from all over the world.

If we have a "right" to education, then why not healthcare. Healthcare is far more important.

 

[karl]

[...] I would like to see responses from those who live in nations with socialized health care. How long do you have to wait for medical procedures?

There's no general rule. It varies a lot between different regions and hospitals, depending on how the local management and/or politicians prioritize.

For example, in Sweden 2001 the normal waiting period for a hearing aid was one week in Stockholm and 85 weeks in Gothenburg. For a prolapse operation you had to wait four weeks in Stockholm and 130 (!) weeks in Linköping. Hip surgery required about one month of waiting in Stockholm and a whopping 156 weeks in Gothenburg and Piteå. Cataract surgery was normally performed after 14 weeks of waiting in Stockholm and 168 weeks in Östersund.

 

[Cain]

Redcoat-

The problem, as I see it, with adopting this sort of system results from the fact that the non-contributing beneficiaries will inevitably outnumber the contributors. This has been (I believe) clearly demonstared in an economic sense in the former Soviet Union. My argument is that the end effects in "micro" socialism (for select services, such as health care) is no different than macro (whole-economy, Soviet-style) socialism - the "takers" eventually outnumber the "givers".

The main problem here is that healthcare, unlike other goods and services in a market economy, is also a public good (tmy mentions education as another example). The benefits of a healthy population have *external* effects beyond those non-contributing beneficeries. The classic example here is a vaccine.

Let me quote an editorial from _New Scientist_ during the whole SARS hoopla:

It looks increasingly as if the virus that causes SARS is not going away. Isolating patients and quarantining their contacts might slow the spread, as it has in Hong Kong and Toronto, but we’ve still to see these measures stop new infections. Most worryingly, as the virus invades poor areas of china and poor countries, containment will become impossible sooner or latter, SARS is coming to a person near you.

There is good news, though. The virus should be vulnerable to a vaccine. We could even develop one in record time. But if past history is anything to go by, the vaccine will then be sold for a high price so the rich get it, and the poor don’t.

It might be a sad old problem but it is one we need to think about now, if not out of a sense of justice then pure self-interest. Every SARS infection is not only a human tragedy, it is an opportunity for a viral evolution. Even if the rich are safely vaccinated, so long as the poor are not the rich will not be safe. As more people succumb, the virus will evolve and the vaccine will fail. SARS anywhere is dangerous for people everywhere.

We failed to stamp out SARS by containing it early. We must now stamp it out with a vaccine. In theory, we can. But if researches create the vaccine., have the drugs companies and governments got the will to get it to where it is needed?

Everyone agrees the government needs to be involved in healthcare to some extent. Free-market assumptions simply do not hold.

Here's another example: imperfect/asymmetrical information.

Understanding how our bodies work, treatments, diagnoses -- all of that requires considerable education. Many people are unknowingly afflicted by a disease or ailment that goes with care until it's too late (e.g. diabetes). Consumers have to rely on trained experts for information.

Here are a few of the problems from Nicholas Barr's excellent text _The economics of the welfare State_ (p. 283):

-Much (though not all) the information is technically complex, so that a person would not necessarily understand the information even if it were available (Cain's note: unlike the technical knowledge required for purchasing a car, which IS available through magazines, the Internet, friends).

-Mistaken choice is costlier and less reversible than with most other commodities.

-An individual generally does not have time to shop around if his condition is actue (contrast the situation with a car repair, which can be left until the car owner has enough information and can afford the repair).

- Consumers frequently lack the information to weigh one doctor's advice against another.

-Health and health care have strong emotive connotations -- for example, ignorance may in part be a consequence of fear, superstitition, etc.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
In the states "socialism" is this ugly word thats too close to communism. Whats so wrong with having socialist traits in certain areas?

Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for.

If we have a "right" to education, then why not healthcare.

You don't have a "right" to education. But thanks for demonstrating one of the problems with setting bad precedents. Fostering the belief that you do have a right to these things is one of the unfortunate effects of those socialist traits you're asking about.

 

[plindboe]

I'm interested to hear what people have to say about this too. I was considering starting a thread with exactly the same question. I recently had a discussion with a person(right wing republican) who was convinced that socialism was evil. He wasn't able to elaborate on it though, so I don't think he even knew what socialism was. I think the fear/resentment of socialism is a direct result of the American propaganda which thrived during the Cold War.

Peter

 

[Tricky]

Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for.

I don't wish to nor did I agree to pay for the Iraq invasion. Does that mean Bush is a Socialist?

You don't have a "right" to education. But thanks for demonstrating one of the problems with setting bad precedents. Fostering the belief that you do have a right to these things is one of the unfortunate effects of those socialist traits you're asking about.

Technically, no one has a "right" to anything, not even life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If we were living under anarchy, a stronger person (or group) could take any of those things away at any time. The US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", and it has set up a system to protect them. I don't think that you would argue that one of the marks of civilization is education. There seems to be a very strong correlation between the level of education in a country and their standards of living. Education appears to be the best way to prevent poverty.

So it is in the interest of the government to provide education for its citizens. A similar (but IMO not as strong) case could be made for health care. Whether you call it a "right" or not is inconsequential. Ask only if it is better for the country as a whole. If you don't believe that having a healthy population is beneficial to you personally, then perhaps you should read Poe's The Masque of Red Death.

 

[Malachi151]

In the states "socialism" is this ugly word thats too close to communism. Whats so wrong with having socialist traits in certain areas? For example: health care.

If you made a list of the winner countries of the world wouldnt most of them be socialists.

Well, not only that, but much of what made this country successful over the past 100 years has been socialist policy.

Graduated taxes, free education, Social Security, laboe laws, funding for the arts, etc. Of course people dismiss all that and many don't understand the socialist roots.

The history of these issues is long and complex. The Socialist Party was outlawed in the US in the 1920s.

For a better overview of all this see:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/condition_of_modern_american_soc.htm

and:

http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/cpproject/curwick.htm

People today do not understand the extent to which Marxism has been attacked in America over the past 80 years. People also fail to understand the real goals of socailism, which is why elements of the wealthy American elite and conservatives have attacked it so.

Ultimately socialism is about SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Many wealthy are against this because then they have to be SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE, instead they like to play the card of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, which absolves them, and ultimately everyone for any responsibility other than to themselves. Tis however is imposible to justify because we live in a society where many, if not most, of our actions effect other people.

Calling for indivual responsibility as a means of not having social responsibility is just tending towards anarchy and might makes right. Its "whatever I can get away with, then I can do".

Yet, these same people want ot present groups from forming to exercise thier might as a group, claiming that we all need to act as individuals, which of course just tips the scales in favor of those individuals with power and wealth.

For example people may say that they are against using the government to regulate labor. But, the government is just a means through which society excersises it will, so if millions of people want a regulation tha is HOW they go about it. To deny these people that ability is denying people to look out for their own interests.

The wealthy elite in this country have a long history of campaigning to promote their own interests and subvert the will of the people. Today it appears that they were winning that war. The war on Socialism is a part of that battle that has been going on for at least 80 years.

 

[tedly]

waiting lists

It is highly unlikely that there will be a society with a surplus of doctors, since they control access to treatment. Statistically it has been shown that if you increase the number of doctors you increase the number of treatments. If doctors go on strike the rate of dying goes down ( the death rate is always the same, one per customer) because non urgent surgeries are cancelled, and any surgery carries a risk of death.

So we will have medical treatment rationed in some way; in the US it's by ability to pay, here in Canada it's by what is often called a waiting list, but ideally (and in many real cases),is a triage list. Since we cannot build enough faciliities that all access to all services is instantaneous*, the most severe cases must be treated first. Thus critical cases will be treated immediately, and trivial cases will be treated as resources are available. Over a large number of people this gives rise to an average delay before treatment that for purposes of queuing theory can be called a waiting time, hence a waiting list.

But your position on that list need not be fixed. Andecdotes aren't data, but - my mother needed her hip replaced (her third hence her second on that hip) and was scheduled for a six month wait. The doctors weren't keen to do it because it could easily not work and require an amputation, so she wasn't a high priority. After a month she went for a checkup, and was really shaky on her pins. The doctor walked out, said he was more worried, and wanted to see about rescheduling. One week later she was on the table.

The waiting list is a handy stick to beat hospitals with, but some of the stories out of our "think tanks' ( and there's a whole possible thread on the thinking required to come up with a report when the conclusion is already given) are pretty poorly chosen. One example from a researcher at our Fraser Institute in a letter to the editor went on about his poor neighbour who was on a 6 week wait for a diagnostic MRI to determine the status of something I can't remember. He was forced to go to the US and pay for an MRI which he got the next day. A friend and medical epidemiologist pointed out that one arm of this differential diagnosis was an inoperable tumour, and the other was treatable with antibiotics, so why would you wait even a day to start treatment? Fire in the antibiotics, and let God sort it out.

* Imagine a factory with several hundred employees that literally did not know what tomorrow's workload was.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for.

Originally posted by Tricky
I don't wish to nor did I agree to pay for the Iraq invasion. Does that mean Bush is a Socialist?

Actually, in attributing a particular characteristic to socialism, I'm not claiming that everything that shares that characteristic is socialist. But if it makes you feel better to call him one, you won't get much of an argument from me. Incidentally, can I count you among those who do not support the argument that one agrees to whatever the government does just by remaining in the country?

Technically, no one has a "right" to anything, not even life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Speak for yourself.

If we were living under anarchy, a stronger person (or group) could take any of those things away at any time.

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

The US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", and it has set up a system to protect them.

I don't know what your source is for this, but I don't recall the word "should" being used in conjunction with those rights. In any case, I don't look to the US government for my opinions on such things.

I don't think that you would argue that one of the marks of civilization is education. There seems to be a very strong correlation between the level of education in a country and their standards of living. Education appears to be the best way to prevent poverty.

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

So it is in the interest of the government to provide education for its citizens.

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

A similar (but IMO not as strong) case could be made for health care.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

Whether you call it a "right" or not is inconsequential. Ask only if it is better for the country as a whole.

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

If you don't believe that having a healthy population is beneficial to you personally, then perhaps you should read Poe's The Masque of Red Death.

Since I haven't said it's not beneficial to me personally, what's the relevance?

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Calling for indivual responsibility as a means of not having social responsibility is just tending towards anarchy and might makes right. Its "whatever I can get away with, then I can do".

Damn, you do post some incoherent nonsense at times.

The wealthy elite in this country have a long history of campaigning to promote their own interests and subvert the will of the people.

Um ... I'm not one of the "wealthy elite", and I don't consider them to be subverting my will. Do I still count as one of "the people"?

 

[Mike B.]

I'm interested to hear what people have to say about this too. I was considering starting a thread with exactly the same question. I recently had a discussion with a person(right wing republican) who was convinced that socialism was evil. He wasn't able to elaborate on it though, so I don't think he even knew what socialism was. I think the fear/resentment of socialism is a direct result of the American propaganda which thrived during the Cold War.

Peter

I kind of agree with this.
There are many people in the US who like and benefit from government programs (i.e. student loans, social security, etc.), yet would react with horror to the idea that they were socialistic.

Perhaps it is a relic of the Cold War...

 

[Tricky]

Actually, in attributing a particular characteristic to socialism, I'm not claiming that everything that shares that characteristic is socialist. But if it makes you feel better to call him one, you won't get much of an argument from me.

Your implication above was that asking people to pay for something they didn't want is a socialist trait. I am showing that such exhibiting such a trait does not imply socialism. No, I am not implying GWB is socialist, but rather that your characterization of socialist "traits" does not distinguish socialists from non-socialists.

Incidentally, can I count you among those who do not support the argument that one agrees to whatever the government does just by remaining in the country?

Yes, I think you could say that. One of the main reasons I like our kind of government is that I am free to disagree. I also realize I am limited in the ways I can express my disagreement.

Speak for yourself.

So you think that we have rights, but right to education is not one of them. Who then defines what are "rights"? The government? God? You?

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

My argument is that rights are defined by the law. If it against the law to rape, then the rapist had no "right" to do so. We elect people to decide on these "rights" based on how closely they match our own moral codes. Without law, there are no rights.

I don't know what your source is for this, but I don't recall the word "should" being used in conjunction with those rights. In any case, I don't look to the US government for my opinions on such things.

No, I put the word "should" in there. This is my opinion, so I get to use the words I like. And while you may not look to the US government for your opinions, you assuredly do look to them for your "rights" (assuming you are a citizen of the US).

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

People are forced to do things (including paying for things) all the time that are deemed (by our laws) to be good for the country. You apparently agree with some of them. Where you differ from me (and the government) is which things are good for the country (or area, since most of a school's funding comes from local taxes).

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

I reiterate: Your rights are defined by the laws. One may disagree and claim that "natural law" gives men the right to rape women, but if one acts on that "right", then by law, he will (hopefully) be punished.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

I suppose that is a matter of opinion. Do you want to take it to a vote?

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

Total individual sovereignty is anarchy. There must be rules. Governments make the rules, hopefully based on the input of the governed. You don't have the "right" to go against those rules when you disagree with them, or if you do, expect to be punished.

Since I haven't said it's not beneficial to me personally, what's the relevance?

You have certainly implied that you do not wish to pay for it. Are you asking to have those benefits for free?

 

[RedCoat]

We have socialized education system. As much as people bitch about it, it has been succsessful in educating the public. Our public colleges attract students from all over the world.

If we have a "right" to education, then why not healthcare. Healthcare is far more important.

If we use education as an analogy, then we already have "socialized healthcare". I will explain my analogy:

First of all, there is no "right" to education, it is a *priviledge*. The government provides *minimal* education to the populace as a service. I would guess the justification for this is that a democratic republic requires a marginally educated populace to function at all.

Beyond the minimal education provided under law (high school until age 18 in most states), if you want to attain a higher education (or a better quality of HS education) you have to pay for it, like any other service. (Our public universities still charge tuition, they are not a complementary benfit of citizenship.) In many cases, you must also prove that you are academically qualified. Thus, minimal education is a gov't provided priviledge, while other forms are more similar to any other good or service. In the case of public universities, the gov't just happens to be one of the sellers in the market.

In healthcare, minimal services are also provided to virtually everybody. 911 dispatches ambulances regardless of who's calling. Emergency rooms still treat people without insurance. The costs of this is simply passed on to the people who *do* pay, hence it is a form of socialism.

As with education, a minimal level of service is provided on the (apparent) justification that it is required to keep society moving along. Greater levels of service become ordinary goods and services.

My opposition to nationalized health care is the result of my suspicion that making it a "free" gov't service will destroy it's quality. (Just in the same way that the quality of "free" public education is, on the whole, abysmal.) The NHS in the UK, from what I'm told, has suffered this type of degeneration in quality.

Need should not trump ownership. Just because someone "needs" something should not dissolve the provider of the good or service from their right to charge for it.

Just my thoughts on the matter - I invite criticism and commentary.

Peace.

 

[Malachi151]

Damn, you do post some incoherent nonsense at times.

Um ... I'm not one of the "wealthy elite", and I don't consider them to be subverting my will. Do I still count as one of "the people"?

Sorry it was over your head

No, you are one of the people who has been duped by the wealthy elite into supporting an agenda that isn't even in your own best interest.

Speak for yourself.

Actually what he said was correct.

Rights are a social construct. They are a product of society. Society grants rights. Rights are not intrinsic, despite what the founders may have claimed in order ot sound high and mighty.

A right is not a part of you, a right is not like you eye color, or yoru hiar, etc. All rights are granted to you by society, which is why your rights can change from place to place and day to day.

If we burn the piece of paper that says we all have teh right to free speech then, guess what, we no longer have that right. Even if we dont', if people don't agree to let people excercise free speech, thne there is no free speech.

You have no rights at all naturally, just like every other animals on earth. Rights are a human creation based on our social structure, they are not "god given", they are not natural, they are not intrinsic.

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

What IS a right? What good is a right if it is not upheld? If a woman has the "right" not to get raped, but she does anyway and nothing is done about it, then what good did the "right" do her?

Please define "rights". What are rights? I've always said that rights aren't even real and have little meaning in the first place. All rights are is a social contract that states what other peple are expected to do or not do to you. Its just an expectation and other memebers of society are supposed to honor and attempt to uphold when other people have their "rights" violated.

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

Oh well, too bad. That's part of living in a SOCIETY. Its that whole SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. If you don't want to contribute to the education of others then leave society, its that simple, go live in a cave. YOU benefit from the educated existance of others. Why should you reap the benefit of such things w/o contributing to it? Its just you trying to weasel out of responsibility and take advantge of others.

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

No, there are some things that every memebr of society benefits from no matter what. As such every member of society that is capable has to pay for those things, otherwise your really stealing from society.

Let's say that you want to opena buusiness and hire a worker that knows how to read and write. If you do that w/o paying taxes then you are stealing from those who have paid to educate our workforce. You're just trying to welch on everyone else's hard work.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

I hate to break to you that he did, you just didn't get it.

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

No, see this is what you don't get. Where are the lines to individual sovereignty? The founders of America saw that the right to own slaves was a part of the individual sovereignty. The right for me to make demands of others is my individual soverengnty? Total individuality, as Tricky says, is anarchy, and then no one has any rights at all, its just kill or be killed.

Full "individual soveregnty" is just sayig that its okay for any individual to impose their will on anyone else. Social contracts so no, you can't so whatever you want, WE, and a group restrict your actions to prevent YOU from doing things to US that WE don't want.

And trust me, as much as you complain and moan, if we were to be more complacent with "individual liberty" you would not benefit. Those that would benefit are the economically powerful and the expence of the economically weak. If you are not a billionaire or a multi-millionair, you would be hurt horribly by moving towards more individul liberty. The social contract of government keeps powerful individuals from imposing their will on others.