Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm so sick of the "we are capitalists, period" "they are socialists, period" "we=good" "they=bad" uneducated attitude perpetrated by the right in this country.
Educate yourselves. We are not capitalist. We are a mixed market economy. We have more capitalism than socialism in our market for sure, but there are other countries with more socialism that are equally or more successful on a per capita basis. The goal is to find the perfect balance between the two... not to have one or the other. The world isn't black and white as much as conservatives try to make it out to be.
US definitely doesn't have a free market:
For those who are interested in the real world, a look at the actual history suggests some adjustment -- a modification of free market theory, to what we might call "really existing free market theory." That is, the one that's actually applied, not talked about. And the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That's, again, near a universal. So you -- whoever you may be -- you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it's good for your character, it's tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I'm perfectly willing to make profits, but I don't want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out.
So, if Third World debt gets out of control, you socialize it. It's not the problem of the banks that made the money. When the S&Ls collapse, you know, same thing. The public bails them out. When American investment firms get into trouble because the Mexican bubble bursts, you bail out Goldman Sachs. And -- the latest Mexico bail out, and on and on. I mean, there's case after case of this.
In fact of the leading -- top -- hundred leading transnationals in the Fortune list of transnationals -- there was a recent study of how they -- how they related to the States in which they- they're all somewhere, you know, so they're all mostly here -- in some National State, it turns out that all hundred of them had benefited from industrial policies, meaning, State intervention in their behalf. All hundred had benefited from the State in which they're based. And twenty of the hundred had been saved from total disaster, that is, collapse, by just State bail-out. When people talk about globalization of the economy, remember that the nanny State has to be very powerful in order to bail out the rich. And nothing is changing in that regard. Twenty out of a hundred, again, were saved from collapse by this, including a number here.
Are we referring to compulsory labor for the benefit of another? Compulsory charity? And expropriation of property for the benefit of another? By government?
Then, YES, socialism is VERY SUCCESSFUL - for the thieves and slavers and recipients.
It's not too pleasant for the donor class, though.
Agree with the above, but in particular the bold part. You can also take that a step further. Most people on the political far right also seem to think that the nazis were also socialist. They were not. Not even close. Nazis were extreme far right wing fascists. The nazi party liked to label themselves as 'socialist' to appeal to the masses to gain power and approval. Once in power, they quickly showed their true colors, which were that of an extreme right wing fascist regime. The nazis, and their party were anything BUT socialists. The fact is, that the nazis and their ultra fascism were, and are, on the extreme far RIGHT. So far right they make ultra neocons in our country look almost liberal.
The same goes for the point made in the bold part of the quote above. Soviet communism was not, and never will be socialism, plain and simple, even though they liked to use the word "socialist" in their name.
However we are always going to have those on the far right who will continually lump them all together and calming they are all evil socialists as evidenced by statements like this:
Really? Please do share with us. I'm REALLY curious.
The Americans are mortified by soviet communism. However, few of them really know much about it.
First of all, the tragedy for Russia was that the revolution was hijacked by psycho Stalin who eliminated opposition and turned the country into a totalitarian state, where disagreement with the government meant death or prison camp. However, once Stalin was dead, prisoners were rehabilitated and returned home, but the 'police state' system that has been set up was perpetuating itself behind the scenes in a mission to preserve and protect the system. I am sure that many thought it was an honorable mission and a duty to their homeland.
If you didn't go against the government you would never find out about it.
And most people had no reason to be unhappy with the economic system, and many say their life was much easier then, then now. They had no clue what had transpired until they were able to read about it in the 1990's after the collapse. Most of them thought they lived in a perfect country.
The poverty rate was 1%. There was universal healthcare, universal daycare, universal schooling, universal higher education, where you could choose your own profession. After completion you would be appointed to a position, where your skills were needed. You would be given free housing. There was no unemployment. You were guaranteed retirement. A planned economy had no inefficiencies, your kids were taken care of, so you could work, where work was needed. Goods were produced that were necessary, there were no rich people and no luxury goods, no commercials on TV, no consumerism, less waste and more recycling, taking care of and sharing of goods. Few people had cars because public transportation was prevalent - there were trains, buses, trolleys and trams everywhere. Walkable neighborhoods were built from scratch to include housing, schools, stores and hospitals within a walking distance. The economy was self-sufficient and protected from the world economy. There were no credit cards and no debt. Until it's collapse it was a second largest economy in the world.
Cultural entertainment was cheap, and we used to do field trips to the theater and ballet with our class monthly. After school program was free and there were lots of choices for free clubs from guitar to sewing, and sports. Lunch at school was always free for everyone. Since TV only had a few channels, our favorite pastime was reading.
I would be lying if I said I didn't have a carefree easy life then, and I sure think that there are things that a society can do and agree on to eliminate or alleviate some social problems.
The socialist experiments work for short periods of time, when they are instituted in nations where a very large portion of the population is productive (in both age and temperment), has a strong work ethic, and the economy is functional with plenty of jobs. Many places in Europe were like this, but they are now facing the inherent problems that doom a system that does not reward those who do the most work. Economies tend to stagnate when no matter how hard you work, you remain equal with everyone else--even those who don't work at all. Europe discovered this, and we have also. Our own experiment is facing the same collapse Europe is experiencing.
The first fatal problem arises when the population simply ages. Once the demographics mean that few workers are supporting far too many retirees, the whole system collapses. America's version of socialism faces this fact as the Baby Boom retires, but their prosperity is long gone.
Similarly, Europe's socialist nations face the exact same end: "But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead. With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle, at least not without a period of austerity and significant changes. The countries are trying to reassure investors by cutting salaries, raising legal retirement ages, increasing work hours and reducing health benefits and pensions. “We’re now in rescue mode,†said Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister. “But we need to transition to the reform mode very soon. The ‘reform deficit’ is the real problem,†he said, pointing to the need for structural change." Deficit Crisis Threatens Ample Benefits of European Life - NYTimes.com
The other fatal problem arises when the promise of a "free meal" starts attracting large numbers of immigrants who do NOT have much work ethic, who are NOT productive, and who are perfectly content to move in be provided for by the newly-adopted state. They also don't have any loyalty to their new nation, and will happily bankrupt it: typically the immigrants have little in common with the natives now supporting them (as in the massive Muslim immigration to largely Christian Europe),
This has been happening to all the European Socialist nations over the last 10 years, when new laws allowing more unrestrained immigration hit: "Immigrants largely from North Africa arrive to the French Republic, usually with their families, and don't work. Why? Because France, like Germany and numerous other European nations, has such adequate social safety net programs that immigrants, who lack skills and are less competitive in a highly regulated market, see no benefit in finding work. When housing, food and education are afforded to them on the dime of the state, why go through the trouble of learning the language and joining the labor force?" European immigration strain rooted in economics - Ops - The Greyhound - Loyola University Maryland
There are thousands of articles on this topic on the internet, since each nation has its own story of which immigrant groups flocked to overwhelm the safety net: "Britain has just woken up to one of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union on May 1st—the free movement of people and labour, including the wretchedly poor Roma minorities of new member-states like Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic." Immigration: Those roamin' Roma | The Economist
But in every case, the story is the same: If a nation has very little immigration, the socialist experiment lasts until the needs of the elderly overwhelm the number of workers. If a nation allows open immigration, the needs of those who seek a "free ride" swamp the system first.
And for a book that completely describes why socialism and communism do NOT work as economic systems, due to the very basis of human nature, of course everyone should have read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ian Rand. Rand, who experienced communism under Russia, learned this lesson the hard way. Unfortunately, her level of intellect so far exceeds the average American today, that the book is both far too long, and far too hard to read, for it to really be accepted here. Perhaps in the future some pop writer will write a short book that is easy enough to read, that the message gets across.
And how can you prove that it is the socialist and not the capitalist component that is bankrupting the system?
I can name a couple: Cuba has been very sucessful, -for Fidel Castro. China has been very successful, -for the communist party. If you can make everybody else your slave, you will be very, very, very successful.
Just ask Wall Street who stole half the country's wealth while Bush was guarding the henhouse and they all walked away scot-free.
Denmark, OTOH, has been quite successful with a Socialist society.
For me, I try to stick to reality. I think Medicare is tolerable, and I'm going to be paying for the boomers' Medicare, and therefore I have made my peace with socialism, and I do not demonize it. I think anyone who uses Medicare and supports "Small Government" or is "anti-socialism" is a huge hypocrite.
The society is designed to work with medicare. There is no hypocrisy in wishing we had something different than medicare in place, but using it because that's what's there now. It's no more hypocritical than the people who say we should have higher tax rates while paying what the current tax rate is.
Have you not seen what's happening in Europe? The riots by the youth (sound familiar) because of the unfunded debt loads their social programs burdened them with! <sigh>
It isn't rocket science. The more you spend (waste) the poorer you will become.
The implosion of the welfare state
In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above Belgium’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place. -end
Canada has socialized medicine, they aren't a socialist country. They've done well because back in 96-97 they were bankrupt and did the smart thing -- THEY STOPPED SPENDING! However, Canadians that need specialized surgery must come to the US for that. If you don't qualify for particular procedures, or they are too expensive, guess what... tough SH$% (you die).
If the health care isn't good enough for the Canadian BIG HEAD, then why should anyone else think it's great for themselves?
There isn't a purely socialist country that has ever succeeded, EVER!
The only thing an "ism" based government has brought is death and destruction. A wise man once said "Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result". He was right, yet the educated idealists refuse to take advise from one of their best and brightest. Sounds a lot like Obama and his finance team... they talk, he ignores.
Has capitalism ever been successful?
Under capitalism if you don't have money to treat your disease you should die anyway.
The term “capitalism†is commonly used to refer to the U.S. economic system, with substantial state intervention ranging from subsidies for creative innovation to the “too-big-to-fail†government insurance policy for banks.
The system is highly monopolized, further limiting reliance on the market, and increasingly so: In the past 20 years the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, reports scholar Robert W. McChesney in his new book “Digital Disconnect.â€
“Capitalism†is a term now commonly used to describe systems in which there are no capitalists: for example, the worker-owned Mondragon conglomerate in the Basque region of Spain, or the worker-owned enterprises expanding in northern Ohio, often with conservative support – both are discussed in important work by the scholar Gar Alperovitz.
Some might even use the term “capitalism†to refer to the industrial democracy advocated by John Dewey, America’s leading social philosopher, in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Dewey called for workers to be “masters of their own industrial fate†and for all institutions to be brought under public control, including the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Short of this, Dewey argued, politics will remain “the shadow cast on society by big business.â€
The truncated democracy that Dewey condemned has been left in tatters in recent years. Now control of government is narrowly concentrated at the peak of the income scale, while the large majority “down below†has been virtually disenfranchised. The current political-economic system is a form of plutocracy, diverging sharply from democracy, if by that concept we mean political arrangements in which policy is significantly influenced by the public will.
There have been serious debates over the years about whether capitalism is compatible with democracy. If we keep to really existing capitalist democracy – RECD for short – the question is effectively answered: They are radically incompatible.
And how can you prove that it is the socialist and not the capitalist component that is bankrupting the system?
How do you even answer that question? There is nothing within the nature of capitalism that can lead to bankrupting the system. It's a non sequitur. An individual within a capitalist system can go bankrupt but the system cannot. It is self-correcting. Capitalist systems fail when the market is manipulated.
Leftists here like to say the capitalist system is failing because the poor have too little and the rich have most of the wealth. But it isn't capitalism that did that. It's government interfering with capitalism that did that by upsetting market competition and redistributing resources. When Walmart opens a new store, they get incentives and sweetheart deals from the local government. And leftists want the same government that enabled the Walmart monstrosity to now control it.
I was talking about the health care systems. The US health care system costs twice as much as the OECD average. The average American pays more in taxes towards health care than the average Swede, Japanese, Brit etc. The waste in the system is twice the US military budget every year.
However, on the subject of Europes welfare, do note that the countries characterized by the smallest welfare systems, least regulated banking indutries, and lowest wages have the biggest problems.
The high-welfare, high-regulation, high-wage economies, Germany, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Finland etc. are doing quite well.
Really, I've heard the predictions of the death of the welfare state since the 60s. The welfare state was always supposed to be unsustainable. And through the decades of preditions of their imminent collapse, the welfare states have been catching up with the USA.
Fact is, the citizens of a democracy can have anything they are willing to bear the cost of on their tax forms. And that is quite, quite stable. Biggest army, space program, monuments to the Great Leader, tallest building -everything they are willing to pay for.
And if they don't want to pay for it, it doesn't help if they are named Greece or California.
The Americans are mortified by soviet communism. However, few of them really know much about it.
First of all, the tragedy for Russia was that the revolution was hijacked by psycho Stalin who eliminated opposition and turned the country into a totalitarian state, where disagreement with the government meant death or prison camp. However, once Stalin was dead, prisoners were rehabilitated and returned home, but the 'police state' system that has been set up was perpetuating itself behind the scenes in a mission to preserve and protect the system. I am sure that many thought it was an honorable mission and a duty to their homeland.
I'd rather live in a system that's designed to not let that happen in the first place than have it tragically happen one day. I mean Stalin was the 2nd head of state there. It sure didn't take long for the system to produce a brutal authoritarian.
Quote:
If you didn't go against the government you would never find out about it.
That's not exactly comforting.
Quote:
And most people had no reason to be unhappy with the economic system, and many say their life was much easier then, then now. They had no clue what had transpired until they were able to read about it in the 1990's after the collapse. Most of them thought they lived in a perfect country.
People had no idea what was happening in their country until it collapsed 60 years later. And you present that as a good thing?
Quote:
The poverty rate was 1%. There was universal healthcare, universal daycare, universal schooling, universal higher education, where you could choose your own profession. After completion you would be appointed to a position, where your skills were needed. You would be given free housing. There was no unemployment. You were guaranteed retirement. A planned economy had no inefficiencies, your kids were taken care of, so you could work, where work was needed. Goods were produced that were necessary, there were no rich people and no luxury goods, no commercials on TV, no consumerism, less waste and more recycling, taking care of and sharing of goods. Few people had cars because public transportation was prevalent - there were trains, buses, trolleys and trams everywhere. Walkable neighborhoods were built from scratch to include housing, schools, stores and hospitals within a walking distance. The economy was self-sufficient and protected from the world economy. There were no credit cards and no debt. Until it's collapse it was a second largest economy in the world.
The lack of freedom is appalling.
"A planned economy had no inefficiencies" is just stunning beyond words to read. The vast inefficiency is one of the primary causes of the collapse. It is precisely because they were so inefficient that they were not able to keep pace with the USA and lost the Cold War.
Quote:
Cultural entertainment was cheap, and we used to do field trips to the theater and ballet with our class monthly. After school program was free and there were lots of choices for free clubs from guitar to sewing, and sports. Lunch at school was always free for everyone. Since TV only had a few channels, our favorite pastime was reading.
I would be lying if I said I didn't have a carefree easy life then, and I sure think that there are things that a society can do and agree on to eliminate or alleviate some social problems.
And the first you must agree on to eliminate is freedom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
