I for one think it's absolutely atrocious that the worlds last real superpower still does not offer universal healthcare for its citizens. I am Norwegian. Here healthcare is free when you really need it; paid in full by our taxes. Everyone gives a little in order to promote the common good. In other words; we do have socialised healthcare, yet we're still a democracy. I do not have to worry about health insurance or if I am going to get that operation when I need it. You'll find no-one here worried whether or not they will get medical help when (or if) they fall ill. Sure, we complain a lot, but that's just the norwegian way. At least everyone living here knows that when they need it they will get help. How can that be a bad thing? I wonder why many americans are so afraid of the word socialised. After all, as Moore points out quite correctly, a lot of the services you do have in the US are already socialised. If your house catches fire, the fire brigade will come to try and put it out. If someone breaks in the police will come to have a look and try to get the guy(s) responsible. Many services are already socialised.
Many Americans still like to buy into the myth of self-sufficient pioneers who manage to look after themselves and their own through their determination, hard work and "true grit". This is pure nonsense, of course (as the Native Americans can testify, for one -- how there was a self-sufficient people), but a nice self-serving attribution for those who are successful and wealthy. As for the rest, everybody wants to identify with the successful, nobody wants to identify with "losers". The truth is however, that most big companies are welfare queens living of state subsidies and tax breaks designed to protect the golden calf of capitalism. Failing banks will be nationalised at the drop of a hat "to protect the economy", but talk of nationalising health care to protect people's health and you are an evil socialist.
Hitler never claimed to be a capitalist. Hitler was a socialist, while stalin was a communist. There's plenty of difference between my two examples, and assuming that just because someone is rich that they've broken some moral code is stupid. There is such a thing as honest hard work leading to riches. Socialism may be about stealing money from people who have more, to give to people who have less, but there must be leaders. Socialism without leaders or authority is anarchy. Without authority(that is, leadership which have an army and the threat of force at their disposal), how many of the rich will hand over large ammounts of what they earn? You have some messed up ideas my boy, and you'd do well to do a lot of reading edit: You got any recent evidence of this Nexxo? I know it has happened in the UK (although that was by far from "at a drop of a hat"), but we're waaaaaaaaaaay more socialised over here in the UK, and way more concerned with maintaining market stability than maintaining a hands-off approach like the americans often are.
Not necessarily, socialism can exist in authoritarian or anarchist states. A leader does not have to necessarily decide things either, he can manage something but can also at the same time only follow the lead of the majority - where the majority decides as well as elects. However I accept that it is an impossible system as it relies on people being basically good creatures, but it is not better or worse than a purely capitalist system. You assume by being rich they must also be intelligent and qualified and therefore willing to lead people (Mitt Romney is rich remember). A rich person who gained his wealth in a purely capitalist system only cares about himself and would therefore only make decisions to benefit himself rather than the people, and you then get a very poor government.
democratic socialism, with a parliament.... do you Americans think this is evil? maybe we should invite that poet guy here...
Nope. Socialism can't really co-exist with anarchy, the two are opposite extremes and are functionally incompatable. Socialism requires the extortion of money from men by those in authority, in order to be redistributed at the will of the majority (and hence is the tryanny of the majority against the minority). That requires a chosen leadership, with hard-power to back it up (military, police etc.). Without a chosen leadership, extortion is the same but it's classed as illegal. It's only considered "allowed" in the case of socialism because the government is doing it. Since anarchy has no government, what you're talking about is mere crime. No, I assume that by being rich people are able to produce or provide some required good or service. It's absolute nonsense to assume that every rich person cares only for themselves, but even in the cases where that is the case, there is nothing wrong with only caring for oneself. No-one should be compelled to care for anything if they do not want to. Now, obviously in a democratic system we set up checks and balances to ensure that someone doesn't enter into power and then decide that everyone has to pay 100% tax and will recieve a daily ration of bread and water. These checks primarily come in the form of a seperate police, judiciary, and government. Furthermore, frequently an executive body isn't given total law-creating powers which makes it even more difficult for any one person to corrupt the system. A government composed of self-interested individuals does not have to be one that serves only those in charge. This is the goal of any conservative government. An approach which is as hands off as it can be, while simultaneously allowing and encouraging the free markets to reach their maximum potential by creating an environment in which they can flourish. All government is socialist to one extent or another. Americans already have a government and country with socialised aspects, they just have fewer than portugal - which seems to work quite nicely for them since they're a far richer and far happier nation that portugal, which is one of the most socialist countries in western europe.
Almost: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DB153EF930A35753C1A966958260 This also sounds rather Socialist, if you ask me. Obviously the US government can free up some cash if the health of the economy is at stake.
Some aspects of 'anarchism' can be in a socialist system, the same with authortarianism. Free speech exists in socialist societies, as does tyranny. However the crux of the argument was that a purely capitalist system is better, it is not. In pure forms they both lead to the same thing. A rich person does care about himself, else he would not be rich.
So basicly no, you don't. You know to be careful of sticking people in neat little groups. As for the second point, I guess it could be argued that it is. I don't really care to be totaly honest, I havn't been arguing that the US is at all conservative, and I don't really care to bother discussing to what degree individual countries are or are not socialist. It should be noted that spending money to make money, is different from sinking money into people who won't create wealth in order that they may lead more comfortable lives. Not that I particularly think the economy booster they're planning is going to work, but that's another discussion. Ah, but that is not what you said. Everyone cares about themselves, you said a rich man cares only for himself, a preposterous generalisation which can be said quite simply to be wrong. Anarchy requires that there be no government, because government requires the submission of one man to another, and the central principle behind anarchy is that each man is his own governer, and each man has control over no other. Socialism requires a government which has sanction to extort money from the people in order to redivide it. They are not compatable. Proper cultural and social liberalism and economic socialism could be said to compatable, imo. I wouldn't write off laissez faire capitalism as being worse than socialised capitalsim. Laissez faire capitalism has it's benefits, and it has it's drawbacks. Which system one would idealy choose to live under though would be a very personal choice and I don't think either could be very simply judged "better".
No, because it takes talent and opportunity as well. What you need to ask yourself is now many rich people are selfish, not how many selfish people are rich.
Whoa there. Think it over. Here we have a government organisation guaranteeing bank investments. How is that different from the Bank of England guaranteeing Northern Rock's customers' savings? That's not the point I'm making. I'm simply saying that in the US, "Socialist" ideas such as national health care are sneered upon, but it quickly resorts to Socialist strategies to buck up the economy. Ought to be a lesson there somewhere. talking about sticking people in neat little groups, I think you also have to be careful to judge what is "wealth" and who "creates wealth" and who doesn't. Some banks and companies are not creating much wealth right now (rather, much debt for the tax payer). On the other hand, that single mum who stays at home to raise psychologically resillient, healthy, educated children is creating a lot of potential wealth for society.
I'm sure Micheal could leave a much quieter life. He could live without people wanting to kill him People being slanderous to his name. With his talent as screen writer and author I'm sure he could make lots of money without being controversial. But instead he chose to raise issue that he belives in. His films and books are make money because hes good at bringing issues to light that America and the rest of the world need to deal with and he has a unique talent at the moment of raising these issues to our current MTV culture. He has to fight and struggle to get his books published. He works hard to get films out. Also he's not communist why shouldn't he make a bit of money. What hes about is social responsibility
Outright captalism probably is a superior ideology to outright socialism, at least outright capitalism leads to rule by slightly better people. It should be noted also that the WHO rates Cuba's healthcare below the US's (about two places below IIRC).[/QUOTE] Yet cuba standard of living is roughtly the same as US. It poeple live about the same amount of time and they spend a third of per a person on there public health care system tham the Uk does. We could learn a lot from the cuban Health care system
I would disagree. Capitalism leads to rule by people who are good at making money. That propensity doesn't make them better, wiser, more moral people. George Bush is a nice example of this, as is for instance Dan Quale, Tony Blair, David Blunkett... In fact, if you look at the people who have contributed most to society, you see scientists, human rights activists, firemen, nurses, soldiers... people who do not exactly tend to roll in wealth. Yeah, and not a Capitalist in sight. Cuba's health care system is driven by some pretty committed health professionals. Now there's the better people you're looking for. It could be doing better, by the way, if it wasn't for the US embargo which includes medical equipment and medicine. So much for having the interests of those poor, oppressed Cubans at heart... but then again, the US isn't too fussed about its own people either.
I disagree. Both outright capitalism and outright socialism leads to a flawed kind of meritocracy. One on his ability to make money and the other on his social ideas. Neither is a good idea and a mix is the best system.
Think tribal (we all do, anyway). There is a hierarchy, usually some pecking order based on attributes which are useful to survival or contribute significantly to fuctioning of the tribe. There is a communal pool that everybody contributes to and takes from, but also strong social monitoring that people do not do more taking than giving. Group loyalty and self-interest are kept balanced by the fact that one's personal welfare is closely tied up with the welfare of the tribe. No man is an island. Capitalism knocks group loyalty on the head. Pecking order is based on who manages to acquire more personal wealth and power, which in turn is a product of self-interest. Selecting group leaders based on who is best at looking out for themselves is, of course, utterly contrary to logic. No wonder Thatcherite Britain begat the anti-social, self-centered society we have today... Communism knocks self-interest on the head. Pecking order disappears altogether: we get management by committee. Allowing those who have no leadership abilities whatsoever to have equal power in the group is utterly contrary to logic. Moreover, those who do are not motivated to take responsibility because there are no perks in terms of power or privillege. No wonder the USSR stagnated. Balance is key. Think tribal.
Umm. No. The cuban standard of living is considerably lower than the US one. The US Human Development Index rating is above 0.950, that puts it above the UK. Cuba is rated as being around 0.800 - putting it on a par with Brazil, or Mexico. Hardly the same. Life expectancy and health care expenditure are indeed important, but don't go thinking that because the US and Cuba share a couple of numbers that life is the same in both countries. It's not. And you should probably note that the UKs health care system is rated 18th in the world, Cuba is rated 39th - so perhaps we don't have so much to learn from them. And out of interest, the US is 37th. Turns out the Cuban system isn't quite as superior as we're lead to believe. It's not particularly, no. But nationalisation is different from guarenteeing savings. One says "if you fall over, we'll pick you up" the other says "you belong to us now". You said the US was nationalising places at the drop of the hat, and you appear to be have evidence to support that. I think this veers into depending on ones definition of socialist then. A government is a socialist organisation. But as far as avoiding things like a welfare state, maintance of the economy in order to safeguard longterm economic progress doesn't seem hugely socialist, in the commonly accepted format, to me. If people get paid, they get paid for a service or for goods. Banks do indeed create wealth by providing a service, in a roundabout way. They invest in companies (say, a coal mining startup) who use that money to expand - the company pays back the loan they got from the bank with interest. The bank skims the interest and passes on some of the earnings to customers. In this way, banks earn a percentage of the wealth created by the mining company, which the mining company would not have been able to earn without the bank. That is wealth creation. It may be indirect, but the markets often are. You say "some" banks and companies, but I can only think of a single bank that has been doing what you're saying. And indeed, in reality it is not the bank that has created debt for the tax payer, but the government. Without governmental interference there would be no debt for the taxpayer, merely a failed bank and lots of people out of pocket who sunk money into something that turned out to be less profitable than had been hoped. That's wealth destruction right there that is. The good thing is, companies that destroy wealth die (or should, at least), while those who create it flourish. The system works Anyway, wealth and wealth creation are concepts I'm comfortable with. I'm not sure there's too much more thinking relevent to this topic to be done. Mutual benefit, maximum survival, all that jazz. I'm going to answer this response, because the quote was misatributed. I'd messed up my quotes a fair while back and Freedom quoted me, making it look like he'd said it. Look at the worst capitalist leaders of the 20th century. Now look at the worst communist leaders of the 20th century. Argument over. That's an obnoxious viewpoint to hold. You think scientists, human rights activists, firemen, nurses etc. could do their jobs if it weren't for industrialists, bankers, engineers? All of the people you listed are able to do the jobs they do because of the environment which has been fostered by those who create wealth. Without money and research labs how can the scientist who doesn't roll in wealth research anything? He can't. Without roads and railways and supermarkets and every other modern day essential we have, how can a human rights activist communicate, complain, protest, advise? I won't go through them all, you get the picture. This view of those who create wealth and get rich in the process as being a neccesary evil, as being scum that we look down on is one of the great wrongs of society. They are the people that allow the artists to paint, the writers to craft great works, the scientists to research new technologies. Without them, we'd all still be living in mud huts. Then re-read the quote 10 more times. I said one was probably superior to the other, not that either was desirable. As loathed as I am to ever say a good word about the old cow, she sorted out the three day working week. I'll take an anti-social and self-centered society over no society at all. Naturally I agree with the over-riding believe in this thread that balance is the key. edit: This post took about 30 minutes to write, and was composed on the fly as responses to quotes, taken in some obscure order that only my subconcious understands. Make of it what you will. (also, longest post evar!)
we just have the bad luck of having capitalists as politicians.... yes, they are capitalists in disguise, they work as capitalists, help corporate friends as capitalists do and privatize all they can get their hands on as capitalists do.... health system? it used to work well..... then... privatization came and made it the most inefficient peace of crap ever.... socialist health system is bad? that is bull, how can people afford life saving operations if they can not afford insurance (even when they are insured they have the possibility to get the middle finger from a guy that knows jack about medicine and get sent to the morgue instead of the OR) as for a capitalist system versus a socialist system....... the mission of a capitalist hospital is to get money out of every person that gets into the hospital, if they cant pay they die (helping the rich and screwing the poor)..... the mission of a socialist hospital is to use money from taxes and treat everyone (helping poor and rich)... really what is so bad about socialist system hospitals that makes Americans so twitchy? ps: at least we are on top 10 on press freedom and Global Peace Index....
