Socialists around the world cheer democrat wins

[matt.m]

We in America already practice a bit of Socialism.....Let's see.....does everyone enjoy electric, heat, gas, water etc.? It is amazing how people can be so against something and not understand it at all.

To be absolutely honest I have always said that the Dems were the less of two evils.

People often confuse Socialism with Communism and or Facism. Socialism as I see it fits more in line with toltalernism. For the good of all by all kind of mindset.

By the way, the folks that knock social welfare should consider that over 8000 times more money is given to corporate welfare who outsource jobs and distribution overseas for their own economic relief for American tax credit.

Before anyone screams NAFTA=Clinton please consider the following analogy......The Republicans followed the NAFTA ideaology as well as Lenin and Stalin followed Marxist Communism. To this I say it was followed not at all.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism

SOCIALISM

1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Socialism=Half Hearted Communism. According to Uncle Karl at least.

 

[Tez3]

I agree with Matt M and Flying Crane. It's no good posting up yet more definitions of what a writer thinks socialism is when it's clearly not that to us who live ,work and vote in socialist countries!

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Well that is the American dictionary definition. Socialism in practice can take various degrees but at its root thats what it is. The gvt gives and the gvt takes away.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well that is the American dictionary definition. Socialism in practice can take various degrees but at its root thats what it is. The gvt gives and the gvt takes away.

I'm not so sure it's as simple as the gvt giving and the govt. taking away. Even by the first definintion, it states collective ownership, OR by centralized government.

By this very definition, any company with stock traded on Wall St. is a slice of socialism. Shares of stock, sold publically, represent collective ownership of the company, sharing the risks of the enterprise, and sharing any profits as well.

I think in a very simplified way, the idea of socialism is that everyone is guaranteed that their needs are met, and as an ideal I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I think it's a noble goal, esp. for a wealthy country with many tremendously wealthy individual citizens, like the US. It's the idea that the whole country does better when all the citizens are doing well.

However, like every form of government, including Capitalism, the problems arise in how the governmental structure is implemented. There are certainly huge problems with Capitalism as well, but again I think many of these problems stem from the involvement of the government itself. Government puts individuals into a position of holding power and authority over others, and this arrangement inherently corrupts those in power. We all see this far too often, it's so common there are jokes about it: How do you know when a politician is lying to you? His lips are moving!

If there is to be any meaningful discussion about this topic, I think we need to recognize a separation between the ideals of a political structure such as socialism or capitalism, and how the governments that acually try to implement these ideals gets it completely screwed up and wrong.

 

[CoryKS]

i thought the democrats were the liberal freedom lovers?-- and that according to the neocons was their problem. you know screw who you want, marry who you want, peace not war, have your privacy protected even at the cost of having big brother having to seek judicial permission to spy on you cause you were unfortunate enough to have parents who bestowed upon you the name of osima benny ladenne.

You're right - both sides have socialistic tendencies. For every conservative complaining about taxes, there's another who wants to ban flag-burning. For every "liberal" who wants to legalize drugs, there's another who wants to outlaw tobacco.

The Road to Serfdom shows how socialism necessarily leads to tyranny. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Another good read is Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell. The reason I distrust the left's kind of socialism more than the right's is that, while the right wants to limit or outlaw certain behaviors, the left attacks the very foundation of freedom: the right to private property. And there's an insidious nature to the way socialists take away liberty - it's always "for your own good". Consider helmet laws. Why do we care if some knucklehead wants to ride without a brain bucket? Because we have to pay for his hospital trip if he has an accident. Seat belts, same thing. Smoking. Trans fats. Red meat. Once it's been established that the government is going to give you "free" services, now the government gets to have a say in which actions you are allowed to participate. And what's worse, the money the government uses to provide these services is money it has already taken from you. They're not free services, they're pre-paid services. And all it costs is the Freedom to Choose.

 

[CoryKS]

I really ought to become an Amazon affiliate. This is a good book - Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. Written by a former red diaper baby, it's a concise history of a really bad idea.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Socialism is based on the idea that most people really CARE that somebody they dont know on the other side of the country is getting all his benefits. Call me cynical but the further out a person gets from himself-his family-his friends-his neighbors-his associates-his local area residents-his state-his country-the less vested interest a person gets. While we all would like to think we are as concerned for John Doe in somewherelseville USA, as we are for us and our own, I think our daily actions prove otherwise. We are concerned for what we need predominantly. And I believe the best way we can provide for our own needs to our satisfaction is by working for it. What the government supplies will always be lowest bidder quality. Its part of the animal.

 

[Marginal]

I never understand how people who buy health insurance can claim they're not buying into a form of socialized medicine.

 

[Flying Crane]

And I believe the best way we can provide for our own needs to our satisfaction is by working for it.

Agreed. I don't think socialism, or any other form of political thought or government should be an excuse for lazy people to be lazy and just expect a handout. I'm just pointing out that we certainly have a good dose of socialism in our own system, and that socialism itself can take many forms and be applied in many different ways. Perhaps some have done so and failed miserably. Others are having greater success as has been pointed out in this thread and that shows that there just might be some good ideas there.

So we don't have any reason to be afraid of and despise other nations who have a greater amount of socialism in their systems than we do. It's just a different approach to governance and economy, and Lord knows our own is far from perfect. Here in the good ol' USA we tend to think we have figured everything out and have it the right way, the best possible way to do things. I simply disagree with that idea. I think we have a lot to learn and a long way to go and we have a lot of room for improvement here. Keeping an open mind and not trying to demonize other political ideas might be a good place to start.

I also find it interesting that Karatekowboy hasn't made any further contributions to this thread that he started. As a completely new member of MT with a very low posting count, I wonder what his motivation is to start up a thread like this...

 

[CoryKS]

I never understand how people who buy health insurance can claim they're not buying into a form of socialized medicine.

There's a big difference between buying into it and being sold into it. I can choose my health insurance. I can decide if I agree to the terms and the price. I can cancel it or change companies. And while the insurance provider can raise/lower my rates or dispute coverage based on risky behavior, what they cannot do is fine me or arrest me for engaging in it. My freedom to choose gives them the incentive to keep the rates and terms reasonable - something the government is not compelled to do.

 

[Flying Crane]

There's a big difference between buying into it and being sold into it. I can choose my health insurance. I can decide if I agree to the terms and the price. I can cancel it or change companies. And while the insurance provider can raise/lower my rates or dispute coverage based on risky behavior, what they cannot do is fine me or arrest me for engaging in it. My freedom to choose gives them the incentive to keep the rates and terms reasonable - something the government is not compelled to do.

This is also true, but it looks like you are making the assumption that socialism equates to totalitarianism and communism and I don't think that needs to be the case. Look back on some earlier posts about some of the more socialistic governments in Europe. They aren't totalitarian like that. Socialism can be applied on many different levels, and totalitarianism doesn't have to be one of them.

 

[exile]

I'm really not sure of where this topic can go, at this point. There are a number of posters who've lived under at least moderately socialistic governments---I lived in BC for a number of years when the social democrats were in power; Tez has lived in Britain, under an admittedly fairly diluted form of socialism; and anyone living in one of the Scandinavian countries, or Holland, is living is as close to a socialist society as there has ever been. And we have other posters who haven't lived under these conditions, some of whom seem to be conflating socialism with bolshevism, in spite of the fact that --as was evident during the Russian revolution (when the bolshevists purged the social-democratic Mensheviks led by Karensky, murding many outright, and sending others to the early gulags that Lenin had in mind even before he reached the Finland station) and the Spanish civil war (when the Stalinists joined forces with Franco's Falange--communists and facists fighting side by side--to wipe out the social democrats and the Spanish laborists at Barcelona)--the first people to be destroyed when the communists gain power in a country are the socialists.

It's very discouraging; I read comments alleging that the quality of medical care in socialist countries is vastly inferior to that in the US (false: during the years I lived in BC under the NDP, people from Washington and further afield used to visit Vancouver for treatment, because the quality was at least as good as what they could get in Seattle's best hospitals and the cost much lower, even for non-residents, and medical care in Scandinavia, Holland and Germany, in all cases legacies of socialist governments, absolutely top quality, and available to everyone regardless of income ) or that private property is illegal (false again: ask Tez if she's allowed to own land, or shared on the London Stock Exchange, or a business). Flying Crane and Tez's posts say everything that I think is relevant here better than I could, but the fact seems to be that as long as people who haven't lived in these places form their opinion of socialism based on what they know about Soviet bolshevism (again, in spite of the fact that, in practice, bolshevists hate socialists more than they hate capitalists), there's really no possibility for any meeting of the minds...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.itcilo.it/english/actrav...loyment in developed and transition countries

Studies show that unemployment is declining in the States and steadily rising in Europe.

Economics or "why botherism" since its all supplied by the gvt? Chicken? Egg?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Just because we have some "socialist" style programs (roads, welfare, medicine) doesnt mean we are or should be heading to a "Socialist economy " where the gvt. controls the means of production and doles us each out our share. Social programs in this country are predominantly for those who cant provide for themselves. Those who can dont need them and dont use them, or if they do not to the same extent. If we were to turn to a "true" socialist system where we all would tap into the system I think we would see drastic changes in taxes, personal property issues etc. I thing some political entities here in the US want to drive us towards that system while others want to drive us away. Perhaps neither is acting in OUR best interest.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

This is also true, but it looks like you are making the assumption that socialism equates to totalitarianism and communism and I don't think that needs to be the case. Look back on some earlier posts about some of the more socialistic governments in Europe. They aren't totalitarian like that. Socialism can be applied on many different levels, and totalitarianism doesn't have to be one of them.

What type of CHOICE do they have though? If they dont like the systems level of service what other options are there?

Without competition I dont know how long medical advancement or innovation will continue to originate from socialist systems.

 

[Flying Crane]

What type of CHOICE do they have though? If they dont like the systems level of service what other options are there?

Without competition I dont know how long medical advancement or innovation will continue to originate from socialist systems.

That all depends on the depth of socialism in the system. It doesn't have to be complete, and utter socialism, and it probably shouldn't be. Likewise, neither should it be complete and absolute capitalism. A certain amount of socialism makes capitalism work better as well.

You've got to move away from the "all or nothing" mentality. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. The ideas that are good can be implemented to an appropriate degree, and the parts that are not good can be discarded. But if you look at any system, be it socialism, or capitalism, or any other -ism as all or nothing, then none of them work particularly well.

The idea of socialism itself is nothing to be afraid of. Like everything else, if its elements are to be applied anywhere, they need to be applied carefully and thoughtfully. I am afraid this is where our governments often get it wrong.

 

[Marginal]

There's a big difference between buying into it and being sold into it. I can choose my health insurance. I can decide if I agree to the terms and the price. I can cancel it or change companies. And while the insurance provider can raise/lower my rates or dispute coverage based on risky behavior, what they cannot do is fine me or arrest me for engaging in it.

Well, you're never really clear of the system. Uninsured folks tend to draw public funds, and while you can cancel your policy or never buy one at all, one trip to the emergency room stands a good chance of crippling you financially.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I think in a very simplified way, the idea of socialism is that everyone is guaranteed that their needs are met, and as an ideal I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I think it's a noble goal, esp. for a wealthy country with many tremendously wealthy individual citizens, like the US. It's the idea that the whole country does better when all the citizens are doing well.

As an ideal, when there is no such thing as supply and demand, nor compensation for work (I think Star Trek was like this), then you're right, it is a noble.

If there is to be any meaningful discussion about this topic, I think we need to recognize a separation between the ideals of a political structure such as socialism or capitalism, and how the governments that acually try to implement these ideals gets it completely screwed up and wrong.

I completely disagree. How can you discuss a political structure without including human psychology. Talking about things involving humans in the abstract is a pointless endevour.

The reason I distrust the left's kind of socialism more than the right's is that, while the right wants to limit or outlaw certain behaviors, the left attacks the very foundation of freedom: the right to private property.

The right to private property is not "the very foundation of freedom." That emcompasses several personal rights. That's just the one that's most important to you perhaps.

I never understand how people who buy health insurance can claim they're not buying into a form of socialized medicine.

You're using a play on words. "Socialized Medicine" does not relate to medical care supplied by the government, the definition of a socialist state. Just because something is in the form of a "collective", that does not mean it's socialist.

It's very discouraging; I read comments alleging that the quality of medical care in socialist countries is vastly inferior to that in the US (false: during the years I lived in BC under the NDP, people from Washington and further afield used to visit Vancouver for treatment, because the quality was at least as good as what they could get in Seattle's best hospitals and the cost much lower, even for non-residents, and medical care in Scandinavia, Holland and Germany, in all cases legacies of socialist governments, absolutely top quality, and available to everyone regardless of income )

I don't think anyone was decrying the quality of medical treatment. From my understanding, people don't get medical care on time, waiting lines are long. And as we get into more socialization of medicine here, out lines are getting longer as well.

or that private property is illegal (false again: ask Tez if she's allowed to own land, or shared on the London Stock Exchange, or a business).

Can't speak for anyone else, but I never believed that.

Flying Crane and Tez's posts say everything that I think is relevant here better than I could, but the fact seems to be that as long as people who haven't lived in these places form their opinion of socialism based on what they know about Soviet bolshevism (again, in spite of the fact that, in practice, bolshevists hate socialists more than they hate capitalists), there's really no possibility for any meeting of the minds...
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

 

[Tez3]

It may surprise you to know that many people in Europe choose to have medical insurance also and we have a choice between using private or state funded medical facilities, we also have a choice of which counrty we choose to be treated in. The main point though is that in an accident or sudden illness we don't have to worry about receiving the best possible treatment it's automatic.No one looks to see what insurance you have before deciding what hospital to take you to. We may have issues about waiting lists but lasck of insurance for medical cover is not something that has to concern us.