Why the U.S. Is Not Even Sort of Creeping Towards Socialism
78
What is Socialism?
You can't turn on the television or radio lately without hearing someone expound about how the United States is becoming a socialist regime. People who live in the U.S. may or may not realize it, but when people in Europe hear us say things like this, they mostly think we have gone completely mad. (They often think this about us anyway, but the anti-socialism rhetoric just seals the deal.)
Why the gap in perception? First of all, many, many free countries in Europe have for years had Democratic Socialist parties that are actually seen as fairly moderate within their various political arenas. So the hysterical American cry of "Socialist" sounds weird to them. It would be as if we went around trying to whip up outrage by shouting "Moderate!" It's just silly.
Secondly, all modern European countries already have some level of government-sponsored health care (one of the possibilities that causes the biggest "Socialism!" outcry from U.S. right wingers) as well as many other government-sponsored programs that promote the public welfare and establish a social safety net for all. These programs have been in place for years, and yet the people who live in these nations do not consider themselves socialists; they see their economies as free market, capitalist systems just like we see ours.
Third, several humane and perfectly functional countries in Europe actually are socialist countries and have been for years, and they don't see a single thing wrong with that. Sweden, Denmark, and most of the other Scandanavian countries have actual socialist governments. Their citizens pay more taxes than we do. They also have more provided for them by their governments than we do. While we can engage in various debates about how right or wrong that is and what the effects on personal initiative may or may not be there, the point here is that none of these countries has 1) a grey, totalitarian lifestyle, or 2) serious human rights abuses and violations. Rather, they are lovely, friendly, caring places to live. They might not be everyone's cup of tea--maybe not your cup of tea--but the don't look like 1984 either.
You just don't see lots of stories about the brutality of Scandanavian regimes and the bloody repression they foist on their hapless citizenry. No, actually, they are so liberal about sex and drugs and just about everything else that even Americans who think of themselves as open-minded are rather shocked when they discover how tolerant they are. Yet life goes on in Scandanavia: the people are happy, the government is functional, and nobody is getting worked up about any of it--at least not over there.
What is Socialism anyway? You definitely get the sense from the listening to the American right that they certainly don't know, and neither it seems do most other Americans. Or maybe the political right does know, but are deliberately distorting the facts in order to get media attention.
Wikepedia defines Socialism this way:
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation."
What I want to focus on here is the idea that socialism encompasses a broad set of economic theories of social organization. In other words, unlike being pregnant, you really can be "a little bit socialist" and many, many countries are. In fact, the U.S. is such a country, and has been for nearly 100 years. Based on the second half of the definition, the part that names a socialist system as characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation, the U.S has been that kind of country for the entirety of its existence.
So, what's going on here? Why all the hysteria?
American Socialism
Socialism became a more formal part of American political language at the turn of the 20th century, when many authors and political activists were drawing attention to the horrendous conditions in slaugherhouses, factories, coal mines, and other Industrial Era enterprises that left workers impoverished and the butt of inhumane and degrading treatment unnecessarily.
Chicago journalist Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle in 1906 to expose corruption within the American meatpacking industry that resulted in dangerous working conditions and a substandard food supply. These conditions were real, but today Sinclair's novel is more broadly interpreted as a socialist critique of unfettered capitalism. The Jungle uses the brutal conditions within the packing plant and slaughterhouse as a metaphor for unregulated free enterprise.
But, surely Upton Sinclair was unsuccessful in provoking actual systemic change within the U.S. government, right? Wrong. The public outcry that followed the publication of The Jungle led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and Drug Administration. Radical lefty organizations, huh? Well, at one time they were considered so.
Now, I admit, the Food and Drug Administration hasn't been too helpful lately (peanut butter anyone?), but for years our food supply was indeed made safer because of this government entity created in response to the activities of a muckraking 19th century socialist novelist. It is the gutting of the FDA as a regulatory agency (another meat metaphor, sorry...) by the Bush administration that has created a contaminated food supply once again in the 21st century. Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.
Other evil socialist agencies within the U.S. government include Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, the public school system, unemployment compensation, and most recently, the U.S. Treasury Department, which is now apparently in the business of supplying government money to huge multinational financial corporations in the hope of preventing a global financial meltdown.
All of our current trouble is arguably caused by the repeal of financial regulations that were put in place after the Crash of 1929. That crash, which preceded the Great Depression, convinced the entire nation that unfettered financial markets, left to their own devices, go stark raving mad with greed. The U.S. banking system worked just fine for nearly a century under sane, necessary regulation. Then, in 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act (put in place during the Great Depression to prevent another meltdown) was repealed under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, sponsored by Phil Gramm and his good friend John McCain. I don't think I have to go into what happened next.
Even so, we still hear this nonstop demonization of socialism, as if it is akin to eating babies, as if we haven't ALWAYS had aspects of socialist thought and policy within our governmental structure and had them work well.
I wonder why?
Who Benefits from Demonizing Socialism?
Statistics show that 80 percent of net income gains since 1980 have gone to people
in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, boosting their share
of total income to levels unseen since before the Great Depression.The average CEO paycheck has gone from about 80 times that of the average to worker to over 400 times as much.
In fact, the top 300,000 Americans together enjoy almost as much income as
the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group receives about
440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half,
nearly doubling the income gap since 1980. Twenty-two percent of this country's wealth is held by one percent of the population, and that is a recent development that roughly coincides with the deregulation of financial markets.
In other words, deregulation coincidentally caused an obscene amount of money to trickle up (not down) into the coffers of the very richest people in the country, and there aren't very many of them either. Although it is frequently argued that Obama's repeal of the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250K amounts to some kind of nefarious "redistribution of wealth" that will kill initiative and hurt business, there is no actual historical evidence for this claim. In fact, there is historical evidence to the contrary.
During the Clinton years, people in the top one percent of all households in the U.S. paid about 60% in income tax (not counting all the various deductions and tax shelters available to them), and the U.S. government ended that era with a budget surplus and a booming economy. During the 1950s and 1960s, one of the best eras ever for the middle class and for American prosperity in general, the tax rate for those same top few was an astonishing 90%. The economy by any measure was flourishing during those years. By contrast, deregulation has led to a destabilzed economy, greater poverty, and the near erasure of the American middle class.
I submit that the demonization of this word "socialism" today is a media tactic used by a small, obscenely wealthy group of corporate apologists to get ordinary people to vote against our own interests and form extreme opinions that actually result in our continued impoverishment and exploitation. I think it is also clear that this group exploits a kind of nationalistic religiousity to get uncritical people to embrace of the demonization of sane fiscal and social policies that would actually directly benefit them. This manipulation of the Christian right worked well under the Bush administration.
It's hard to know how well it religious nationalism working now for the people trying to hold onto their ill-gotten recent gains. It might not matter, since our economy is now so destabilized a total meltdown looks all but inevitable.
But please. Enough of the "Socialist" boogeyman.
Who owns the media? Who owns almost everything at this point?
Not socialists. That much we know for sure
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
oh and props for putting my senator's pic in your hub. most people outside of new england are barely aware of who bernie sanders is. I think his big claim to fame is he has a ben and jerry's flavor named after him
Hi artful dodger. We watched a British version of Oliver Twist on PBS last weekend. It was pretty good. I love Bernie Sanders. He's one of my favorite senators, and a pretty common sense sort of guy I think. Not at all the scary boogeyman type of socialist. Fascism--well, we could get there any number of ways I'd say. $30 billion more for AIG was not good news today. I would like to see the plan--is there a plan? Or are we just throwing money at AIG & Citi and any other corporation that asks for it hoping it'll all blow over? AIG is in trouble because they helped to pioneer Credit Default Swaps and now that one small segment of AIG that went investment-speculative insane is tanking all the profitable segments. So where is the way out? I'm not hearing that from any quarter yet. I'd like to.
Well said PG-- I used to laugh at people who thought socialism was a dirty word, but their ignorance isn't funny anymore. They remind me of the McCarthy era when perfectly sane people were looking for communists--oops I mean Godless communists--around every corner. Among others we have J.Edgar Hoover to thank for that but that's another hub for another day:-) You've explained it all simply, truthfully and well.
I'm not a rabid lefty and I am in favor of private ownership of the means of production, but things like electricity, food, and water not to mention health care need to be run for the common good as well as for profit. There are those who would argue that profit IS the common good, but I disagree. Exhibit A is the American healthcare system.
Haven't we learned anything since Sinclair Lewis? The feed lots of Kansas and Colorado are as awful as the Chicago stockyards described in " The Jungle"-- maybe worse.
My local water company here in New Jersey is owned by Suez Water--a huge international conglomorate headquartered in France. It's a private company in business for profit. Do you think they will sacrifice their profit to my safety and comfort unless a government regulatory agency makes them do it?I don't think so.
I better stop before I start my own rant here in the comments section-- great well-researched and beautifully argued hub. Thanks pg:-)
Hi robie,
I don't think of myself as a rabid lefty either. I think my views are fairly moderate and lean towards sane regulation of private industry and free enterprise where it makes sense, and health care isn't one of those areas where it makes sense. I have a professional background in insurance, and 'health insurance' isn't a workable idea.
My main point with this hub however was supposed to be that we have had a mixed system all along and have used socialist ideas successfully all along, and this nonsense about pure capitalism and litmus-tested free enterprise as uniquely American and true and good is just messed up. It's not accurate, and its not mainstream. It's an extreme view based on an ideology that approaches religious fervor IMO. It all takes place in the rarified atmosphere of 'what if'. If you challenge a free enterprise radical they always argue it hasn't worked because the markets have never been free enough. Right. There's a reason for that.
I'm a pragmatist. I care about freedom AND about socially humane systems, and I think functional societies always are striking a balance between these two ideals. We rarely achieve purity on either end, and when we approach purity things get ugly. This idea that ideological purity will lead to greater functionality is wrong. There is no evidence for it.
In fact there is plentiful evidence against it.
BTW you are welcome to rant here anytime! Thanks for your comments.
Great article and a well defined explanation of the term socialism. If people would just educate themselves on the differences in party structure and beliefs then the extremist would lose the game. Let me interject this thought; the other party’s color is RED—that alone should give one reason to pause and THINK!
I personally do not feel the two party systems serve us well. In my humble opinion, we should do away with party affiliations and that might solve some of our problems. However, that’s unlikely so, let us keep an eye on how they vote, and if they don’t do the job we want---VOTE THEM OUT! Your vote--is your voice, the last election showed just how loud, and forceful it can be.
Hi Pam, in Britain socialism isn't - and never has been - a dirty word. I've always called myself a socialist. Until the 1980s most of our public services were publicly owned, until Margaret Thatcher, that is, who sold most of it off. One of the reasons why the UK is currently in a worse state than the rest of Europe is precisely because so much of our infrastructure was privatised by Thatcher, wheras in Europe public services stayed publicaly owned. On the other hand, the US also has a form of socialism - socialism in reverse - in the form of your arms industry, which is privately owned, but publicly funded, thus redistributing public money into private hands. Which makes it, in Chomsky's words, "a welfare state for the rich". Nice.
Nancy--Good point! I thought it was weird when the McCain campaign started using 'socialism' as a dirty word, since this mostly only resonates with American senior citizens of a certain leaning--young people don't seem to even know what it means or care. I guess 'communism' was already used up from the McCarthy era so that was the only word left to mess with.
CJ--Well said, all of it. A similar thing is going on the U.S. state by state right now. Indiana, the state where I was born, sold their highway system to a private company located in Australia and other states are following suit. They need the money. The arms bit is true too, and I would go farther and suggest that the privatization of military contracts in Iraq was just a way to funnel tax money to Haliburton--which was suffering losses before their former CEO became Vice President. No bid contracts on work that was done poorly or never done at all--and the same happening in New Orleans. Where did the money go to rebuild New Orleans? We know where it DIDN'T go, and what we do know of it went to...drumroll...HALIBURTON! Reverse socialism indeed. Hope AIG is enjoying the latest 30 billion. They'll be back, because in no way has the root problem been addressed much less solved.
Sorry, I kind of went 'off' there for a minute.
CJ Stone
Wash your mouth out with soap for mentioning that woman - this is a clean Hub and there is no need to swear. ;)
Great Hub Pam - you have summed European attitudes up pretty well. THe media in the US seems to think that socialism and capitalism are exclusive.
Put it this way: Politically I am socialist. Culturally I am a live and let live kind of guy, so I guess that is liberal. I sell my services for a living, so I suppose that, economically, I am capitalist.
There you have it - this stupid media compartmentalisation of people is short-sighted and lazy. Strawmen everywhere.
You're right Pgrundy. A country has to be at a certain point in the demographic transition (usually somewhere in between stage two and stage three) and usually immediately after a "peasant society" to be inclined towards socialism and thus welcome it into every day values. I recommend reading "A Short History of Communism" by Robert Harvey. It's the best read i've seen on the history of communism & socialism and covers every country that has obtained a communsim and/or socialist government (either democratically or revolutionarily [if that's even a word]).
"I submit that the demonization of this word "socialism" today is a media tactic used by a small, obscenely wealthy group of corporate apologists to get ordinary people to vote against our own interests and form extreme opinions that actually result in our continued impoverishment and exploitation. "
AMEN, GIRL. You're talkin' my language and I LIKE IT!!! it's always wrong, according the Rush's thinking, for Americans to get any service or benefit from their own tax dollars. If that's Socialism, then we need it.
They had no hesitation when sending money -- unaccounted for -- to Iraq - not even mentioning the other countries we've lost bucks in. That was ok, steal it from me and you and send it "over there." but help those of us who earn the money that's sent "over there?" well, what in the world are we thinking!!! Let the rich remain rich and the poor become poorer and die. It's their fault, you know.
I say....I hope Rush Limbaugh FAILS. and he will. I'm not into name calling, but I hope his mother runs out from underneath the house and bites him.
Hi Sufi--Sounds like we are pretty much on the same page attitude-wise. I'm pretty much live and let live in my personal life, but I've watched things get so extreme in here over the past decade. After Bush first took office it was so repressive here it was scary. It's better now. At least we can openly disagree and open discussions. Eight years ago that wasn't the case.
Thanks Direxmd, I'll check that out.
Marisue--You crack me up! "I hope his mother runs out from under the porch and bites him." lol! I think Obama & Rahm Emmanuel are engaging in a bit of old-fashioned Chicago-style politics in focusing on Rush as the main voice of the Republican party. It really makes the Republican party look bad, which it did before, but now even more so.
Oh pgrundy, you're singing my song and I love it!
You must be a rabid lefty because apparently that's what I am and what you're saying here is much the same as I've said on many occasions.
Socialism is detested in amerika as the antithesis of capitalism. I suppose, taken to extremes, this might be the case.
In fact, capitalists loathe the idea of socialism because, in the best case, it seeks to provide the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people.
It puts people and life before profit.
The capitalist ideal is the greatest possible concentration of wealth in the hands of the smallest possible number of people and the masses be damned; buy or die.
In addition to the welfare currently being heaped upon the financial “industry”, we have also seen, for decades, corporate welfare in the form of huge taxpayer subsidies and equally huge corporate tax breaks. This however is not considered socialism but, rather, free market enterprise.
Although the banking system has never quite worked right, it’s certainly seen better days than these.
Thank you so much for this hub. I almost feel vindicated.
Hey no problem CWB! I'm often accused of being a rabid lefty but I see myself as just a practical person who wants to live in the most humane world possible. Ironically, what you describe here as a radical leftist position is actually closer to what the founding fathers envisioned. They were not fond of banks, were focused on the greatest common good and liberty for the greatest number of citizens, and they were fairly anti-religious. Yet somehow, 200+ years later we have this distorted view of what they were about. It pisses me off. It really does.
If what is going on now doesn't illustrate the dark inevitable end of unfettered capitalism I don't know what does! Thank you as always for your support and enthusiasm!
I was going to make a more substantial comment - bu Sufi said it all, and better than I could have done!
Now, now PGrundy. What kind of heresy are you spouting now? Capitalism and socialism coexisting? How can that be?? This is Americuh. What you are proposing (and I do not care one whit for your trumped up, so-called "evidence"), is downright preposterous. You can't be a money maker and a money taker. You have to choose one or t'other. You can be a hawk OR a dove. You can be Republican OR Democrat. You can be pro-choice or pro-life. You can live in a Red state or a Blue state. If you ain't for us, you're agin us. If you're proposing taking my hard earned tax dollars and spreading them out to people who refuse to work for a living or pay for their own medical care, why that is just plain WRONG:-)!!
Is MM being serious?
I grew up with the British National Health insurance. The hospital spent thousands of pounds on my father and mother, taking care of them. No bills to pay. This is decent. Ambulances pick up people who are ill and take them to hospitals. No one asks if you can pay, because you've been paying for it out of every paycheck you've ever had, or your parents have been doing so. When I was a student, I got free health care. Because that's decent.
MM is joking, right?
Pgrundy -- your hub is excellent, and a wonderful explanation of the American demonizing of socialism.
Thank you for this intelligent, necessary hub. The big lie about creeping socialism is enough to turn my stomach sometimes. You said it all, well.
pgrundy, you know I'm being sarcastic. Given what I've said about the framers of the Constitution and banks in my last hub there's no way I consider you or myself "radical" anything. Radical is what's been done to our country over the past thirty years or so. And it ain't been good!
Thanks LG--Sufi really IS good with a phrase, isn't he?
Teresa--I think MM is being funny...I hope. The amazing thing about the British health care system is that it was instituted after the war, when Britain was really, really broke. So all the whining about how we can't afford it is just nonsense. We can't afford what we have NOW. Thanks for your comments.
Thanks Robert--Yes, there's a lot of bad information out there. I wish we'd stop creeping and just get there, because so many people are suffering right now for no good reason.
CWB--I totally missed it! Seriously--I agree, it's the fundies and neocons who are the radicals. They succeeded in making the middle look leftist. But they did lose the last election--that was really, really cool.
Well, If I hadn't read all the comments, I'd have written a near clone of Chris Stone's piece. Probably because we're of an age, have lived through the same stuff and (since rhetoric requires a third) are both astonishingly good looking... Great hub!
Paraglider, I agree--You ARE both astonishingly good looking!
Hi Pam,
You've summed it all up beautifully. You're so right, we Brits, and probably most other Europeans, do tend to think that the American attitude to Socialism is barking mad! It's as though we've got different dictionairies. With all these things there is a fine line. All out socialism can lead to corruption just as total capitalism can. There will always be those who 'work the system', but it doesn't mean that social safety-nets are wrong.
Hi Amanda, I think the U.S. has swung so far right in recent years that common sense now sounds like leftist rhetoric to some people. There is still a vocal minority in the U.S. that wants small government and unregulated capitalism. Usually, but not always, some extreme religious position is wedded to these views. I think it's kind of creepy. Thanks for your comment!
Great article, explains the demonization of socialism in America mighty well! It seems it's full of comments from this side of the pond, too, I wonder why that would be :-) Sufi's comment represents me as well, but I tend not to care much for labels, they only end up being good to be demonized! Laugh!
I think Amanda is right, most of us Europeans don't get the attitude about socialism in America. It seems all these media blurbs about socialism focus only on the negative, totalitarian aspects of a hard-core socialist system. We all know anyway that any hard-core system can't be good -- if we don't have a good example with the current scenario caused by hard core capitalism, I don't know where else we can find a good example.
Thanks for the ride, as always!
Wow! Good for you for writing this, PG. Ballsy. And thank you for clearing up a few things, and mostly for shining the light on the undoings of the elite who own everything and damn-well want it to stay that way. I do believe "those days are over."
I didn't realize it until reading this piece, but I must be a Socialist. What I knew (as a registered Independent) was that the majority of the rest of the industrialized world had a better system than we did and I KNEW that there were just a handful of greedy bastards at the top (and, of course all of their blinded followers) who were keeping it that way. And I knew that it was an underhanded system.
I was seriously considering leaving America for good (I had already looked into getting my passport) and relocating to one of those countries - that was until Obama was elected. I was ashamed of this country and disgusted with the way it was being run and had just plain had enough!
Now, Ill probably stay. I like where it's headed!
Thanks Elena! I think lots of people who live in the U.S. think the language has gotten pretty silly too. Right now I guess that's all the losing party has left--scary language. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
CW--I'm right there with ya. During the last couple of Bush years, Bill and I were ready to run on a moment's notice, but now we feel like maybe we are back on a better track in the U,S. Even so, I was thinking just this week with all the talk about the border issues to the south that we should get passports. We didn't have them, because you didn't used to need them to go to Canada, but now it's changed. We both thought it was a little scary, all these 'sudden' border problems when Mexico has had these drug troubles for years and years. All of a sudden we need to do something? Why? We just don't know what will happen. It could still happen that getting out fast would be smart--We don't want to be unable to do it if that happens. Scary times.
PGrundy, I'm glad you admit that we have been a socialist country for nearly a century. In that case, why do people who are moderately pink get so upset if you call them "socialist"? What is the deal with that?
It used to be that it was bad to call someone a communist, even though he had actually been a member of the American communist party. People would say: "No, I'm not a communist. I'm just a socialist." Then, after a while, people who wanted to be polite actually started calling those people "socialist" instead of "communist." Now if you call one of those people a "socialist", he says: "No, actually I'm just a moderate."
Well, excuse me, but there is no socio-economic theory called "moderation". Moderate has to do with how far creeping socialism has come!
I wrote a small poem about this once, back when "socialist" was still acceptable:
"Don't call me a Commie!" so calmly he crowed.
"A socialist yes, but a communist, no!
"The communists send their dissenters to camps.
"But we socialists see that they live on food stamps."
PG, yes it is scary, and I just saw a report about the Mexican drug wars last night. The Law side is losing and the drug lords are becoming more brazen - and yes, it IS spreading to America. I am, right now, glad that so many U.S. citizens are armed (and I know damned-well we have some very "serious" militias going here, who would just LOVE IT if those bastards came here). I am not a gun owner, at the moment, but able to get a firearm and even a concealed permit, if the s#!t gets any scarier.
And I'm sorta reassured that if those drug lord bastards come here and try their crap, they're going to be met by some very scary rednecks with some very scary fire power. I KNEW there was a reason I was wary of the bans on firearms... but just didn't know why.
Well, I am ignorant and laughable and annoying - yet I am the only one on this thread who actually have an experience of real socialism - may be except for Aya.
And I keep telling you guys - America is going towards real socialism, and it is no fun...
For all you uninitiated the ONLY difference between fascism and socialism is a scapegoat. A different nationality for fascism, and different income level for socialism...
Look around - who is blamed for all your problems? You have an answer...
Misha, there's no argueing with someone who has first-hand experience, but I do like where this country is heading right now - it is literally all the things I've been wishing this country would do for a very long time - and I do know that it cannot stay the way it was. Look at where the way it was has lead.
The rest of the civilized world seems to be doing very well, except for your particular country, at that may have to do with the leadership system there.
Misha, I couldn't disagree with you more. After studying the demographic transition and traveling to Latin America, The Caribbean, The South Pacific and Mexico--I know demographics when I see them, and the idea of the United States falling under this ideology is slim to none.
Thanks for the sharing of ideas though!
Sorry, Misha, but the differences are semantic. You have a completely different definition of socialism from the rest of the world. We have moved on from the Mccarthy era - the US media apear to be stuck there. To us, socialist means 'left of centre,' rather than Red.
Greeks have a state run medical system, a welfare state and public schools. By common definition, they would be classed as socialist, and most are proud to proclaim themselves as such. Despite this, there is no chance of tanks rolling in the streets of Athens any time soon. Like you, they also suffered under a regime, this one calling itself fascist. There was not really much difference, and establishing a state run health system is not suddenly going to send you all back into the Soviet Era.
Extreme right wing and extreme left wing both lead to the same place, so somewhere around the middle is the safest place to be. I know many Bulgarians, Romanians and Albanians - all of those advocate a state funded healthcare system and education. Like you, they also lived under 'Soviet Socialism,' but recognise that European Democratic Socialism is a completely different beast.
Socialism and capitalism do not need to be exclusive - you can still have free-enterprise whilst caring for those less fortunate. Personally, I do not mind a percentage of my earnings helping others, a decision arrived at through reasoning, not indoctrination.
Replying to Aya's point about why Americans are afraid to call themselves socialist, this is the reason. People automatically assume that you wish to see the Red Army goose-stepping past the White House. Putting all of the power in the hands of a super-small elite will have much the same effect, except the armies will be 'private contractors.'
Maybe we need a new word - socialist is now used instead of communist - over here, we are certainly not that.
Aya, I don't care if you call me a socialist. I don't even care if you call me a commie. I just don't share your views on this issue, it's that simple. I don't see socialist ideas as they are applied in the U.S. as dangerous. I see much damage done by capitalism. I don't think we will reach agreement on this matter, but in the meantime, call me anything you like. I would personal call myself a Democratic Socialist, which I personally see as a fairly moderate political position. I'm well aware though that some people don't agree.
Misha, Direxmd, and Sufi--Personal experience will always color a person's opinions. If I'd have lived in a Soviet bloc country I might be pretty shy of the 's' word myself, but I haven't. I've lived here and I've only seen good things come of American socialism. So I understand why you feel the way you feel, but I don't see it here in the U.S. I just don't.
It bothers me that it has to be all or nothing for so many people right now. I don't think life here is really like that--all or nothing. It isn't for me anyway. I grew up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. There was free enterprise then, people had good jobs, and there were many social programs in place, and no one in their right mind would have called the U.S. 'Socialist" in those years. But now, when we have so much less in place for a social safety net, we have all this extreme language. I don't think it is helpful or accurate, all that extreme talk.
I choose to stay ignorant and annoying :)
I do think bailouts = nationalization, I do see concentration camps being built all over the country, I do see the reduction of freedom in the name of national security, and a lot of other small things that look too familiar...
I will be glad to be proven wrong, yet I am afraid I will be telling a year or so down the road - "Told ya!"...
On a separate note - CW, where do you live? In a bunker? How come you think all "civilized" world is doing very well, when in fact it is in the midst of the biggest crisis on the record?
Misha you are neither ignorant nor annoying. And you may turn out to be right in the end. I agree about the bailouts, the prisons, and now the border business... Well, we'll see I guess.
I know that what I am talking about is not what you are talking about. But I would never call you stupid. If what you fear comes to pass you won't have to say 'Told ya!' because I'll just be a cinder, but if I am then at least I won't be mad when you say it.
"How come you think all "civilized" world is doing very well, when in fact it is in the midst of the biggest crisis on the record?"
Biggest crisis on record? Come off it! Yes, things are a bit crap at the moment. Would you rather be in the middle of the Black Death? or the Second World War?
Not ignorant or annoying :)
On that note, Misha, we are singing from the same song-sheet. Unfortunately, I think that capitalism and socialism have little to do with it. Human greed always seems to lead towards autocracy and dictatorship, since ancient times, long before socialism and capitalism existed.
That worrying trend was also seen under the Nazi's - Hitler's system of public works and re-equipping the military was undertaken by his elite industrialist friends. They made a lot of money. That sounds familiar too - Cheney and Halliburton, perhaps. The Patriot Act, detention without trial. Not aimed at Republican supporters, just making a point.
Sadly, I have no idea of the best course of action. It seems that the throwing around of labels as insults is a case of divide and conquer, so that nobody notices the concentration camps.
Great article. You said the things that need to be said. "Socialism" has become a Republican political word to be used against Democrats. It nothing to do with reality. Yes, I know Republicans out there will disagree with me and probably call me names, but all you have to do is pay attention to whom is calling whom "Socialists."Our political system has fallen to the point that re-election is more important than the good of the nation. Politicians will say anything to get re-elected and will bash their competitors any way they can. The claims of socialism are a perfect example.Some of our so-called journalists - Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" for example - do the same thing. Get something published that has a reaction - who cares as long as ratings go up. And yes, I am a democrat, for many reasons and also because Republicans faun on the top 1% of the population.
-Misha, I live in Oregon. Where do you live? I see one of those biggest worldwide crises (economic) as created right HERE in the U.S., by the past regime. Do you have no problems with the way this country WAS being run? The utilateral war-mongering? Your paranoia buzzers didn't go off at all the Nazi-esque BS Bush was pulling? Mine sure did. If America does become Socialist (which it has been in many ways for many decades) it will not be as Russia was Socialist - or any other country, for that matter. We will be, and are, Socialist American Style. Where you see reductions of freedom (???) and concentration camps (???????), the rest of us see Hope and Change for the better. Very long overdue.
PS: To "choose" to stay "ignorant and annoying" (but I wouldn't call you that) is to choose not to learn... i.e., Ignorant. Ok, maybe you're right ;-)
-Sufi, where are these concentration camps? I'm not talking about Gitmo. I believe Obama is taking care of that one already.
-London, thank you. It was yours, and countries like yours, to which I was referring.
Pam- Although I agree with you that we need to take care of the poor and the needy by providing health care and minimum support but I do disagree that the bailouts in general would necessarily help the economy in the long run (except for huge industries like Auto where millions of ordinary folks stand to get affected). I was watching news yesterday and in spite of bail out money to AIG it still posted losses and more ever more money is waiting to be pumped into them. Why can't we let some companies fail if they are inefficient(within a free market economy) even if they are "big" enough to be protected?
CW - might be worth noting that most of the Mexican drug lords' guns are supplied from north of the border, where it's easy for a middleman to buy, thanks to the lax gun laws in the US. If the Mexican drug lords come north, then yes, there will be a battle royal, and the winners will be the arms manufacturers, the cynical b@stards who supply both sides and don't care who dies so long as it makes them lots of money.
p.s. - CW is Constant Walker, not Countrywomen, who has just appeared :)
I think the USA is mostly responsible for this - not Mexico. If there wasnt' a demand, there wouldn't be suppliers.
Constant Walker - That last point was a slightly tongue-in-cheek point. I was trying to point out my hatred of the media muddying the waters. People seem to be too busy throwing accusations such as 'socialist' and 'liberal,' and fail to see the bigger picture.
Britain is much the same - people are too busy watching reality TV and reciting political soundbites to notice their liberties becoming eroded. No idea where things are going - certainly, healthcare and education are two of the things that seem to be a priority, and shutting Guantanamo.
Sadly, I fear that the corporations hold the power - I used to work for a particularly nasty Wal-Mart type corporation and have seen how the authorities give them preferential treatment. Can one president can make a difference?
I hope so.
The USA is SOOOO responsible for the problems on the Mexican border. That's what worries me. I mean, it's not like our country hasn't been up to this crap for like, I don't know, FOREVER. So how come all of a sudden we have a big border issue? I worry because things are getting bad, and already we have something that may or may not be new and may or may not be a reason to close the border to the south--and if the U.S. does that it will because the U.S. manufactured a reason to do that. Bill and I went to Canada a couple of years ago and almost didn't get back in. Now you can't get in or out going North without a passport. It's worrisome.
I don't know about concentration camps. but so many prisons have been built in recent years that one out of every 100 Americans are now in prison. We have the highest incarceration rate in the modern world. One in twenty men between the ages of 30 and 34 is in prison--for black men the number is one in nine. We are building prisons faster and faster even though we know emprisonment has no effect on reducing crime and is horrendously expensive.
Here's a link to a current news release about it:
LOL Pam, we both know where we stand and respect it :)
LondonGirl, I will be glad if you are right about the scale of current events. Yet if you are wrong - and I bet you are - we are just having both of these right ahead.
CW-guy, if someone choose to hide his head in the sand, there is nothing I can help with, sorry.
Sufi,
Yeah, I can call it communism and other words, does not really change what is going on. :) Yet in my current thinking is - tyranny is the price society pays for government healthcare and such. :) Why do we all unanimously assume nobody will help the needy if government does not do this? Are we all crooks?
all--
I got lost in all the comments, not your fault, mine.
My analogy to the socialism topic is raising a family. When parents raise their children they are taking care of them because they can't fend for themselves. As the children grow up they have hopefully learned more from their parents to become more independent. This goes on for all their years before they are old enough to leave the roost and become the next generation of parents or a least independent enough to take care of themselves. From this emancipation period till they can exist on their own, there is still some help from the parents when it is needed.
Of course this is an idealistic family concept but it is the way it was at one time.
The government has two heads, one head still think that its citizens are less than adults and need lots of taking care of by them. The other head, thinks that they are results and wants them to spread their wings and be on their own.
Neither head is in control of the country and they overlap many times. These heads also take turn of being in control and this vacillates every two years.
----
As to the Mexico drug issue....
Yet, another analogy.
If the United States was your house and the citizens were your kids. You live next door to a family (Mexico) whose kids ( drug dealers) are selling your kids drugs. Of course, it is your kids that are being bad as well as the kids next door. You don't have the responsibility of taking care of the kids next door, but you are responsible for your kids. If you think that your kids shouldn't do drugs, then you should do what is necessary to make sure that they won't be doing them. Yes, your kids are doing the wrong thing, but that is why you are there, to teach them better values.
Remember, drugs are only a few notches away on the same scale from drugs.
issues--great analogy. I think a big part of the problem though is that people in the U.S. are also selling guns to the Mexican drug lords. Plus, people in the U.S. make money on the the drugs too, and I'm not just talking about drug dealers. Putting Americans in prison for drug use is big business now. In some communities, the prison is the only real industry around. They have to put people in these prisons in order for the prisons to make money, so they put drug users in them. The 'war on drugs' in the U.S. is a big joke--it is mostly a way for the U.S. to funnel money to the corporations that own prisons, sell arms, and skim drug profits. It's very corrupt.
If it was just, "hey, don't do drugs kids," it would be a lot easier to address. But I don't think for a minute that our government cares how many kids do drugs. It's all about money, not drugs.
Misha -
1)History shows that the needy are left behind. Victorian England was a prime example of that - workhouses and child labour. Who is helping the Americans without healthcare? The drugs companies? The private health insurance companies?
2) We have a state healthcare system here - I have more personal freedom than anybody in the UK (a similar corporate dominated culture to the US). From what I have seen (admittedly a small representitive sample), I have far more freedom than most Americans. Yet I am in a country with state funded education, health and a welfare net. How does that work?
Caring for the less fortunate does not lead to tyranny, otherwise most of Europe would now be under dictatorship.
Pam, this refers to any war I think :)
pg,
You are correct.
Don't think it has to do with poor parenting both by the real parents and the government. Many kids in the US are actually getting drugs from not only the kids next door but from those they find in their own home.
They also find them in and around their schools.
You are right about the money, take away the monetary gain from providing drugs and you could end the problem. Well, at least half of the problem, that of suppliers.
Half of the country are already on drugs (prescription) and some of them are more dangerous than street drugs.
But, I digress.
Sufi,
I frankly did not live then and there, neither did you. Why are you taking this particular time and place as a benchmark?
No, corporations won't help the needy. Yet you and me will and are. And I think most of other people, too.
Think about it - when you are advocating outsourcing of care for the needy to the government, you essentially are saying that people by themselves can't do this, in other words people are evil by nature. Is it your worldview?
PGrundy, I hope that you understood that I wasn't calling you names. You yourself admitted that we have socialism. I was questioning why it is that most Americans, even those happy with the socialist system we have, are so unwilling to use that word. I commend for your honesty in not flinching from an accurate description.
Just to make it clear, I am not a McCarthy-ite. It was wrong to try to use government powers to hurt people who happened to believe in communism. The essence of America's greatness is that you get to believe whatever you want and speak out for those beliefs.
However, the "witch hunt" analogy that came into vogue in reference to Miller's The Crucible was a little off. I mean, I don't think most of the people persecuted in the Salem witch trials actually were witches. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a witch, mind you.) They were pretty much victims of completely fictitious accusations.
On the other hand, most of the people accused under McCarthyism really were communists. They had every right to be, mind you, and they shouldn't have been persecuted for it.
But the result was that after McCarthyism was exposed, people were afraid to talk openly about how certain views were communist -- or by extension, socialist.
Misha- When things are going well then most like to be generous but when things aren't going well for most then there is very little left to go around (and even if there is little left to go around people would like to save it for a rainy day).
Just look at today's scenario almost everybody is concerned about jobs and savings to sustain in the uncertain future then how many will be generous towards others? In such a scenario if somebody who doesn't have a job (along with the company health insurance) then what about such family's health coverage and minimum family needs. Neither total free market economy nor total socialist economy is the solution but a delicate balance seems more practical (as pointed by Pam which is practiced in certain Scandinavian countries).
Countrywomen, I think you're not taking into account what form generosity and mutual help can take when everyone is in trouble. Giving money to charity is not something we do, when we haven't got any money. But inviting a neighbor's child over to dinner, when you know the neighbors don't have enough to eat is still possible. Helping an elderly neighbor in her garden, or sharing some of what you grew in yours is still possible. Allowing someone to stay in your home for a while until he builds a house of his own, is still possible.
The modern, industrial view of charity and generosity is so impersonal. We're expected to give money to total strangers. But real generosity happens between people who know each other and really care.
When everything is measured in terms of money, we forget what real generosity is about.
Aya, that's a good point about McCarthyism making Americans afraid of admitting to left-leaning views. I think a similar tactic is being attempted now with all the hoopla about socialism. It's an attempt at intimidation. The analogy to the witch trials is interesting because I think there is something to be said here in regard to the conditions that give rise to social hysteria--it usually is about repression and a struggle for power. While none of the girls in the Crucible were likely witches, the accusations of witchcraft arguably served a purpose for both witches and accusers. I think concealment was what that was all about. In that case what was being concealed was forbidden sexual activity on both sides. In the case of the hysteria surrounding the word 'socialism' I think what is being concealed is the actual distribution of wealth.
That's a really interesting point. Thank you.
No, but then deciding that history is irrelevant, because we were not alive, is short-sighted. Part of moving into the future is looking back and analysing the mistakes of the past - I am pretty sure that you would like people in 100 years time studying the Soviet Regime as a bad way to do things. Throughout human history, society has shown a blatant disregard for the less fortunate members of society - Greeks, Romans, Elizabethans right up until the present day.
If people are so kind and will help the needy, who is doing this in the US at the moment? Nobody except a few overburdened charities. Using your definition, paying a portion of my taxes IS helping others, so we are much closer to your idea of communal help than you are. You seem to think that the government taking tax for healthcare is an issue - you have to find money for your medical insurance, so what is the difference?
Government controlled healthcare does not have insurance companies and drugs companies skimming off money, so is far more cost effective. The US healthcare system is the most inefficient in the world, so I cannot understand why people still defend it. It does not work under any definition. My portion of tax going towards healthcare is my insurance that if I have an accident or become ill, I can go to hospital without worrying about bills. I am very happy with that - if it helps somebody less fortunate, even better.
Your final suggestion is not a logical leap - I don't understand how you get from universal healthcare to evil worldview. The fact that man people happily contribute towards universal healthcare shows that there is some good within humanity. There is also some bad - I don't see the Wall Street millionaires offering to pay for people's operations.
CW-girl, long time :)
I agree to what Aya answered to your question about helping. Can only add that at such times having all the help reach the needy is even more important - yet government inevitably, by design, adds a serious overhead to the process, noticably reducing the amount of help that could have been given directly.
As for the Scandinavian countries - they are in the same deep trouble as the rest of the "civilized" world, and I am pretty much sure they will look much different when the dust settles...
Sufi,
I will leave it here. I am not ready for a serious discussion, and short remarks don't work for you :)
I think we'll get back to this a bit later :)
Misha- It is a pleasure to be back. Btw what I am getting from your statement is that "anything government" from your conclusion about "serious overhead" is "bad". But I would ask you this question in these times "directly" how many people are giving.
Secondly inviting for a meal and helping out in the domestic chores is a wonderful thing but what about serious medical emergency costing thousands of dollars, house payments (mortgage/rent) and other basic expenses to sustain the family on a monthly basis.
Does giving "directly" which is voluntary or a policy which is mandatory help more number of common folks?
No worries, Misha - have a good one. Enjoyed the discussion! :)
Glad you are back CW-girl :)
Let me ask you - if you personally will see your neighbor hungry - will you feed them?
Oh, and yes, I am pretty much anarchist nowadays :)
Misha- I did say it is a wonderful thing but will feeding a hungry neighbor alone would be sufficient was my question. Anyway I do respect your views and hope you don't find my questions disrespectful of you in anyway. Have a great day. Time to get back to work ;)
Countrywomen, well, that is exactly the point. What we can't afford to do for ourselves, we can't do for our neighbor either. That's how it always was and always will be, When our neighbor loses his house because he can't pay the mortgage, we also can't pay the mortgage for him. We can help share what we have, such as a place to stay, but we can't share what we haven't got.
When the government prints money to pay for things nobody can afford, then this leads to total collapse. Charity can't spend more than there is. Generosity is about sharing our surplus, not giving away our livelihood. Why should one family pay the mortgage of another family? In what universe is that possible?
Again Aya beats me to it :)
Still I can add a bit.
CW-girl, why do you think government can do more if you can't? All what government really does is distributing your tax money, taking away a part of it in the process. So on average it can do LESS than direct help, by definition. BTW this refers to organized charities with the staff on a payroll too.
Now, coming back to my question, and your previous one. If you help voluntarily, and I help voluntarily - what makes you thinking other people won't, unless forced to do so? Do you really think people are evil?
Well, Future Me, I hope by avoiding ducks, I don't turn that far left in this future, because Misha has experience and I have to assume that he knows of what he speaks.
"If people are so kind and will help the needy, who is doing this in the US at the moment? Nobody except a few overburdened charities."
I don't know where you get such a low opinion of my friends and coutnrymen, Sufi, but honestly that hurts.
I live on the Gulf coast. I was here for Katrina. The government only goes where the TV cameras go. I was with some of those private charities in parts of Mississippi no government group would go to (they were busy getting PR in New Orleans for political points) I saw thousands, and I mean that literally of private people who out of the goodness of their hearts poured thier own money, food and shelter without the need for, and sometimes in spite of, government help. I myself housed two refugee families (at different times).
The TV cameras are gone, the government aid has dried up. But those people are still here for the truly needy.
I drove with a chruch group to pass out supplies to these little backwoods towns that CNN forgot.
Don't get me wrong, in spite of the bad press, FEMA and the Corps of Engineers did very high quality work. They handled "the big things" like moving tons of garbage and debris well. They were necessary and I am grateful for them.
But, when it came to basic human needs, it was the private charities, mostly small churches from little towns all over the US that came in droves to help people get back on their feet. My countrymen were genrous, gracious and plentiful. The govement sucked.
Read Star Parker's "Uncle Sam's Plantation" and you will understand that the only thing the govermnent helps poor people do is stay poor. Star Parker has experience, I have to assume she knows of what she speaks.
Sorry BDazzler - Thatis only one part of what I was trying to say. I have no doubt that charities do a lot of good work. Believe it or not, as a child, I regularly attended the Salvation Army, so understand the power of good deeds.
The point that I am trying to make is a different one. Misha understands the perils of totalitarianism, but I understand universal healthcare - I have lived all of my life in countries that never turn the sick away. I have no doubt that you and your friends, or Misha and Aya would help somebody in hard times. A criticism of the system does not criticise the people. I apologse if it sounded that way.
Health care is unique, and should not beassessed on ability to pay. Just because Europeans believe this does not mean that there is a chain of dominoes that leads to mass nationalisations. We pay health insurance in the same way as you, but it goes into a pot. We spend less percentage of GDP on healthcare than the US, so the accusations are against the system, not individuals.
The point that all of the Europeans, and many of the Americans, are trying to make is that universal health does not equal totalitarian socialism. Otherwise, we would have joined the Soviets years ago.
If the US system worked, there would be no health tourism.
The health care problem in the US is not with private vs. public. The problem is primarily Malpractice insurance. Dr's practice "defensive medicine" to protect themselves from lawyers.
These are the same lawyers who get theselves elected to public office, so don't count on them to fix the problem.
All nationalization would do is move the money into these lawyer's pockets without the need for a trial, but it will not improve the standard of care in the US.
Don't believe me? Who was the biggest advocate for nationalized health care in the US? Hillary Clinton. Is she a doctor? Nope. She's just another lawyer.
Sadly, that is something that bugs all systems. The get-rich-quick ambulance chasers are spreading in Europe too. It has not hit Greece yet, but it probably will - the 'sue everybody' culture is well ingrained in the UK. That is probably another Hub's worth of comments!.
Still not convinced that the insurance and drug companies are entirely innocent, but this is rapidly reaching the circular argument stage. All I can say is that the system works here - I have not been to a doctors for over twenty years, but am still happy to pay my insurance.
If you want any help in sending a few of the more unscrupulous lawyers to Antarctica, I would glad to help. We were stiffed by one here, so they are not my favourite profession.
Just to pop in here on health care--Administrative costs (paperwork) associated with insurance make up 30% of the health care costs in the U.S.
Drugs are also more expensive in the U.S. than anywhere else on earth because the drug lobby in Washington makes it possible for big pharma to gouge Americans--that's why so many Americans go to Canada to get their prescriptions filled.
The cost of hospital care is skyrocketing due to the increasing number of uninsured persons who can only get treatment at a hospital emergency room--they will be refused at a private physician's office because they cannot pay. So they show up at the ER and incur a bill in the thousands of dollars for services that would cost $80 or $120 at a GP's office, then they default on that hospital payment, because of course it is unaffordable, which in turn drives the cost for everyone else even higher and higher. As more uninsured are added to the pool, more pressure forces prices higher and higher.
Insurance works by charging the people who pose the greatest risk the most money, so people who need health insurance the most cannot afford it at all, and people who don't need health insurance (young people, mostly) don't buy it, leaving fewer and fewer people in the pool of the insured to pay for the actual care. You can sell health insurance for profit--but it's a bad model for health care because it's inhumane and there is this problem of ever-diminishing returns. The people who need your product most can't afford it. The people who don't need it won't buy it.
So it's quite a bit more complicated than the cost malpractice insurance and the prevalence of lawsuits against doctors.
But PAM!!! ... Lawyers are such EASY targets EVERYBODY hates lawyers!
Well, that's true! lol!
Except we all love London Girl! She's a lawyer. And Aya was a lawyer too, back in the day. So we have to tread carefully here!
Seriously, a lawyer is a person you hope you never will need to hire, but when you do need to hire one, you want to nastiest, meanest one you can find. So it's not like their rep is all bad.
Yeah, you lot had better not diss me, or I'll sue.
As we say in south London, "yer talkin' ter me or chewin' a brick, mate?"
LOL! My brother is a lawyer. He says (and he's right) people never hate thier own lawers, they just hate everybody elses ... and that's OK, because that is their job.
I garantee you, I loved my divorce attorney, but my ex-wife's attorney ... I never ever before truly wanted someone to burn in hell ... but yeah, my ex-wife's attorney I hated that much.
We managed to end up with the most incompetent lawyer in Greece.
Hope there is a place reserved in Hell next to your ex-wifes lawyer.
-Para, yep, I knew that. What I don't know is what to do about it. Suggestions?
-London, again exactly right - WE are responsible for the drug problems and the horrific heights it as risen to. Many think it would solve the problem to legalize drugs. I do not agree, and do not want to live in a society where those kinds of drugs are legal (have you seen those people? I have!), but maybe I'm wrong. The moonshining trade went away when booze was legalized.
-Sufi OOOH! Doh! And I also think the media has become completely ridiculous. I have a kind of deep loathing for them - and I will always believe that it was British paparazzi who killed Princess Di, and was speechless when they were not held responsible for it.
-Misha. Your uh, concern, is touching, really, but I think I (and my sand-filled head) will be just fine, thank you.
The US and the UK used to produce some of the finest journalists in the world - it all went wrong somewhere. Mind you, it it a chicken and egg thing - do they force feed us the celebrity pap or do the public demand it? Never was quite sure.
That's an easy one; if the public wasn't gobbling it up (it's so pathetic) there would be no paparazzi. I blame the public. Thankfully, I do not know anyone personally who reads tabloid trash, but I know the sales are huge.
And there are still some fine journalists here (watch an excellent show called CBS Sunday Morning if you get the chance) - and in the UK, I hope - they're just overshadowed by the plethora of trash.
"I do not agree, and do not want to live in a society where those kinds of drugs are legal (have you seen those people? I have!), but maybe I'm wrong. The moonshining trade went away when booze was legalized."
Seems to work OK in Holland
CW - {{Para, yep, I knew that. What I don't know is what to do about it. Suggestions?}}
My (probably unpopular) suggestion would revolve around far tighter gun control. You can make a case for ownership of hunting rifles, but no-one apart from the legitimate military should have assault rifles ot automatic hand guns of any sort. The drug lords don't cross the border to buy sporting guns, do they?
Para, up until last month, I whole-heartedly agreed with that. But now, with the drug lords so brazenly coming into the U.S., I find myself glad that so many citizens are armed with more than hunting rifles. And yes, I see the vicious circle here - if they hadn't been so readily available here, the drug lords there wouldn't be such a threat. That's a fact and I hope our administration will recognize that fact and take responsibility for it.
Yet the immediate problem remains; What to do about that now? If we were to, say, tighten our gun laws tomorrow, or next year, we would be very vulnerable to the immediate Mexican drug lord threat. We have the military, but they are hesitant to come in and engage in a heavy arms battle in the streets (they would, of course, if necessary) - where as your average survivalist armed with an AK47 and/or grenade launcher would have no problem with doing just that.
I suspect we are being manipulated into consenting to some extreme border action on the part of the Federal government. I don't like it. It smells.
Really? That certainly is a possibility. I'm going to be keeping a very close, and wide-open, eye on this situation.
Just to give you an example - Russia has very tight gun laws. Yet look at the number of AK-47 and AK-74 in use by criminals worldwide :)
Criminals will always find a way to get a gun, and by tightening gun laws you only make it harder for a law abiding citizen to defend themselves...
Misha what do you think about this business with our borders? Do you think they are trying to keep bad people out? Or do you think they are trying to keep Americans in? It bothers me, seriously.
I agree with Misha on the gun laws.
About the borders, I doubt they are trying to keep Americans in. Nor are they trying to keep "bad" people out. They are trying to put a lid on our population growth through immigration.
Aren't you a wonderful find! Personally, if I could figure out how to get into a "real" socialist country (e.g., Sweden) permanently, I'd be there with bells on. You've given me one of the best reads of the day - while marisuewrites has given me the best laugh (and, boy, did I need it).
Pam,
Frankly I have no idea what is going on with borders right now, I have to look it up...
I do understand the logic that police may not be able to provide safety and protection to all residents in real time hence guns are required. But I feel some psychological tests should be included unless we want to have repeats of incidents like virginia tech. And also I don't understand why only US citizens are allowed guns. Although I live in a state where I haven't seen a single gun in the last 2.5 years but I have a senior in my college who works in the suburbs of Houston who is a permanent resident and has to go to places(due to job) where lots of people have guns. I don't understand whether some of those immigrants who are engineers, doctors and scientists shouldn't have the same level of safety as some of the rest (US Citizens) have here.
Misha, I think there needs to be SOME level of gun control ... Like I think anybody who wants to own more than four or five fully auotmatic weapons should proably have a special license, One, no more than two grenade launchers per household ... and nobody really needs more than one tank per family.
Seriously though, during hurricane Katrina, when it was truly impossible for the police to be everywhere at once, the places like Mississippi where the populace was armed and everybody knew it had very little looting, and everybody got along just fine. Places with harsher gun laws saw the most crime.
I Figure I will chime in too. LOL.
As a part Time Mexican Resident, who is planning to be full time in Five years, let me start here, anyone who listens to the news should sit in a corner with a little pointy hat. Judging Mexico by Juarez and Tijuana is as insane as Judging the US by Miami, South Central LA, and Post Katrina New Orleans. It is a patently false representation.
Second, as a regular participant in law and order down there, I have yet to find an American gun with the exception of a couple of my own. Most come from Brazil, Russia, Israel, and China. With China being the nine hundred pound gorilla of SKS's in the hands of the drug lords. Of the American Guns I have heard rumor of are mostly in the private otherwise law abiding Mexican Citizen's hands and usually get there from family members concerned about the safety of their family in a Country that has very strict Gun Laws. HMMM!
The Point is you are allowing the Fascist Idea of Gun Control (Hitler would not attack the US based on the fact there was no way to locate and Register and ultimately confiscate all the guns in private hands here) that only leads to a lot of crime example Juarez and Tijuana. The border problems there are almost entirely artificial, and the drug trade is tightly regulated so as to ensure only certain countries profit and other do not.
I used to take side jobs in Columbia as has my brother just to make sure the right guys win drug battles trust me this is a big boy game that should not be allowed to be used to push The United States into to doing something patently stupid for a country that has created its own problems with Socialism and Gun Control and Government Corruption. (Side note the US taxpayer pays my brother a lot of disability for getting shot in Columbia doing these very jobs I throw this in there for some Irony)
That said I really love the place (Mexico) because I thrive in those environments and I do not want to see it changed for the better or worse. For me it is my retirement paradise, and I do not want anyone letting the Corporate Media Convincing anyone the United States should be meddling there. They should not. In fact, the less the US does the better of Mexico is.
As for having enough money in the world, Wealth is a fixed Value therefore it is somewhere and if someone is starving it is because someone is not sharing period. The Government cannot provide the care and service that we can provide ourselves it just cannot be done. It is a mathematical impossibility, that said why do we allow George Soros, Warren Buffet, The Waltons, The Rockefellors, or any other group keep their wealth when we have no problems taxing the shit out of every level of wage earning citizens. Paying for the Government is the responsibility of those who take the most benefit, that said they benefit most therefore they should get the bill.
Money should be free. The Treasury does not need the Fed to skim 6 percent from the money supply making it mathematically impossible to pay the debt off. It is a silly argument to discuss since it is artificial to begin with. Throw away the dollars and remove the largess from the system and there will be plenty to go around.
We cannot keep at each other in the Polar opposite scenario where everything is black and white, right and wrong, left and right. It is a scam divide and conquer tactic that keeps us in the dog pin biting each others asses when we should take the month of June off and be in Washington bringing this down and starting over. I pick June because I am not particularly fond of cold weather. But if another month works better I am game.
TMG
June works for me TMG. Although by June there might not be much left to take down at this rate. ;)
All joking aside, it needs to be done, my only problem is without an overwhelming number it will be used as a catalyst to finish off the transition to a USSR style government. Which was not a communist government by any stretch of the imagination, but a bankers wonderland.
A perfect mechanism to get the whole country to work for minimum wage to rape and ravage all the wealth from the land. Once it was all gone they let it fall into Chaos. The same thing will happen here as Misha has predicted.
I am not trying to be cynical I have just helped the world of finance achieve its goals to many times in places nobody ever talks about. Here is good link on our track record back in the good ol'days
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_genera
Here is his bio on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Anyway I think he serves as a good Moral example of the courage we need today. I just don't think a lot of our military folk have it in them.
TMG
Well, you answered my question before I asked it. I was gonna ask, "OK, after we tear it down, then what?"
No good answer to that. Usually what happens next is worse than what came before.
Very good point, BDazzler. It's unfortunate, but because of the rampant criminal element in the U.S., it is wise for a household to able to protect themselves, and italso wise for that fact to be known.
Wow, PG, you've opened up a can of worms, haven't you? You've got yourself a literary donnybrook!!!
With the amount of Money that would be on the line you can figure we would be up against UN peacekeepers within a week, after that Martial Law and then Whatever they want. That is with a small uprising.
Now with massive support across the country it could be entirely different. It wouldn't even have to be violent really. Start with a Credit strike followed by a complete labor strike. Then good faith Negotiations could be set and then go from there.
Alas, without those numbers and I wouldn't know how to get them as we are relatively unable to achieve significant change as a species. It is something to ponder.
I appreciate you stimulating the old nugget Pam.
TMG
You are an optimist TMG :)
As Russian and German 20th century history teaches us, even in a peaceful uprising there is always an opportunity for the government (or whoever else is interested in this) to hire a few hundred or even dozens armed boneheads to turn just one small point of this uprising into the violent one and justify use of troops against own people...
Pam,
I read a few news stories about the border, did not see anything directly related to tightening from US side. I think TMG covered it - he definitely knows what he is talking about. :)
Actually I know and you know that US government has the power to extremely easy end the drug war and drug trafficking all over the world by legalizing all drugs, and that it will not do this because government jointly and separately feeds off this war...
Ah Misha,
I forgot how little it costs to get a few thugs to make it look like the whole country is in Chaos and the Army must step in.
I think Iran is probably one of the better recent examples. I read it only cost about 20,000 to get a bunch of thugs to riot and another 10,000 to buy a general to use the army to have the government overthrown.
All in all a pretty good return on the US's investment when you consider how much money we made selling Arms to both Iran and Iraq.
TMG
Yeah, the only problem is all these moneys are in China now :)
Pretty Much :)
TMG
Well, as an american, I hold socialism in contempt for the same reason that I hold our wonderland version of "capitalism" in contempt.
It is not because I am against helping others, but because I hold that coercion is wrong. Today, in the land commonly called the united states, we have a system of outright cronyism.
We do not, in any sense of the word, have a free market. Our markets have the very heavy hand of government tucked into every niche, put there by the money trust to ensure lack of competition.
By looking into Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), one can see that the government units actually do own the businesses. Rather than owning them outright, they simply own them through stock ownership.
The division is there to keep people confused, blaming either the government (proponents of so called capitalism) or blaming the corporations ( proponents of so called socialism) when in fact, they are one and the same.
With provable criminal elements on both sides, the only reason I can say that we might as well have "universal health care" is that instead of being robbed and getting nothing we will at least be robbed and get something.
I do not like forced socialism. I do not like forced capitalism. I do not like forced anything. People should be free to choose, knowing ahead of time what it is that they are choosing.
By forcing everyone to pay for something, whether they want it or not, you enslave them to one degree or another. However, systems could easily be put together where people had choice. Nothing is free. Someone, somewhere pays for it. Having a group with power to manage it and force it upon everyone involves skimming some of the total productive energy from the top and only invites corporatism and rampant cronyism.
Both are out of control already here in the united states of america, and people are kept mostly asleep via poor education, corp/gov control of the media, and indoctrination into materialism.
A system explicitly stating that you agree to place X% of monies earned into a pool for health insurance, managed with minimal overhead and get "free" health insurance in return would be fine, so long as you could decide for yourself if you were willing to go that route. Personally I don't believe that paying a hundred dollars into a pool, having the one managing it take ten dollars out, and then distributing everything back among people as those managing the system see fit makes any sense...but I'm all for you being allowed to do just that if you think it is a good thing.
To illustrate why universal health care would be a disaster here in the states, let me shine the light on a similar program, Social Security.
It was sold to the people as an optional program to provide for those who wanted to join it. Go get a social security number, pay X percent of your wages during your working years, and get a reasonable retirement income when you retired.
Today, most people do not know that it is optional. You pretty much have to have a social security number to work or get insurance of any type. What was once a reasonable retirement benefit is now a pittance due to rampant inflation orchestrated by government management of the money supply. The actual "money" in the so called retirement fund has been pillaged and replaced with "iou" notes. And to top it all off, those calling themselves "the government" get to decide how much, if anything, to give back.
It is, literally, a nightmare scenario. And pretty much everything that the corrupt men and women calling themselves government here in the states get their hands on turns into a money sucking monster, causing more harm than good.
Anywise, it would be nice to get something back for being robbed blind...but somehow I doubt giving the robbers direct control rather than indirect control via stock holdings would do anything to help us.
Universal health care under a non-totalitarian system might be borderline reasonable ( still not morally right if coercion is used ), but our system is quite totalitarian these days and the corruption runs deep at every level.
Big corporations pay big government big money to regulate the little guy out of business and drive up prices. Insurance companies and corporate hospitals work together to gouge everyone coming and going, charging each other much less than they charge us. We are a strange mix of state corporatism which certain governments of the recent passed could only have wished for.
But, after this country collapses from the rot within perhaps things will get better. In the mean time, any talk of change is just that, talk. Another circus for rome...and some more stimulating bread.
Only sixty years ago, when my father was a kid, you could walk into a doctors office and the doctor could look you over and then tell you what he would charge to fix you up. Most doctors would just fix you up whether you had money or not so long as you promised to pay them back as you were able. Many would even take barter. Our health crisis is manufactured by insurance companies, government regulation, and an out of control court system.
I would rather we fix the real problems...instead of shift control of the problem to a different complicit group.
TMG - I doubt if there's much correlation between where a gun was made and where it was last bought. If most of the guns in Mexico come from Israel or China originally, isn't that just more evidence that the US hardly manufactures anything any more?
On the bigger question, I do agree with you that it makes bvgger-all difference whether we use anti-leftist or anti-rightist rhetoric. The distinction is artificial. The real trend is towards an ever greater distinction between the rich controlling class and the poor controlled class. Party & proletariat, by any other name.
Thanks for an insightful hub. These labels we keep hearing are of no value to us in our decision-making. We're nowhere near a socialist state in the US and inferences to that potential are as ill-conceived as our former administration when they labeled anyone opposing their views as "not a patriot."
I'm also impressed with the flurry of thoughtful/intelligent comments here!
Best ~
OMG--I took the dog to the vet, came home, went to sleep, just got up, amd there are 33 comments on my recent hubs--all since last night. Good lord.
I think it's clear that people are very frustrated by what's going on right now, and many people feel like they don't really have a voice, like no one in the government OR business really cares what they think of what is going on with them. Lots of frustration out there.
TMG & Misha--What I mean is, who runs the government and how after you stage even a peaceful coup? (Which as Misha points out is near impossible.) Historically speaking there's a good chance that what we'd get would be even worse. Not that these guys don't deserve to be thrown out windows--I can't believe it hasn't happened already. I'm just sayin'...
Gerg--Thanks for saying hi and reading all this! Whew!
Paraglider--We are indeed getting to a two-tier system of the very rich, and the rest rest of us who all basically have nothing and spend our time arguing with each other about crap that has nothing to do with what's really wrong. Well said.
Liberty Unchained--That was a well worded comment. I remember when going to the doctor was exactly as you say. (I must be about your Dad's age.) If people couldn't pay, most doctors fixed you up anyway, and people paid when they could or bartered. So much is skimmed off the top now by insurance companies, drug companies, whoever. Every doctor now has a big sign at the front desk "Payment Must Be Made at the Time of Service" and they aren't kidding.
What it must be like to be popular....
Howdy,Pam
Looks like we are all in serious danger of agreeing!
I like Liberty's 'Borderline Acceptable' for healthcare - I can live with that.The point about doctors not turning anybody away is great - technically, in Greece, a hospital does not have to treat you if you have no health scheme book. In reality, they would not dare - the Greek media would name and shame them.
As for everything else, I am looking forward to you, TMG and Misha starting the revolution.
Hi LG and Sufi--Actually I think when the revolution comes I'll be hiding in my bathroom. lol!
As for popularity, I'm still grateful to have escaped high school alive...
But it's nice to hear from friends!
Great hub Pam! I've also read all the comments and felt I was in a forum of serious intellectuals who care a lot about US social reality.
Sufi, repeating John Lennon - count me out. I don't know a single example in history when revolution (as opposed to coupe) did not lead to even worse opression...
lol - that was a little tongue in cheek. I am not a fan of violence, either.
I genuinely have no idea how we are going to fix things - peaceful struggle and demonstration can work but, as TMG said, it is all too easy to 'hire agitators. The Greek Riots, Seattle - 95% of demonstrators were peaceful, but that did not grab the headlines!
Maybe finding a small cave to hide in is not such a bad idea.....
I think yours is one of the best places to be right now :)
Greeks are genuinely lazy, as most southern European nations, and this is invaluable character trait should revolution come :)
Do you mean to say the U.S economic system is not based on state ownership of capital. This is true for almost all other countries in the world.
Misha, what about the American revolution?
Guidebaba, that's a loaded question! I'll let other people here answer it--I think you will get as many answers as there are people!
francia, thank you for taking the time to read all this!
Sufi & Misha, Greece sounds pretty good right now. Michigan was SOOOO cold this winter. Brrrr. I'm ready for spring, bad economy or not. :o)
Aya, good question. I am not too familiar with this particular brand of revolution, so I have to make some research to be able to answer it - or may be TMG can shed some light, yet a couple of things come to mind right away.
I am not too sure if there was slavery wide spread here before the American revolution, but it definitely was after. Also, the form of government call "democracy" is the most oppressive one I know about, because of its delusions. People believe they are in charge, hence they can tolerate much higher levels of oppression without revolting...
Oh, and the current state of affairs in this country is much worse than it was before the revolution oppression wise, and one may argue it is a direct result of revolution, albeit delayed more than usual :)
Interesting, just read last Tom's hub that fits into our discussion nicely http://hubpages.com/hub/A-Crisis-of-Legitimacy
I admire this guy for his clarity :)
Misha,
Yes, there was slavery both before the revolution and also after. There was one form of slavery that was morally abhorrent, and involved kidnapping people from Africa and enslaving them against their will and keeping their children enslaved. This was done by the British before the revolution and continued after and it is highly regrettable. Not something I condone.
However, there was also another kind of slavery that wasn't really so bad. This was indentured servitude, where someone willingly signed a contract that made him or her a slave for a specific period of time, in return for money or goods, or to pay off a debt. A lot of people financed their trip to America that way, and to my mind this is a better way to manage credit than a credit card or secured debt.
Democracy, I agree, is a seriously dangerous form of government. However, that's not the form of government that the founding fathers favored. They favored a consitutional republic. In a republic, not everything is open to voting on. For instance, how much money anybody gets to keep is not open to the vote. Income wasn't taxed. There were no restrictions based on wealth, but in order to vote you needed to be a landholder -- at least at first, in some of the states. This was because only they paid taxes.
This was a form of government in which responsibilities and rights went hand in hand. It's the only kind that can work.
Misha, thanks for posting the link to Tom Mullen's site.
ParaGlider,
I was not referring to where the weapons were made, I am stating that is where they are coming from. The Cartels sell drugs to the U.S. and buy Arms and more drugs abroad with the profits. The markup on guns is to high in the U.S. and is not a good business decision for them to pursue. It is much easier for them to buy them from arms dealers in Columbia who get them from channels through Africa or Afghanistan, or if the Cartel espouses leftist views then Cuba will help in the transaction.
They are dirt cheap and lots of them. Coming from the U.S someone has to buy it retail and then send it South. It just isn't practical for arming large numbers. Even Foreign guns coming south have to much tariff on them to be viable.
There are a lot of guns passed south from family up north, but literally they are going into private family houses that are acquiring one or two for personal protection, as there is not legal means for them to be obtained in Mexico.
TMG
I am new to the site,and I learned alot tonight,I have been in the carpenters union for over 25 years,I am always told from some of my friends that unions are no good,,wrong,,I have been paying into my retirement .that I can strat drwing on at 55 years old,if you work hard and have enough good years banked.I do have many good years,so what if I worked all these years with no pension plan,,wow.My point is all the people working today who are protected by the union,will be protected by our government and the taxes there paying will give them some government funded programs free,,health care,,I have heard that word at coffee chat the other day but never took it serous..socialist..thank you for Hub
OK, TMG - you are on the spot and I'm not, so I'll accept what you say about the gun sources.
Sorry to spoil all of you liberals apples, but socialism is here. Socialism is when the government owns or controls the majority of industry. We are here, you can not run a business without government having their hands in what you can and can't do. It is even in such things as who you can or can't rent to. What you can do on your own property(which is one of the big lies, you don't own property, you only have it as long as the government doesn't think it would be better served(the government) by someone else. They are now even telling you what you can think and say.
Tell me that I am wrong!
Paraglider,
Funny Story, so I call my brother who is working in the south, that is as far as I can say here. Anyway I mentioned our little discussion. He, said funny coincidence, we just grabbed a big shipment of American arms from one of the local (Albeit small) Drug Lords. He said the Funny thing though was they were shipped via the Army. Basically, the Mexican Army Commander resold the M16's we sold them. He said this was an isolated case. But, it is very illustrative of why a legitimate attempt to help on this side is a waste of time when dealing with a corrupt Government. They will always be able to undermine those efforts.
TMG
Excellent hub as always Pam and lots of thoughtful comments too. A variation of the 'socialism = evil' prejudice was the attitude to communism in the cold war. In the US and to a lesser extent the UK, communism was considered positively evil. Yet while there was a lot wrong with Cuba and it was undemocratic, they did and still do have some good social policies such as a first-rate health service.
Meanwhile in France, mainstream democratic politicians sometimes call themselves communists. Neither communism nor socialism are inherently bad. Britain (where I live) has a good and comprehensive healthcare system called the National Health Service which is free to all and came about after World War II because of a socialist government. Even Margaret Thatcher felt unable to privatise it. We lived for six months in Upstate New York and I found handing over dollar bills every time I took my kids to the Doctor very unsettling!
Hi Rik,
We are on the same page about it. I hope that we do get a national health care plan this year. It's way overdue. Thanks for your comment!
Fascinating to read both sides of this argument. Mz PGrundy you have indeed stirred up a hornets nest.
I would like to note that collectively, we all don't know what we don't know. Even though we "think" we do... especially the mindless drivel that our chosen party wants us to believe. Either side is really the same.
I'm still awaiting the "transparency" so that I may know more. I'm not holding my breath.
Regardless, I am spending less, saving more, and stocking my shelves. You would be well advised to do the same.
-TRiG
Misha, Thanks for recommending Tom Mullen's hub. I also read Tom's article, http://hubpages.com/hub/Obama-and-the-Ghost-of-FDR and that would cause a lot of readers of this hubpage to think twice about putting their Hope in Obama - since it would be "The Audacity of a False Hope". FDR brought about the Great Depression with his New Deal, and FDR is driving our big 3 automakers into bankrupcy - through the Forced acceptance of whatever the Unions want. And Obama is an FDR-wana-be. The USA will not be an Economic World Power in 2012 - it will be all over - gone - past history - thanks to Obama and company. Restore the Republic!
Great Hub PG. Also, we all need to be careful how we use words. Please stop saying we are Socialist because we have 'some' socialism. If 10% of a car is wheels, then the car is NOT 100% wheels.
I've read almost all of the comments, it's been a long day... :-)
Be careful of Tom Mullen though. He is a very good writer but good writing alone does not make falsehood true. Tom believes Government's only function is to defend individual's property. Some would say that Government should also provide roads, railways, street lighting, health services, etc. Personally, I have no interest in building my own roads. I'd rather pay some taxes. How about you??
Paraglider, roads are not necessarily built by a centralized government, even when they are paid for by taxes. When local roads are paid for by local taxes and only landholders vote on how much will be spent on the roads, then you have taxation with representation, and it's very close to having the locals own the roads and decide how much upkeep they will have.
For instance, I have a road on my property, which belongs to me, and for whose upkeep I alone am responsible. My little road then leads to a county road, which is also not paved. The upkeep of the unpaved county road is paid for by taxes levied on local landholders, myself included, by the county. This is the sort of government involvement that I have little problem with. We don't want higher taxes, so we vote for an unpaved road.
But the state has noticed how much lower our taxes are here in the country, and now the state is pressuring the county to raise our taxes. That is taxation without representation, and I oppose it.
Yes. That's why we used to have about nine different guages of railway. And speaking of railways, we used to have local time, based on our town hall clock. Fortunately, we centralised and standardised - because - it became important to issue railway timetables. Then there's the Internet...
Also, Aya - {{and only landholders vote on how much will be spent on the roads, then you have taxation with representation,}} - roads, surely are used by people passing through, not just by local landholders? Where's the representation for the walker, cyclist, traveller who doesn't 'hold' land locally?
Paraglider, when everything becomes centralized, personal freedom disappears. Centralized banks lead to widespread economic disasters, instead of individual local catastrophes. Nationalized banks mean that if one falls, we all fall.
It's not a good idea to put all our eggs in one, gigantic collosal basket.
Who's talking about everything? Roads and railways should be centralised. Cobblers and candlestickmakers can be as local as you like.
But why should roads be centralized? Not to speak of railways?
Most railways in the U.S. are only used by commercial carriers, anyway. Any reason why they shouldn't each work out their own deal for transportation? Let the market decide.
As for roads, why should many, many people who will never drive down my road, or even visit my county, have any say in the matter? What business is it of theirs? How will this improve the quality of my life? Or for that matter, how will my meddling in the way they build their roads help them?
How did you decide that roads are so different from everything else? Or that roads are so similar to railways, but different from airways?
Roads are different from candlesticks because - they are not local; they connect different localities. Candlesticks, as a general rule. frequent a single table. Maybe two. I didn't mention airways, but could have done. They are even less like candlesticks ;) Seriously though - do you want airline security to be at the whim of the local mayor, council officer, provost or whatever, or do you want there to be some kind of international standard?
Frankly, it was much better when we did not have any centralized airline security at all...
Paraglider, do you really think it is a good idea to pay for roads from the public till so that big factory farms can proliferate and sell their wares at a reduced price-- (a price that is subsidized by the government's building of roads) -- and that local farmers can't compete with? The reason people used to buy local was that it was cheaper that way.
I agree with Misha. Airline security keeps me from carrying weapons on a plane -- weapons that I would use to fight terrorists, if any tried to hijack it.
Aya,
sorry to butt in, but aren't roads like arteries, essential for allowing free flow and movement of traffic, for leisure, for business, and for the emergency services alike. I appreciate good roads, because they mean fewer car repairs, and ease of transport. The big, factory farms are something of a red herring. I'm very keen that people buy their produce from local growers, and support whatever industry and commerce still survives on a local basis, but keeping the roads full of potholes and weeds won't necessarily guarantee that that happens any more than the opposite scenario.
Amanda, I don't want my road paved, It's a very local road, and people in interstate commerce don't drive through here, unless it's a local UPS delivery or something like that. I'm not telling you that your road should be unpaved, too. I believe you and your neighbors get to decide that.
I don't think the issue of local produce is a red herring. If the roads are subsidized, then this means the government is making it easier for all of us to enjoy a highly industrialized, centralized economy. If the government didn't subsidize the roads and railways, the businesses involved would have to pay for transport charges and road building. This would be tacked on to the price of all non-locally produced items -- from cabbages to candles.
" I don't know a single example in history when revolution (as opposed to coupe) did not lead to even worse opression..."
The Glorious Revolution of 1688?
Aya, sometimes I think our opinions differ because we come from such very different places. However, I think we both agree that local businesses should be encouraged to thrive and survive, and to some extent that is about education and choice. For too long now people have been seduced by cheap imports, and neglected to support local endeavours, and it has cost both the USA and Britain very dearly in terms of small business failures. People need to be better educated about what their choices mean for the communities they live in. In England we have a saying about our local businesses; use them or loose them.
Amanda, I think we definitely agree on the value of local businesses and local food growers. The difference is that you expect ordinary people to buy local out of some sort of altruistic impulse. The average person will shop at Wal-Mart when Wal-Mart is cheaper. I do it myself. I don't have any qualms about it, because I do what is best for me and my family. It used to be that buying local came naturally to us, because local was more convenient and cheaper. These are the right motives for any choice in the free market. Some people always bought imported foods, but they were luxury items -- and they paid a premium for them. When government subsidizes the roads, then buying local becomes a luxury that only very rich people can afford.
Aya,
I agree that altruism doesn't always come into things when money is in short supply, but I think we'll have to agree to differ about the roads.
Actually there is quite a large group of people here in SW Michigan who buy locally even though it is more expensive, not out of any kind of altruistic impulse, but because they like the superior service and quality that local merchants offer, and when it comes to local food, because they feel the food is more wholesome and much fresher. Bill & I fit into that group, and so does most of our extended family and many of our friends. We don't like the corporate ethic, the shoddy service provided by corporate concerns like Walmart (which comes of bad labor practices and low wages),or the inferior products corporate American provides (most imported from the 3rd world, China, and India)--plus we make friends with local business people and end up developing a loyalty to them as persons, which we consider healthy and good for the community.
That said, I'm with Amanda and Paraglider on the road thing.
My view is that it is not necessary to reduce politics to extremes in order for a society to function well. I guess that comes across in the hub. I hope.
Pgrundy, seriously, you think my road should be paved even if my neighbors and I voted against it? Why?
No, I was responding to the discussion you were having with Paraglider and Amanda on whether the federal government should be in the road building business--my vote on that is yes. With regards to your specific road I don't have enough information to form an opinion, but I will tell you I pay property taxes that mostly go to building great community schools which I will never use, being past childbearing age, and that's fine with me. If your objection to the paving is financial, then why doesn't the rest of the community agree with your objection? That seems weird. If it your objection is ethical or political, that part you already know I don't agree with.
Pam,
I also use the local farmers markets, and our local small shops as much as possible, and actually I find that I don't spend too much more than when I shop in the supermarkets, mainly because I only buy what I need rather than being seduced into buying larger quantities just because of pre-packaging or special offers. Also I agree about service and quality. I've got to know our local traders, and I'd rather give them my business than some vast, faceless corporation.
PGrundy, go back to the discussion between me and Paraglider. The local community does agree. We agree the road should not be paved and that taxes should be kept low. The State has noticed that our local taxes are much lower than in the cities. They forced the assessor's office to tax as higher. They don't seem to care so much what we the local government will do with the money. They just want us to have higher local taxes...
So the issue is not whether roads should be paid for by taxes, The issue is whether locals get to decide what happens on the local level.
My point to Paraglider was that it's fine to have local taxes pay for local roads. But only local people should get to decide. Paraglider voted for centralized decisions about local taxes and local roads.
Yes, I think people make decisions about what to buy based on more than just price. Price isn't even the main variable in many kinds of purchases.
It's also time. I would buy all my groceries at the local store which is five minutes away, if I could. I need to buy bananas, apples and grapes in large quantities every week. The store has started stocking apples, and I am their main customer for that. But their supplier won't provide grapes or bananas in small enough quantities so that it will be worth their while. I think they have a national supplier. For whatever reason, they are not dealing directly with local growers.
I would have to pay a chimp sitter and use up lots of gasoline to get to a Farmers' market.
I can't leave Bow alone. I can't drive to the nearest city nearly two hours away to look for a farmers' market. That's for city folk. Here in the country, if I didn't grow it myself, and the local store doesn't stock it, then Wal-Mart is where I go.
There is a serious conflict of interest between what is best for people who live in the city and what is best for people who live in the country. More people live in the city, so they always win every centralized election. That's why it's important for representation to be based locally.
Aya,
It is a different system here in the UK, and for us, it works well. I'm very aware, however, that America is vast in comparison to our little group of islands, and that many states are sparsely populated by comparison, so what works for us may not work for you. I'd still vote for good roads if I had a choice, as I'm not keen to loose my exhaust or shatter my windscreen!
Amanda, I understand that our systems are different. I would never try to dictate or interfere with what happens overseas. If it works for you, and you are happy, then that's good.
City people who come to work with Bow often need to get tougher tires in order to drive here. The point is, nobody has to drive on our roads who doesn't want to. It's all about choice.
Aya, in that case I can appreciate your frustration over the road issue. Poor tax policy is being made locally in cities too though because of shortfalls in revenue. In the city where I grew up, entire neighborhoods are turning into wastelands of abandonned, substandard housing because the city keeps hiking property tax rates in neighborhoods that have the least influence on local government--while keeping property taxes relatively sane in better neighborhoods where developers and bankers and attorneys actually live. The investors and poor people who own the homes in the poorer areas default on the tax, the city takes the property, can't sell it, and no one buys it because now it has a big tax lien. Even mortgage issuing banks are just walking away from the properties--they are hot potatoes, no one wants to touch them. This is how Detroit and Flint turned into cities that look like they have been bombed.
I guess the point I am making is that local control isn't always beneficent. But that is probably another city/rural difference. I think city governments are much more corrupt than state or federal ones--at least in Indiana they are. South Bend city government is just the latest gang of developers and crooks to seize the reins--they're out for themselves, they don't care if the city burns.
Excellent article! As a Canadian, I often have to chuckle when my American friends comment that my country and our ideals are socialist simply because we have a universal health care system, when in fact we are for more capitalist than socialist. Perceptions are certainly interesting!
Hi Karen,
I visited Toronto with my partner three years ago and just fell in love with it. When we got back I was bent on moving but looking at rents and home prices online it was clear we could never afford it unless we lived in a studio or something. I think Canada is awesome though. Now if we go we need passports--which I am in the process of getting for us. Yes, I think the socialism phobia is kind of unique to the U.S. It's mostly political propaganda IMO.
Actually I think I have a solution to having good roads without involving government. When I left you here guys, we went to a birthday party if our kid's friend. It was held pretty far from we live, so we drove like 40 minutes there, on the TOLL ROAD...
After a few minutes it stroke me this is the answer. If you don't drive, you don't pay. Pretty easy :)
Misha, it's a good solution. Also, there can be a higher toll to pay for the initial building of the road; but once that's been paid, then the toll for mere maintenance can be lower.
I think that this perfectly sums up the differences - let us take education as an example.
I have no children, nor am I likely to have any. I still pay taxes that contribute to 'universal education,' and I am happy to do so. Why?
The reason is that I believe that enriching society also contributes to my welfare and enjoyment of life. I love the fact that I can go out and have an intelligent conversation, instead of the usual tripe about celebrities and sport. Greeks are well educated, and understand the enrichment that a good debate brings.
My taxes contribute to a better educated society, and my life is enriched. Everybody wins. Happy Days. :)
A socialist believes that improving society improves the life of the individual.
A conservative believes that improving the life of the individual enhances society.
Both are fine world views, but greed and Reaganomics destroyed this, and promoted self-interest and theft. Give me an 'old-school' conservative any day - I have no problem with them!
Pam- "Price isn't even the main variable in many kinds of purchases". For me when I buy fresh vegetables I do go for local as they are fresher and help to reduce the carbon footprint too. But in general I do buy from big stores as they have all the stuff I need in one place (also since my husband doesn't like shopping too often). But in general I think saving money certainly is a good idea since we should anticipate the future (and if we overspend now then in future we only have ourselves to blame). Now that gives me a hub idea. Thanks Pam.
Sufi- That was a fantastic summation I guess I believe in a combination of both conservative & socialist ideals but that is just me..LOL
You are exactly right, we aren’t creeping towards Socialism; we are rushing headlong as fast as the messiah can push us. But that’s not so bad…there should be fairness. Everyone should have equal amounts of wealth no matter what there level of effort. And as we all know; Socialism by it’s very definition is just a stopping point on the road to the ultimate goal…Communism. Call what’s happening now and what has been happening for the last half century anything you want to; what is not happening is government for the people by the people. Put all the power in the hands of a few, give a few all the decision making and what you have does not turn out better for everyone. Close your eyes and make yourselves feel better with pretty articles; time has ran out. Remember those things that where most important when everything was destroyed in New Orleans. Start stocking up on water and non-perishable food; figure out ways to defend yourselves and your family. Find defendable places and find friends to watch your back. Help each other in the days ahead; it’s humanities only chances.
This is such a great hub. As a Canadian who has lived in different countries and now lives in the States, I totally agree with your perspective. Why are we so afraid to look at other countries and learn from what they are doing and borrow some ideas that we can adapt to the U.S.? Canada's health care system isn't ideal and Sweden's system probably wouldn't work here, but there are lessons to be learned from both countries (as just one example). Thank you for sharing and doing a great job.
Nice summation Sufi :)
Just one thought in this direction, if I may. :)
"Collectivist" approach ensures waste of resources, because you spend resources on what you don't use, and you spend resources on a body that manages the redistribution of resources.
"Individualistic" approach ensures their efficient use, because you spend resources only on what you need, and exactly in the amount to cover your needs, and without any redistribution overhead.
This really does not matter much (at least directly) when resources are unlimited - yet we all know that they are not. Ensuring the waste of limited resources, your approach reduces the collective wealth.
Are you with me so far? Now, I have a question to you, before we go any further: When collective wealth gets reduced, what income group feels this reduction the most?
Hi Misha :)
This is where we reach an impasse. Individualism also wastes resources - the US system of individualistic healthcare wastes more money than the collective bargaining of Europe. Our healthcare and education are much more efficient - that is fact.
When it comes to making cars or electronics, for example, then nationalisation is inefficient - that is also fact.
This is the problem - both systems have advantages, but also possess disadvantages.
A couple of decades ago, there was a genuine two-party system in the US and most of Europe. The pendulum swung between left and right, but the system generally worked. A government leaning too far in one direction would be voted out. Nowadays, all of the political parties cluster in the centre, and there is no choice. I believe that this is one of the underlying reasons for the current crisis - a voter ends up voting for more of the same.
I have no doubt that we share exactly the same aims - we both want an educated and healthy population. We may disagree on how to get there, but we also share a lot of common ground. Sadly, too many people, on both sides of the political spectrum, recite soundbites with little understanding of the underlying issues.
That is the real problem - genuine debate is a dying art.
Funny we are talking about roads, my tribe got tired of dealing with all the BS pressure from the State and Feds, so we said thanks but no thanks we got the roads. See you later. Most of the laws we hate are forced on the states at the end of the well if you don't pass the law we won't pay for the roads gun.
Well, Great White Father in the 5 sided TP we don't need your money~!
Please next time you pass through Oklahoma and use the Indian Nations Turnpike please stop at a few of the Casino's cause I don't want to eat me words with the feds later. Gracias!
TMG
About three years ago Indiana sold its toll roads to a company in Australia because it couldn't afford to maintain them.
Sufi--you put that so perfectly:
"A socialist believes that improving society improves the life of the individual.A conservative believes that improving the life of the individual enhances society."
I would add that I don't see the choice as mutually exclusive. Especially when it comes to politics, people in the U.S. has this fondess for pure ideological positions, but nothing in practice is poor. Real life is messy no matter what is occuring between our ears. Or as they sometimes say in another context, "Life ain't fair and people don't act right."
That's just how life is. Who was it that said "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"? Was it Samuel Johnson? Did I totally fracture that quote?
Blangrher, why do you have to be such a dick about it? You're right, we're all quite screwed at this point. The bubble that just popped is sending this elevator all the way to the basement, yes indeedy, what's your point exactly? I think most of the people commenting here totally get that, but thanks for the reminder. :o)
LOL Sufi, we at least are trying to keep the enjoyable debate afloat :)
Well, you avoided answering my question, did you? Why is that? That becomes sorta funny - Ralph is avoiding my question on the forums, you are avoiding another my question here. Is it something in the air lately? ;)
Answering your healthcare statement - I never said that current US healthcare is something I even remotely am happy about. Also, I disagree that it is "individualistic" in our recent classification. My "individualistic" approach calls for going to doctor and paying them on ad hoc basis, no middleman involved :)
Now, I have to disappoint you - I don't care that much about educated and healthy population. I care about becoming happy in this world as it is, and about helping my kids/relatives/friends to do the same. In fact I think you care about the same, but you've been taught that the only way to achieve it is to make others happy.
They taught me this, too, and I even believed this for quite some time. Not anymore. You can't make others happy. Never. You can help them, but you can't make them. Yet you can make yourself happy, and only you can do this. And if everyone makes themselves happy - guess what, we live in a happy place ;)
To Happiness!!!!!!!!!!!
TMG
Misha, well said. Except that happiness is not really something one necessarily ever achieves. It's something one pursues. In order to pursue it, we need the freedom to choose our own path through life.
If someone thinks that he will be happiest by serving others living in a commune somewhere, I have no problem with that. I'm all for everyone who feels that way turning his private property into a commune and allowing others to join as they please.
What I don't want is to be forced to live in a commune myself or to have my property taken to support someone else's commune.
That's fair, isn't it?
I think it depends on the happiness. There's the 'happiness' of Brave New World, induced by Soma and propaganda, or, in the real world, by Oprah and McDonalds. Then there's happiness that comes from making an effort, in your chosen field.
BTW - timezones make it hard to keep up with these discussions!
Misha!!! I had you all wrong!!! I am sorry for the insults I have said to you now. Please accept my humble apology Misha for it is sincere.
Pgrundy: you simplify socialism to the point of near Eden-like paradise. You are blissfully ignorant. Socialism is for the weak. It cannot sustain in a large country like the US. There are too many variables. Socialism is fine and dandy when you talk about Native American tribes but the all for one and one for all shit does not apply in the big boy world. Grow up Grundy...you are no longer a hippie. You live in the real world now. It's time to face the facts. Even the great John Lennon changed his view eventually.
I will be more than willing to debate you in great detail on this subject but this small comment is good enough for now. If you want more argument, you surely need to prepare because this hub is a Communist joke. Please do more research other than Wikipedia before you spout your rhetoric.
I hope that (unlike the communist you are) you actually let this comment pass through your scrutinous eyes. People need to hear an opposing opinion. That is the American way.
BTW...I am agnostic that is independent of partisanship, not a holy rolling conservative you so gleefully made fun of in this hub.
imadork--Stop trying to bully me into accepting your views. You know nothing about my life and circumstances and they are beside the point anyway. If you disagree with what I've written, state your disagreement in specifics and support your OWN arguments with facts. Attacking me personally only makes YOU look weak.
LOL...bully!!!! The socialist's favorite word. This argument is way too complicated to explain in the limited comment section.
I hold no ill feelings toward you. I am merely debating enthusiastically.
You're not debating, you're being a dick. A debate is an exchange of opposing ideas. What's your idea?
Wow Imadork, are you saying that Europe is not living in the real world? Don't you know how puzzled most Europeans are by the American Way? Corruption and greed might be commonplace in the 'real world', but that doesn't mean that sensible government can't offer better opportunities.
Amanda,
Every time I write one of these political essays somebody shows up and just hurls personal attacks at me. It is tiresome and it degrades the whole discussion, but more important than that, it's a bad debate strategy. It's called an ad hominem argument--you know, attack the writer's character instead of addressing the actual content of the ideas and offering an alternative. No one is impressed by it. It just makes the attacker look intellectually weak.
Here in the U.S. there is a whole group of ring wingers who are incapable of having an adult discussion. All they can do is attack because they have no real ideas.
But then that's the point--Imadork doesn't want to discuss anything. He just wants to draw attention to himself and derail the discussion we were all having as adults--get us focusing on him and his bad temper instead. Personally I get sick that kind of thing.
Fair point Pam,
Sorry to butt in. I just get so cross when I see people dissing considered argument, and yet have nothing sensible to say themselves.
Amanda, you are welcome to butt in any time!
Paraglider, when you compare the forced "happiness" of Brave New World with the consensual "happiness" of Oprah and MCDonalds you are intentionally disregarding the most important issue of all: choice. Soma in Brave New World is bad, because people are drugged against their will. Someone who chooses marijuana for himself -- but does not force it on another -- is in a completely different category. It's not what I would choose for myself or my family, but I respect another's choice to indulge in that lifestyle. The same goes for McDonald's and Oprah. Whoever likes that can freely indulge. Whoever doesn't can switch to another channel, or not have a TV at all, and can choose to stay out of McDonalds.
Why do you not think having a choice matters? Choice is the difference between slavery and freedom. It's not what you do that determines whether you are joyful. It's whether you had a choice.
"Every time I write one of these political essays somebody shows up and just hurls personal attacks at me. It is tiresome and it degrades the whole discussion, but more important than that, it's a bad debate strategy."
Look on the bright side - a fair few people rock up either to discuss it properly, or to agree.
LOL Pam, you got yet another heated debate here. :)
Imadork, sure, I don't even remember what the fuss was about between us. :) I am only afraid you are doing the same mistake with Pam now...
Dave, I did not get your point, sorry.
Aya and TMG - to Happiness!!! ;)
Amanda, I might be wrong of course, yet I think that Europe does not live in the real world currently, as well as the USA. Russia too, of course. The whole Western culture in fact. We have it backwards as nations, and we constantly are trying to force others happy, both at home and abroad - and it finally started to backfire...
LOL! It's a gift Misha! ;o)
LG--Right you are. I'd say all in all its been a cool discussion.
Misha,
I only meant the 'real world' in terms of Imadork's anti-socialist rants. Elements of socialism such as universal health care co-exist very happily with more capitalist ideas here in Europe. But of course you already know that Misha, and of course you also right that the whole of the Western World has been living out a fantasy for a good long while now. It kind of reminds me of Easter at our house. Every year my 10-year old gets given six or seven chocolate eggs, then proceeds to eat them all in one day. Invariably he ends up feeling sick, but he never learns to spread the eggs out over a few weeks like his sister does. The Western world is similar. We want instant gratification, and then we're surprised that it's all at a cost.
Amanda, but, thankfully, every year your ten year old is a different age. Someday he'll mature, and he might the learn the lesson that his sister already has grasped. Why, then, do cultures and societies grow more greedy and thoughtless as they age?
Aya - {{Why do you not think having a choice matters?}}
That is a leading question based on a false assumption. You can do better.
Now - ((Why, then, do cultures and societies grow more greedy and thoughtless as they age?}}
I would say that cultures and societies don't necessarily grow greedy and thoughtless. And I say that because the greediest and most selfish of all are the ones whose gurus say things like 'there is no such thing as society. There are only individuals'
Paraglider, please explain. You imply that I am mistaken when I assume you think choice doesn't matter in the question of drug use, mass entertainment and fast food. Do you in fact agree that it does matter? Then why did you class the Brave New World tyrannical forced drugging with the mass entertanment of Oprah and the fast food of McDonalds? If my assumption was false, please clarify.
It was nice to read that the richest of the rich do indead pay 60% of the country's taxes. That makes it so nice for the people who do not pay taxes so that they can continue to not pay taxes. However, Obama now has in place to cap ALL salaries for CEOs, etc, who accept bailout money. Well then, a CEO who is paying taxes on $100 million will now only be paying tax on $400K. OOOhhhh that's gotta hurt... not for the CEO who now has far less tax to pay, but now for he people who have never had to pay taxes.... Oh wait, they STILL won't have to pay tax because our messiah as granted them a reprieve from paying. OK... that's nice... but now who is going to make up for all those taxes that the richest WERE paying, but now they are no longer the richest and are no longer paying?
One last note... the govt, in all their wisdom, lobbied for a got an increase in the minimum wage. Very nice... I'm all for people making more money. i have a small business and employed 20 people. Had a great product with great sales and have been successful for over 20 years. When we learned of the possibility of the minimum wage increase and sat down with my VP and we started crunching numbers. We were budgeted for the salaries we paid out, but that was about to change and there was no where to go to make up the difference. the only option was to raise the cost of our product, but we knew the market would not allow for that. Therefore, once the increase went into effect we were forced to lay off 8 people. That was 40% of my workforce. My VP and I have both suspended our salaries completely. Salesmen commissions dropped 50%. Every cost cutting tool is in place and we still can not make it. Production is way down due soley to my 40% loss in workforce. The Govt ordered the increase in pay and now I am 30 days from closing my successful business of 20 years. BTW... I asked for bail out money and was turned down. The 20 people I employed are not significant enough. Nobody is significant enough. Keep that in mind... YOU DON'T COUNT. Good luck in all you do.
Paraglider, maybe I'll copy your text here:
"I think it depends on the happiness. There's the 'happiness' of Brave New World, induced by Soma and propaganda, or, in the real world, by Oprah and McDonalds. Then there's happiness that comes from making an effort, in your chosen field."
What did you mean by these distinctions, on the one hand concerning state sponsored propaganda and Oprah and forced consumption of opiates and McDonalds and in counter-distinction on the other hand personal effort. My oint was that we should each be allowed to pursue happiness our own way. I understood you to imply that forced drugging and Big Macs were in the same category for you, even if the person chose to eat the Big Mac on his own.
The context of the discussion was the right to the unfettered pursuit of happiness. Explain what your remarks mean in that context.
I'll take my govt insurance now. I also like how Obama says that we are entitled to the same health care that our senators enjoy.... PERFECT... THEIR insurance is FREE and they can go ANYWHERE they want... FOR FREE. I want THAT insurance policy. Sign me up.... NOW.
so?cial?ism
? Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Interesting http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html
Dion is my hero.
Aya- I sometimes feel having too many choices has led us into this mess. I had a colleague who had an expensive car and once he got bored he traded that in to buy another expensive car(when I suggested that private party he could have got more then he told me he still has some payments left on the car whereas with the car dealers there are no such hassles for trade in). He also once said he had huge student loans but then 2007 summer he went ahead and bought a boat besides buying an already expensive house. And as far as I know when we both are in the same grade our pay variance shouldn't be too much between us. I sometimes see that having too many "choices" as temptations which allow individuals to live much beyond there means. Sometimes individuals by themselves can't take rational decisions unless there are certain policies in place.
CW girl, people learn on thier own mistakes. In fact it's the only way we really learn. When you take the ability to make mistakes away, you ensure people don't learn. :)
Dave, you lost me completely.
Amanda, yeah, that's yet another facet to this :)
Misha- When will people collectively learn from individual mistakes? We should plan and put in place a good policy so that we don't ever repeat this terrible "mistake" again. Unrestricted consumption(greed) reminds me of killing the goose(USA) that laid the golden eggs(capitalism).
At the other end even socialism also isn't an ideal system where I was reading that there are are some top legislators and Duma members who are way too wealthy in Russia. The oil contracts have yielded massive commissions to some of these members. Hence equal distribution of wealth doesn't practically work in all cases. I am sorry Misha if I said something that hurts your sentiments. If I am mistaken then please correct me since I know a little about the internal workings of Russia being an outsider.
CW ... the only one I ever knew who consistently learned from other people's msitake is my younger brother. He never made the same mistakes I did and is more successful in every way as a result of it.
People, collectively won't learn unless people individually learn. That doesn't seem to happen. For those of us who were alive in the 70's, to me, it just looks like Jimmy Carter all over again, and that didn't go so well.
LOL CW-girl, you are so tender you can't really hurt anybody, stop worrying about it :)
No, Russia was not any better then current USA, yet now I think it is much better place to live than USA. USA is running fast towards socialism, to the extent that Putin recently publicly warned Obama that socialism never worked - and I agree to him. (Not sure this is not a hoax, yet it has all merits :))
Russia was probably the most monstrous state in the 20th century, and don't tell me we were too stupid to implement the real socialism. We were as stupid as Americans are now, and socialism in Russia was genuine, by the book.
Everybody had best intentions, right what you have now - rich have to share, and if they don't, we have to force them. Equality all the way...
Socialism seems like the easy way to solve world problems, yet it is not. It plain does not work. Russia paid dozens of millions of lives to learn this lesson for itself, and it really hurts me to watch how America is going to repeat the same mistakes now and waste lives of its own citizens, instead of learning on Russian mistakes...
You sound like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Misha, they didn't listen to him either.
Bdazzler- Good judgement comes from learning. Some people learn from their own experiences(or mistakes) and some learn from other people's mistakes(like your brother and myself) ;) I was just suggesting that collectively we have learned a lesson and taking some positives we should have a policy which makes people rethink their consumption choices. Credit/Debt shouldn't be so easy which makes people not even think twice before getting sucked into this trap. It maybe fun for a very short period but may result in unhappiness in the long run.
Misha- Glad you didn't feel bad when I mentioned about that unflattering bit about organized corruption in high places in Russia. But at the same time I am not sure if having Universal health care or bail outs would necessarily lead you to believe that US is becoming a socialist country. I still think they are just policy decisions(desperate measures for desperate times) and we aren't heading towards socialism but then I am not an economy expert and time only will tell who is right in the end. I do think some level of basic education and health facilities should be provided for all but does that make me a socialist I don't know. In other aspects like Business/Economy except for some basic regulations the government shouldn't have to deal in day to day operations. Let us see how the future unfolds :-)
CW - "Credit/Debt shouldn't be so easy which makes people not even think twice before getting sucked into this trap" ... my grandparent's gereration knew that but few of us learned from them. One of the things I admire about you is the respect you show for your elders, even when you disagree with them. ( I reember how shocked you were when somone cursed about their grandmother one time)
If we had more of that here, perhaps we would have listened. Perhaps we would have learned.
Countrywomen, in fact, the lessons we learn depend on the ethos and rules in effect at the time. If people are rewarded for spending and not saving, then that is what they will do, because it actually is smart. If people are penalized for saving, then saving is not smart. My parents saved money. They were very frugal. They lived in a blue collar neighborhood when they were not themselves blue collar. We hardly ever went out to dinner. If we did, it was just pizza, and only on the most special of occasions. They saved money to send their kids to college. Then it turned out that even when they had a very bright child -- he could not get any real break on his college tuition, whereas if they had not saved money, he would have been entitled to a scholarship.
When they found this out, my parents realized that saving wasn't so smart. Other people who lived a spendthrift life may have learned the same lesson, only faster. When need is rewarded it pays to be needy.
We should have elected Lee Iacocca as president. He knows how to manage business. When a company is failing, you let it fail. Bankrupt it. Then you go in, restructure, get rid of the management that failed it to begin with and begin again with a brand new company on the path to success.
How many of you out there would take your hard earned money and invest it in a failing company? Anyone??? I know you're out there. Look at all the people supporting this stupid "economic stimulus" crap. That would be YOU. I do invest in stocks... however, I get to choose who I invest with. Not the govt. But, since we are heading to a socialist govt, where the govt knows best and knows how to protect us and take care of us and feed us and medicate us, now THEY are the ones telling ME, and you, where to invest your hard earned money. Oh, and by the way, they choose to invest YOUR money into FAILING BUSINESSES. Businesses that are doomed to fail, will continue to fail and will eventually hit rock bottom and will be taking OUR money with them. Money I do not want them to have... simply because my high school Economics teacher told me not to invest in companies that are doomed to fail. I guess Barack didn't take economics 101 in Indonesia. Although, maybe he did.... Indonesia economics... not USA econimics. Maybe that's why we are headed in the same direction as they are.
OMG... I think I just figued it out. I'm going to go write a book.
CW-girl, there is nothing unflattering about it. Corruption is the nature of government, and I assure you that USA government or even Indian government is no less corrupt :)
LOL David, Solzhenitzin started in the very midst of socialism we already had there, so analogy does not hold - but thank you :)
Bdazzler- Thanks for such a high opinion about me(yes there is always wisdom to be learned from our elders) :-)
Misha- I am sorry I had no intention to bad mouth Russia. The only reason I mentioned Russia was due to its reputation for being a communist country where equal distribution of wealth is supposed to take place but even there, their is unequal distribution between those who are in power and those who are not in power hence socialism by itself maybe a good ideal but in practice it doesn't remain "socialism" when few have more wealth than others like in Capitalist economies like USA/India. But China is a unique case where they are officially communist but practically capitalist.
Dion- There is a small detail that is missing: This economic bail out was initiated by Bush government and it is these companies(capitalists) which requested the bailouts from the earlier government (at that time Obama didn't have as much say in policies) ;)
Aya- In India people buy gold as ornaments but since it is personal jewelry it is not declared in annual taxes but when the times are really tough then they sell that. Maybe there are such savings in US too which officially don't count as "savings" and still enable an individual to apply for scholarships. Yes I totally agree with you that some people shouldn't be rewarded for their irresponsibility but then is the child responsible for their parents mistakes and not become eligible for those scholarships? It is a difficult situation and needs to be dealt on a case to case basis.
Countrywomen, what happens is that many children are not able to go to ivy league schools unless their parents have no savings. So what happens is that the very rich and the very poor are able to go, but in order for a child whose parents are not rich but have some savings to go, the parents would have to spend everything they have and remain without retirement.
In any event the child is penalized for the parents' mistakes. In a society where saving is rewarded, the child whose parents don't save has to suffer. In a society where spending is rewarded, the child whose parents do save has to suffer. Since parents don't want their children to suffer, the behavior of the parents is shaped by the rules of the society.
i think the reason the US is in so much trouble is because of the bloated corporations that are too big to fail, that's out of hand and ridiculous, no business should be so huge that it's failure will jeapordize national security - that's not capitolism - and when the top side gets so top heavy that the whole economy might crumble, maybe it isn't about reditribution of wealth, but more about an honet day's pay for an honest days work.
Hi, Pam
I lived in socialism (Yugoslavia) which was very liberal . Now we have capitalism and people cry because of "good old times of socialism". Unemployment is now bigger then ever, people work harder then ever, well, you know the whole story.
My opinion is that combination is always the best for society: the best from the both "isms" could be very good solution. Balance.
And yes: I lived in socialism, and really have to laugh when I hear that people think that Amerika will suddenly implement socialistic regime, because of few human acts from your new government.
Thanks for your excellent and informative Hub. Thumbs up.
Country girl.... you are so right. Bush started the mess with the first $trillion. I did not approve of that either. keep in mind though, Obama was AGAINST the Bush plan, yet now, not only has he followed in Bush's footsteps, he has tripled what bush started. How can a country add $3 Trillion in additional spending in 3 months? That's outrageous. Obama vowed, during his campaign, to STOP govt spending yet he has done nothing but drive this country into a debt that we will never be able to get out of.
As far as these companies requesting money to begin with... again, you are right. My point earlier was, the govt greated a situation, outside of my countrol, that is now forcing me to close my doors. NOT because of the way I managed my business but because of the circumstances THEY created. My issue with the big companies is THEY created their own demise. THEY mismanaged their business. THEY now want a bail out.... and the govt is giving it to them. However, the govt will NOT help me and I was doing it right. Instead I am forced to close and lay off 25 people.
It amazes me how GM and Ford take over $60 billion each and then they end up $40 billion poorer 4th quarter. I guess they didn't change anything... or as some people on here are talking about... LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES. When they asked for the money, the govt should have simply said NO... Make it work. THAT is true capitalism.... Several years ago Chrysler was going under. Lee Iacocca was brought back into the company to fix it. That he did. He didn't beg for money. He bankrupted it. People did not lose their jobs. He restructered, reorganized and put the company back on track and made it a very successful company once again. He stepped down and others took it over... and over the yeas drove that company right back into dispare.
One more note about capitalism... That is and always has been the "American Dream".... to come here and make money. Immagrants came here with nothing and were able to apply themselves and make millions. However, under the Obama plan, he will cap what people can make, tell us what to make, how to make it, who to sell it to and how much money we can make as individual company owners. So much for the "American Dream".
Hi Tatjana-Mihaela,
That is my view also--that a middle way that combines the best of both systems is best for all. It also has been shown to actually work in many countries. Extremes in either direction create suffering IMO. Thank you for commenting.
You tell,em Dion and I will pat my foot. The strongest should survive!
Dion, another good thing about Lee Iacocca as president...he would only take a $1 for his annual salary as president. ;-)
You really seem to like that word? I guess if somebody doesn't slobber all over themselves telling you how brilliant and talented you are...they are "dicks" or "being a dick". But, you are in an intersting position; the historic nature of our new President and the implementation of his sophomoric economic policies will put the basics of your article to the test. It would seem that most of the economic engines in this country and the world disagree with your and your friends vibrant support of socialist control economies. Or is the world market collapse part of the plane. Sorry to be a “dick” but; oh well, there you go.
Would you be so kind as to give me a list of those countries were socialism is actually working? Not that I don't believe you but well, I have read some terrible accounts of government ran healthcare in some places. Of course I'm sure those articles are just those nasty conservatives trying to destroy the world. Revolution people...oops, there I go being a "dick" again.
mmm so thats the story
Blangrehr,
While I more or less share your ideas about current situation in USA, I don't share your attitude. Making personal attacks never achieves anything but making personal enemies. Tone down, please, or your message just gets lost in your own noise :)
Just got to this hub from my backlog, Pam. Congratulations. It's the best explanation of our recent political conflict that I've seen. Your research and narrative are commendable.
I've found that right wingers' greatest talent is that of derision. They are very good at making fun of anything liberals believe to be good and beneficial traits or programs. Who else could make "liberal" -- perhaps better known as the "L" word -- a dirty word. I'm glad to see that most commenters substantially agree with your observations. I must, however, stand up for the two-party system. It's one of the things that made this country great. There will always be a left, a center and a right, and only a two-party system can prevent run-away government. I was very pleased to see Bernie Sanders on this hub. He's one of my big favorites in government.
Howdy, Misha
Been a little busy - not trying to avoid you!
Your question - I avoided answering it because it is a poorly defined question. You are giving only two choices
A) Collective action is bad.
B) Collective bargaining is good.
I am actually in the middle of those beliefs - In some cases, collective action increases wealth. In others, it reduces wealth.
Lets us take an example. In my village, we obtain our water from the mountain, and do not pay for it. It is our water. However, we need to have the pipes cleaned twice a year. We could hire a contractor, and pay 200 Euros every year. The other option is to pay the municipal council 20 Euros every year - collective bargaining and economy of scale means that cleaning everybody's water pipes, at the same time, is much cheaper.
In that case, there is no reduction of collective wealth, so your question is irrelevant.
However, I do not believe in state ownership of most other enterprises, believing that free-enterprise and competition are essential. In those cases, I agree with your viewpoint
I am a great believer that choice and competition are essential. With health, however, you are not interested in shopping around for the cheapest deal, only becoming well. I would put water in the same category.
When it comes to education, roads etc, I think that there is too much of a cultural difference between the US and Europe to debate - any arguments become circular. It works here, and our collective wealth is increased - Greece is a very small country compared to the US, with ancient traditions. I suppose that it is apples and oranges.
Blangrehr - I recently wrote over 200 articles for a health tourism guide. Every country with state sponsored healthcare provides better service than the US. Your health system is inefficient. You want examples - the UK, Greece, Ireland and Sweden. All countries in which I have lived, and which have a good state-funded healthcare system. Before slating the healthcare systems of other countries, fix your own.
Aya - sorry we are fated to long breaks between comments - {{Then why did you class the Brave New World tyrannical forced drugging with the mass entertanment of Oprah and the fast food of McDonalds?}}
That was humour.
But like most humour it has some basis in reality. Least common denominator TV and fast food are not compulsory, of course, but you can hardly accuse either of increasing choice or freedom.
Holding liberal views does not make a person anti-freedom. It does however mean that freedom becomes just another ingredient in the complex societal melting pot, to be balanced against the other ingredients. This has always been the basis of mature and successful social democracies.
Hi Sufi, glad you are back :)
OK, let's try to take your example and figure out what exactly would be the best way to handle it. I just need to know what do you mean by municipal council in this case (mostly what is the scope of that thing and who pays for its functioning), and where the numbers came from. Are they real or just your guesses, and if you guessed them, what were your assumptions?
As for health and shopping around - I don't know about you, but I do shop around. Not for price, but for quality though.
And uniqueness argument I don't buy, after I moved from Russia to USA and saw that those seemingly very different countries are very similar at the end, despite of all the surface differences :) I believe there are common laws of nature at work in every society.
Oh, and I never call something good or bad other than by mistake. :)
"This has always been the basis of mature and successful social democracies."
On rethinking the entire discussion here in favor of socialism, it seems to me that "mature society" is the operative word. By mature, I mean of long standing, but also a high population density that comes to societies long aftet their pioneer phase.
Everything that you take for granted that should be given to people is something that earlier generations could not take for granted. If they wanted it, they had to provide it for themselves:
*roads
*water
*food
*health and healing in times of sickness
What are roads for? To get from point A to point B. Imagine the settlers on Plymouth Rock. If they wanted a road -- a path even -- they had to make it themselves. "O Beautiful for Pilgrim Feet whose stern impassioned stress, a thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness" (From America the Beautiful, in one of those later verses that nobody remembers.) Water? Dig your own well. Sickness? You muddle through. In the end, many may die. Those who survive survive.
Even as late as the 19th century, after the Civil War, the Ingalls family lived in the little house in the big woods and not only did they not have free health care -- they were cut off from other people most of the winter.
The reason it makes sense to someone in the UK -- or even someone living in and around Detroit -- that these are god given rights -- water, roads, health care-- is because of the population density in which you live. You can't imagine any other world.
My father wrote an article that explains that socialism makes sense in a crowded world, but libertarian ideals make sense in an open spacious world. The article is called LIBERTY & JUSTICE, WHY HOW AND FOR WHOM. I've just posted it on my hubpages.
Aya,
When the Romans were working their way through Europe, we Brits were living in huts and painting ourselves with woad. I guess Britain at that time might have been regarded as frontier territory by anyones' standards. So what did the Romans do for us 1800 years ago? They gave us roads, law and order, education, the first building blocks of civilisation. They put us on the road to Empire.
I agree that we have different perceptions of the world because of our very different and unique experiences, but roads, water, health-care, to me, are all part of progress and civilisation, and it's hard to look at them in another way.
"So what did the Romans do for us 1800 years ago?"
Sounds a bit "Life of Brian"....
Which does not really explain why exactly those roads have to be build by government. Hi Amanda :)
Aya, I think we part here. I don't see any use of socialism whatsoever.:)
Amanda, we agree more than disagree, The Romans were civilizing conquerors, and I suppose from the perspective of the modern Briton, they look more familair than the people whom they conquered. But roads are indeed the product of civilisation and taxes -- these go hand in hand. By the middle ages, none of Europe was a new frontier, which is why socialism seemed reasonable. It seemed reasonable to the Jacobins in France long before Marx, and it seemed reasonable one way or another to the British in their milder, less extreme version of the same thing. The American Revolution was a unique revolt against very mild taxation, by a frontier people who preferred to provide for themselves.
But if you have the time, read my father's article. It explains the idea in much more considered, impartial terms.
Misha, we need not part company. My father's article doesn't say that socialism is good. It tells you under what conditions it becomes inevitable. It also tells you what you have to do if you don't like socialism. If you are a libertarian, you have to create the conditions that will support liberty.
Everything has a price. An urban, congested world always tends toward socialism. Read the article. It's very dry and to the point. And mathematically grounded.
Sufidreamer; Wow ! 200...that is amazing. Congratulations; you must be very proud. I know I am certainly proud of you. I am indeed humbled that an author of your renown and accomplishment would ever lower yourself to respond to little old me, thank you. However I am a little confused…I looked and looked and well, for the life of me I can’t find anywhere I said anything about Healthcare. Now as smart and published as you are; it truly must be my mistake…so I do indeed apologize. I honestly know very little about the healthcare system of the United Kingdom except that there are roughly thirteen countries considered to have a better system. And maybe something else about folks having to wait a very long time for simple life saving procedures. And Sweden, now there is a country with an outstanding healthcare system. Of course it is operated vastly different that what his enlighten worshipfulness President Obama is suggesting for America…then there is a little difference in population; but it is a great healthcare system. It would work great in my home state of South Carolina. Even through I know nothing about these other healthcare systems and don’t remember saying anything at all, much less negative about healthcare in general; I apologize again…WOW 200!! You think you could send me an autograph…I can pay a little something. Thanks in advance. Your adoring fan,
B. Hamilton Langrehr.
"However I am a little confused…I looked and looked and well, for the life of me I can’t find anywhere I said anything about Healthcare. Now as smart and published as you are; it truly must be my mistake…so I do indeed apologize."
You were indeed right to apologise, as you were certainly confused. You'd said a few messages earlier:
"Not that I don't believe you but well, I have read some terrible accounts of government ran healthcare in some places."
LG
Yes, I confess, my earlier comment was inspired, at least in part, by Life of Brian, but that part of the film was funny because it was painfully true. I don't suppose we appreciated the Roman invasion at the time, but we're still using many of the original Roman roads (albeit, resurfaced since then!) and Latin is the base for much of our language, and is still the basis for many classification systems in chemistry and botany, and still provides us with much of our legal terminology.
Aya,
I'll read your article, and come back to you.
Misha,
Hi. The version of communism practised in Russia sounds more like the version in George Orwell's Animal Farm; some people were more equal than others (LOL!) I don't know if there has ever been 100% successful socialist regime, but I imagine that it would only work well in smaller societies. However, proposing Universal Healthcare and some higher taxes for big earners hardly counts as a seismic shift towards a totalitarian socialist regime.
Thanks LG
Langrehr - What unbelievable debating skills you possess. Rush must be proud.
Misha - The figure of 20 Euros is from the yearly bill. The 200 figure is from a plumber - when we first moved in, the house had not been used for a long time, and we needed to clean the pipes. That was the quote that we received. Instead, we phoned the council; they sent the maintenance guy around and charged us nothing extra. The municipality is about 2000 people - we pay 15 Euros per month and that includes lighting, road maintenance, taking away the rubbish etc.
There are a few common laws underpinning every society, but also many differences. Even Greece and the UK have different traditions - the Greek society is based on a village mentality, and has been for a few thousand years. The UK is a largely feudal system. Greek society is more 'socialistic' in outlook, but I have more personal freedom here. They are not mutually exclusive.
Aya - {{You can't imagine any other world.}}
You'd be surprised what I can imagine. But my views are based more on extensive travelling and working in many different countries and systems.
I'll agree there is some corelation between population density and applied socialism, but it's fairly loose. France, for example, is more rural than most of Wetsren Europe but is consistently more socialist and for a period even communist.
Paraglider, my father's point was not that there is a direct correlation between current population density and the system of government in place in any country. His point was far more theoretical than that: it's that the precondition to support a libertarian system is that the ratio of people to resources be low. That is few people, lots of resources. Under those conditions, socialism doesn't make sense and might not even work at all, even in the most rudimentary way. For those of us who value personal freedom, those are the best conditions. But for those who want to be taken care of, these are not good conditions. A high population density is conducive to socialism, and that is the world that adherents of socialism imagine for themselves.
The actual conditions in most places are at neither extreme. This makes the advocates of either postion more or less right, if you like, depending on the circumstances. In a lifeboat with only a little water and very little food left, most people agree that everything should be shared, no matter who it was that originally had title to the supplies before the emergency happened.
Churchill - "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery"
LondonGirl, good quote. Churchill and Roosevelt were not nearly as chummy as some people would believe.
With all respect and no offense to you, socialism is here; just you do not see it.
Before socialism came to my former country Czechoslovakia, Ukraine refugees warned us. But we did not believe them. We were too naive.
LG - Churchill had his moments, but, rather like Oscar Wilde, he was given to thinking up quotable soundbites that don't stand up to scrutiny. His real talent was being a wartime leader. Oscar's was wriitng plays (and not poems - his poetry is pretty crass). Neither really hacks it as a sage or philosopher.
Vladimir Uhri, which of us doesn't see that socialism is here? PGrundy admitted that it is and has been for some time. So did I.
What some of us have been disputing is whether it is a good or a bad thing. Most of the people posting on this hub have been essentially in favor of socialism. Misha and I, and maybe a few others, don't like it.
In recent posts, I started discussing something else altogether, and that is the question why socialism is here. Why do so many people think it is good or unavoidable or the best compromise... Why did the people who like socialism win the election? Why does creeping or even moving rapidly toward socialism seem irreversible? Well, my father's article deals with that question.
There is a distinction here that maybe is difficult to make but is very important:
1) Do we personally prefer to live under socialism or under a free market regime?
and
2) What would it take for us to get our preferred system?
These are two separate questions. LIBERTY & JUSTICE: WHY HOW & FOR WHOM deals with the second one.
Hi Aya.
Most people seem to be in favour of a mixture of the two.
Most countries used to have a genuine two-party system. The socialists made a government, brought in reforms and cared for people. Of course, people would become sick of over-centalisation and inefficiency and vote them out.
The conservatives would then form a government, dismantle many of the public services and lower public spending and taxes. Everybody is happy until homeless people appear on the street and schools start to fall down. People get sick of this and vote them out.
As long as voters had choice, an equilibrium was possible. Now, all of the political parties cluster around the centre, offering no choice and no change (Talking generally - early days for Obama!). If voters have no choice, people start to migrate to the extreme ends of the political spectrum. That is the real danger - two extremes can never compromise. Fascism and communism can never be friends, but end up in the same oppressive place.
I disagree with you and Misha on many things, but would not want to live in a country which did not have guys like you. Opposite viewpoints are essential for the political pendulum to keep swinging. This new system is not socialist or free-market - I have no idea what you would call it, but I don't like it.
Sufi, I appreciate your openmindedness, but I disagree with your ideas of where the poles are. Fascisms and communism are not at two extremes. They are practically the same thing. Didn't Nazi originally stand for National Socialist?
The extremes -- and I'm not someone who thinks extremism in the pursuit of a good thing is bad -- the extremes are taking care of people to the point of suffocating them on the one hand and leaving people alone.
My father's paper explains that when you are standing toe-to-toe and butt-to-butt-cheek alongside other people, you can't leave them alone. In order for people to be left alone, they need space.
Do me a favor. Read the paper.... It really isn't like any other analysis of the issues that you've ever read before.
I guess an autograph is out of the question. I am not debating you, I’m laughing at you.
Aren't you rather over-promoting this new hub, Aya? "Comments are not for promoting your hubs or other sites"
Sorry guys, I am pretty busy lately, and did not really have time neither to stop by here, nor to read Aya's hub. But I will, I promise :)
LondonGirl, you might be right. The reason I even posted that article to my hubpages was because the comments here made me think this explanation had a possible use -- that maybe people actually weren't aware of it, but they could benefit from this new perspective that resolves conflicting viewpoints. Sufi's remarks, for instance, were almost begging for an explanation why reasonable people are so divided on the issue of socialism. However, I have not posted a link, and I realize that it's up to people to seek out this explanation, if they're interested. If not, that's fine.
I guess I allowed myself to push a little more than I would have pushed something I myself had written. Sorry about that.
Aya,
I still haven't read your hub (must do that next, time permitting!) But seeing that you were about, I just thought I'd ask whether you have read Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Outliers'? I've just finished it, and I think it sheds a lot of light on some of the things we're debating here. It talks about how we're are influenced by more than just our upbringing, but also by our cultural identity, and the traditions and expectations of the society we grow up in. I've found it really interesting.
Amanda, no, I have haven't read Outliers, yet. I think I saw it mentioned recently in The New Yorker or someplace like that. I'll put it on my list of future reads!
I would just like to say that I find this article refreshingly intelligent. You make some absolutely excellent, well-supported points and successfully refute all the right-wing anti-socilaist media nonsense without seeming beligerent. Well done!
Wow - there are a lot of comments here that I'm not going to respond to, but I just loved the main theme of the hub. To an (original) European like myself, the Americans manic opposition to a system that touts such evils as universal health care, free post-secondary education and safeguards against child poverty (and all in return for taxes that aren't much more than US taxes, and are highest for those who can actually afford to pay them) is a little hard to understand.
Hi Claire and Karen,
I find those attitudes hard to understand too. Sometimes it feels like the opposition has made a kind of religion out of economic theory. That's what the tone of it feels like to me. Other times, the opposition just seems hateful to an extreme that is disturbing and kind of sickening.
I try to take a pragmatic approach. I don't think economics or politics make good religion, but there are lots of idealogues in the U.S.
We're not that far from fascism, but it isn't health care or roads ushering that in.
Aya, if your list of "books to read" is anything like mine, it's a long one!I enjoyed your hub - I didn't agree with it, but I found it interesting.
Umm, well Sufi, I was thinking about your example while doing other things, and I would say that Greece should be a really interesting country. :) Economies of scale definitely do work, but usually they deal with percentage points, not with the orders of 10. Something looks really off here, it does not really make any economic sense to charge for the same service one customer 10 times more than the other, no matter how much order size differs.
Did you try to bargain with the plumber? I am not sure about UK, but in the part of the world you are living now hard bargaining is rather common. Being in Mediterranean countries I often was able to buy things times lower than the asking price. Since you were a "rich foreigner", they might as well try to make a few extra euros on you. :) Did you shop around?
Another possibility is that this municipal plumber gets some indirect and/or barter benefits that you might not even know about - yet they are factored in the price, very common occurrence in socialist countries...
That's what I can think of for now...
Hi Misha
Greece is very interesting - I could live here the rest of my life and still not fully understand how things work. Bearing in mind that this was pre-economic crisis, before the construction industry collapsed, plumbers could pretty much charge what they liked. One old lady was charged 250 Euros for fitting a new tap - I would have done it for 40 ;)
The municipality has a salaried handyman, and he works hard for his wage - he gets voted into the position so, if he is useless, he loses his job! I now fix our plumbing myself - much cheaper and not too difficult.
Despite out differences of opinion over national health and education, I think that you would like parts of the Greek system. A lot of power lies in the local municipalities - ours consists of about 4000 people. We have a lot of freedom here, and bills and taxation are very reasonable. The European Union is trying to force the Greeks to get rid of this system, but they have resisted, so far.
I am not trying to paint a completely rosy picture, because Greece does have some problems - corruption and nepotism are still all too common. Still, I have much more freedom than in the UK, even though the Greeks are much further to the left. The difference is that the Greeks understand politics, rather than endlessly repeating soundbites.They are taught philosophy at a young age, and know how to think and reason for themselves.
Yesterday, a few of us were having a political conversation, and my friend's ten year old son joined in - he had a sophisticated knowledge of the issues, and his view was equally respected. You would rarely see that in the UK! Reasoned political debate is still possible in Greece, and the media are largely independent - there is no Greek Rupert Murdoch.
The Greek political system evolved over hundreds of years, long before socialism and capitalism existed. Everything works just fine, and it is not 'socialist' in the sense of the controlling Soviet Empire. It is socialist in that the Greeks happen to believe that health care and education should be paid for by the state - if the people sensed that the state was starting to control the population, they would burn the Parliament down - that is no joke!
Greek freedom was won at a great cost - the Ottomans, the Nazis, a bitter civil war and a fascist regime. Of course, the British and the US both played their customary role in starting wars and supporting evil regimes.
This definitely can work on such scale, and I don't think Aya or myself are against using people cooperation to do things that are easier and cheaper to be done together.
Probably the major factor here is scale. When we talk a handfull of people it's manageable, something of the size of your municipality requires thousands years of habit, and things like a state get out of control pretty soon... :)
Oh, and you can call me names, but I am not that scared of corruption and nepotism. Those are the things that go together with the power, and you just can't get rid of them. And if you accept them and learn to live with them, they are not that bad. And no, I don't believe that UK or USA or any other country for that matter are corruption-free :)
Looks like we have some agreement! Agree about the corruption - it is when it gets out of hand that it becomes a problem.
Not sure that I called you any names - certainly not aimed at you if there appeared to be. I have far too much respect for your point of view :)
LOL You definitely did not call me names. Others do pretty often, so it became a sort of a standard figure of speech for me :)
Wow seriously spot on words with a seriously intimidating debate that followed. By my skim I see that everything from the commons to the founders to ending Cannabis prohibition seems to have already been touched on so I will give my thanks and say this: If Wall Street thinks socialism is such a bad idea then I am all for it. What no ever got about Orwell's messages in 1984 and Animal Farm is that they weren't really anti-communist or anti-socialist they were anti-totalantarian(sp) Any given economic system can work so long as you have an effective and open democracy to manage it. Well any except Capitalism because it is designed to create an aristocracy.
Horatio, I guess that's why I never really liked 1984 and Animal Farm. They're against bad things -- but they're not for anything. They describe the evils of a dictatorship of the people without offering any happy alternative. And people read them -- and agree-- and go on being blissfully unaware that there is a relationship between the evils described and the morality underlying socialism.
Hi Horatio and Aya,
I thought both books were well done and that they do indeed address the issue of totalitarianism, not socialsm or communism. I think a wealthy segment of American politics has done a good job in demonizing certain words and ideas to get people to vote against and argue against their own best interests again and again. Now we have a dilaogue that is extreme, ideological, and beside the point.
That was what I meant to say and I haven't changed my mind at all after witnessing the discussion generated by this hub. While this kind of extreme rhetoric ties up working people in emotional discussions that go nowhere, the rich rob us blind.
At least it's all going well for SOMEbody.
PGrundy, many disillusioned socialists are really still socialists at heart. They say: "But it's such a beautiful idea; too bad it doesn't work when taken to extremes." The things is -- it's not a beautiful idea, because there's always some bad guy who is demonized -- like "The Rich". Who are they? Have you ever met one of those? What do we do if we catch them? After they no longer have their money, are they still "The Rich." Or does the next lower social stratum get to be The Rich, then?
I don't deny that without people who aren't rich, there could be no wealth. But because all wealth is derivative of real effort, no practical problem can be solved by going after the wealth itself. The problem isn't the wealthy -- it's the pyramid scheme.
Aya - out of interest, should a free person be free to purchase a slave?
Dave, you lost me - how does it go together with the topic of our discussion?
Paraglider, did I say anything about slaves?
But, just to take the bait, do you mean someone who has been kidnapped and sold into slavery? No, because it's illegal (and immoral) to do that to another person. Or do you mean an indentured servant -- one who signed a contract saying he would work without pay? Because then, it would just be a matter of contractual obligations and free trade.
Anyway, what made you think of slavery just now?
Yes I have, actually. My uncle was the CEO of the western division of a multinational construction firm that was rigging bids to build nuclear reactors for power plants back in the 80s. Once they got the bids they used substandard materials to build the reactors. The CEOs were indicted and he was retired early, narrowly escaping prison. He admitted the wrongdoing privately to the family but felt justified because 'everyone was doing it--you couldn't win the bid if you didn't do it.'
Capitalism is no more beautiful than socialism. I have argued for a moderate approach all along--a pragmatic approach. Your persistent demonization of the word 'socialism' is not persuasive, at least not to me. I respect your right to think what you think but I can't agree with you, and I think you often frame issues in terms that are much to extreme and idealistic and the way you frame those issues doesn't take into account any of the day to day realities that are familiar to me personally. So it's hard to go there with you because there is nothing in my experience, my actual life as I have lived it, that affirms what you say.
By the way, my uncle retired a millionaire and now grows fruit for fun outside San Diego. He was richly rewarded for his dangerous and illegal performance.
Just testing the limits of freedom :) You (Aya) seem to hold that freedom and socialism are diametrically opposed, whereas I think they are on different axes. The opposite of freedom is slavery. Neither is in the political arena. The opposite of socialism is capitalism. Both are political theories. To equate freedom with capitalism (or slavery with socialism) makes no sense.
LOL Pam, you did not mention it because it goes without saying and understood by anybody - but this was a bidding on a GOVERNMENT project. If anything, it proves that corruption is government induced, and it does not prove anything about capitalism, cause it has nothing to do with it...
Dave, I am afraid that you guys are up for a rude awakening to the fact that socialism equals slavery... Granted, not every slavery is socialism, yet every socialism is slavery...
Paraglider, Misha beat me to it. Socialism is slavery, because it eliminates choice. Not having a choice about what you do is the essence of not being free. As Misha pointed out, socialism is just one of many possible forms that slavery can take.
PGrundy, I don't have a rich uncle, so I don't have the same experiences you do. However, to equate criminal activity -- or even just fraud -- with wealth is to confuse the issues. Let's say you had another rich uncle who played by the book. What about him?
Paraglider, capitalism isn't the polar opposite of socialism. Capitalism implies that the means of production are not owned by the workers. This is true in many socialist countries. In the US, during the early years, many workers -- farmers, carpenters, small shopkeepers, craftsmen -- did own the means of production. Free enterprise does not necessarily imply capitalism.
Just as you resent conflating communism with socialism, I don't like to hear capitalism confused with a free economy.
Of course I know rich people who play by the rules. But I also have seen close up that extreme wealth and power corrupt.
The problem with discussing issues in extreme terms is it tends to negate personal experience. I don't live in political theory, I live here on earth, in my ordinary messy day to day life full of contradictory and inconvenient yet real situations.
Any pure idea forced on a populace will create suffering. It doesn't matter if that idea carries the name 'socialism', 'capitalism', or 'free market.' Life is not pure or perfect.
Pam, I've seen pretty corrupt poor people too, so, what about this ... wealth and power amplify corruption that may already be there? I don't think wealth per-se' corrupts, I just think corrput wealthy people can do more damage.
PGrundy, there's nothing pure or perfect about our current predicament. You can't force "a pure idea" on a populace. You can only apply an idea to reality. The current situation is the result of such applied political theory.
We each have our own experiences, and these experiences are all in reality. Misha lived his experiences in the real world, too. Do you think Russia is a fairy tale country? Do you think the USSR was merely theoretical?
Do you think my parents' experiences in trying to save money for college were theoretical? Do you think that what I learned from their experiences isn't shaping my own behavior as a parent?
Did I say my experiences are more important or more valuable than yours? No, I said the way you frame your ideas strikes me as extreme and discounts anything in the middle--which is where I place most of my own experiences, in the middle. This particular discussion is framed as all or nothing and I think that is a wrong way to frame it: Either there is a totally free market or a socialist hell on earth and never the twain shall meet. That's ridiculous and it's not helpful to set it up that way. Why not? Because we are using aspects of socialist policy right now all over the world in a successful way. So reality discounts theory instantly.
I just don't think that setting up most political discussions as a choice between two extreme conclusions is productive. It discounts the more moderate experiences of many, many people, not just me. But then, I think that is often WHY such discussions are set up like that--to discount the majority of moderate people to the benefit of the extreme people on either end. Abortion is a good example of another issue where this is done all the time--you're for it or against it, and it gets heated and dramatic, yet poll after poll has shown most people fall right in the middle--sometimes for it, mostly against it, personally distressed by it but feeling like it should be legal and available. That's the majority opinion but you'd never know it from the discussion.
Also, framing an argument as a choice between two extremes has the effect of crowding out creative ideas and discounting anyone who doesn't agree with whichever extreme you personally have chosen. One choice has to be bad and one good. I personally think we have way too much of this sort of extreme discussion in this country and I find it tiresome. In my own experience, that's not the way life usually is--all bad or all good.
You and Misha have first hand experience with a virulent form of government you label 'socialism', but you both also consistently degrade and negate other people's experiences with 'socialism' --for example, the experience of people who live in Sweden, England, Australia. Why? No one is saying you have no right to your opinions or that what you experienced didn't happen. So why must you insist that somehow your own experience is not only more important, everyone who has a different experience must be somehow less worldly or intelligent?
It's kind of insulting, but everyone here tolerates it because we all like you and Misha both. But seriously, there's a lack of respect for others in your position.
BDazzler, Good point. Rich people don't have a monopoly on corruption. But the head of a multinational corporation building nuclear reactors has a lot more opportunity to do harm than a person stealing cash from 7/11. Plus, in our society, the person stealing convenience store cash is more likely to get a prison sentence--costing taxpayers $45K for each year of imprisonment--whereas the CEO will get a nice fat early retirement or a bonus for endangering the public good.
A lot of people quote the Bible, "Money is the root of all evil," But the actual quote is "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil." A small but important distinction I think. And the more money and power a person piles up, the greater the capacity to do harm.
No doubt, OJ had money that bought him resonable doubt on his wife's murder. No way a public defender would have gotten him off.
Now there's a hub that would get people going! OJ, yikes. What an embarrassment and what a divisive story. Even today people go nuts over the OJ thing.
But I do think he did it and he got off because he's rich. Was rich. I mean, now he's in prison and I think most of his money is pretty much gone.
I think that supports your point though, when he had money he got away with murder. When he didn't he was busted for robbery.
True. I guess I'd better keep it clean or I'll end up with a room of my own! :)
Pam, since when having a different opinion and voicing it is insulting? I don't get it, sorry.
Nothing insulting about the different opinion part, just the part where nobody else's experience can be valid if it doesn't fit the different opinion.
I fail to see where I said or implied that nobody else's experience can be valid :)
Misha, when you equate socialism in Sweden with the brutality of the Soviet Union, or when you compare the British system of socialized medicine with a communist totalitarian regime even when people are telling you they have had good experiences there, those are extreme judgments that negate someone else's direct experience.
I was once violently assaulted by a group of men wearing jackets. For years whenever I saw a group of men who looked like this all I saw was a group of violent criminals. All men were bastards in my mind for a good 20 years. I now know that a group men can be violent, friendly, indifferent---all kinds of different things. Every jacket isn't a bastard waiting to happen.
Mark Twain told a story about a cat who sat on a hot stove once and never sat on a hot stove again. Or on a cold one.
PGrundy, as Countrywomen often says in her comments, it is also possible to learn from other people's experiences. For instance, I did not experience first hand what Misha experienced, but I know enough people who have had similar experiences -- and I have also read about it in books written by people who experienced it first hand. The experiences themselves, together with a logical analysis of them, are helpful in making predictions about future situations. This is a valid approach to learning about how reality works from the events that have already occurred in reality. No theoretical "purity" discounts the value of this kind of information.
My own experiences of socialism occurred in the United States, during your life time. Like you, I have long known that the U.S. has become in many ways a socialist country. Like you, I agree that it's not all or nothing. Private property in the U.S. exists side by side with government interventions. So, when I spoke of my experiences, there was nothing "pure" about that.
In the somewhat socialist, but not totally, purely socialist U.S. as we now know it, it is not a good idea to have any savings at the time when your child applies to college. This has consequences, in the real world, as to what financial choices real world people -- such as myself -- make.
pgrundy
In my opinion, Socialism in the United States comes from the people, not the government. I thought I would just throw that in here somewhere.
Pam, I think I am giving you a break :)
We can return to this tomorrow or later or never again - your choice :)
Aya, You are certainly entitled to your opinion and your experiences count, I just don't think they count any more than mine or anyone else's.
Issues--I think that is actually a good point. Thanks.
Misha--No problem, let's just let it go! You know, I've said what I think, everyone else has said what they think. Sometimes it's best to just move on. :)
I don't believe it's the media "screaming socialism" that leads thinking. I think people who make their media living "screaming socialism" have become successful because people who are concerned about the erosion of Democracy (which many Americans believe works best and is best, even if not perfect); and they tune in or read what most closely expresses their own views.
I know it is not just the religious right or the far right who share in the concerns. Neither is it just "fat cats".
It isn't even always about whether people equate socialisim with monster-leaders or horrible countries. It's that a very large number of Americans do not want their Democracy, or the principles on which the country was founded, gradually eroded in favor of another form of government.
People don't want the government and all its mediocrity, bureaucracy, waste, and failure to recognize that most people are not stupid, in their lives. There is a reference in The Declaration of Independence to governments not destroying men and lives. I live in Massachusetts, which is pretty much "socialisim on parade" . I could write a book about the real-life examples I've seen of the government destroying "men and lives" when people have had no choice but let it into their lives. I mean, real life horror stories are all around.
Nobody wants people to be living without affordable health care - not even Conservatives. Still, there are sometimes some very ominous and high prices to be paid when soul-selling occurs; and people (particularly those who) have been born in the US, raised to value the principles on which it was founded, and believe Democracy is worth preserving, just don't want it eroded - and really don't want to see the selling of the nation's soul as a quick fix to even a serious problem.
When I was a little kid, I was worried about whether another war (like WWII) would break out, only be fought on American soil. My WWII vet father said, "This country has a really good defense, and it's more likely, if someone wants to destroy it, that it will be done from within, a little at a time." This was - like - 45 or so years ago. He wasn't the only one who believed that, and he wasn't the only one to raise his kids believing that. From the WWII generation down through their Baby Boomer kids' generation and on down to a lot of younger people as well, a lot of people believed that is the US does not watch out, the Democracy and our freedoms will continue to be eroded - and the US will no longer be the nation it has been for 232 years.\
You could replace the word "socialism" with "Disneyland", and a whole lot of people still aren't going to want to see it creep in and replace Democracy.
Lisa HW, I share many of your feelings on this subject. But the problem is that "democracy" enables this slow erosion to take place. In a constitutional republic --not a democracy -- there are some things that simply are not open for people to vote on. The most important thing that nobody should be allowed to vote on is whether his neighbor gets to keep his income or property. That subject should be completely off limits, even if 51% of the people do think they might like to have a share in their neighbors' property.
Socialism is simply the stripping away of "The American Dream." Socialism would be a great thing if "Men" were not included in the scheme. This is not about "Left and Right." This is about "Right and Wrong." This is about The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. What made this Nation great and what made it stand apart from other Nations was the freedom for the American to make his own way. If a person chose to be a lazy worthless member of society, they didn't obtain much. If the American chose to work hard they were rewarded for it.
America was the envy of the World, and people from all Nations would do anything to get here and share in the American dream of freedom and making their own way in life.
How soon Americans have forgotten why our Forefathers broke away from a cruel dictating Government of England.
I even hear people justify socialism by bringing up Canada and their Government controlled Health Care. They say, look, everyone has free Medical, this is wonderful. But what they fail to tell you is that the medical care you receive is worthless compared to the quality in America.
Obama just gave us a perfect example of what a socialistic minded Government does to its' population. This man wanted to transfer the care of our military heroes into the hands of insurance companies. We all know how these insurance companies fight against delivering care to its' policy holders. If this move by Obama had succeed our military would have been subjected to outright torture when they attempted to get care.
You can not justify socialism on one hand without destroying the Constitution and Bill of Rights on the other.
Finally, someone said it. The whole argument that the United States is heading towards socialism is simply absurd. It's an argument simply made by conservative politicians trying to scare people into voting for them.
America is a socialist country of the state sponsored corporatist type.
The reason that I, and many that I know here in the states despise socialism is because we despise forced socialism. The second one is given the power to force others to do or not do things, that power starts working against people.
In small areas where everyone knows everyone, some things can be socialized without too many big problems cropping up. A water district, a sewer district, etc.
The problem is that these things are generally monopolies and, as populations increase ( or people no longer know each other ) it becomes simple for those in control to abuse the power they are given.
Here in the states, it is especially bad because of the fact that everyone is in the grip of the money trust. The large international banks literally control almost every high level politician through the federal reserve.
Think we are not a socialist country?
- Social(ist) Security
- Large Central Bank (federal reserve)
- Land Rents ( we do not own our property, we rent it from "our" government )
- Socialized bailouts of massive corporations and banks
We are, simply put, a socialist country in what we pay out, but not in what we receive. Most people I know who do not like socialism (here in the states) do not like it because they get all of the bad with little of the good. They would probably be all for it if they could get what they pay for.
I don't much care either way...so long as a system is voluntary, it is fine. Start giving some men power over others and things become sub-optimal at best.
PGrundy,
Very well said, and very necessary. Thanks for a well thought-out, educational hub.
We have a type of socialism but not what people really think. I believe that the socialism of raiding the treasury to pay off the banks is FASCISTIC, not a communistic socialism. In other words it would be better to take over the banks temporarily, require the bondholders to take a hit and share the pain, and then put them back into the private sector. It worked with the Savings and Loan fiasco.
If we do not do this, we will have billions and trillions of deficit and possible raging interest rates. i agree that we have socialism, but it is international bankers being in control rather than our government.
This fascism of course was started by Bush. And the Basel 2 off balance sheet banking was facilitated by both dems and repubs, and eespecially by Phil Gramm, who I consider to be a traitor to the republic.
No arguments here bgamall. I think they will end up doing as you say anyway, but by then it will all be so much worse. This Geither plan is just the Paulson plan with more smoke and mirrors. It's crap.
What we're looking at in the current system of governance in this country is a scenario in which the losses of giant multinational corporations/banks are socialized--i.e., picked up and insured by means of raiding the tax pool of the American people--while the profits of those same corporations/banks are privatized--i.e., kept by the same corporations/banks. In such a system, not only do the richest stay the richest, but the exact same individuals who were richest yesterday remain the individuals who are the richest tomorrow at the expense of the lower classes. It's more along the lines of feudalism or, more precisely, fascism, but is nevertheless an unfair, exploitative, and unconstitutional form of governance. It is socialist in the sense that the collective picks up the slack for the individual, but is far from communistic in the sense that only a select group of elite individuals are subsidized by the larger collective public. However, it is absolutely illigitimate (according to the U.S. Constitution) in any case whatsoever.
So, if that's what you're for, then preach on sister. But...
The idea that we are "not even sort of creeping toward socialism" is not only manipulative and misleading, it is completely irrelevant. We are well beyond free capitalism at this point, having moved into and beyond "democratic socialism" as well, and are quickly approaching a fuedalist social-governmental framework.
P.S. The constitution upon which this country is supposed to be founded expressly forbids the public socialization of private losses. The solution is to let floundering banks and corporations fail and allow their stockholders to fall along with them. This way, the institutions get replaced, and class stratification remains fluid and cyclical, as it should. I don't disagree that a supreme and unprecedented concentration of wealth has occurred at the top of the socioeconomic 'pyramid,' or that this kind of monopolization is terrifyingly dangerous. The major problem, however--and this is what people seem to be repeatedly missing--is that the uppermost class of financiers and C.E.O.'s has managed to get it written into law that the public will insure their losses, and that most definitely IS socialistic.
(And of course, as always, it isn't about left or right, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, Bush or Obama. The same principles apply across the board and across administrations, for the interests represented by either party for many, many years now have been in favor of the supranational financiers who control both parties.)
It's easy to pass blame around. I remember being in high school during the Clinton years, and money being very tight. When Bush came into office, I started to see a lot of spending by classically "poor" people.
Being Republican minded, (I'm not a citizen so I can't vote), I could easily say that Democrats interfered with Bush's reforms and plans, and that's why we had the banking / housing crisis. We can agree however that greed is what caused our problems. I don't think the solution is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, but I do agree that socialism is an excellent system and a great equalizer.
In America though, it would have to be watched very carefully so as not to allow abuse by politicians. I do support socialism, or at least a degree of socialism in America, especially since we have so many socialistic programs in place, but they need reform and better scrutiny than we have in place now.
I have to say that even though I love conservative talk radio, radio personalities really do incite false fear of socialism. I even heard one ignorant dip---- say that Western European quality of life was worse than than the US. Quite the contrary. Everyone's needs are taken care of. The food is better, health care is available to everyone whether you work or not. You just don't spend us much on luxuries over there.
The difference is that here you can live like a king, or starve to death with no help, and over there everyone can live healthy lives. I would say for the sake of compassion I would rather not live like a king if it means my neighbor is hungry.
Hi Alexander--Thank you for being a voice of sanity and a conservative too. Since you've seen this awful European 'socialism' first hand and have noticed that it isn't exactly horrifying, you saying it carries a bit more weight than me saying it. Sweden and the Soviet Union are not one and the same, and not wanting old people to have to live under bridges doesn't make a person a Marxist IMO.
I'm so tired of hot heads on both sides of the fence--politics should be less of a fanatical religion and more of a common sense thing--like plumbing or accounting. Everyone loves to stir the pot, but I'd just like to see more people living indoors. I don't think that makes me a flaming radical. Thanks for your support. :)
Born to be free
I appreciate your comments.
I came here to get away from Europe, to be on my own and prosper. Europe's taxation kills your earnings.
Good blog! Keep going.
Today, July 4, we celebrate the annivesary of an idea. The idea that people are free to pursue without interference, life liberty and happiness. That idea has been cussed, argued over, fought for, and died for over the past 233 years. It is that document, along with the US Constitution that establishes who and what we are as a people.
Labels aren't important. Adhearance to those ideals is part of the American experiment.
Our politicians, and our media, as well as most of our big corporations have failled us in the past, and continue to do so. Labelling is an easy way of dismissing an individuals point of view without taking the opportunity to understand.
Socialism in most minds in the US means governmental control of the means of production. We certainly have many socialist tendencies now. It is also, as Gary said earlier in the comments, prohibited by our Constitution. Unfortunately, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court seem to occasionally have a different read on what is right by the document.
Socialism as a label is a powerful term. It ranks with Communism in its power. It doesn't have to make sense, it is the way the term has been defined in our country.
Most people prefer to keep the money they earn by their efforts. Most people believe the government bureaucrats are incredibly incompetent and dangerous in the way they handle funding. Creating more governmental programs that simply don't work (and the past has proven they don't) is what many Americans feel is Socialism. We could probably better term it as the incompentent government employee. Most Americans would say that Socialism
A) uses tax money inefficiently
B) creates unwieldy amounts of paperwork
C) limits the ability of the talented individual to excel
While it seems true, and I say seems as I have not personally experienced European style govermental programs, that the bottom level of society is protected in a Socialist environment.
Americans reject Socialism and the label because we believe we can do it better. That the document signed by the brave founders in Philadelphia in 1776 sets about a better program and a better way to live.
Pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness. You are now free to do that. The original founders didn't believe that you needed to have Papa Sam looking over your shoulder.
We don't need more taxes or more government programs. We need the ones we have to work efficiently. We don't need Papa Sam. We need Americans to grow a backbone and inititve and quit waiting on bailouts. We need to fire our politicians who spend money to buy votes.
I'm not a Republican, a Democrat, or a Socialist. I'm an American Idealist who believes that given an option people will do the right thing for themselves and the greater good.
Bravo, you have presented poignant description of an ill-fated concept, simply because the corrupt conditioning provided by the legislative body of this country has gone to the highest bidder... The bias is bought and payed through the marketing of the American dreaming according to the usury advantage and manipulation of the marketplace... Greed rules here in America...
Thanks for a great page...
The problem I have with socialist is that the government regardless of if they are communist or not have put their nose into our business and tell everyone what they can and cannot do in our live.
artfuldodger says:
9 months ago
If fascism is the merger of corporate interests with government, we're there already. Socialism implies you at least get something (ie healthcare) for your 30-35% tax rate. So no, I'm not at all worried that socialism is a big problem here.