AHHH! The beauty of Socialism unplugged!

[Augustus]

To stop using Danes as an example of socialism to justify the Socialist Democrat's quest for power and control.

Seems to me most "Socialist Democrats" say 'we'd like a system sort of like the Danes or the Swedes, you know Western European style social democracy'.

"Stop using the Danes as an example of what you want as their system works! I want to pretend you support the commies and Venezuela as these strawman examples fuel my cathartic rage much better! You don't want an effective universal healthcare system that costs far less than we already spend, you just want the gulags, death panels and my plastic bags!!!"

 

[Kenny]

Yet it had worked for many of the natives who'd been living here for thousands of years. The first settlers, reared in a hierarchical, aristocratic police state, could hardly relate to a socialist democracy.

• 

Blanket statements doesn't provide support. Pilgrims tried it and it didn't work.

America’s First Experiment with Socialism

 

[Kenny]

Chaves moved a million people out of poverty, but pissed off the US oil interests and local aristocracy. He also failed to diversify the economy, which took a dive when oil prices decreased.
?

As one who has family still living in Venezuela... I will help you by adjusting your statements... "Chaves moved more millions of people INTO poverty well helping those who supported him OUT of poverty. NET LOSS! Not just because of numbers but also because those who came out of poverty were only nominally out.

 

[Kenny]

Nationalizing the oil disadvantaged only the foreign oil barons and their local toadies. It raised hundreds of thousands out of poverty and improved social services.

Everybody did not get poorer. Where are you getting this information?

Personal family who worked in the "nationalized" oil industry in Venezuela, family and history. Having lived there before and after nationalization, nationalization only enriched the higher echelon.

 

[Kenny]

The Inca empire was communist. Everyone worked for the state, there was no money, the goods produced were distributed according to need.

You didn't read the historical quote I gave. Holding onto positions when evidence says otherwise is a flat-earth position. Unless you like slavery, I would double check your info.

 

[Kenny]

I can only suppose that you don't know what socialism is.

Please enlighten me. I don't have a dictionary at my fingertips.

 

[fantome profane]

Please enlighten me. I don't have a dictionary at my fingertips.

Actually, yes you do.

 

[Kenny]

Actually, yes you do.

Of course Which makes Willamena's statement ludicrous.

 

[Kenny]

so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism


1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

What government institution actually is financially sound and didn't ask for more money? How long before we are financially upside down because they keep spending more than what they get? How is it that Social Security is going bankrupt but we have enough money to supply free healthcare, education, living help to millions of illegal immigrants? (Not saying I'm against immigration or helping those in need but demonstrating that government is totally out of whack concerning financial wisdom)

 

[Augustus]

How is it that Social Security is going bankrupt but we have enough money to supply free healthcare

If you stopped paying twice as much as the rest of the developed world for your healthcare it would be a lot easier

You already spend more public money on healthcare than countries like Germany and Holland (per capita, and pre-Obamacare).

"And what do we call avoiding being massively overcharged and overmedicated in our healthcare system?"

Communism!

 

[metis]

Didn't change the message of socialism nor the results of its implementation.

Let me recommend that you use the term "Marxism" versus "socialism" to specify which you're referring to. Scandinavian-style democratic-socialism is very different from Cuban authoritarian-Marxism for example, and the former very much has proven itself to work out quite well.

 

[Valjean]

To stop using Danes as an example of socialism to justify the Socialist Democrat's quest for power and control.

So the Danes aren't socialist, but the Venezuelans and Democrats are? I'm still trying to understand how you conceive socialism.

so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism


1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

What government institution actually is financially sound and didn't ask for more money? How long before we are financially upside down because they keep spending more than what they get? How is it that Social Security is going bankrupt but we have enough money to supply free healthcare, education, living help to millions of illegal immigrants? (Not saying I'm against immigration or helping those in need but demonstrating that government is totally out of whack concerning financial wisdom)

Social Security is not "going bankrupt." "Free healthcare" would cost us less than we're currently paying, and the last time we tried free education it returned a 700% profit in taxes alone.

What most of us "radical leftists" envision is not your dictionary definition. Most of us look to the rest of the world and see that the commons -- those goods and services used by everyone -- is not left entirely to the tender altruism of the commercial sector. People co-operate to ensure a safety net.

Services we all need, like education, healthcare, fire, police, roads, &c, can be managed publicly and delivered at cost, leaving discretionary goods and services to the private sector and the previous profits in our pockets. This would ensure a minimum baseline of security for the whole population. Job loss, accident or illness need not be unrecoverable catastrophes.

We older lefties look back to FDR's New Deal or Johnson's Great Society for security and protection from runaway mercantilism.
What the radical left wants is a 'we the people' democracy.

The right is quick to label any legislation threatening free market capitalism and banking as "radical left." What must they think of the socialist '30s through '70s? Stalinism? Maoism?

 

[Shad]

Use of a barter system or class structure does not make something not socialist. At it's heart, it simply means social ownership of essential resources.

Except that never happened.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Socialism never works.

If you hate socialism, why do you use socialist services like public roads and public postal services?

 

[Kenny]

If you hate socialism, why do you use socialist services like public roads and public postal services?

Is that why our infrastructure is a mess and the postal service is still asking for more money?

 

[Kenny]

If you stopped paying twice as much as the rest of the developed world for your healthcare it would be a lot easier

You already spend more public money on healthcare than countries like Germany and Holland (per capita, and pre-Obamacare).

"And what do we call avoiding being massively overcharged and overmedicated in our healthcare system?"

Communism!

Did you really study the graph? It appears that the governments, per capita, spend almost the same for the first 6 countries. Are you saying that people can't privately spend more because they want to?

 

[Kenny]

Let me recommend that you use the term "Marxism" versus "socialism" to specify which you're referring to. Scandinavian-style democratic-socialism is very different from Cuban authoritarian-Marxism for example, and the former very much has proven itself to work out quite well.

Yes, Metis, there are many different mixes throughout the world. Even the US is not strictly a capitalist society. But are the Scandinavian countries really socialist countries? We noted that some have tried a democratic-socialism but realizing they need to move more to the capitalist position.

Which socialist country is really driven by people ownership? Or which business is State owned but worker controlled?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Is that why our infrastructure is a mess and the postal service is still asking for more money?

Do you have any actual evidence to suggest privatizing roads and postal services would lead to an improvement?

 

[Augustus]

Did you really study the graph? It appears that the governments, per capita, spend almost the same for the first 6 countries. Are you saying that people can't privately spend more because they want to?

You seem to be missing the point. The first 6 governments spend about the same. 5 of them provide excellent quality universal healthcare for this, but in one you get an inefficient non-universal system where people go untreated and tens of thousands bankrupt themselves trying to save a loved one every year (or watch them die).

In 5 people have the option of 'spending more because they want to', in one you get the choice of spending more because you have to or risking it all.

Americans love defending their right to pay more for less than these stupid socialist Europeans who, on average, can get universal public and additional private insurance for less than the average American pays while never having to worry about pre-existing conditions or the "house verses daughter's chemo" dichotomy.

 

[Kenny]

You seem to be missing the point. The first 6 governments spend about the same. 5 of them provide excellent quality universal healthcare for this, but in one you get an inefficient non-universal system where people go untreated and tens of thousands bankrupt themselves trying to save a loved one every year (or watch them die).

In 5 people have the option of 'spending more because they want to', in one you get the choice of spending more because you have to or risking it all.

Americans love defending their right to pay more for less than these stupid socialist Europeans who, on average, can get universal public and additional private insurance for less than the average American pays while never having to worry about pre-existing conditions or the "house verses daughter's chemo" dichotomy.

I can easily give you pro's and con's on both systems.

"The Cons of Socialized Medicine
People need to make sure that in every medical system they use to engage with, they are always ready with the possible consequences that this might be giving. It is a must that before deciding, you must be equipped with all the data and information before getting in touch with the medical system. Here are some of the disadvantages that this socialized system might give:

• The degree and quality of the health care services that hospitals offer will decrease. It is because this socialized medicine is being run by the government. Hence, they have the power to control this health care system. They will be the one controlling everything regarding the health services they are providing the people.
• With the control given to the government, patients tend to wait for longer hours before they are being rendered by the health service that they are aiming for."

And if the degree and quality of health services decrease, you will watch your loved one die.