Is America becoming Socialist ?

[grannywils]

Britain has never been truly socialist but, like many countries, has only had a kind of democratic socialism living side by side with capitalism and always it has had to compete with, struggle with, more conservative political forces.

]

 

Well you could have fooled me, I've only lived in the country concerned for nearly fifty years so I guess I wouldn't have noticed the raving Peoples Flag Is Deepest Red trade union mobs who were the de facto rulers of it until the advent of St Margaret Hilda.

 

Let's not split hairs about the different kinds of socialism, because in the end they all (yes, even National Socialism) boil down to the same things. They talk justice and fairness and free access to health, education and the like, but that is not how it works out in practice. You get the discouragement of and even active suppression of individualism or opposition - here in the Mother Of The Free, a socialist Government cracked down on demonstrations within sight of Parliament. You get the politicization of police forces (I have had a Met Police stormtrooper wrap his baton around my head because I was - peacefully - voicing my opposition to a Labour government.) In the name of equality and fairness what you actually get is the bringing down of everything and everyone to the lowest common denominator. Anyone who creates wealth (which means creating JOBS) is considered to be the enemy and to be taxed out of existence. And for pity's sake, don't be a bright kid from a poor to modest family, because the socialists hate selective state education with a passion, and in Britain at least chuck the brightest kids in with the "no intention of ever learning anything" yobs in what's called a comprehensive school. I was one of those bright kids and was lucky if I only got the poo kicked out of me once a day. And incidentally, the system also fails those who have real difficulties with literacy/numeracy/beavioural issues, as they all get thrown in the same pot too. And I work with the tragic results.

 

It is the kind of thing I describe above that I can see the current regime in America imposing, and which I think worries a lot of the people there.

[/quote

 

No offence, Ginnyfizz, but what you just described has been happening to black kids in this Capitalist country from time immemorial, and to a certain extent still does today."

[evilneko]

Simply put, no, and it would take an extremely biased view of the Affordable Health Care Act to call it socialist.

[ginnyfizz]

I take it then that there is no discrimination at all in Socialist countries? Wrong - I'd say ask my Uncle Zbycek how it was in Uncle Joe's gulags, if he hadn't drunk himself to death in a bid to forget the experience. His only crime was to be an educated Pole who lived in Grodno and ended up under Stalin's jurisdiction.

 

I am also at a bit of a loss as to why the very real and acknowledged discrimination against black American kids in any way justifies the similar treatment of bright white kids (who also perhaps happen to be red haired and of a certain faith making them a triple target, like someone I could mention....) in a Socialist Britain. That's a truly breathtaking and, yes, rather off colour assertion. Two wrongs do not make a right. What makes you think that a Socialist America would improve the lot of the oppressed minorities? They will be left without the will or the means to bring themselves out of the mire and a Socialist state would have an interest in keeping them there. In the hopes that they would keep believing the promises that the Socialists will make it all better and keep voting them back into office.

[LadyMilla]

I take it then that there is no discrimination at all in Socialist countries? Wrong - I'd say ask my Uncle Zbycek how it was in Uncle Joe's gulags, if he hadn't drunk himself to death in a bid to forget the experience. His only crime was to be an educated Pole who lived in Grodno and ended up under Stalin's jurisdiction.

 

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you made the usual mistake of equating the Stalinist regime with socialism. Socialism, as the brain-fathers of the theory conceived it, has never existed. Do you know for example, that even the party leaders of the so called socialist countries recognized that their socialism was not the same as the social system envisioned by Marx, and for this reason, they called it 'existing socialism'?. Do you know, that according to Marx, the role of the state was meant to be reduced and not increased? The existing thing was a travesty of socialism, and is attributable to Lenin, and other revolutionaries, who thought that the chain of capitalism should be broken at the weakest link (that was Russia at the time), and the uneducated masses should be forced with iron fist into accepting the new ideology until its benefits compared to the old system became prevalent. Unfortunately, this ideology was a fine breeding ground for power hungry psychopaths like Stalin. But was the anti-communist campaign of Senator McCarthy any better? Do you think victims of his anti-communist rampage will have a better memory of the so called 'democratic' system that allowed such a mass hysteria?

 

Right now, I think the closest thing to socialism is the political and economic system of the Netherlands, Denmark, and the Scandinavian countries. Can you cite examples for oppressed minorities in these countries?

[Ghogiel]

^yes that!

 

I am not exactly sure of what you mean by "Right to Life". We guarantee Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in the constitution but that does not correlate to what I think you are proposing. Americans by and large do not mind assisting of their own accord but have a tendency to resist being told they have to.

Socialism is much like the camel's nose in your tent, it starts out with the nose but eventually ends up with the entire camel in the tent and you out in the desert. So I'll stand with the original intent of the framers, we will provide you with the freedom to make your own way but are not required to buy the ticket to your destination.

It seems to me Americans only think the don't like being told what to do. But actually follow along quite nicely. The French on the other hand...

 

Why Most Americans actually think that about themselves being so defiant of their government, when the reality it appears much the opposite, I can guess. I did live there and have had an American education up to a point. So I perfectly get the mentality. But from living in europe and asian countries as well, I think the europeans are the ones with their government on the leash the most, and not so much the other way around. Well as much as you'd think was possible.

 

Anyway social health care. Works and Doesn't work.

 

Stop saying- ZOMG don't have social health care look at what happened to Greece.

 

It would be like me saying - ZOMG are you retarded, social health care PWNS look at Germany! it's been going like 150 years and it rocks, I loved my doctor when i lived there. And hell yes is it better than the UKs NHS.

 

obviously it's completely subjective. And honestly, greece didn't bankrupt because of social health care alone. Stop saying countries economies can't work with socialism being involved. I would like to point out China at this point> but not really, when most of the country is quite poor, and the health care sucks anyway, But if you guys want to believe economic worth as the only valid value a government system should be ruled against. fine, then China. state still is heavily involved or completely controls most industry, has a social health care system, and is apparently moving it back to being more social orientated. And actually has the fastest growing economy, and will probably be number 1 at some point.

not that i think our governments should be taking a leaf out of their books. tbh I didn't really like living there. Hong Kong is tolerable back in the day when it was basically British. If only I spoke chinese...

 

I'll just throw that in there, somethings are just worth more than money. Such as health.

 

In the list of the worlds top 10 economies 7 have some sort of social health care. So surely a social health care system is something to be feared.

 

GB has known the national insurance was starting to flounder for at least 15 years. The banks passing out loans to boost spending, in an attempt to delay the inevitable recession, and because no government party wanted to be the one in power when that happened, let them, this was a major contributing factor.... well something like that apparently, you need to blame something!

I just bankrupted myself on getting essential dental work done. So Where the hell if my universal healthcare now? :pinch:

 

anyway I think you guys are way too hung up on the wrong things. Personally i think a universal health care system should be made to work, simply because it is probably the right thing to do.

 

If you believe social health care doesn't work, then simply explain Germany to me? I do not accept ridiculous answers like- because social health care just doesn't work, because greece had it when their economy collapsed.

[grannywils]

I take it then that there is no discrimination at all in Socialist countries? Wrong - I'd say ask my Uncle Zbycek how it was in Uncle Joe's gulags, if he hadn't drunk himself to death in a bid to forget the experience. His only crime was to be an educated Pole who lived in Grodno and ended up under Stalin's jurisdiction.

 

I am also at a bit of a loss as to why the very real and acknowledged discrimination against black American kids in any way justifies the similar treatment of bright white kids (who also perhaps happen to be red haired and of a certain faith making them a triple target, like someone I could mention....) in a Socialist Britain. That's a truly breathtaking and, yes, rather off colour assertion. Two wrongs do not make a right. What makes you think that a Socialist America would improve the lot of the oppressed minorities? They will be left without the will or the means to bring themselves out of the mire and a Socialist state would have an interest in keeping them there. In the hopes that they would keep believing the promises that the Socialists will make it all better and keep voting them back into office.

 

Whoa, Ginny. Let's take a step back here. I did not say that the U.S. was going Socialist. I believe, and tell me if I'm wrong, that you are attempting to imply that we are. I was simply suggesting that some of the policies that you have warned us might begin to take place when and if we "go Socialist" have already been going on in this Capitalist country for years. We have just managed somehow to either hide them or come up with

myriad ways of justifying them. I personally do not believe for a minute that this country is turning Socialist. Many people in this thread have pointed out, and I agree with them, that the definitions of Socialism are quite skewed depending on the area in which you find it. I can no longer tell you what it means to be "a Socialist". But I do not think that this country will turn away from Capitalism whether or not it is good for it to do so. Social policies that are good for the "people" are all now being termed "Socialist" by those in this country who would rather that we not consider them. It has become a new buzz word for the far right. I no longer pay much attention to that sort of chatter. I listen to what you say, because I believe that you legitimately care. But I really need you to remember that you and I are not enemies. Please trust me to understand where you are coming from, and I will try to do the same. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Maharg67]

Britain has never been truly socialist but, like many countries, has only had a kind of democratic socialism living side by side with capitalism and always it has had to compete with, struggle with, more conservative political forces.

 

Well you could have fooled me, I've only lived in the country concerned for nearly fifty years so I guess I wouldn't have noticed the raving Peoples Flag Is Deepest Red trade union mobs who were the de facto rulers of it until the advent of St Margaret Hilda.

 

Let's not split hairs about the different kinds of socialism, because in the end they all (yes, even National Socialism) boil down to the same things. They talk justice and fairness and free access to health, education and the like, but that is not how it works out in practice. You get the discouragement of and even active suppression of individualism or opposition - here in the Mother Of The Free, a socialist Government cracked down on demonstrations within sight of Parliament. You get the politicization of police forces (I have had a Met Police stormtrooper wrap his baton around my head because I was - peacefully - voicing my opposition to a Labour government.) In the name of equality and fairness what you actually get is the bringing down of everything and everyone to the lowest common denominator. Anyone who creates wealth (which means creating JOBS) is considered to be the enemy and to be taxed out of existence. And for pity's sake, don't be a bright kid from a poor to modest family, because the socialists hate selective state education with a passion, and in Britain at least chuck the brightest kids in with the "no intention of ever learning anything" yobs in what's called a comprehensive school. I was one of those bright kids and was lucky if I only got the poo kicked out of me once a day. And incidentally, the system also fails those who have real difficulties with literacy/numeracy/beavioural issues, as they all get thrown in the same pot too. And I work with the tragic results.

 

It is the kind of thing I describe above that I can see the current regime in America imposing, and which I think worries a lot of the people there.

 

I am sorry to have to say so but you are, to my way of thinking, clearly biased. Yes, Labour Governments in the UK have done foolish things and socialist minded groups have also done stupid things but you brand all socialists and socialism with the same big brush.

 

As for trade unions, their rhetoric is often more left wing than is their actual politics, far more so.

 

Also I think you over simplify what many left wing influenced groups are trying to do, painting things black and white before coming up with the same sort of tired answers that have come from the right wing for far too long. Mind you the left wing is often guilty of the same sort of behaviour.

 

Conservative governments in the UK have also suppressed human rights, have also sent the police after crowds of peaceful protesters. There is a large, oppressive part of government that is beyond the real control of political parties, left or right wing, and this in many countries is often the real culprit.

 

I strongly suggest that you do what I had to do in the past and that is take a fresh look at history with out a lens of bias. I used to think everything left wing was good and everything right wing was bad. Now I am far more careful with my judgements or at least I try to be.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Maharg67

[ginnyfizz]

Well I will have to disagree with you there Maharg, and I still say you are splitting hairs. All Socialists DO want the same kind of things when you boil it down - the suppression of individualism, the one size fits all approach, the Big State approach "We know best and you will do as we say or else..." I don't care whether they are the British Labour Party or the Obama faction or Uncle Joe's goons, whatever label they wear, they work on those principles and, in a more ugly way, on fostering envy and hatred of those who do have money and property, whether or not legitimately acquired.

 

As for Conservative governments suppressing peaceful demonstrations...I don't know if you were ever actually there at some of the demos against Thatcher in the 1980's. Peaceful they weren't. I had no choice as I live in a mining area, and when Red Arthur decided he was going to bring the miners out on strike and topple the democratically elected (with big majority) government(it didn't work), they did not picket peacefully. My area refused to strike and got the full treatment - vandalism, my mother assaulted on the way in to work, bricks and God knows what being hurled. These were riots, no more, no less. Whereas under Blair, i got my skull cracked for standing behind the designated barriers and doing no more than shouting "No ban!" (Hunting ban that is.)

 

Lady Milla, please don't assume that all people with a right wing perspective are incapable of reading what the opposite point of view has written. Some of us went to university, and as part of our courses had to read Das Kapital. So Marx envisioned a certain kind of society under true socialism but so what? That was a THEORY and it all goes to prove my point - historically the practical application of Socialism has never matched the Utopian theory and has often been accompanied by strife and sometimes outright thuggery.

 

Aside of the Netherlands, I do not believe any of the countries you mention have substantial minority communities, so they aren't a good example.

 

"Personally I think a universal health care system should be made to work, simply because it is probably the right thing to do."

 

But it DOESN'T work as applied in the UK. Medicine is a constantly evolving discipline, meaning that the costs are continually mounting. To make it work, you would have to keep jacking up taxes to an unacceptable level. The NHS needs massive efficiency savings to make it workable - a medical sales representative this week blew the whistle on how NHS purchasers just do not haggle about prices, and pay £300 for screws to put in hip replacements - identical to screws that can be had from DIY stores and could be sterilised.

 

And the on topic point of all this? To illustrate that I think Obama has exhibited some of the Socialist tendencies exemplified, and that if he got his way he would like to make America socialist, but in my opinion, the American people will not let that happen.

[Ghogiel]

But it DOESN'T work as applied in the UK. Medicine is a constantly evolving discipline, meaning that the costs are continually mounting. To make it work, you would have to keep jacking up taxes to an unacceptable level. The NHS needs massive efficiency savings to make it workable - a medical sales representative this week blew the whistle on how NHS purchasers just do not haggle about prices, and pay £300 for screws to put in hip replacements - identical to screws that can be had from DIY stores and could be sterilised.

I think you just said- potentially the NHS can work if it's not run by idiots and was run in an efficient manner? Hmm maybe that's how Germany manages..

 

I believe what you just said actually helps the case of socialism. removing Inefficient and corrupt bureaucracies was probably the number 2 reason Marx started writing.

 

And further this very specific instance, is also partly a failing in capitalism, see the company who they were selling the screws were exploiting the system, the system is then in turn exploiting the taxpayer.

 

I see how you qualify your statement by saying " as applied in the UK"

flat out stating it doesn't work in the UK is probably wrong. a reform is necessary to adapt the system.

 

Anyway. I really have my doubts that saying it doesn't work in the UK is correct... I have a feeling that the NHS or a social system much like it, will actually be in place for a long time. Who knows Maybe I'm wrong about that. :unsure:

 

I know what they need to do, like what's always done, bring in cheap foreign labor to boost the economy. Pretty standard practice. That way their individualism is suppressed and white folk can carry on as usual thinking they have a piece of the pie. while the envy and hatred is fostered within those minorities. Yes this is actually a major factor in racial equality. Even currently this issue exacerbates racism in both the minority and the majority. Ask me to explain if it isn't immediately apparent why that situation is a direct root of a lot of it. All you have to do is listen to any minority speak on racism and this one failing of capitalism is right up in there.

 

Your definition of the goals of socialism is rather weird. it reeks of anti socialist fulled propaganda. and is not a accurate description at all. I believe Maharg is correct in stating you are clearly biased.

 

Well I will have to disagree with you there Maharg, and I still say you are splitting hairs. All Socialists DO want the same kind of things when you boil it down - the suppression of individualism, the one size fits all approach, the Big State approach "We know best and you will do as we say or else..." I don't care whether they are the British Labour Party or the Obama faction or Uncle Joe's goons, whatever label they wear, they work on those principles and, in a more ugly way, on fostering envy and hatred of those who do have money and property, whether or not legitimately acquired.

 

suppression of individualism? fostering envy and hatred? suppression of individualism may happen or not, but its nothing to do with any socialism in labour party, Obama or maybe Uncle Joe. mentioning the 2 in the same breathe as if one is a direct cause of the other is highly debatable. I think that's pure fantasy, as I see zero data that can substantiate such claims.

Just because Obama administration wants a social health care system in place, this will not crush American individualism and turn everything gray and all the people into robots. It's an absurd thought. Your extreme painting of it in that light isn't helping you to explain why you clearly hate socialim. Well it seems you have a hatred to me. :shrug: it's just making you sound like right wing hate spout.

 

as for the hatred and envy towards people who have money and property- that has virtually nothing at all to do with socialism.

the poor have always been envious of the rich. and the poor have also hated their rich masters, and for their apparent exploitation. It is the rich are the ones that want the people to stay poor and be exploited and suppressed. These are partly the goals of capitalism, not socialism. These are actually the very things about capitalism that socialism was brought into existence to be a response to. There are no rich or property owners in the orginal foundation of ideals, how can one be envious of something that doesn't exist. Somehow, that was twisted around in the anti-communism propaganda... which looks like it worked pretty well.

 

This type of plight of the people and civil unrest, has been documented by scholars throughout the centuries... and you will find that if you look past the last century, you will see that socialism has nothing to do with these things. if anything these are failings in Capitalism.

 

And besides we are clearly not debating Marxism or true socialism. we are debating whether any social services, such as a social health care system, are good, work, worth it. or something. this is completely a different thing.

[LadyMilla]

Lady Milla, please don't assume that all people with a right wing perspective are incapable of reading what the opposite point of view has written. Some of us went to university, and as part of our courses had to read Das Kapital. So Marx envisioned a certain kind of society under true socialism but so what? That was a THEORY and it all goes to prove my point - historically the practical application of Socialism has never matched the Utopian theory and has often been accompanied by strife and sometimes outright thuggery.

 

Exactly. And it is the same with theories about 'free market-regulated economies' and the theories about 'democracies based on universal suffrage'. Market is a splendid regulatory 'force' in theory. In reality, it is not so much. Especially, when it comes to health care where the interests of the involved parties (health care service providers, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and patient) are so contradicting. I will discuss it later.

 

The problem with your reasoning is that you try to draw unfounded conclusions from a president's attempt to introduce a universal health care system that you regard as a 'socialist' invention. (Is it? Just because universal health care was present in the former socialist countries, it does not make it a socialist invention. And because it is present in many Western-European countries, it does not make them socialist either in the sense of the original theory.)

 

"Personally I think a universal health care system should be made to work, simply because it is probably the right thing to do."

 

But it DOESN'T work as applied in the UK. Medicine is a constantly evolving discipline, meaning that the costs are continually mounting. To make it work, you would have to keep jacking up taxes to an unacceptable level.

 

So what's your solution? The rich who can afford expensive medicine shall live, and the poor who are obviously all losers, workshy scroungers, and social misfits shall die unless they have a family that can scrape together enough money to pay for the treatment? Because, if your reasoning is true, soon only the wealthiest will be able to afford medicine and operations that require advanced technology.

 

Do you think an attempt to correct this situation where people are denied access to health care based on profit related consideration is really a socialist invention? Or rather a last-minute recognition that market is not the magic wand that can bring everything under control?

 

Unfortunately, bringing health care under state control seems to unavoidable due to the deep rooted contradiction between the interests of the health care service providers (medical facilities, pharmaceutical companies, health care insurance companies) and the interests of the consumers of said services. What are the interests of the consumer? To regain health as quickly as possible. It's not just that nobody likes to be ill: you have a family to support, you are restricted in what you are able to do, and from the point of view of the society (except in extraordinary cases, like Stephen Hawking), you are unable to contribute to the society as a whole. What are the interests of the health care service providers? To prolong the period during which the consumer requires their services, in order to increase their revenues. The pharmaceutical companies are not interested in providing a cure, they are much more interested in prolonging the period of consumption, that is, they prefer medication that needs to be taken on an ongoing basis in order to sustain a symptom-free condition. The health care insurance company is interested in... what a surprise... securing a profit for the shareholders. Profit requires cutting back on costs and expenses, including payments to the insurance holders, eliminating risks related to case histories that reveal the increased probability of insurance covered events (an example, I am unable to take out any health care insurance that would cover spine related operations because in my childhood, I was suffering from a fairly common childhood syndrome called scoliosis). So, in the end, the only one who is royally screwed in this fabric of interwoven interests is the consumer/patient. And don't tell me that proper legislation would be able to regulate these simply market/profit based interests. When governments are taken hostage by corporate giants, who can blackmail them to provide emergency assistance from taxpayer money ("If we fall, thousands of subcontractors will fall with us, and tens of thousands of jobs will be lost, you don't really want the loss of popularity that comes with the increase in unemployment, not to mention the state budget will take a severe hit due to increased spending on unemployment benefit. Sure, there will be a short-lived uproar against saving the culprits who brought this calamity on us, but soon the public will relax, hoping that things will go back to normal") hoping for proper legislation that is actually enforced is a far fetched idea.

 

As to your complaints about Labour Party governments turning England into a police country... I assume that street cameras and such are now being dismantled by the Conservative government., aren't they?