What do Americans mean by 'a socialist country' or 'socialist'? One post recently on AP referred to Denmark and Norway as 'socialist countries' so defined because they have a system of national healthcare. To us 'socialism' means a system of government where the means of production and distribution of wealth are owned by the state and 'socialist' refers to this policy. So it was a 'socialist' policy that meant that the whole of the British coal-mining and steel industries, together with the railways, were taken over by the state just after WW2: a process called 'nationalisation'. Back then it was in the constitution of the governing Labour Party that it should strive for control and ownership of the means of production. The nation owned much else at various times including, bizarrely, Thomas Cook the travel agents .
How is having a national system of healthcare, running together with private medicine,a defining mark of a 'socialist country' if having a national system of education running together with private education, as in the USA, is not? ************************************************************** 05-04-06, 06:50 PM juanruiz Many Americans consider a socialist country to be characterized by a cradle to grave system of health care run by the government, redistribution of the wealth, and huge tax burdens such that its citizens keep a smaller percentage of what they earn and have much less disposable income. For example, a guy from Sweden told me the federal government withheld 40% of his gross income, and then at tax time he paid another 25% on his total net. I would presume though that there was a graduated scale of some sort.
05-04-06, 07:22 PM babthrower Americans are often prone to making blanket statements because of one trait.
I was called a communist because I opposed the Viet Nam war, back sometime before the Great Flood. The reasoning went something like this:
Communists want the U.S. to get out of S.E. Asia. Babthrower wants " " " " " " " "
Therefore.... well, you see what I mean.
More generally, you hear it echoed by G.W.Bush:
Those that aren't for us are against us. Babthrower is not for us in the Middle East Oil Grab. Therefore babthrower is against us.
Well, he maybe didn't mention me by name....
So I think the reasoning re nationalized health care is something like:
Socialist nations such as the U.S.S.R. and the People's Democratic Republic of China believe that health care is the state's responsibility, along with everything else. Denmark and Canada have systems in which the state pays for the major part of medical care. Therefore Denmark and Canada are socialist countries.
Similarly one would reason:
The West Coast Haida lived in red cedar houses. Babthrower lives in a red cedar house. Therefore babthrower is a Haida.
05-04-06, 08:34 PM Sarai First, I'm not quite sure why anyone felt the need to link me with Bush in such a mocking way. Second, I'm quite sure there are a number of Americans who would disagree with what I typed.
To speak of blanket statements:
One poster on AP (Sarai) is an American. Sarai linked Norway and Denmark with Socialism. I think Sarai based this on one trait. Therefore, Americans are often prone to making blanket statements because of one trait.
This is kind of fun: Sarai is an American. Sarai lives in Mexico. Therefore Americans often live in Mexico.
Almost all of Sarai's family is Canadian. Therefore, Americans often have Canadian roots.
This is great. With this logic, Americans could, dare I say it? RULE THE WORLD QUITE OFTEN! MUA ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I don't know how many countries you have lived in Babthrower, but in my experience, you will find people who will say ignorant things just about everywhere. I'm sorry that an American called you a Communist once. I'm sorry Bush is a fool. A Mexican who knew nothing about me but my coloring once called me a whore. There have been a number of corrupt leaders in office in Mexico. I'm sorry if I won't join you in making blanket statements by mocking all Mexicans as cruel, unkind, or corrupt, since I know full well that is false.
I think it shows a certain ignorance about the complexity of a society, frankly.
Therefore, Canadians are often ignorant of the complexity of society.
Lucky for you, you Canadians often have some American family living in Mexico who will make things simple by generalizing based on one trait. Razz
Fred, I'll answer your question in a few minutes. I'm in the midst of something but wanted to address Babs' post.
05-04-06, 09:12 PM babthrower Umm, did I say all Americans?
'Americans are often ...' is not the same as 'All Americans are...'
If I say "Americans make more movies than anyone else," does that mean I'm trying to convince you that every American, no matter where he/she live on the globe, is out there at a tripod, whirring away?
But wait! Maybe they are! I hear a whirring sound even now! Gak! Someone wearing a star-spangled-banner t-shirt is filming me through the window! Oh no! Now she's pulling out a uzi! We know they all carry compact automatic weapons!
ARRRRRRRRRGHHHHH!
(As she slumps to the floor, she wonders, as she takes her last conscious breath, 'Do you say a uzi? Or do you say an uzi?)
05-04-06, 09:27 PM Sarai Since, as we have established, an American is basically a Mexican son of a Canook, I'll show my patriotism by appealing to a Canadian website. Please note that this is MY reasoning. I do not claim that anything I say represents the view of the entire population of the United States. It does, however, represent the view of all left-handed people. Economics is on a spectrum :
quote:
Nowadays, most economies are known as ‘mixed’ economies because, in reality, both market and state play a substantial role in them.
EXAMPLES
The U.S. economic system is based more on capitalism, whereas the Chinese system is based more on socialism. Most other countries, including Canada, rely on both market and state and so are considered to have mixed economies. Within the mixed economies, the role of state in the former socialist economies is still significantly higher than in the other economies.
The point being that, if we're going to get huffy about extactitud, it is wrong to call the US capitalist. It is not purely capitalist. Fred's example of public schools is a good example. Public schools are, essentially, a socialist idea. Why is it socialist? Because they are funded by the government and the government makes the basic decisions about how these schools are run. There are private schools, which are independent of the government. However, American citizens still have to pay taxes toward public schools whether or not they use them.
I, incidently, think public schools are fabulous. I also happen to admire a lot of socialist ideas. I. Not speaking for all American/Mexican/Canadians here. Just for all south-paws.
Since we're allowed to make generalizations about Americans but not about economic systems, we should technically refer to the US as " more capitalist than Canadians." Thus, I should have refered to Norway and Denmark as "more socialist than Canadians." I'm not quite sure why I'm using Canadians as a benchmark, but I think it's because I like making generalizations, and I believe that Canadians are often really worried about being accused of being socialist and/or capitalist. This way all the Canadians here can rest assured that I am making them the benchmark upon which the rest of the world is judged.
Here's why the word "socialist" belongs there. Denmark and Norway have some of the highest taxation levels in the world. Their government offers health care and education - including higher education - to all. Social benefits are the same for everyone. This is sometimes called the Social Democratic model. Social democrats, you may or may not know, are often considered to be one branch of socialist thought - one of the less radical branches. Yes, it's true that the Social Democrats haven't been the only party in power in Scandinavian countries, but they have played an active part in setting up the welfare state. It is certainly more socialist than other European models and the Canadian model, because it is more egalitarian and involves higher taxes and the government takes on a higher burden.
If we think of the world on a spectrum, with "free market economy" to the right and "socialist" to the left, Scandinavian countries would be found further left on that scale than any other Western country, because there are far higher taxes there and the government takes care of a far higher number of services for far more of the population than any other Western country. They are not absolutely Socialist; there is no such thing.
05-04-06, 09:31 PM Sarai Babs:
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Umm, did I say all Americans?
'Americans are often ...' is not the same as 'All Americans are...'
Right. And I said,
quote: Therefore, Canadians are often ignorant of the complexity of society.
I didn't say always. Just often. So you can't take offense.
I say "un uzi." With a French accent. Wink
05-05-06, 01:31 AM FredPuli Healthcare may be irrelevant here, though there are obvious reasons why vested interests in the US might denigrate it as 'socialist' or un-American or whatever description amounting to unpatriotic they can find. The question of tax burden is another matter. The US spends more on healthcare, expressed as a percentage of GDP than we do in Europe e.g. about 14% as against Britain's 8%. I don't know how much they pay family doctors there but in the UK the expected income after deduction of expenses is £120,000 p.a. [$220,000 ] though we do have some exceptional examples: the press found one on £300,000 [$550,000 ] and a number on the £250,000 mark [460,000 ] . These are amounts paid to them by the government under the government contracts they have.
Contrary to the belief of some Americans national healthcare is not necessarily entirely, heavily or primarily funded by taxation and with no private 'capitalist' element. Switzerland has national healthcare where everyone is insured by private insurance companies. In France the system is one of private insurance companies paying a percentage of the cost. The UK is unusual in having a national health service which is entirely funded by the government without any private input from the customer or any insurance companies , free at point of delivery quite regardless of the means or economic status of the patient .
Burden of taxation is quite a different story. It's a question of what happens to the taxes. Healthcare is only a part of the burden. Ireland is a 'socialist' country with free national healthcare and has a tax burden expressed as a percentage of GDP of 28% on 2002 figures. The USA's figure was 28,5% that year so somehow the USA was being more heavily taxed without healthcare than Ireland was with it. Smile Other countries provide quite a range. Sweden's was a dizzy 50.5% that year, Denmark's was 49.4, France 44.4 Germany's 36.2 and the UK's 35.9% for example. Switzerland's was 31.5%. {source: Forbe's Magazine and the OECD ]
The question is: what do these countries do with the money ? Historically Sweden not only taxed its highest earners and its richest heavily, seemingly in a spirit of egalitarianism, but spent the proceeds on all manner of benefits and government supported schemes for the public.
So, if you want an overall tax burden like the US has but socialised medicine too then Ireland's your place Smile
05-05-06, 01:53 AM babthrower What an interesting thread!
Sarai said:
quote: The U.S. economic system is based more on capitalism, whereas the Chinese system is based more on socialism. Most other countries, including Canada, rely on both market and state and so are considered to have mixed economies.
True. But remember Fred's question?
quote: How is having a national system of healthcare, running together with private medicine,a defining mark of a 'socialist country' if having a national system of education running together with private education, as in the USA, is not?
Note that the American who used the term did not refer to mixed economies, but to 'socialist countries' such as France.
quote: ...it is wrong to call the US capitalist. It is not purely capitalist.
Right. And that is why I did not call the U.S. capitalist. Interesting sidebar: I have just read a book based on social research on the period 1700-1870 in England. Now that was a capitalist country, at the outset! Laissez-faire all the way, except that certain industries had protection against imports. That was the really interesting time during which a lot of the socially conscious legislation came into being: public sewers, free vaccinations, police force, the beginnings of free and compulsory education, improved workhouse and lying-in hospitals, and so forth.
quote: Since we're allowed to make generalizations about Americans but not about economic systems, we should technically refer to the US as " more capitalist than Canadians."
I do agree.
quote: I'm not quite sure why I'm using Canadians as a benchmark, but I think it's because I like making generalizations, and I believe that Canadians are often really worried about being accused of being socialist and/or capitalist.
That's nothing new. We Canadians are worried about everything. Besides, benchmarks perform important social roles, indeed they do! Let us have our little claim to some sort of utility, please!
quote: Here's why the word "socialist" belongs there. Denmark and Norway have some of the highest taxation levels in the world.
Ummm, not the best time to bring that up as a sign of a socialist country. Wait till Mr. Bush's chickens come home to roost, and all the bills are in. Eek Of course, if you're above the middle class, and the lower end of the wealthy class (say, net worth less than five million) not to worry.
quote: If we think of the world on a spectrum, with "free market economy" to the right and "socialist" to the left, Scandinavian countries would be found further left on that scale than any other Western country, because there are far higher taxes there and the government takes care of a far higher number of services for far more of the population than any other Western country. They are not absolutely Socialist; there is no such thing.
But why think of the world on a spectrum with free market econoly to the right and socialist to the left? The socially responsible legislation that began during the latter part of the industrial revolution in Europe, as I have said above and as is well known, was a product of the Enlightenment Movement and various socially-conscious groups, such as the Quakers.
If any of them had even heard of Karl Marx, I'd be amazed. If you'd shouted out 'Socialist!' during any of their meetings, they would have all jumped up and shouted, "Where? Where?"
No. The movement began in a time when there was little public sanitation, everyone took care (or didn't, actually) of their own garbage disposal. Everyone threw the contents of their chamberpots out of the upstairs windows, shouting "gardyloo!" to warn passers-by. (From the French, gardez l'eau, meaning "Watch out for the water!", but water was a euphemism. Drinking water was drawn from public wells, here and there throughout the city, and which by the way collected much of the runoff from the streets, or water was purchased from carters who brought it in from god knows where, very likely the Thames, which was itself a cesspool.
So with the building of a public sewer system, and the piping in of clean water along with closing down the polluted wells, instantly make London a socialist city?
No. But it immediately reduced the death rate from diseases such as typhoic fever and cholera, and there was no longer a shortage of domestic servants and factory workers.
See, the reformers thought that what is good for all of the people is good for the nation. That's not socialism. It's just good husbandry. Even a staunch capitalist farmer takes care of the health of his herd.
05-05-06, 03:36 AM Fourbrick2 Quote by Babthrower
"If I say "Americans make more movies than anyone else,........"
Just as a matter of fact, India (or as it is occasionally called "Bollywood") makes more films per year than America.
05-05-06, 09:23 AM Sarai Argh.
First, Fred:
quote: Healthcare may be irrelevant here, though there are obvious reasons why vested interests in the US might denigrate it as 'socialist' or un-American or whatever description amounting to unpatriotic they can find
I did not call Norway and Denmark socialist to denigrate them. I wish I lived in one of those countries. I hate worrying about health care and whose going to educate my kids and how I'm going to retire. HATE it. I hate the fact that if I have a child and move to the US and end up needing some assistance from the state in order to do so (because I can't get insurance for the US since I live outside the US, but the US gov't is giving my husband and I a limited amount of time to move), I know somebody is going to be angry with me because "poor people shouldn't have kids." And I don't even think I'm poor - just uninsured in the US, wanting to have a child soon, and having a limited timeframe in which to move to a country where I have no insurance.
That Americans spend too much on health care is something I agree with. But as it stands, there is really not anything socialist there (too bad!) because if you're poor, you're screwed. Not the case in Scandinavia.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure what we're arguing. Okay, look, I was wrong to say "socialist" countries. I SHOULD have said "countries with more socialist influence than any other Western country." I do NOT mean it as an insult. I admire Scandinavian economies, from what little I know of them.
All you have to do is study a teeny bit of history to know that the modern welfare state is based on socialist principles, even if it mixes more with capitalist ideas than other socialist principles.
High taxes in and of themselves don't make a country socialist unless the money is being used to try to deal with class inequality. . This is the key to socialism, no? Although we still don't pay nearly the amount of taxes in the US that are paid in Scandinavian countries, even if we did, Bush is no socialist - that money is not going to be used to deal with class inequality, which is a benchmark of socialism. The fact that Americans spend too much on health care doesn't make it a socialist country. It makes it a country with a health-care crisis.
And to quibble about a few things:
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Sarai said: The U.S. economic system is based more on capitalism, whereas the Chinese system is based more on socialism. Most other countries, including Canada, rely on both market and state and so are considered to have mixed economies.
Actually, the Canadian government said that.
quote: "How is having a national system of healthcare, running together with private medicine,a defining mark of a 'socialist country' if having a national system of education running together with private education, as in the USA, is not?" Note that the American who used the term did not refer to mixed economies, but to 'socialist countries' such as France.
Wait, who called France a socialist country? Not me. France has more socialism than the US, but certainly less than any Scandinavian country. I would say that if we see things as a spectrum, with left being socialist and right being capitalist, the countries mentioned would go something like this:
Denmark Norway France Canada U.S.
Fred and Babs, please stop trying to make my comments jive with your stereotypes of Americans. If I'm wrong, it's because I'm wrong. Not the entire United States. If I'm right, it's because I'm right. Not the entire United States. Not even MOST of it. This attempt to turn "Sarai's misunderstanding" (which is actually her wisdom, but nevermind about that Wink) into "typical American thought" is extremely annoying. It reminds me of people here in Mexico who ask me to give them the "American view on the war in Iraq" or Americans who want to know the "Mexican view of the Zapatistas." People, there is NO SUCH THING. All you have to do is ask 5 different Americans what they think about Iraq or 5 different Mexicans what they think of the Zapatistas and you'll see what a stupid thing it is to try to turn a nation into one mind.
Every head is a world.
End of rant. Big Grin
05-05-06, 09:53 AM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by babthrower:
quote:
But why think of the world on a spectrum with free market econoly to the right and socialist to the left? The socially responsible legislation that began during the latter part of the industrial revolution in Europe, as I have said above and as is well known, was a product of the Enlightenment Movement and various socially-conscious groups, such as the Quakers.
If any of them had even heard of Karl Marx, I'd be amazed. If you'd shouted out 'Socialist!' during any of their meetings, they would have all jumped up and shouted, "Where? Where?"
Karl Marx is the father of one form of socialist thought. A person need not be Marxist to be socialist.
The idea that anyone in Europe or the US living in the latter half of the 19th century had never heard of socialism is completely laughable, though. The various forms of socialism were a major topic of discussion at that time.
Perhaps the problem is that you are confusing socialism with Marxism (or, in your desire to stereotype Americans, are assuming that is what I'm doing?)? Marxism is a form of socialism, and certainly not the only form.
05-05-06, 11:00 AM babthrower Sometimes when the temperature rises a bit it doesn't hurt to clarify things a bit. One way is to look at some definitions.
Here is what MW says Socialism means.
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : 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
My examples of humane views of the working poor were not of any form of socialism. They were examples of sensible tax-funded responses to health problems.
We must be aware at all times when we talk of these issues in a historical framawork that the Religious Right didn't just fall off a turnip wagon this morning. They have been around as long as oppression has. They have been around as long as the class system has. They were the priestly classes in ancient Egypt and Israel, backing the king and the ruling class in return for privileges.
They defeated the peasants' revolts by teaching submission to those whom God in his wisdom put in power over them. Option: hellfire.
They defeated the trade union movement in the factory hellholes by equating any attempts at humane treatment as the wicked fruit of godless Marxism.
And it is an important tenet of the Religious Right that we all believe that any attemt to fund anything except police and military by taxation is anti-religious.
So technically road-building is socialism, as is clean water and clean streets.
But as I said before: when the farmer cares for his herd's health, he is not a namby-pamby cradle-to-the-grave welfare state brainwashed pawn of godless communism/international socialism. He's just a smart guy, with a longer view of his own well-being than his animal-abusing neighbor.
He taxes himself to pay the vet to test, cull and medicate his herd TB shots so that they will be healthier and produce more milk.
And incidentally his customers get less tuberculosis.
Similarly when an enlightened populace in a democracy doesn't give a hoot about who owns the means of production, but does vote for measures which aim to increase the population's well-being, you may label it 'socialism', 'godless communism', or any other pejorative term you want. But that is only to mask the fact that behind such labels and propaganda are very rich people who just want to avoid paying taxes.
Or those who have allowed themselves to forget the distinctions by the latter.
05-05-06, 11:07 AM DorianGreyed "Ummm, not the best time to bring that up as a sign of a socialist country. Wait till Mr. Bush's chickens come home to roost, and all the bills are in." - Babs
Babs makes a good point. Do these other countries have a national debt comparable to that of the US (expressed, I suppose, as a percentage of their GDP)? What would the tax rate of the US be if, like bush (and many others) promised, the US were run using sound business practices, and the budget was balanced? Deferring the bills doesn't eliminate them. It may very well be that, if those other countries built a national debt comparable to the US, that their tax rate would be lower than that of the US.
05-05-06, 12:49 PM juanruiz I think we can quote statistics, and compare % of GDP, and try to argure positions as logically as possible; but that all misses the point. Americans call other countries socialistic when they feel their governments exert too much control. For down deep, Americans dislike and mistrust government, paradoxical as that might seem. Love my congressman, hate Congress. Well meaning people go off to DC and are corrupted by the inside the Beltway establishment. Getting reelected becomes everyone's priority. Even a well liked guy like Minnesota's Paul Wellstone was not immune, some would say. Running for the first time for the Senate, he vowed he would only serve two terms. He was killed in a plane crash campaigning for his third. From which event sprang the dark joke that God didn't want him to be a liar. Americans look at government as inept, incapable of doing anything efficiently, and point to Social Security as a prime example: a pyramid scheme whose assets are pirated to keep the government in business. A government who views citizens' income as belonging rightfully to it, and uses the IRS as a secular Spanish Inquisition to maintain that orthodoxy. A government passing laws written by lobbyists and interpreted by faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats, who are not answerable to the electorate. And, accurately or not, they will point to the Founding Fathers as themselves fearing a overly powerful federal government. This is, I believe, Americans' perception, correct or not. For as many will say, perception is reality.
05-05-06, 12:56 PM Sarai
[QUOTE]Originally posted by babthrower: Similarly when an enlightened populace in a democracy doesn't give a hoot about who owns the means of production, but does vote for measures which aim to increase the population's well-being, you may label it 'socialism', 'godless communism', or any other pejorative term you want. But that is only to mask the fact that behind such labels and propaganda are very rich people who just want to avoid paying taxes.
I do not think the word "socialist" is a pejorative term. The fact that you find it offensive speaks more about you than about me. I LIKE a lot of socialist ideas. I am very interested in the idea of a social democracy. I ADMIRE the spirit behind it. I'm not trying to avoid paying taxes or help rich people. Your stereotypes about Americans do not apply to me.
And in the original post, for Jusork, that I called Denmark and Norway socialist, there was no political motivation whatsoever behind my answer. I was just answering his question the best way I knew how. Go read the thread and I think that's quite clear.
This link may interest you, so that you can learn about one idea that came out of socialist thought. Historically, the workers rights movement lead to Chartism and trade unionism but also socialist ideas, of which there are several ways of thinking. Socialism is not only Communism any more than a drink is only vodka. Communism is but ONE FORM of socialism, and happens to be an extremely radical form. There are other forms of socialism, and some of them even recognize the value of some capitalist ideas.
EDIT: This link is also interesting, defining socialism in this way:
quote:
SOCIALISM: An economic system based on public ownership of the most major industries, universal healthcare and public education. Like Communism and Social Democracy, the term Socialism has gone through numerous changes. The term, originally used by Utopians who sought social justice in industrial societies, the term was later used by the followers of Karl Marx interchangeably with Communist and Social Democracy. But following many Socialists sided with their respective countries in World War I — and especially after the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917-1919 — the worlds Socialist parties were seen as more reformist and moderate than Leninist and Communist parties. Today, Socialist politics cover a wide-range of views, from Democratic Socialism to Marxism to Social Democracy.
05-05-06, 02:35 PM FredPuli Some irony here: From the 1980s 'socialist' Britain took the nationalised industries, made state property by the Labour government after WW2 and 'privatised' them, that is turned them back into 'capitalist' corporations owned by private shareholders (stockholders) . So the one lot of things that we had which conformed with the ideals of true socialism are socialist no more. The privatisation was the work of the right-wing Mrs Thatcher and the Conservatives but was so popular that the succeeding Labour government has not only maintained it but has taken the process further.
It hasn't stopped there. When Mr Blair, he of the 'socialist' Labour Party, seeks to make changes or improvements in our 'socialist' Wink state school system or our 'socialist' healthcare he goes first to the capitalist route, getting private finance and investment and putting places out to private ownership or under private contractors (we have at least one 'socialist' National Health Service hospital which is owned and managed by an American hospital corporation). We have 'academies' too: these are new schools run and financed with the money of millionaire investors but which fall under the state scheme.
(There's been a police enquiry over this. One Blair aide is recorded as saying to a reporter who was posing as such an investor that '£10 million' given to such a scheme would guarantee his being made a Lord. That sounds expensive. The going rate to become a Lord appears to be a 'loan' to the Labour party of only £2 million. The police are investigating that activity too Wink )
A 'mixed economy' indeed !
05-05-06, 04:04 PM babthrower I have been a socialist all my adult life. I like to think that I am a thougtful, responsible and well-read one. Socialism informs my attitudes as a citizen: my membership in 'green' action groups and in the Simplicity movement are a result.
"The fact that you find it offensive speaks more about you than about me."
Because I recognize that the term is used by some pejoratively does not 'speak' about either one of us.
It's just that I know full well that not all enlightened legislation and tax in the interest of the common good is due to socialist thinking.
But I know there is a stereotype about such legislation, and those who are opposed to it use the term 'socialist' pejoratively when they refer to it.
05-05-06, 10:49 PM aminator2002 babthrower:
I was not born when Kennedy was assassinated. I was born the year that Vietnam ended. I believe that Sarai is younger than me. How do you think her comments about socialism can possibly connect to the way you were treated during Vietnam?
I don't really understand your comments and I've made some attempt. It seems to me there is some disconnect going on. I think it is fair to define socialism as Sarai has. I don't understand why there is heat in this thread except perhaps that you are transferring the old hostilities onto our generation. Socialist is no longer a perjorative term... sorry, but it just isn't among people I know.
05-05-06, 11:20 PM DorianGreyed "Socialist is no longer a perjorative term... sorry, but it just isn't among people I know."
In my opinion, the term is still a pejorative one, as used by most Americans. But don't take my word for it; ask Scotty or Lighteningrodd or Mahal or Bunkboy or Gatman or...
05-06-06, 04:54 AM FredPuli Look, from where I'm sitting the word 'liberal' is pejorative to many Americans. If that's correct then the adjective 'socialist' must have them running for shelter ! Big Grin
05-06-06, 06:18 AM aminator2002 Sure there are the Rush Limbaugh folks, but within the liberal crowd, which Sarai must surely be seen as being part of after posting here for years, it is not perjorative and can be used objectively and even without emotional baggage. Since I live in a city most people I meet are at least mostly liberal and the term is not perjorative and can even be used in intelligent conversation without a blink.
We can even use it in a sentence that doesn't start with "Pinko scumbags". Big Grin
05-06-06, 06:39 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: Sure there are the Rush Limbaugh folks, but within the liberal crowd, which Sarai must surely be seen as being part of after posting here for years, it is not perjorative and can be used objectively and even without emotional baggage. Since I live in a city most people I meet are at least mostly liberal and the term is not perjorative and can even be used in intelligent conversation without a blink.
We can even use it in a sentence that doesn't start with "Pinko scumbags". Big Grin
Oh, sorry! It's a bit difficult to get a proper perspective without living there. I thought " pinko scumbag" was a robust term of endearment or address over there like the C word is among young men in Britain (Note: only to other males, never, ever to a female ) Wink Big Grin Big Grin
Seriously, it is a little difficult sometimes to judge what is normal there. That's because politics here in Britain is centred at a point which would be well to the left of the centre in the US ( as far as we can tell). What we hear being called 'liberal' would fit well within the agenda and beliefs of the Conservative Party, let alone the Labour Party.
05-06-06, 06:59 AM aminator2002 It's just labeling and is a bit futile. I think "liberal" became more widely used when the right wing flew so far away from center that the moderates wanted to disassociate themselves from the right. I don't know anyone that calls themselves or anyone else a moderate any more but before Bush2 I used to hear the term quite often... ahhh the good old days. Wink
The perjorative use of the term socialist is done by the right wing as kind of code word for "big meanie who doesn't love America and probably got a better education than me" same for "those environmentalists" or "those liberals" but who can take them seriously? Oh yeah, they actually control our government right now.
05-06-06, 08:44 AM Sarai Oh, jeez. I meant to quote this post and edited it right out. Roll Eyes
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sarai, 05-06-06 08:25 PM
05-06-06, 09:13 AM aminator2002 Who is animator? Big Grin
05-06-06, 01:15 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: Who is animator? Big Grin
Aminator with animus ? Big Grin
05-06-06, 01:23 PM babthrower Just have a minute to spare now, will post later.
Sarai, do as I did before I first posted to this thread, and search 'socialist country'. You'll see that you weren't the only one to use the term to Fred.
05-06-06, 07:00 PM Sarai I don't see any other posts where someone called Norway and Denmark socialist countries, but even if they did, I still don't understand the motive behind your post. If you weren't a socialist and thought you were defending Norway and Denmark somehow, I guess I could kind of see it maybe. But since you say you are a socialist, I don't see how your response of to the idea that Norway and Denmark are socialist furthers the cause of socialism. If Norway and Denmark aren't socialist, which countries would you say to non-socialists, "Look! This is what we are fighting for!" Do you think you will convince anyone that socialism is a good idea by laughing at them because they believe that a successful country that did not become Marxist or succumb to dictatorship can still be socialist?
I don't understand why you to insult someone and their country because they use the word "socialism" to describe some other countries, particularly those thatcome closer to socialism in a positive way than any other countries I can think of.
Anyway, even if the response was not meant for me, I still think you made sweeping generalizations that were unfair. That's really what it comes down to. I don't really care if you don't think Norway is socialist; I do, but I recognize that it is also capitalist in many ways.
Babs, you are one of my favorite posters. I can't stay mad long. All it would take is two little words and I'll stop pouting. Wink
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sarai, 05-06-06 08:01 PM
05-06-06, 08:11 PM babthrower Sarai, I don’t always stop to think about whether someone reading my posts might take a comment personally.
Nevertheless, it’s a bit of a stretch to take
“Americans are often prone to making blanket statements because of one trait,”
and make me believe the intended meaning of that statement is *** pointing my finger at Sarai and the people she knows and loves and saying ”You're a bunch of IDIOTS!" *** To test my take-personal-offense meter, I recalled a comment JuanRuiz made once. Shel had posted that she’d just returned to the U.S. from Canada. JR posted, "Shel, eh? Since you just got back from Canada, eh? Maybe I should speak Canadian, eh? So you feel more comfortable, eh?”
I wondered why I hadn’t taken it personally. I realized it’s because I don’t speak like that.
p.s. here's the other post by an American that used the term vis-a-vis Fred. "socialist country"
05-06-06, 08:23 PM Sarai Okay, Babs, I can see that you think your post was fine. I wouldn't care if you laughed at an American accent; I'm miffed that you assumed that my logic is as simple as you portray it or that my logic is parallel to the logic of "you're with us or against us" and "you're a communist if you don't like the war in Vietnam". I still don't see what purpose you think your answer served, but whatever. I'm over it now.
I'm still curious to know your answers to these questions from my post above (which I just accidentally deleted -oops!), though:
quote:
Also, I'm curious to know what country you DO consider socialist?
And this one:
quote:
Also, since you're a socialist, what country (current or historically) do you admire, economically speaking? Or is socialism, for you, an ideal and not something that has actually been implimented anywhere?
I would pose those questions for Fred, too, although the second one may not apply if he's not a socialist.
05-06-06, 08:28 PM babthrower I'll post a considered version probably tomorrow, I'm a little scrambled today because of spring work trying to keep up with the grass growing like lightning and getting the last of the seeding done (except for the squash and corn) Ouch my knees! Thank heavens for transdermal painkillers.
Mind you, you'll probably hate it too. But I have to say what I think, and not hedge or equivocate.
05-06-06, 08:42 PM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Mind you, you'll probably hate it too. But I have to say what I think, and not hedge or equivocate.
I don't hate ideas. I hate bigotry. You'll notice I'm not only defensive of Americans. In many other posts in the past I have defended Jews, Muslims, Christians and Mexicans against similarly stupid comments. So as long as you're posting an idea and not an assumption that every (fill in group of your choice) is the same, I probably won't hate it. I might disagree, but I probably won't get upset about it.
05-06-06, 09:57 PM babthrower I wasn't going ot post again tonight, but now I see I must in the interests of clarity. Dang.
SAria, logical statements are of two general types:
1. Universal (sometimes called genaralizations) They are in the form
All A's are B.
The statement affirms that all things which belong to the class A are or have the trait B. e.g. All dogs are moral.
2. Particular (sometimes called existential).
Some A's are B.
This statement affirms that there exists at least one A, and that A is or has the trait B.
e.g. Some stars are dim.
Now, let us look at my statement:
"Americans are often prone to making blanket statements because of one trait."
Does this mean "All Americans are prone..."? Does it mean "Some Americans..." Ambiguous, isn't it?
If it means "All Americans..." then I am saying "FrankVan is often prone to making blanket statements because of one trait."
Yet FrankVan has not taken offense, or if he has he has not complained. Let's ask him.
But this you have called 'bigotry'. You call it 'stupid'. You call it an 'assumption that every (American) is the same".
All this, and yet you don't 'hate' it? My goodness!
Yet you respond "Therefore, Canadians are often ignorant of the complexity of society."
I don't take offense at that. I agree with it. But please explain why my remark is so offensive. Yet yours is not.
Frankly your self-promotion as a kind of protector of the abused masses is a bit self-righteous, even absurd.
05-06-06, 10:44 PM jusork Are Americans actually more prone to making blanket statements because of one trait than other countries? Or are we just singling out America's blanket-statement-making at the moment?
05-07-06, 01:13 AM babthrower The latter.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
"Yet FrankVan has not taken offense, or if he has he has not complained. Let's ask him."
I have not taken offense because: I sometimes make sweeping generalizations about Americans myself. I also believe that Americans, and occasional Canadians, sometimes become defensive when we have one or more of our national pecadilloes pointed out by members of a competitor nationality. Not that we have any, mind you!
"Frankly your self-promotion as a kind of protector of the abused masses is a bit self-righteous, even absurd."
Hey! As a life-long protector of the abused masses, I resemble resent that. I am far too humble and altruistic to ever resort to self-righteousness.! ****************************************************** 05-07-06, 12:26 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Sarai:
Also, since you're a socialist, what country (current or historically) do you admire, economically speaking? Or is socialism, for you, an ideal and not something that has actually been implimented anywhere?
I would pose those questions for Fred, too, although the second one may not apply if he's not a socialist.[/QUOTE]
And why not? I won't answer the first part because I can't think of a socialist country offhand. I don't think of socialism as an ideal. By socialism I mean... errrr... Confused socialism. I am not a socialist.
For me socialism is a system of government where the government either owns the means of production or it controls the distribution. So Britain between 1945 and 1951 was socialist in that the government had nationalised certain key industries such as steel: that was owning the means of production. It also had such creations as the Milk Marketing Board. This owned no cows but controlled the distribution and price of the products. That was socialism too. The farmers had to sell their milk to the Board and to nobody else at such prices and on such terms as the Board dictated.
When founded, the Labour Party had true socialism , as above,as the core principle of its constitution and maintained that tenet right through until quite recent times.It tried practising it when in power in the 1960s too.
Providing an army or free schools or free roads or a free fire brigade or free hospitals or free police or free legal defence is not socialism Big Grin We used to have no public fire service in Britain: it was run by insurance companies, who would fix their sign to your house. If your house caught fire they'd identify it and their firefighters would put out the blaze (but not anyone else's not insured with them, nor yours if you'd forgotten to pay the premium) . Do you have that system for fire-fighting in the States ? It's your right to have yourself and your property protected by police and it's your right in a criminal trial to be represented by lawyers and counsel of suitable standing and ability. If that means you need a top rank criminal defender of experience then that's what you should get: if a man is charged with murdering his wife the quality of his defence should not depend on whether he is a millionaire sportsman or he is an unemployed clerk . Likewise if you or your children are ill it should not be a question of whether you remembered/ were able/ were sober or responsible enough/ could afford insurance or the medical bills to get a specialist or a hospital. To provide that service is not socialism, however it is funded or managed,but responding to a right. That right exists in countries with capitalist economies .
That's what puzzled me about the use of the word socialist in connection with countries where free enterprise and capitalism is the norm.
05-07-06, 12:56 PM Sarai Babs, my remark about Canadians was meant to be offensive. I was imitating you, not making a statement that I believe to be true. Qualifying a statement with "often" doesn't suddenly make it okay. Try it. Say a negative statement bout reasoning skills or decision making skills about, say black people or homosexuals. Now qualify it with "often." See how it sounds to your ears. Does "often" suddenly make that statement sound okay?
quote: Hey! As a life-long protector of the abused masses, I resemble resent that. I am far too humble and altruistic to ever resort to self-righteousness.!
Yes, er, what Frank said! Smile
Fred, I see your point. However, I would say that Denmark and Norway are not capitalist, either, because the government plays a large part in deciding what people must do with their money (very high taxes), and that money is used to deal with social inequality.
I think the right term for Denmark and Norway would be "mixed economies." Not socialist nor capitalist - but a mixture of both.
05-07-06, 01:50 PM babthrower I remember when I was a cute little girl, climbing in the stable to the top of the side of a horse stall to pick the little paper bag that was tucked beside a beam. Much to my amazement, a very mad wasp flew out of it and bit me!
I'm not mad at Americans in general because of that wasp sting. But it's in my memory bank.
Okay, brace yourselves, because what I said before is mild to what I'm going to say now.
A lot of Americans don't understand their own history. (Gasps of outrage and denial!)
But it's true. American history is the only history that many Americans really study. World history, viewed very selectively, is only a backdrop. So Americans study their own history but many of them don't understand it.
This fact is something I don't feel I need to apologize for.
Another point that is necessary to mention: being born after particular historical events occur is actually quite normal. It happens to most of us, not just to those born after 1980. Incredible as it may seem, many events of history occurred even before I was born.
That's why we have history: to find out about events of the past, and to integrate them into our understanding of the present, so that we may prepare for the future.
Certain facts average Americans know very well. They know the names of all the battles fought in their revolutionary war and their civil war. They are taught their military history, which is glorious.
They did not go to war at the drop of a hat, the way many European nations seemed to do. So they did not deplete their manpower and material resources. So when they fought, they usually won. Until Vietnam, anyway.
*****************
But many of them do not know, for example, that the U.S. has been fighting a civil war throughout the 20th century. Not an armed war, but a class struggle. They believe that a boy born in a log cabin can become President. This blinds them to the fact that the class struggle has already been won, and it was won without firing a shot, because it was a propaganda war.
The battles were fought against trade unions to refute and deny that the worker has any right to anything but a day's pay for a day's work. Those who were responsible and taxpaying citizens who worked all their lives, until they were too old to be productive, those who sent their sons to war when needed, were taught that they nevertheless had no stake in the economic success of huge corporations which used the resources which belonged to all. They was taught to be grateful when a giant like Carnegie founded a museum with the money which he could not in twenty lifetimes have spent. The trade unions were forced to make deals with the devil in order to survive. Union corruption gave another weapon to the economic upper class.
Religions got on board, condemning trade unionism, calling it socialist or communist, and equating it with atheist materialism. Anyone who advocated tax-subsidized medicine was labelled. (This happened in Canada, too. In Saskatchewan, Premier Tommy Douglas was labelled an "atheist communist" by the medical establishment when he announced his intention ot introduce socialized medicine. But the slur didn't work, because he was a Baptist minister.)
After the second world war ended, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy built his career by labelling some Americans in government, the military, the arts (literature and film) as 'red', 'pinko', 'fellow-travellers'(communist sympathizers) as traitors and enemies of the U.S. He wasn't discredited until his alcoholism led him into increasingly wild and irresponsible accusations. He died in 1957.
The Republican Eisenhower 'built' his cabinet of millionaire friends. He began to speak pejoratively of socialism. He also believed that the U.S. should play a strong and constant role in world affairs. With Richard Nixon as vp, he became president in 1953. His goal was to erase the effect of the Roosevelt years.
(Roosevelt years: F.D. Roosevelt had used tax money to pull the U.S. out of the Greaat Depression, which itself had been the result of the workings of 'pure' capitalism. This had made him many enemies among the wealthiest people in America. The wealthiest benefitted from cheap labor, and the depression wasn't hurting them at all.)
In those days the external enemy was not middle-east nations or Islamic terrorists, but the huge coalition of Communist states called the U.S.S.R.
Therefore to unite the people in any cause, a good strategy was to point at that enemy: to convince the people that the target behavior was a manifestation of the external enemy at work to undermine and weaken the U.S.
This propaganda worked. Many Americans were made fearful of the outside danger. The Communist dictatorships were as fearful as many of the American people were, so there was an ‘arms race’ which predictably bankrupted the U.S.S.R. The fallout, in the form of stockpiled nuclear weapons, is not only a hazard to human health but a horriffic waste of resources.
But Eisenhower was actually enhancing the U.S. international peacekeeper image. This ended with the U-2 spy plane incident, which destroyed U.S. credibility abroad.
During the Vietnam War years, the press (which in those days had the freedom to publicize details from the war front) was also labelled communist sympathizers. Anyone who spoke out - Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, Bertrand Russell, Martin Luther King, and other Nobel prize winners - were smeared.
And, yes, I was smeared because I was a powerful activist in my city. But in my case, I was not offended, because it put me in good company! However, the slur was maliciously intended.
Anyone who favored civil rights for blacks, the admission of China to the United Nations, or recognition of Castro's Cuba was smeared.
"Okay, okay," you say. "But that has nothing to do with now!"
Oh yes it does. The same boys are behind the current war in Iraq, and the threatened wars in Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia et al.
They have just modified the technique used in the cold war. They have an ‘outside enemy’ – the terrorists. That they have lost more troops in Iraq than lives were lost in the terrorist attack in New York is not considered. That many Americans would consider the terrorists a threat to a nation that has the might and resources of the U.S. is of course absurd.
But to a nation in which many have been mentally groomed to respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the indicated external threat, any plausible propaganda lie is acceptable.
To what end? So that billions may be made in the armaments industry, and in the oil industry, so that resources may be stripped for the wealthy few.
And what seems inconceivable to ordinary people – that these people do not really give a damn about even their own descendants – is patently true as evidenced by their behavior.
These few are not Americans. By that I mean they have no loyalty to America or to the American people. They see themselves as a supranational elite. (The set includes the Bushes and the Bin Ladens.) They tell the people that globalisation is good for Americans. We can now buy cheap electronic s**t in chain stores, built offshore in sweat shop conditions and generating horrible pollution, and throw it away within months, and replace it with one with a different case.
In return the gap widens between rich and poor, there are not enough jobs, the wars are expanded to take care of excess population, and the fat cats just smile.
What would be the alternative model, if the propaganda had not worked?
1. Working people could expect a comfortable living, security in their old age. No one would feel outraged that a machine operator could afford a vacation home. 2. There could be decent medical care for all. None would need to fear that they would lose their home in old age to pay for terminal care. 3. These little foreign war adventures would be minimized. Small nations would not be ecologically ruined by high tech poisons and weaponry. 4. Population numbers would be controlled by contraception, not by wars and disease and periodic starvation just so the pool of cheap labor and troops would be maintained at an optimal level from the point of view of the super-rich. 5. There would be no need to ‘export’ jobs and pollution. Each nation would strive for self-sufficiency, but would import and export as needed. The working classes would be better off, but there would be no more super-rich – except maybe in the entertainment industry!
But because America is the most powerful country, and becasue many Americans don’t understand their own history, this is not what is happening.
05-07-06, 01:59 PM babthrower "Socialist country": meaning in US Sarai says:
quote: Babs, my remark about Canadians was meant to be offensive.
I'm afraid you failed. I was not at all offended, as I have already said.
05-07-06, 02:45 PM juanruiz
quote: To test my take-personal-offense meter, I recalled a comment JuanRuiz made once. Shel had posted that she’d just returned to the U.S. from Canada. JR posted, "Shel, eh? Since you just got back from Canada, eh? Maybe I should speak Canadian, eh? So you feel more comfortable, eh?”
I wondered why I hadn’t taken it personally. I realized it’s because I don’t speak like that.
I would also hope that in part people here knew I was kidding. I would like to have someone post a link to the last time I ever insulted anyone around here. I presume babs remembers my question on Words precisely about the use of "eh?" Even when mahal/bunkboy came after me, I walked away. I hate ad hominems and will not engage in them.
05-07-06, 03:23 PM aminator2002 Babthrower:
An educated American would know all the above but perhaps disagree on points. I never meant to say that the history didn't matter or that because we didn't live it, we don't need to understand the bias behind it. I just mean that the term socialist was clouded with all sorts of veils of hatred in the past and our generation has not been exposed to much of that. History teachers in this country are mostly liberals and if a student seeks it out, they can get a good education and learn critical thinking in our educational system. I certainly wasn't meaning that we didn't live it and therefore we don't care or think it relevant. It is relevant but the word socialist can be used as an adjective to describe programs and policies. It can be used as a descriptive term and not just as a slander or perjoratively.
Clearly trade unions, social security, universal medical care, unemployment benefits and job protection programs are all socialist in nature. This doesn't mean that I think they are evil or godless... it's just what they are.
05-07-06, 03:44 PM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: I presume babs remembers my question on Words precisely about the use of "eh?"
That's why I used it as an example of something which could be taken amiss, but was not. I thought it was funny, eh?
05-07-06, 03:48 PM juanruiz
quote: I thought it was funny, eh?
D'accord.
05-07-06, 03:53 PM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: An educated American would know all the above but perhaps disagree on points.
I didn't say 'All Americans..."
quote: ... the term socialist was clouded with all sorts of veils of hatred in the past and our generation has not been exposed to much of that.
Yes, and my 'point' was not that you didn't care about it, in spite of my teasing about the 'age' thing.
My point was that the same tactics are now used, and that is why we should remember.
I agree that measures that benefit the largest class, the working class, are not necessarily socialist.
In fact that is the point I have been reiterating regarding social reforms. Smart capitalists want a healthy workforce. Greedy capitalists want that too but they don't want it to cost them anything either directly or by taxation of profits. That's like saying a frozen-food company can maintain its inventory with no overhead costs.
05-07-06, 03:57 PM aminator2002 Okay.
05-07-06, 04:38 PM FredPuli Nothing wrong in being super-rich babs ! The ills of which you speak are not due to the USA having super-rich people .There are plenty of super-rich in Britain . Mind, there are a few Britons who get themselves tax exile status but then Monaco has got American residents too Wink. If, like the Englishman, and self-made department store billionaire Philip Green, you wish to pay yourself £2 billion (over $3.5 billion) in one year you might see a reason for that Big Grin He did have the good grace to make a lot of his fortune before opting to pay no UK income tax .He started out selling jeans in a market.He must have done, and still is doing, something right in our mixed economy WinkHis businesses are all here and registered and paying tax here and employing thousands of people.
Conversely we attract a number of foreigners who do tolerate our system. Mr Abramovich, a Russian oil billionaire, opts to live in London not the USA (or Monaco). His hobby is soccer and he thought nothing of paying out over $400 million in a couple of years just to buy new players for his club. Lakshmi Mittal, an Indian whose fortune comes from steel,is another who opts for Britain rather than anywhere else.These are examples of people whose known fortunes run into the tens of bilions. Of the 54 pound sterling billionaires in Britain 20 are foreigners. The other 34 are home-grown, British born and bred. Given a bit of common sense and reasonable tax-planning all survive, rubbing along , you know . We have plenty of lesser multi-millionaires too, not as many as in the USA, but the point is that we ought, if some Americans' fears or beliefs are correct, to have none but the mad Big Grin
There is absolutely no sense in that great socialist dogma of 'redistribution of wealth'. It hasn't much to do with socialism in the sense that that word is loosely used . That's something understood by 'New Labour'. It is perfectly possible to provide healthcare and other 'rights' without hammering the rich and the top earners. It may have made old trade unionists happier to see people being taxed at 90% of their income, as though the mere possession of such an income was a sin against the working class and humanity, but the truth is a top rate band of 40% (32,5% on dividends from UK companies) payable on that part of the taxable income that falls above £33,330 ($63,000 )is high enough . Above that level it is that rate whatever the income is.
This is important because there are or have been countries in Europe that think as the old Labour Party thought.
Of course if the healthcare is adequate then people see no need to take out health insurance or pay privately. My mother has been in geriatric hospital for some months. She could not wish for better treatment. It is free under the National Health Service , of course, and she has never had health insurance.And, as I said in the past neither my late father nor I nor any of my family generally have had health insurance. So when Americans think that their taxes would be forcing them to pay for healthcare they forget that with it they might not feel a need to pay for health insurance as well.
My guess is that the USA will eventually embrace some of these awful 'socialist' practices but it just won't call them that. It is already far more liberal than it was,say forty years ago, isn't it, whatever the language used? For example it might provide a healthcare scheme for the children of those who, for whatever reason of defect of character or defect of anything else in their parents, are not covered Or it might provide free healthcare for retired people above say 62 or 65. Something socialist like that, you get the idea Wink Something like France's system, which involves some minimal insurance, is what we might expect, for example.
05-07-06, 04:46 PM babthrower Actually every internet pen friend I have in the U.S. has the social&economic-history view of things. They don't all advocate just throwing money at social problems, but they do think the economy is not being managed in the interests of Americans. But I'd bet if we did a poll here, the results would be different.
So to all of them, 'socialism' is not a dirty word. But they all know it has been so used, with the results we now see. I suppose the counterpart in today's political climate is GWB saying, "Them that ain't with us is agin us," or whatever the heck he said, labelling dissenters at home or abroad traitors.
05-07-06, 05:02 PM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli:There is absolutely no sense in that great socialist dogma of 'redistribution of wealth'.
Of course not. Redistribution of wealth would only last five minutes anyway, before it found its way into new hands -- and not even back into the original hands.
But among the super-rich in Britain, which would you consider a great nationalist and a loyal citizen of Britain?
You see it's not their being super-rich per se that is the problem. I would have thought I had made that part clear. I do understand that some consider all socialists to be motivated by jealousy of the wealthy. However this is not the case.
I know I must be politically correct here, and not generalize about the super-rich. But some of them do seem to manipulate public opinion quite handily. Some of them make a mockery of democracy and cynically exploit the ignorance of some of the general population.
However there is a mentality in North America (including Canada) that is outraged if a working class person (and I use the term broadly, including white-collar, civil servants, professional people, etc.) to the effect that there is something wrong for them to be 'above their station'. Doctors and dentists playing the market are mocked because they don't know what they're doing. This caps everyone except the very elite. Politicians like Harper (our Canadian P.M.) have due reverence for these elite. It is they who have no nationalistic loyalty.
(I voted for Harper, by the way, because the Liberals had become offensively corrupt, much like Labour in Britain right now, and needed to be turfed out, and our socialist party didn't have a hope.)
But I'm a democrat first and a socialist second. That's the real loss, especially south of the border. They had such a great and noble premise, when they began. They really screwed it up.
But that certainly is the flaw in democracy. Most people don't think. Most seem to be led by speeches and preachers, and just want to be told what to do.
05-07-06, 10:43 PM Sarai Babs, what country or countries do you consider to be socialist today? Also, which countries do you admire from your perspective as a socialist?
Aminator, I think your opionion that
quote: trade unions, social security, universal medical care, unemployment benefits and job protection programs are all socialist in nature. This doesn't mean that I think they are evil or godless... it's just what they are.
makes sense. I can't remember if it was Babs or Fred who said that workers' rights are not socialist, but just basic human rights. I'm not sure that all people would agree with that, particularly people who believe in a more pure capitalism (John Galt, for example) - not because they are greedy, but because they don't trust the government. Those who would be sympathetic with these ideas are influenced by socialist thought - that is, the idea that the government can and should play a role, particularly when it comes to class inequality.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sarai, 05-08-06 01:44 AM
05-08-06, 07:48 AM frankvan Why do we say about socialism: "not necessarily evil or godless"? Or about capitalism: "Not necessarily selfish or greedy"? Perhaps we would better question what is the likely result of carrying either system to its worst case scenario. Should taxes be confiscatory to the point that incentives to prosper from hard work disappear, or should wealth allow the more fortunate members to ride roughshod over the less fortunate ? Isn't it possible that somewhere the democratic process can result in a happy medium where neither extreme is allowed to dominate? Is a society where neither abject poverty nor obscene wealth are permitted to co-exist attainable? I would like to think so! Confused
05-08-06, 09:28 AM Sarai Frank - Those are good points. Both "capitalism" and "socialism" have been used as dirty words in the past, but the ideals behind them really aren't particularly dirty- it's the extreme of either system that causes problems. I'm no expert in Scandinavian economies, but it seems to me that is exactly what they have accomplished. I think they have found a happy medium.
05-08-06, 09:39 AM aminator2002 I don't usually have to preface either like that. I think for all the criticism that our hybrid system works quite well. Having social programs is good but not having complete central control is also good. Our taxes are low and there is no doubt that the social safeguards should be improved. I don't think there is any need to throw out the baby with the bath water, but we definitely need a new leader.
05-08-06, 09:44 AM babthrower That golden mean, where neither brutal grinding poverty nor obscene wealth is part of the picture, has been best achieved in democratic states of Western Europe whose social policy is informed by enlightened and humane distribution of necessary goods.
Sarai's question as to what states are best examples of democratic socialism is one I can't answer. Personally I don't mind high taxes as long as I have what I need.
Here's a true and very funny story, I think. My husband, also an atheist and a solialist, noticed I'd popped a few thousand of his dollars into his RRSP fund one year and asked me why I did it without consulting him. I went splutter-splutter, 'Well, cheese, I just wanted to save you paying some tax! Didn't think I needed to ask you about that!!! He said, "Of course you should check with me. Somebody has to pay the taxes. What kind of a country would it be if everyone evaded taxes?"
He had me there! But when I told my highly entrepreneurial brother the story, he didn't think it was funny at all! He asked, "Is he nuts?"
Six years ago my husband was very sick and the drug costs were brutal. So we claimed our 'pharmicare' benefits. Otherwise we'd still be in debt. But most years we don't bother, thus subsidizing medical services even more. But we're not talking about big bucks here, anyway, we're both healthy.
We can only speculate what Cuba would have been like if the U.S. had not crippled their attempts to establish socialism with its 50-year embargo. But Castro got even. He opened the prisons and gave everyone a canoe and a compass set for Miami. The U.S. of course welcomed the 'refugees from godless communism' and made political hay.
I can't even say something like, "Democratic socialist states are good, but communist dictatorships are bad," because some capitalist dictatorships are so brutal that no one can establish any kind of democracy in them without a lot of bloodshed.
China as a 'pure' communist dictatorship was brutal and oppressive, even telling how many children people could have, still it ended the cyclical famines the peasants had endured for millennia, and it did it without asking for Western aid. And the restriction on children is to my mind better than letting the people have so many children they would outstrip the nation's food resources and starve. Now they're moving into a mixed economy, and we see very rich capitalists in China. And the pollution there has become horrible. But it's interesting to see that they have an ecology movement and pro bono lawyers working for it.
I guess every nation has to make it's own way. You can't just 'give' democracy to a people who have never had it and expect it to work, cf. Iraq. Democracy first requires that the people trust their own ability. An Iraqi peasant has nothing like the mental set that the simplest American farmer had in America in 1776.
But what the U.S. can do, which would be much appreciated abroad, and enhance U.S. prestige internationally, is stop crushing nascent democracy in dictatorships 'friendly to the U.S.' e.g. South America.
05-08-06, 11:11 AM DorianGreyed Good post, Babs. I would like to add a few comments of my own.
I find no fault with those who have "obscene wealth" as long as those people realize that it is this system that allowed them (or an ancestor) to achieve that wealth and that, for the most part, they benefit more than the average person in many ways. But it is the extreme poverty that is inexcusable in a nation that has so much that I find truly obscene.
"We can only speculate what Cuba would have been like if the U.S. had not crippled their attempts to establish socialism with its 50-year embargo. But Castro got even. He opened the prisons and gave everyone a canoe and a compass set for Miami. The U.S. of course welcomed the 'refugees from godless communism' and made political hay."*
I have long said that, had Cuba been allowed to exist as other countries, free from US attempts to end its existence, the tourism industry there would support the economy. Before Castro, only Batista and those who supported him could earn anything more than subsistence wages. The government was as corrupt as could be imagined, and the only jobs open to the masses were incredibly low-paying ones in the hotels or working for the wealthy landowners in the fields. Unless one could make it as an entertainer, the best job avaiable to the masses was rolling cigars in the factories, whose loudspeakers blared pro-Batista propaganda all day. Almost all of the early emigrants from Cuba were from the wealthy class, who, for the first time in their lives, were faced with working at manual labor on the same lands that they once owned. Castro, from a wealthy family, nationalized his own family's farm first. (I am not trying to beatify Castro here, but the facts are clear that he was almost certainly the best ruler that Cuba had in the 20th Century. Before Castro, over one-fourth of all Cubans were illiterate. Now, Cuba has a 97% literacy rate. Under Castro, the number of physicians has increased dramatically**, and Cubans have an almost identical life expectancy as the US.***
*The migrant interdiction mission first gained high visibility during the first mass migration emergency the United States faced between April 21 and September 28, 1980. Fidel Castro permitted any person who wanted to leave Cuba free access to depart from the port of Mariel, Cuba. Boats with Cuban migrants began departing Mariel, Cuba, in April, 1980 after Castro declared the port of Mariel "open." Hundreds of small craft departed Miami and sailed to Mariel, where they loaded up with refugees, in most cases more than the craft was designed to carry safely, and then attempted to return to Miami.
Known as the Mariel Boatlift, approximately 124,000 undocumented Cuban migrants entered the United States by a flotilla of mostly US vessels in violation of US law. - Global Security
The increase of criminal activity has been one of more item often blamed on the Mariel refugees. As of December 26, 1980, Unzueta reports that of 163 Cubans charged an/or convicted felons housed in Dade County's main jail 103 or 63.9% are Mariel refugees, 11 or 6.8% are Cuban ex- political prisoners, and 47 or 29.1% are Cuban-Americans. Mariel refugees represented 9.8% of individuals in the main jail. In the Women's Detention Center, where females either charged or convicted of felonies or misdemeanors are housed Unzueta reports 8 or 4.6% Cuban-American women along with 8 or 4.6% Mariel Cuban females and 7 homosexual Mariel males. Mariel refugee women represent 4.6% of the total females, while Mariel homosexual men represent 4.0% of the total individuals housed in the Women's Detention Center on December 26, 1980. The increase in criminal activity has impacted heavily on the entire Dade County judicial system. - Cuban-Exile.com
**The map shows that industrialized countries tend to have more doctors per capita than non-industrialized countries, which mirrors the finding that Life Expectancy tends to be higher in industrialized countries. However, there are exceptions. Many countries of the former Soviet Union have very high physicians per capita rates. Cuba also has a high number, and ranks third in the world, with 530 doctors per 100,000 people, behind Monaco (664) and Italy (554). The high number of physicians appears to be at least partly responsible for Cuba's excellent level of health care. Cuba has a very high level of Life Expectancy, despite the fact that it has one of the lowest spending rates on health care. - University of California, Santa Cruz
.
