Helping those that help themselves? Yeah I think I have more than established my understanding for such programs. THis however is not the people I am talking about. I think we both know that.CameronPoe wrote:
It's all relative. We don't feel we pay out the ass because that's what we are accustomed to. Your problem is that you are viewing things in a purely American paradigm. And what are thousands upon thousands of people leaving school and university supposed to do as companies all over the world shed thousands of jobs? Be 'personally responsible' for relying on their parents? Eat each other as they slowly die off as the job rejection letters begin to pile up? As long as they're showing proof of job applications they should be provided for. The economy in Europe is meant to serve the interests of society and the individual, each of which overlap, but require balancing.lowing wrote:
Then we agree, you DO pay out the ass in taxes so EVERYONE that does not can benefit.CameronPoe wrote:
I wouldn't expect someone with such a binary mind to appreciate the finer elements and benefits of the system.
It's a common theme around here..lol.CameronPoe wrote:
And thus continues you're ignorance of our reality.lowing wrote:
I loved Germany no doubt, but I didn't have to work to finance everyone who doesn't while I was there, either.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Hey, we're really trying with all that bailout money
Yup ya gotta love the big efficient non-corrupt govt programs. We all know big govt. does it better.
We've certainly had socialism in Britain. You can read about it here if you doubt me:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well now we're getting somewhere, at least your socialism can stand to be next to our dirty capitalism.Varegg wrote:
Are you really this dense ... SOCIALISTIC CAPITALISM ... it's been around this forum since prolly the start ... and socialistic capitalism is really what socialism in general is incorporated into Europe today, an improved version of it hence why the label have changed ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The name is very important when I say "socialist countries" and you say "that shit doesn't apply to us". I wasn't talking to you.
It looks like an Orange, it tastes like an Orange but now we tap on bottles and call it Orange juice ... but it's still a fucking Orange ...
Socialist capitalism (whatever the fuck that is, I would be very interested in knowing) is still very, very different from socialism, just as East is very different from Northeast. You place more emphasis on social programs than pure capitalism, or even American capitalism, fine. I still said socialism in the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … at_Britain
Social democracy, democratic socialism, market socialism et al are forms of socialist movement. Trying to claim they are not socialism because they do not fit with Marxism (which isn't socialism anyway) is just silly. A bit like this entire thread. All these different socialist movements fall under the umbrella category of socialism. These are evolutions of the wide ranging and flexible ideologies that are socialism.
Which basically is, SHARE YOUR WEALTHBertster7 wrote:
We've certainly had socialism in Britain. You can read about it here if you doubt me:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well now we're getting somewhere, at least your socialism can stand to be next to our dirty capitalism.Varegg wrote:
Are you really this dense ... SOCIALISTIC CAPITALISM ... it's been around this forum since prolly the start ... and socialistic capitalism is really what socialism in general is incorporated into Europe today, an improved version of it hence why the label have changed ...
It looks like an Orange, it tastes like an Orange but now we tap on bottles and call it Orange juice ... but it's still a fucking Orange ...
Socialist capitalism (whatever the fuck that is, I would be very interested in knowing) is still very, very different from socialism, just as East is very different from Northeast. You place more emphasis on social programs than pure capitalism, or even American capitalism, fine. I still said socialism in the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … at_Britain
Social democracy, democratic socialism, market socialism et al are forms of socialist movement. Trying to claim they are not socialism because they do not fit with Marxism (which isn't socialism anyway) is just silly. A bit like this entire thread. All these different socialist movements fall under the umbrella category of socialism. These are evolutions of the wide ranging and flexible ideologies that are socialism.
Bertster7 wrote:
We've certainly had socialism in Britain. You can read about it here if you doubt me:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well now we're getting somewhere, at least your socialism can stand to be next to our dirty capitalism.Varegg wrote:
Are you really this dense ... SOCIALISTIC CAPITALISM ... it's been around this forum since prolly the start ... and socialistic capitalism is really what socialism in general is incorporated into Europe today, an improved version of it hence why the label have changed ...
It looks like an Orange, it tastes like an Orange but now we tap on bottles and call it Orange juice ... but it's still a fucking Orange ...
Socialist capitalism (whatever the fuck that is, I would be very interested in knowing) is still very, very different from socialism, just as East is very different from Northeast. You place more emphasis on social programs than pure capitalism, or even American capitalism, fine. I still said socialism in the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … at_Britain
Social democracy, democratic socialism, market socialism et al are forms of socialist movement. Trying to claim they are not socialism because they do not fit with Marxism (which isn't socialism anyway) is just silly. A bit like this entire thread. All these different socialist movements fall under the umbrella category of socialism. These are evolutions of the wide ranging and flexible ideologies that are socialism.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Nope.. fucked up bullshit is when your government decides it's better to spend $700 billion on bailing out Wall Street than spending a fraction of that on a decent universal healthcare system.lowing wrote:
I call it fucked up bullshitDonFck wrote:
We don't call ourselves socialist (I'm speaking of my country now, but it does extend to other nations as well), but many Americans do see it that way and therefore call it that. I'd call it left wing capital-socialdemocracy instead, or something.
Finland and Norway may have their problems, but for the most part, they take care of their people more comprehensively. It's part of why they have a lot less crime than us.
Not an acceptable trade off Turquoise. I do not need govt. interfering in my life. Others may need a govt. tit to suck on, I am not one of them. I want my govt. to maintain the security and freedom for me to take care of myself as I see fit, not as they see fit.Turquoise wrote:
Nope.. fucked up bullshit is when your government decides it's better to spend $700 billion on bailing out Wall Street than spending a fraction of that on a decent universal healthcare system.lowing wrote:
I call it fucked up bullshitDonFck wrote:
We don't call ourselves socialist (I'm speaking of my country now, but it does extend to other nations as well), but many Americans do see it that way and therefore call it that. I'd call it left wing capital-socialdemocracy instead, or something.
Finland and Norway may have their problems, but for the most part, they take care of their people more comprehensively. It's part of why they have a lot less crime than us.
The problem is that your tax money will be spent to bail out somebody one way or another. The Libertarian ideal will simply not exist in this society. There's too much lobbyist influence for that to happen.lowing wrote:
Not an acceptable trade off Turquoise. I do not need govt. interfering in my life. Others may need a govt. tit to suck on, I am not one of them. I want my govt. to maintain the security and freedom for me to take care of myself as I see fit, not as they see fit.Turquoise wrote:
Nope.. fucked up bullshit is when your government decides it's better to spend $700 billion on bailing out Wall Street than spending a fraction of that on a decent universal healthcare system.lowing wrote:
I call it fucked up bullshit
Finland and Norway may have their problems, but for the most part, they take care of their people more comprehensively. It's part of why they have a lot less crime than us.
So, ultimately, we have 2 choices...
1) continue to spend tax money for the benefit of irresponsible corporations (bailouts)
2) fund infrastructures that would benefit the vast majority of the population (universal healthcare)
I prefer #2, but #1 is what's happening...
People call it socialist, but bailouts are actually corporatist....
Socialism = spreading the wealth among the populace
Corporatism = taking money from everyone and concentrating it into funds for the rich elite
So, it's really not socialism that you have to worry about here -- it's corporatism...
Despite our disagreements, lowing, at least we can agree that the bailouts are wrong.
I am content with hating both.Turquoise wrote:
The problem is that your tax money will be spent to bail out somebody one way or another. The Libertarian ideal will simply not exist in this society. There's too much lobbyist influence for that to happen.lowing wrote:
Not an acceptable trade off Turquoise. I do not need govt. interfering in my life. Others may need a govt. tit to suck on, I am not one of them. I want my govt. to maintain the security and freedom for me to take care of myself as I see fit, not as they see fit.Turquoise wrote:
Nope.. fucked up bullshit is when your government decides it's better to spend $700 billion on bailing out Wall Street than spending a fraction of that on a decent universal healthcare system.
Finland and Norway may have their problems, but for the most part, they take care of their people more comprehensively. It's part of why they have a lot less crime than us.
So, ultimately, we have 2 choices...
1) continue to spend tax money for the benefit of irresponsible corporations (bailouts)
2) fund infrastructures that would benefit the vast majority of the population (universal healthcare)
I prefer #2, but #1 is what's happening...
People call it socialist, but bailouts are actually corporatist....
Socialism = spreading the wealth among the populace
Corporatism = taking money from everyone and concentrating it into funds for the rich elite
So, it's really not socialism that you have to worry about here -- it's corporatism...
Despite our disagreements, lowing, at least we can agree that the bailouts are wrong.
Despite popular belief most of those "evil corporations" aren't receiving bailouts. Not even close. They are employing millions of people everyday though.
I tell you what, let's switch it around. Why don't we give the corporations 2.26 trillion every year and only allocate 700 biliion everyonce in a great while towards healthcare welfare? Maybe then you will see how inaccurate the picture you paint is.
Aren't spending a fraction? Wrong! Argue against the system but don't throw out stuff like ^^that^^ when we spend far more than any other country on the planet.Turquoise wrote:
Nope.. fucked up bullshit is when your government decides it's better to spend $700 billion on bailing out Wall Street than spending a fraction of that on a decent universal healthcare system.
I tell you what, let's switch it around. Why don't we give the corporations 2.26 trillion every year and only allocate 700 biliion everyonce in a great while towards healthcare welfare? Maybe then you will see how inaccurate the picture you paint is.
You prefer two because it allows you to be the irresponsible one.Turquoise wrote:
1) continue to spend tax money for the benefit of irresponsible corporations (bailouts)
2) fund infrastructures that would benefit the vast majority of the population (universal healthcare)
I prefer #2, but #1 is what's happening...
People call it socialist, but bailouts are actually corporatist....
Socialism = spreading the wealth among the populace
Corporatism = taking money from everyone and concentrating it into funds for the rich elite
So, it's really not socialism that you have to worry about here -- it's corporatism...
Despite our disagreements, lowing, at least we can agree that the bailouts are wrong.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Then you don't get 2,26 trillion dollars worth of social benefits, that's for sure ... many of those 2,26 trillion don't make it to the end user Kmarion ...
Just that you guys can swallow the fact that there is a need for a corporate middle man who's goal is to make a huge profit, and that guy is deciding if you get healthcare or not and what bills to pay ... that's pretty fucked up tbh ...
And Turquoise do have a good point actually, because you subsidice corporations through your taxes and that's closer to communism than universal healthcare is to socialism
Just that you guys can swallow the fact that there is a need for a corporate middle man who's goal is to make a huge profit, and that guy is deciding if you get healthcare or not and what bills to pay ... that's pretty fucked up tbh ...
And Turquoise do have a good point actually, because you subsidice corporations through your taxes and that's closer to communism than universal healthcare is to socialism
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Subsidizing corporations isn't communism; subsidizing corporations, and then telling them what they can produce, how much to produce of it, and how much they can charge for it is communism. Corporate welfare, to any communist supporter, would be seen as facilitating the continuation of capitalism, not tending towards communism.
Well that's a massively overly simplistic way of looking at it. It's not "share you wealth". It's: the state will provide for you when you CANNOT (not will not) provide for yourself.lowing wrote:
Which basically is, SHARE YOUR WEALTHBertster7 wrote:
We've certainly had socialism in Britain. You can read about it here if you doubt me:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well now we're getting somewhere, at least your socialism can stand to be next to our dirty capitalism.
Socialist capitalism (whatever the fuck that is, I would be very interested in knowing) is still very, very different from socialism, just as East is very different from Northeast. You place more emphasis on social programs than pure capitalism, or even American capitalism, fine. I still said socialism in the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … at_Britain
Social democracy, democratic socialism, market socialism et al are forms of socialist movement. Trying to claim they are not socialism because they do not fit with Marxism (which isn't socialism anyway) is just silly. A bit like this entire thread. All these different socialist movements fall under the umbrella category of socialism. These are evolutions of the wide ranging and flexible ideologies that are socialism.
In principle it's sound and should work brilliantly. In practice, it works, reasonably well - but there need to be more checks and balances to stop abuse of benefits systems. You seem to think taxes for this sort of system are immensely high. In fact the average tax bill in the UK is only slightly higher than that in the US(corporate rate is far lower than that in the US - which means despite a weaker economy, businesses can afford to pay workers in the UK more (hence the average wage in the UK being higher than that in the US)).
Ummmmmmm kinda contradictory, if you are making all of these high fantastic wages then there should be no need for mother govt. to provide for you "when" you can provide for yourself. Since you are getting provided for regardless of your income, is more like govt. "will" provide for you regardless.Bertster7 wrote:
Well that's a massively overly simplistic way of looking at it. It's not "share you wealth". It's: the state will provide for you when you CANNOT (not will not) provide for yourself.lowing wrote:
Which basically is, SHARE YOUR WEALTHBertster7 wrote:
We've certainly had socialism in Britain. You can read about it here if you doubt me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … at_Britain
Social democracy, democratic socialism, market socialism et al are forms of socialist movement. Trying to claim they are not socialism because they do not fit with Marxism (which isn't socialism anyway) is just silly. A bit like this entire thread. All these different socialist movements fall under the umbrella category of socialism. These are evolutions of the wide ranging and flexible ideologies that are socialism.
In principle it's sound and should work brilliantly. In practice, it works, reasonably well - but there need to be more checks and balances to stop abuse of benefits systems. You seem to think taxes for this sort of system are immensely high. In fact the average tax bill in the UK is only slightly higher than that in the US(corporate rate is far lower than that in the US - which means despite a weaker economy, businesses can afford to pay workers in the UK more (hence the average wage in the UK being higher than that in the US)).
Last edited by lowing (2008-12-20 11:50:38)
"evolved version" my ass, socialism is socialism. Social programs != socialism.Varegg wrote:
Actually no ... when we speak of the socialism we practice it is the evolved version of it not the textbook version you believe it is, how many times must i repeat that for you?
So it's rather your misinterpretation of the terms that exist and the practice of them ...
You can't make your own brew of political policies and call it socialism; that name has been taken.
Had, yes, but do I really need to pull quotes to emphasize how very Marxist that socialism was?Bertster7 wrote:
We've certainly had socialism in Britain. You can read about it here if you doubt me:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well now we're getting somewhere, at least your socialism can stand to be next to our dirty capitalism.Varegg wrote:
Are you really this dense ... SOCIALISTIC CAPITALISM ... it's been around this forum since prolly the start ... and socialistic capitalism is really what socialism in general is incorporated into Europe today, an improved version of it hence why the label have changed ...
It looks like an Orange, it tastes like an Orange but now we tap on bottles and call it Orange juice ... but it's still a fucking Orange ...
Socialist capitalism (whatever the fuck that is, I would be very interested in knowing) is still very, very different from socialism, just as East is very different from Northeast. You place more emphasis on social programs than pure capitalism, or even American capitalism, fine. I still said socialism in the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … at_Britain
Social democracy, democratic socialism, market socialism et al are forms of socialist movement. Trying to claim they are not socialism because they do not fit with Marxism (which isn't socialism anyway) is just silly. A bit like this entire thread. All these different socialist movements fall under the umbrella category of socialism. These are evolutions of the wide ranging and flexible ideologies that are socialism.
They take some of the broad ideas from socialism and implement them in a primarily Western social system. They are very different from true socialism, the socialism I mentioned in the OP, and if you're going to talk about them you sure as hell better specify.
and
tbhnukchebi0 wrote:
Subsidizing corporations isn't communism; subsidizing corporations, and then telling them what they can produce, how much to produce of it, and how much they can charge for it is communism. Corporate welfare, to any communist supporter, would be seen as facilitating the continuation of capitalism, not tending towards communism.
You missed (or ignored) a key part of what I said. "Argue against the system ". My point remains, in terms of the Bailout we give waayyy more to healthcare. One of the biggest problems we have is the malpractice insurance doctors must carry. We have a sue happy culture that thinks the world owes them everything. Having an operation is like getting a lottery ticket. We pay much more than you do per citizen, as a total, and as a percentage of our GDP. Yes we need to get the cost under control through reform, but our system as a whole generally outperforms most. Each of our states offer assistance to those who need it. There isn't a country that has ever tried to administer a universal plan to over 300 million people with great success. You are comparing your relatively tiny system to the most bureaucratic and inefficient government on the planet. Our solution is in empowering the states. Turquoise himself has said that he would rather contribute money to Raleigh rather than DC.Varegg wrote:
Then you don't get 2,26 trillion dollars worth of social benefits, that's for sure ... many of those 2,26 trillion don't make it to the end user Kmarion ...
Just that you guys can swallow the fact that there is a need for a corporate middle man who's goal is to make a huge profit, and that guy is deciding if you get healthcare or not and what bills to pay ... that's pretty fucked up tbh ...
And Turquoise do have a good point actually, because you subsidice corporations through your taxes and that's closer to communism than universal healthcare is to socialism
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You're starting to sound like lowing. Thanks for deliberately twisting what I was saying.Kmarion wrote:
Despite popular belief most of those "evil corporations" aren't receiving bailouts. Not even close. They are employing millions of people everyday though.
I do realize that most corporations aren't receiving a bailout. The point of what I was saying was that Wall Street has the lobbying power to get us to bail them out. The credit industry is about the only lobby more powerful than the military industrial complex, and as a result of that, they do everything they can to get us to subsidize their bad decisions.
So no, I wasn't saying that all corporations are evil.
Thanks for reminding me. As individuals, we spend more than anyone else on the planet for healthcare, while our government spends very little per capita compared to most of the First World. The point I was making here is that the government would rather spend more tax money on banks than on helping us get more affordable care and access.Kmarion wrote:
Aren't spending a fraction? Wrong! Argue against the system but don't throw out stuff like ^^that^^ when we spend far more than any other country on the planet.Turquoise wrote:
Nope.. fucked up bullshit is when your government decides it's better to spend $700 billion on bailing out Wall Street than spending a fraction of that on a decent universal healthcare system.
...or how about I point out how inaccurate your math is by pointing out that the reason why that figure is so large is because it involves individuals paying for increased bureaucratic costs that come with a non-socialized healthcare system. These same costs are dramatically lower in a socialized system because you have only one bureaucracy to deal with -- the government -- rather than an array of corporations (who, by the way, lobby the government hard to make sure tax money is spent on research that they profit from, but we don't see a cut of).Kmarion wrote:
I tell you what, let's switch it around. Why don't we give the corporations 2.26 trillion every year and only allocate 700 biliion everyonce in a great while towards healthcare welfare? Maybe then you will see how inaccurate the picture you paint is..
If wanting to see a return on where my tax money is going is irresponsible, then tell me what is responsible.Kmarion wrote:
You prefer two because it allows you to be the irresponsible one.Turquoise wrote:
1) continue to spend tax money for the benefit of irresponsible corporations (bailouts)
2) fund infrastructures that would benefit the vast majority of the population (universal healthcare)
I prefer #2, but #1 is what's happening...
People call it socialist, but bailouts are actually corporatist....
Socialism = spreading the wealth among the populace
Corporatism = taking money from everyone and concentrating it into funds for the rich elite
So, it's really not socialism that you have to worry about here -- it's corporatism...
Despite our disagreements, lowing, at least we can agree that the bailouts are wrong.
Complete and utter bollocks.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"evolved version" my ass, socialism is socialism. Social programs != socialism.Varegg wrote:
Actually no ... when we speak of the socialism we practice it is the evolved version of it not the textbook version you believe it is, how many times must i repeat that for you?
So it's rather your misinterpretation of the terms that exist and the practice of them ...
You can't make your own brew of political policies and call it socialism; that name has been taken.Had, yes, but do I really need to pull quotes to emphasize how very Marxist that socialism was?Bertster7 wrote:
We've certainly had socialism in Britain. You can read about it here if you doubt me:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well now we're getting somewhere, at least your socialism can stand to be next to our dirty capitalism.
Socialist capitalism (whatever the fuck that is, I would be very interested in knowing) is still very, very different from socialism, just as East is very different from Northeast. You place more emphasis on social programs than pure capitalism, or even American capitalism, fine. I still said socialism in the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … at_Britain
Social democracy, democratic socialism, market socialism et al are forms of socialist movement. Trying to claim they are not socialism because they do not fit with Marxism (which isn't socialism anyway) is just silly. A bit like this entire thread. All these different socialist movements fall under the umbrella category of socialism. These are evolutions of the wide ranging and flexible ideologies that are socialism.
They take some of the broad ideas from socialism and implement them in a primarily Western social system. They are very different from true socialism, the socialism I mentioned in the OP, and if you're going to talk about them you sure as hell better specify.
Not true in the remotest sense. The primary socialist power in the UK for the past century has been the Labour party (not new Labour - they are rebranded Tories). Calling them Marxist is absolutely absurd.
Marxism is a brand of socialism. Not the first, certainly not the most widespread, but the one that gets waved about the most on Internet forums by people who don't really know what it, or socialism are. One inarguable example is the select commitee report of 1817 (the year before Marx was born, before you start going on about Marxism again) on the poor law, which was reformed a while later. This select commitee was formed of prominent socialists such as Robert Owen whose ideas were later successfully promoted by Dr King through the Cooperator newspaper. It is these ideals that formed the foundation for British socialism. Not Marx.
In fact this man has probably had the greatest impact on socialism in the UK and he could hardly be described as Marxist:
He was an absolute legend. An economist who transformed the entire country. One of the 3 people to really make an impact on British politics over the past century (the others being Atlee (who implemented his ideas) and the other, from the opposite end of the spectrum, being Thatcher).
What the fuck is it that makes you think that Marxism is so central to socialism? They are a very long way from being synonymous. Perhaps people in the US have a warped view of what socialism is, or perhaps it's just you. I am only particularly familiar with the history of British socialism, which in some instances has some strained and tenuous ties to Marxism, but is almost entirely independent of it, with many of the integral principles and laws currently in force having been brought into effect before Marxism was even conceived.
This bizarre notion of true socialism you have is a nonexistent nonsense. If anything defines socialism, it is not Marx, but Leroux (the man who invented the term - he was French and I'm not overly familiar with his work, but nevertheless, he coined the term first) with his far less specific ideals of romantic socialism which cannot be described as anything other than socialist - but are a very long way from Marxism.
Your whole concept of "true socialism" is fundamentally flawed. I'm going to try and explain why with an analogy, which tends not to be a good idea around here, but here goes anyway:
Lets take the example of the Ferrari 430 and the Ferrari 612. Both are sports cars and both are Ferraris. They are different, but similar in many respects. Both are "true" Ferraris.
It's the same with socialism.
no uBertster7 wrote:
Complete and utter bollocks.
I didn't. I'm pretty sure that throughout the thread I've been saying no European countries fit the term "socialist".Bertster7 wrote:
Not true in the remotest sense. The primary socialist power in the UK for the past century has been the Labour party (not new Labour - they are rebranded Tories). Calling them Marxist is absolutely absurd.
All true, but even if the foundation was not build with the ideas of Marx necessarily in mind, the form of socialism that came out of it was pretty darn Marxist. Some consider it the first proletariat revolution and implementation of socialism after Karl Marx's writings.Bertster7 wrote:
Marxism is a brand of socialism. Not the first, certainly not the most widespread, but the one that gets waved about the most on Internet forums by people who don't really know what it, or socialism are. One inarguable example is the select commitee report of 1817 (the year before Marx was born, before you start going on about Marxism again) on the poor law, which was reformed a while later. This select commitee was formed of prominent socialists such as Robert Owen whose ideas were later successfully promoted by Dr King through the Cooperator newspaper. It is these ideals that formed the foundation for British socialism. Not Marx.
Nothing?Bertster7 wrote:
What the fuck is it that makes you think that Marxism is so central to socialism? They are a very long way from being synonymous. Perhaps people in the US have a warped view of what socialism is, or perhaps it's just you. I am only particularly familiar with the history of British socialism, which in some instances has some strained and tenuous ties to Marxism, but is almost entirely independent of it, with many of the integral principles and laws currently in force having been brought into effect before Marxism was even conceived.
I am pretty familiar with the definition of socialism. I keep looking at article after article for some insight as to how the hell you guys can think Europe is socialist. I can't find anything to back that claim up.
So tell me, what policies exactly make a European country socialist?
Oh no I love analogies!Bertster7 wrote:
Your whole concept of "true socialism" is fundamentally flawed. I'm going to try and explain why with an analogy, which tends not to be a good idea around here, but here goes anyway:
Lets take the example of the Ferrari 430 and the Ferrari 612. Both are sports cars and both are Ferraris. They are different, but similar in many respects. Both are "true" Ferraris.
The problem here is one of the Ferraris is a knockoff. To the casual observer it's a Ferrari. To the owner, even if he really knows it's fake, wants to believe it's a Ferrari. It looks like a Ferrari, acts like a Ferrari...but it just does not fit the definition of a Ferrari.
Your history of posting here is telling. There are all types of large and influential lobbying groups like the ACLU, RPAC, AARP, and the NRA. But yes, I feel anytime you reach the point of 9,000 earmarks on a single bill it's out of control.Turquoise wrote:
You're starting to sound like lowing. Thanks for deliberately twisting what I was saying.
I do realize that most corporations aren't receiving a bailout. The point of what I was saying was that Wall Street has the lobbying power to get us to bail them out. The credit industry is about the only lobby more powerful than the military industrial complex, and as a result of that, they do everything they can to get us to subsidize their bad decisions.
So no, I wasn't saying that all corporations are evil.
Np, it looks like you needed it. Still they haven't spent more on banks, they have spent more on, albeit inefficiently, health care. If you allocate a certain amount of money to a cause and it doesn't fully reach the end user in terms of direct benefits paid that does not mean that you didn't allocate a certain amount of money to a cause in the first place. This is all going to reiterate my point that an effective "universal" plan could never work here. "Universal" rarely works across such a large and diverse population like ours. And btw we spend the most per capita also.. check yourself.Turquoise wrote:
Thanks for reminding me. As individuals, we spend more than anyone else on the planet for healthcare, while our government spends very little per capita compared to most of the First World. The point I was making here is that the government would rather spend more tax money on banks than on helping us get more affordable care and access.
First off the number I gave in expenditures did not include research. Reasearch/advancent, arguably the most important expense, only makes up about $45 per person (out of $7,439). By illustrating the added cost of a bureaucratically managed healthcare system you have somehow rationalized that giving them more control will fix the problem. The majority of research comes from private funding here (which the entire world takes advantage of). New medical technology/medicine pays a return and often lowers the cost. We all benefit from the research funded in part by the tax payer. I'm having a hard time understanding why you automatically assume that lobbied money in the name a of research is bad but by demanding that we all pay into a proven mismanaged government plan is ok. You are putting your faith in the very same corrupt politicians you claim to despise. That is bordering the definition of insanity....or how about I point out how inaccurate your math is by pointing out that the reason why that figure is so large is because it involves individuals paying for increased bureaucratic costs that come with a non-socialized healthcare system. These same costs are dramatically lower in a socialized system because you have only one bureaucracy to deal with -- the government -- rather than an array of corporations (who, by the way, lobby the government hard to make sure tax money is spent on research that they profit from, but we don't see a cut of).
Buy your own healthcare or find employment that supplies it. Worrying about a return under a forced taxed policy should be limited to a quick fix for the temporarily unemployed or disabled. Not an indefinite free ride. That is responsibility.Turquoise wrote:
If wanting to see a return on where my tax money is going is irresponsible, then tell me what is responsible.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Not so.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't. I'm pretty sure that throughout the thread I've been saying no European countries fit the term "socialist".Bertster7 wrote:
Not true in the remotest sense. The primary socialist power in the UK for the past century has been the Labour party (not new Labour - they are rebranded Tories). Calling them Marxist is absolutely absurd.
So you have already admitted that Britain has had socialist governments. You claimed it was Marxist, it certainly wasn't. Yes, you do need to pull quotes to emphasise how Marxist that socialism was. Currently there is not a socialist government in power in the UK, but there have been and a vast number of their policies remain in place. The biggest of the lot being the welfare state. Thatcher's reforms pulled the UK a lot further away from it's more socialist 20th century past, but much of that still remains in place because the sorts of policies socialists put in place are notoriously hard to get rid of.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Had, yes, but do I really need to pull quotes to emphasize how very Marxist that socialism was?Bertster7 wrote:
We've certainly had socialism in Britain. You can read about it here if you doubt me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … at_Britain
Social democracy, democratic socialism, market socialism et al are forms of socialist movement. Trying to claim they are not socialism because they do not fit with Marxism (which isn't socialism anyway) is just silly. A bit like this entire thread. All these different socialist movements fall under the umbrella category of socialism. These are evolutions of the wide ranging and flexible ideologies that are socialism.
Yet much of it was before Marx had done any of his writings. Marx used to get rather pissed off when people compared various systems of socialism to Marxism, including the systems put into place in Britain, his famous quote "If that is Marxism then I am no Marxist" is a great example of how a great number of people totally misinterpreted his work. Apparently you number amongst them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
All true, but even if the foundation was not build with the ideas of Marx necessarily in mind, the form of socialism that came out of it was pretty darn Marxist. Some consider it the first proletariat revolution and implementation of socialism after Karl Marx's writings.Bertster7 wrote:
Marxism is a brand of socialism. Not the first, certainly not the most widespread, but the one that gets waved about the most on Internet forums by people who don't really know what it, or socialism are. One inarguable example is the select commitee report of 1817 (the year before Marx was born, before you start going on about Marxism again) on the poor law, which was reformed a while later. This select commitee was formed of prominent socialists such as Robert Owen whose ideas were later successfully promoted by Dr King through the Cooperator newspaper. It is these ideals that formed the foundation for British socialism. Not Marx.
You mean apart from all the socialist governments and social intervention?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Nothing?Bertster7 wrote:
What the fuck is it that makes you think that Marxism is so central to socialism? They are a very long way from being synonymous. Perhaps people in the US have a warped view of what socialism is, or perhaps it's just you. I am only particularly familiar with the history of British socialism, which in some instances has some strained and tenuous ties to Marxism, but is almost entirely independent of it, with many of the integral principles and laws currently in force having been brought into effect before Marxism was even conceived.
I am pretty familiar with the definition of socialism. I keep looking at article after article for some insight as to how the hell you guys can think Europe is socialist. I can't find anything to back that claim up.
You seem to think socialism is something exact and specific. It's not. At all.
Many of the ones put in place by socialist governments. Which many countries in Europe have had a lot of over the past century. Not many countries in Europe currently have socialist governments, but the trend throughout Europe over the past 100 years has been to have socialist governments and their legacies live on.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So tell me, what policies exactly make a European country socialist?
No. It's not. It's a real Ferrari, as previously stated.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh no I love analogies!Bertster7 wrote:
Your whole concept of "true socialism" is fundamentally flawed. I'm going to try and explain why with an analogy, which tends not to be a good idea around here, but here goes anyway:
Lets take the example of the Ferrari 430 and the Ferrari 612. Both are sports cars and both are Ferraris. They are different, but similar in many respects. Both are "true" Ferraris.
The problem here is one of the Ferraris is a knockoff. To the casual observer it's a Ferrari. To the owner, even if he really knows it's fake, wants to believe it's a Ferrari. It looks like a Ferrari, acts like a Ferrari...but it just does not fit the definition of a Ferrari.
Unfortunately this post is not as complete as I'd like it to be. More later, when I'm less busy....
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-12-20 15:54:58)
Social responsibility from the federal government != socialism
As for the quote:
1 - I was going to look for some background on the quote, but honestly I can't even find that it is attributed to him. A little help...?
2 - In many respects people do not own their ideas once they take hold in the population at large. You may have started it, but that doesn't mean you continue to own it. The definitions may change to what people want them to be, and it would be a very reasonable circumstance for Marx not to be a Marxist. It has happened more than once throughout history, i.e. Carl Jung.
3 - Even so, I believe he would have said that because the revolution in England was not on the scale of his ideas in the least. England was not on the road to communism at all.
I was slightly unclear, Britain had some serious socialist tendencies and was on the verge of going full socialist as there was a revolution in the industrial sector, but it largely didn't pan out.Bertster7 wrote:
Marx used to get rather pissed off when people compared various systems of socialism to Marxism, including the systems put into place in Britain, his famous quote "If that is Marxism then I am no Marxist" is a great example of how a great number of people totally misinterpreted his work. Apparently you number amongst them.
As for the quote:
1 - I was going to look for some background on the quote, but honestly I can't even find that it is attributed to him. A little help...?
2 - In many respects people do not own their ideas once they take hold in the population at large. You may have started it, but that doesn't mean you continue to own it. The definitions may change to what people want them to be, and it would be a very reasonable circumstance for Marx not to be a Marxist. It has happened more than once throughout history, i.e. Carl Jung.
3 - Even so, I believe he would have said that because the revolution in England was not on the scale of his ideas in the least. England was not on the road to communism at all.
There are a few key traits, like collective ownership in some form. You can't just point to universal health care and then say you're socialist, anymore than a communist country can make some sort of currency to be used on luxury items and call themselves capitalist. These sorts of very, very broad terms demand a certain foundation, and it's just silly when you guys dress up capitalism with health care and unemployment programs to call it socialism.Berster7 wrote:
You seem to think socialism is something exact and specific. It's not. At all.
Could you name a few for me to look into?Berster7 wrote:
Many of the ones put in place by socialist governments. Which many countries in Europe have had a lot of over the past century. Not many countries in Europe currently have socialist governments, but the trend throughout Europe over the past 100 years has been to have socialist governments and their legacies live on.
Ah, the owner is in denial that it's not a real Ferrari. The luxury car connoisseur (guess who ) says otherwise.Berster7 wrote:
No. It's not. It's a real Ferrari, as previously stated.
Cause of the Regicide part?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I was slightly unclear, Britain had some serious socialist tendencies and was on the verge of going full socialist as there was a revolution in the industrial sector, but it largely didn't pan out.
