5 ms·

That was a very poor country ravaged by wars and totalitarianism. This is a figure from a country well within its means to provide universal health care but cho

by jahaja 6y ago

That was a very poor country ravaged by wars and totalitarianism. This is a figure from a country well within its means to provide universal health care but choose not due to Capitalist ideology.

RhysU 6y ago
The country does not own the means. It is arguably within the citizen's means. The capitalist ideology only says that we shouldn't confuse those two pocketbooks.
- jahaja 6y ago
  Let's keep our feet on the ground and realize that all countries collect taxes and decide through their particular version of politics how these are spent. The US are responsible for the outcome of their politics.
  - RhysU 6y ago
    My feet are planted.
m0zg 6y ago
Communism cannot be sustained without totalitarianism though.
- jahaja 6y ago
  Well, certainly not the version you keep peddling as the only version. Socialist of today want to extend democracy into the economic sphere - which today are totally undemocratic. That is, to actually give the workers control of the means of production, not to just change the bosses from capitalists to state bureaucrats.
  - RhysU 6y ago
    "Extending democracy into the economic sphere" is a funny way to describe theft by the majority. Today, under capitalism, we already have democracy in the economic sphere. Each of us already has single-use votes proportional to our means (i.e. money). If you want more votes to use, do something valuable so that others vote for you (i.e. pay you). If a worker wants durable rights to the means of production, they can trade some votes for stock. Now, one might cry foul that not everyone has the same voice under this system. Not everyone has the same voice in the US legislative branch on account of the Senate's design. So it goes. Least bad solution. Etc. Sincerely, please point me somewhere that I might read about why this socialism you profess won't degenerate into sclerotic totalitarianism within two generations. What has changed about people's hearts so that the noble experiment you want to run (with other people's resources) won't cause the same calamities that it has before? As folks often quip, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      > Today, under capitalism, we already have democracy in the economic sphere. Each of us already has single-use votes proportional to our means (i.e. money). If you want more votes to use, do something valuable so that others vote for you (i.e. pay you). If a worker wants durable rights to the means of production, they can trade some votes for stock. I have no idea how you can write such a thing with a straight face. This is not democratic in any way shape or form. > funny way to describe theft by the majority. The concept of private-property is not ordained by God, it's a social construct upheld by force in favour of the propertied. > Sincerely, please point me somewhere that I might read about why this socialism you profess won't degenerate into sclerotic totalitarianism within two generations. Well you are making the suggestion so I think it would be more appropriate for you to supply some basis to it. Please don't be lazy and point to states like the USSR that was never ever democratic to begin with. What I can do however is link to the critics, who were socialists, of the totalitarian regimes when it happened, like for example Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" that was published in 1920, only 3 years after the October revolution. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt You can just read the preface and skim the first few pages (in Russell's famous easy-to-read writing style) to get an idea of the scathing criticism he delivered. e.g: "But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten."

by jahaja 6y ago

That was a very poor country ravaged by wars and totalitarianism. This is a figure from a country well within its means to provide universal health care but choose not due to Capitalist ideology.

RhysU 6y ago

The country does not own the means. It is arguably within the citizen's means. The capitalist ideology only says that we shouldn't confuse those two pocketbooks.

jahaja 6y ago
Let's keep our feet on the ground and realize that all countries collect taxes and decide through their particular version of politics how these are spent. The US are responsible for the outcome of their politics.
- RhysU 6y ago
  My feet are planted.

m0zg 6y ago

Communism cannot be sustained without totalitarianism though.

jahaja 6y ago
Well, certainly not the version you keep peddling as the only version. Socialist of today want to extend democracy into the economic sphere - which today are totally undemocratic. That is, to actually give the workers control of the means of production, not to just change the bosses from capitalists to state bureaucrats.
- RhysU 6y ago
  "Extending democracy into the economic sphere" is a funny way to describe theft by the majority. Today, under capitalism, we already have democracy in the economic sphere. Each of us already has single-use votes proportional to our means (i.e. money). If you want more votes to use, do something valuable so that others vote for you (i.e. pay you). If a worker wants durable rights to the means of production, they can trade some votes for stock. Now, one might cry foul that not everyone has the same voice under this system. Not everyone has the same voice in the US legislative branch on account of the Senate's design. So it goes. Least bad solution. Etc. Sincerely, please point me somewhere that I might read about why this socialism you profess won't degenerate into sclerotic totalitarianism within two generations. What has changed about people's hearts so that the noble experiment you want to run (with other people's resources) won't cause the same calamities that it has before? As folks often quip, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    > Today, under capitalism, we already have democracy in the economic sphere. Each of us already has single-use votes proportional to our means (i.e. money). If you want more votes to use, do something valuable so that others vote for you (i.e. pay you). If a worker wants durable rights to the means of production, they can trade some votes for stock. I have no idea how you can write such a thing with a straight face. This is not democratic in any way shape or form. > funny way to describe theft by the majority. The concept of private-property is not ordained by God, it's a social construct upheld by force in favour of the propertied. > Sincerely, please point me somewhere that I might read about why this socialism you profess won't degenerate into sclerotic totalitarianism within two generations. Well you are making the suggestion so I think it would be more appropriate for you to supply some basis to it. Please don't be lazy and point to states like the USSR that was never ever democratic to begin with. What I can do however is link to the critics, who were socialists, of the totalitarian regimes when it happened, like for example Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" that was published in 1920, only 3 years after the October revolution. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt You can just read the preface and skim the first few pages (in Russell's famous easy-to-read writing style) to get an idea of the scathing criticism he delivered. e.g: "But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten."