3 ms·

@babycake I take it that you are making a dig at Western society as a whole or just the U.S.? I think if you took some time and traveled to some of the non-ca

by DiffEq 5y ago

@babycake I take it that you are making a dig at Western society as a whole or just the U.S.? I think if you took some time and traveled to some of the non-capitalist (Marxist) countries you might see the utter horrifical ecological damage that they are doing and have done to the world. I think if all told you might find that capitalist countries have done a better job with the environment - I am not saying they have done a good job - just a better one than the Marxist countries.

boringg 5y ago
The anti-capitlists have this utopian alternative world where all problems cease to exist and the power is distributed equally. I get the indulgence in the fantasy worlds but best to stick with reality and work with the system we have both the flaws and the strengths.
- marksbrown 5y ago
  Perhaps consider a steel man instead of a straw one. Socialist institutions that cover natural monopolies save the state money simply by economies of scale. I'll grant not all industry could or should be nationalised but certainly healthcare in the US is a prime example of market failure.
  - boringg 5y ago
    I don't disagree with healthcare - its a complete debacle. That said the US models actually pays for a lot of the leading edge R&D in healthcare while a lot of foreign countries get to ride along the cost curve by buying that same healthcare after the bleeding edge making their healthcare costs more manageable.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      That would be more tolerable if the US had better healthcare outcomes compared to those other nations. We don't -- they're doing it cheaper and better than we can. Probably the most important factor in getting good outcomes is catching diseases early. It doesn't matter how good your state-of-the-art new stage IV cancer treatment is, it's always going to be better to catch it early. Catching diseases early in their progression requires regular visits to the doctor, which in America cost an arm and a leg if you're not insured, leading to postponement of treatment and the poor outcomes we experience. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare...
revolvingocelot 5y ago
There are no "Marxist" countries on the planet. I'm not sure there ever were. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but someone could very easily take what you wrote as the suggestion that there are two types of countries: "capitalist" and "non-capitalist (Marxist)". That's... you should actually read Marx, or decide on a less fraught descriptor. For that matter, how much of the ecological devastation in these poorer countries is being caused by a Western mining company or Western oil company or a Western baby-formula company?
- wiseowise 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    > Oh yeah, "that wasn't true communism". "Marxism"? "Communism"? What are we talking about again? Eh, who cares what words mean when you can bludgeon people with them! It's all "non-capitalist", which is a word that means "bad".
- DiffEq 5y ago
  I don't disagree; just like there are no true capitalist countries. However there is a degree in which you lean one way or the other and it may vary depending on industry. For instance the Health care in the United States mentioned earlier in this thread is thought to be capitalist - but it is so heavily regulated in certain ways that it is probably leaning more towards a Marxist creation.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    >but it is so heavily regulated in certain ways that it is probably leaning more towards a Marxist creation I find it interesting that you don't mention those ways, or why they might make the US healthcare system "Marxist". Marxism is a form of socioeconomic analysis, not an economic system, nor a scheme of healthcare regulation. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to convey.
mistrial9 5y ago
dramatically off-topic

by DiffEq 5y ago

boringg 5y ago

The anti-capitlists have this utopian alternative world where all problems cease to exist and the power is distributed equally. I get the indulgence in the fantasy worlds but best to stick with reality and work with the system we have both the flaws and the strengths.

marksbrown 5y ago
Perhaps consider a steel man instead of a straw one. Socialist institutions that cover natural monopolies save the state money simply by economies of scale. I'll grant not all industry could or should be nationalised but certainly healthcare in the US is a prime example of market failure.
- boringg 5y ago
  I don't disagree with healthcare - its a complete debacle. That said the US models actually pays for a lot of the leading edge R&D in healthcare while a lot of foreign countries get to ride along the cost curve by buying that same healthcare after the bleeding edge making their healthcare costs more manageable.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    That would be more tolerable if the US had better healthcare outcomes compared to those other nations. We don't -- they're doing it cheaper and better than we can. Probably the most important factor in getting good outcomes is catching diseases early. It doesn't matter how good your state-of-the-art new stage IV cancer treatment is, it's always going to be better to catch it early. Catching diseases early in their progression requires regular visits to the doctor, which in America cost an arm and a leg if you're not insured, leading to postponement of treatment and the poor outcomes we experience. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare...

revolvingocelot 5y ago

There are no "Marxist" countries on the planet. I'm not sure there ever were. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but someone could very easily take what you wrote as the suggestion that there are two types of countries: "capitalist" and "non-capitalist (Marxist)". That's... you should actually read Marx, or decide on a less fraught descriptor. For that matter, how much of the ecological devastation in these poorer countries is being caused by a Western mining company or Western oil company or a Western baby-formula company?

wiseowise 5y ago
[flagged]
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  > Oh yeah, "that wasn't true communism". "Marxism"? "Communism"? What are we talking about again? Eh, who cares what words mean when you can bludgeon people with them! It's all "non-capitalist", which is a word that means "bad".
DiffEq 5y ago
I don't disagree; just like there are no true capitalist countries. However there is a degree in which you lean one way or the other and it may vary depending on industry. For instance the Health care in the United States mentioned earlier in this thread is thought to be capitalist - but it is so heavily regulated in certain ways that it is probably leaning more towards a Marxist creation.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  >but it is so heavily regulated in certain ways that it is probably leaning more towards a Marxist creation I find it interesting that you don't mention those ways, or why they might make the US healthcare system "Marxist". Marxism is a form of socioeconomic analysis, not an economic system, nor a scheme of healthcare regulation. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to convey.

mistrial9 5y ago

dramatically off-topic