General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCapitalism Kills Nearly 1 Million Americans Per Year
Article --- https://invisiblepeople.tv/capitalism-kills-nearly-1-million-americans-per-year/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
niyad
(132,446 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Certainly not socialism.
No objection to discussing reforms, but the arbitrary "capitalism is bad" assertions get us nowhere.
brush
(61,033 posts)healthcare, free college, parental leave and equitable taxation for all to pay for it...sort of the midpoint, a balance, between laissez faire capitalism and socialism.
slightlv
(7,790 posts)when the Middle Class actually was growing and prosperous and we were making strides against Poverty. At that time, it still wasn't a panacea. Systemic racism and misogyny were still huge issues and cutting into wages where they shouldn't. But overall, regulated capitalism was working.
Then Reagan was elected and the wheels came off the bus. Deregulation became his catch phrase and we all caught on soon enough what that meant for us -- no rules, lower wages, no unions, and massive corruption.
I'd like to see it go back to the way it was prior to Reagan, as well. Not only via Regulated Capitalism, but also via the IRS tax codes on the upper crust to ensure they pay their share of living and profiting in the country, too.
Dave says
(5,425 posts)
IrishAfricanAmerican
(4,471 posts)
former9thward
(33,424 posts)The annual death rate in Denmark is 9.52 per 1000, Sweden 9.46 and Norway 7.96. The U.S. is 8.38. The Nordic model is killing more people on average than the U.S.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/death-rate/country-comparison
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)
Celerity
(54,410 posts)trying to posit a superiority of one socio-economic, socio-political model versus another based solely off that one raw numerical comparison.
It is fundamentally flawed as analysis.
electric_blue68
(26,856 posts)I have a long tine on line acquaintence in Finland. About a third of the way up from it's southern end so he gets some time of the midnight sun, and some of the no sunrise months (9 wks?).
I made a joke to him about the Nordics love of Heavy Metal rock - "so it helps keep you awake during the darker, and darkest days?". He laughed and said "Yeah, something like that!", among other things. I laughed!
Anyway do you think that the possible higher death rate might be due to those people more sensitive to long darkness thus major depressiveness, and suicide?
And off topic are you north enough to see any
Northern Lights? (He sometimes does!)
Celerity
(54,410 posts)beds.
It is possible to see the northern lights here in Stockholm, but only if a clear night and also a time of intense aurora activity.
They are usually far less spectacular down here than they are up in Norrbotten. I recommend Kiruna.
Here is a pic of them in Stockholm:
An exceptional night here near Stockholm (not the norm):
Here they are up around Kiruna and elsewhere in Norrbotten:
During a full moon:
electric_blue68
(26,856 posts)Trust me if we in NYC ever saw what is considered a mild aurora in Stockholm our mouths would be opened!
I occasionally check the University of Alaska which has an Aurora Watch for both Northern & Southern Hemispheres!
Thanks again. Happy New Year! Stay safe & healthy. 👍
brush
(61,033 posts)Go a little deeper. Link pls to the breakout on POCs. Did you think about that and all the police killings, which is of concern to most DUers?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)The OP claimed capitalism was killing a million people a year and you said a Nordic model was better. Police killings? Do you think there are a million police killings a year? Wow.
brush
(61,033 posts)just not unregulated capitalism with all the deaths from starvation, gun deaths, police killings, traffic deaths and the like.
And I'd take those very minimal differences in deaths per 1000 figures your chart shows in exchange for free healthcare, free college and generous parental leave of Nordic countries to the cruelty of our version of capitalism where there is none of that and in 26 states no license is needed to carry a gun.
Shoot 'em up. Woohoo.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)U.S. capitalism really is the same "version" as Nordic.
Representative democracy enables citizens to make choices.
Capitalism provides the wealth that pays for them.
Voters of the two capitalist democracies make different choices due to cultural differences.
brush
(61,033 posts)Celerity
(54,410 posts)The US healthcare system, for example, operates under the profit motive of capitalism, and is the biggest wealth extraction and transfer (from the briad base up to the top of the pyramid) scheme on the planet.
The true telltale sign is the staggeringly higher wealth inequality in the US versus us here in the Nordics. Wealth inequality is the number one overarching, interlocked statistic in determining the overall health (as in functioning level at a multiplicity of levels) of a nation state.
How economic inequality harms societies | Richard Wilkinson
brush
(61,033 posts)
betsuni
(29,078 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)What % of police killings were deemed unjustified? A much smaller #.
The police are allowed to shoot back in all countries.
brush
(61,033 posts)are much higher here in our gun happy version of capitalism.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Iraq has a low death rate because the population is skewed by high demographics in younger ages. USA has lower death rate because the population is younger than Scandinavia.
Look at life expectancies for the real model.
US does not so good.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)So I looked at death rates. It is a bogus to you because it does not back up the ridiculous claim.
BTW the OP gave no evidence of its claim but you apparently have no problem with that.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)electric_blue68
(26,856 posts)
ck4829
(37,761 posts)Reject the notion that the victims of capitalism deserve it, are weaker, are unfit, are less intelligent, etc.
Reject the notion that billionaires are smarter or generally superior to everyone else.
Let's see what happens.
brush
(61,033 posts)are not generally superior to everyone else. Kinda just the opposite in Muck's case.
ck4829
(37,761 posts)You'll still run into people saying "Well if you're so smart, then why aren't YOU a billionaire, huh?!"
brush
(61,033 posts)inheritance from their fathers. Many could do well after inheriting millions. And trump btw, added to his wealth by stealing from his late brother's share of the inheritance, but still went bankrupt several times RUNNING CASINOS.
You might add also that Muck has now lost more than anyone in history as his disastrous running of twitter has causes his Tesla shares wealth to plummet also.
I_UndergroundPanther
(13,369 posts)Yet I hate capitalism regardless.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)It is the kind of anti-liberal bullshit that helps the Republicans (and conservatives elsewhere) keep political power.
Freedom is essential to life in a liberal democracy. That includes economic freedom and respect for human rights.
The alternative, of state run command economies that dismantle private property rights, has left humankind with the worst combinations of economic misery and political tyranny.
Sad to read this crap on a forum for liberal Democrats.
But not that surprising.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)What's worrisome in these days of very thin electoral margins is that the word "socialism" is being used to deceive people on both left and right into not voting for Democrats, and thus against what they do want and need.
2016 -- NEVER AGAIN!
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)betsuni
(29,078 posts)socialism isn't really socialism, it's Social Security and Medicare and equality, so when Republicans call these things socialism it proves socialism is good and capitalism is bad. Or something. Completely unnecessary confusion. I blame the person who started it, for political gain or to destroy the Democratic Party, I guess the reason doesn't really matter anymore because it's out there.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2023, 06:06 PM - Edit history (2)
socialists have using since the beginning -- just claim that whatever "the people" especially value and want to keep ("roads and schools"
is socialist, blame everything bad that happens (floods, famine, Republicans) on capitalism.
Psychologists, not political philosophers, are the ones to explain why some buy it. But everyone who'd, knowing what it was, would give up what they have for socialism could be fit into a state-owned housing project on Rikers' Island.
The real problem, of course, is opposing Democrats themselves as the problem, but those wired to that would find something else to believe if there were no socialists. Itm, these threads on DU are an opportunity to talk about what Democrats and socialists believe in, Big Socialist Lies, and other ways bad operators betray the trust of good people.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)All economic systems are Not strictly capitalist, socialist, communist or feudalism. They are a combination of all of them. Even the US slave economy worked side by side with capitalism. England and Saudi combine feudalism and capitalism in varing degrees. The US has socialist systems in place like SocSec, Medicare and unemployment.
No country is all one economic system. If the US were 100% capitalism, we would look like the early 1900s, with child labor in every factory and store, 24/7 work weeks, no workman's compensation, no disability, short and brutal lifespans for everyone but the filthy rich, workhouses, debtor's prison and a huge swath of workers as servants.
We don't look like that...anymore...because of socialist systems forced onto a capitalist systems.
Everytime there are horrific social ills, socialism solves the problem. Rarely can capitalism solve any social problems.
So yeah, more socialism seems to be the answer.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)and claiming that they are is using a right-wing talking point.
A society having social programs and developing infrastructure has zero to do with having a socialist command economy.
These conflations are oft-repeated, but there are false.
Liberal societies seeks to address the general welfare of their citizens without turning into authoritarian/totalitarian states (of the sorts that never deliver anything but increased human misery).
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)How is Social Security NOT a socialist system? It was promoted by the socialist when FDR implemented it. Since it is difficult to prove a negative, how is Social Security a capitalist system?
Actually I would also add taxation and FDIC as socialist systems. When FDR implemented about a 90% tax on the filthy rich and then used that money to fix prices that was very socialist. The capitalist filthy rich have been having fits every since.
There are many many socialist systems implemented throughout the US. But capitalists are blind to them because it doesn't fit their world view.
Capitalism gave us child labor. Factories are made for children and children are made for factories was their slogan. Capitalism is a very dangerous economic system that must be carefully control to prevent it from destroying democracy. Which is exactly what it is doing now.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Social Security has nothing to do with socialism. FDR was NOT a socialist.
Social Security is a liberal social program that was implemented in a free society was a way to make sure people were less likely to be impoverished in old age.
And calling Social Security "socialism" is the oldest right-wing trope in the book.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)Is the oldest right-wing lie in the right wing history of lies.
Socialism is not a totalitarian method of control like capitalism is. There is no major owner of all the profits and wealth like in capitalism. Socialism is about equally distributing the wealth of our country to all.
Every country has features of numerous other forms of economies. Even Nordic countries have kings and queens but rarely are they considered feudal systems.
Social Security takes from everyone and holds it in a communal system to distribute later among everyone who paid in. The democratic government, representing the whole society, controls this capital and decides how to use it. It is equally distributed among everyone based on age and how much each person puts in.
It also diverts funds for the more needy through disability and survivor benefits. Which is actually communism. From each according to their ability and to each according to their need.
Their are no pure economies. There are no economies that only use one form and not any other form of economic system.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Calling SocSec "socialism" is also a massive SOCIALIST deceit. Not just RW.
SocSec, as a product of liberal progressive ideology, funded by capitalism, is very highly valued by Americans across the political spectrum. Socialists have nothing, so they push the outrageous lie that our social programs are socialism. Not just bait-and-switch deceit, but using stolen bait.
Such a silly, easily disproved lie too.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)producing mass human misery, economic destruction, and political repression--it almost understandable that they'd attempt to claim the progressive accomplishments of the very liberal democracies that they attack, all of which benefit from advanced capitalist economies, as their "own" accomplishes.
As you say, it is totally false and easily disprovable, but that's all they've got.
Reality isn't their friend, but there is this idea that if one keeps claiming falsehoods are true, that some people will be fooled.
I dunno.
This is a forum purportedly for liberal Democrats, right???
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The Democratic Party is America's liberal party, and we're big because half of Americans lean liberal.
Socialism-leaning DUers need to understand that socialism and liberal democracy are incompatible. Bernie does. "I am not, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat." (Not just not a Democrat, not a liberal Democrat.)
Both liberalism and socialism believe in spreading the wealth around," as President Obama put it, but from there to the "ways" that can be done, liberalism remains liberal, but socialism becomes increasingly illiberal, authoritarian, and even anti-democratic (all with good intentions, of course.)
For just one little example of many, socialism is incompatible with Jefferson's very liberal concept of inalienable rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Capitalism has always occurred "naturally" wherever people interact freely and in pursuit of their happiness, requiring no compulsion or government. But socialism is a construct that has to be imposed and maintained by government AND one which requires outlawing competing (OUT-competing!) capitalist interactions.
I.e., liberal democracy provides society with a liberal structure designed to enable as much individual freedom and pursuit of happiness as workable. Liberalism believes in individual freedom -- up to the point where another person's nose begins, and that's where laws and regulations come in.
Socialism, OTOH, requires an authoritarian structure CREATED TO LIMIT important individual freedoms and pursuits of happiness in order to make their universalist socioeconomic system possible.
Hugely different ideas of what government and society should be, and of course the worse socialist states do the stronger the authoritarian controls needed.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)By the same time. You could argue that taxation for anything is socialism.
Socialism is state control of the means of production of a good or service. Nationalization of the petroleum industry (as someone here suggested last week) would be socialism:
I_UndergroundPanther
(13,369 posts)Socialism is the workers owning collectively the means of production. Think co ops.
Top down authoritarian structures use any ism to make themselves on top.
Either you believe all are equality. All deseving of life and security and happiness or you dont .
Vertical power structures or horizontal shared power structures is what its about.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)The only thing socialism about it is it's government run. Other than that, it's the insurance industry writ large.
Oh...and extreme of socialism ( I think it's fair since you brought up an extreme form of capitalism ) killed millions in Russia, Ukraine, China, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam..... Some "workers paradise". Think I'll pass.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Have people here not studied the history of the past 100 years or so?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Speaking of, Venezuela's socialist dictator has greatly strengthened his hold by defeating a democratic attempt to displace him.
But, on the plus side "Venezuela Greets First European Cruise Ship in 15 Years"! AND, although 3/4 of Venezuelans lived in extreme poverty in 2021, a new study claims that dropped to only 50% in 2022. Something for the suffering peoples of capitalist nations to aspire to.
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2023, 01:08 PM - Edit history (2)
system before you can say socialism is the answer. And the answer is there has never been a sustained and successful socialist economy where the state owns the means of production and doles out goods in the classic socialist manner — from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
It's never happened and I doubt it ever will because it goes against human nature which has from earliest times developed trading/bartering systems which are really rudimental forms of capitalism — I nave something you need, you have something I need. Let's make a deal.
And that developed into people specializing in producing what they were good at and learning to make a profit from producing things more and more efficiently so they could be sold at more than they cost to produce.
That sort of natural incentive may be suppressed for a time, even for decades, in a system where a strongman/state takes over the means of production but it is always eventually overthrown as the profit motive persists.
The most successful economies are a mixture or profit motive (regulated capitalism to control greed) and a strong social safety net of benefits to citizens (socialism).
Now we're talking once we get to that sweet spot.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)What you mostly describe as capitalism is merely traditional markets like we had back in ancient Roman times without the slavery and brutality.
You can have markets, trading, money and profits without capitalism. Capitalism is using capital to make more capital. Most very small businesses don't start out as capitalist. A family farm that sells produce at a market is Not capitalism. It is just a traditional market.
Borrowing someone else's capital to start a business could be capitalism but it isn't always.
There never was a country, or major part of a country, that had a sustained and successful capitalist economy during the thousands of years of feudalism. Feudalism eventually took over control of any economies that took hold other than feudalism. The kings would just simply take the profits for themselves, until some kind of laws and democracy prevented it.
So just because you think there hasn't been a sustained and successful socialist economy (There is Mondragon in Spain) doesn't mean there never can be. They thought there were no black swans until they found black swans.
brush
(61,033 posts)making a profit from what is produced. The cruelty and slavery came from laissez faire, unregulated capitalism. I am not advocating that, nor am I unaware of the hardships undured by the proletariat in the socialist/communist economies (very similar to the cruelty and slavery in Laissez faire capitalism) where socialism and it's offshoots have attempted to flourish.
What say you about that? When and where has a socialistic economy survived and flourished?
Also see post 171.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)The biggest trick filthy rich capitalists have done is to convince intelligent people that markets, trading and buying is all capitalism. It is not.
Capitalists like to take credit for it but it was around since ancient man has been. That is Not capitalism. It's just traditional markets.
Using capital to make more capital is capitalism. There were traditional markets in feudalism and slavery economies. People bought and sold stuff, had markets and trades during thousands of years of feudalism and slavery. Capitalism did not become a dominant form of economics until feudalism became stagnant and failing.
Thanks for the discussion. It has been very enlightening.
brush
(61,033 posts)one instance in history where it has succeeded and flourished.
What's up.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)From each according to their ability; to each according to their need. That's Communism.
And honestly, I think the Chinese call their government Socialist but it isn't. It's a totalitarian government ruled by one party which translates into rule by one person.
But then I don't think the US is a democracy anymore. We lost that back in 2000. We have an oligarchy.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)But the economy is run the same way.
Socialism: govt owns means of production
Communism: govt owns everything incld the means of production
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)Communism is about the community owning everything and Socialism is about equality in the economy. Karl Marx thought Communism was the answer not socialism.
But in Russia and China they kind of translated it in a similar fashion and had/have corrupted their governments by it.
The problem is that when people transfer the means of production to the government, it corrupts government officials just like it corrupts the filthy rich.
No one would be going around saying eat the rich if the filthy rich would stop being so corrupt. But they are constantly trying to take over the government, promote racism and misogyny. The filthy rich take away the little that the middle class and poor have. They always turn to crimes like pedophilia and sex slavery, bribery and fraud. Because they can buy their way out of accountability.
And the same thing happens when government officials control the means of production. The early communist thought the citizens would vote out officials who were corrupted. But those corrupted government officials are able to crush democracy and keep control.
And it seems in capitalism the same thing happens. The filthy rich are able to crush democracy and control the government. Welcome to the capitalist dystopia of America. Where a handful of filthy rich men rule our country based on their whims. Not much different from China or the USSR.
Dave says
(5,425 posts)Especially late stage, near-monopoly capitalism.
Millions die and millions more live impoverished lives to greatly enrich a few (think southern hemisphere vs. the north).
Meanwhile capitalism’s never-satisfied appetite for more (for capital to accumulate more capital) erodes the earth’s ability to sustain life as we know it.
Time to think outside the box, if you ask me.
anarch
(6,536 posts)and it's not very useful to argue against objections to capitalism with the unsupported basic stance that "socialism is bad."
In my opinion you've hit on the most crucial issue with capitalism, in that it demands infinite growth on a planet with finite resources, and will literally kill everyone if we don't abandon it as our de facto worldwide religion.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)if they weren't so busy impoverishing and murdering millions and destroying the environment. See the Aral Sea. Oh, sorry. It's hard to see since the "workers paradise" damn near drained it.
See what I did there? I went to the opposite extreme you did to make a point. My point being, why is it when capitalism comes up, some want to start throwing around extremes? Why?
Dave says
(5,425 posts)You just descended into a form of whataboutism, never productive.
If unfettered, near-monopoly capitalism kills millions and impoverishes millions more, it does not matter what non-capitalist dictatorships have done. Unless you're arguing that we live in the best of all possible worlds and things have to be as they are, including the deaths and impoverishments caused by late-stage, near-monopoly capitalism? Those evils are ok because the other side does it too?
BannonsLiver
(20,595 posts)
malaise
(296,118 posts)That is one sick world view.
Marx was right - workers of the world will have to unite or the billionaires will kill all of the rest of us.
Add.
Happy Hoosier
(9,535 posts)I follow a lot of lefties and none of them have proposed a system that passes the laugh test in my view.
I personally think a Social Democracy is the only thing that can possibly work right now. But even then, it's not a perfect solution.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)is the solution.
Happy Hoosier
(9,535 posts)I support the idea of "socialism" as an ideal, but the details matter. What's the actual PLAN!?
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)We can start with Medicare For All & ending a for profit predatory healthcare system based on Capitalism.
The government should provide common services which we rely on, instead what we get is some billionaire who gets to buy another boat and makes his wealth on the back of workers.
Internet access is another. Municipal broadband everywhere. "NextLight" in Longmont, Colorado is a good example of this. It costs 1/4 of what Comcast costs and is one of the fastest ISP's in the country.
Housing For All. Shelter is a human right. Everyone is entitled to a roof over their heads.
On and on and on.....
I'll probably edit this later. I'm in a rush ATM. Too much going on and none of it good.....
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production and distribution.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Blended socialism can work very well with capitalism.
Higher taxes to support social programs mediated by government is a high-functioning model for society. Government can run some things (ownership), partner for other things (guarantee investments for example), pay capitalistic companies for yet other services, and keep hands off most stuff (aside from regulation).
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Modern liberalism and social democratic values are what drive social programs and wealth redistribution in advanced capitalist societies.
Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, with a command economy replacing free markets.
Let's not make false conflations.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Why own means of production? To better distribute the profits.
Why own means of production? To better distribute the production.
Why own means of production? To better distribute the products.
That is all in theory, but it rarely works out that way in practice.
And lets drop pigeon-holing and all-or-nothing categorizations. Especially in the West, we are talking blended systems.
Also, notice I said "socialistic-capitalism", but you choose to attack something I didn't write about.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Instead, dictatorial elites ruin economies and abuse human rights to further their own wealth and power.
"Socialistic-capitalism" is an oxymoron.
Modern liberal all embrace having social programs and the sort of infrastructure that promotes the general welfare. That's modern liberalism in a nutshell.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)People who get hung up on terminology miss the forest for examining the bark of the first tree.
Terminology is important and useful, but when it gets in the way of analysing the blends of functioning societies, it loses a lot of usefulness.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)but not on the mash up of of "socialistic-capitalism" to describe modern liberalism, as it is based on a very false premise.
Terminology *is* important and useful, and when terms are used to advance false concepts it is injurious to vital interest, such as protecting liberalism and liberal democracy from those who would extinguish it given the opportunity.
The threats are very real.
JI7
(93,617 posts)and then look at capitalist countries like Norway and Finland .
ck4829
(37,761 posts)According to data collected by the Commonwealth Fund and published Tuesday, American women have an avoidable mortality rate of 198 per 100,000, the highest of any nation included in the study. The United Kingdom had the next highest rate, at 146 per 100,000.
The US also had the highest maternal mortality rate: 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, more than triple the rate of any other country studied. When looking only at Black maternal mortality, the rate jumped to 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births.
By comparison, in Norway in 2019, the last year for which data was available, there were zero maternal deaths.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/health/us-women-health-care/index.html
We're a capitalist country, correct? Not a socialist country, right?
And our healthcare system runs on capitalism, yes?
So our capitalist healthcare system has failed... or not, because hey, they're just women... poor women... a lot of them are black... not the landed gentry, so... nobodies?
Is it only "failed" when the "important people" suffer?
wnylib
(26,017 posts)American women with "women in 10 other wealthy nations."
That was after asking what are the metrics of "failed?" But you did not attempt to answer your own question. What are you using to measure success or failure in a nation besides posting an article about how the US falls behind other wealthy nations in maternal health care?
BTW, I fully agree that the US needs to do much better in health care, not only in maternity care for women, but in care for all of us. I favor a national health care system like Canada or the UK.
But I do not support socialism as the base for the national economy. The UK and Canada manage to provide good health care for all without eliminating capitalism.
My suggestions are to HALT the Republican push for deregulation. The Republican vision would drag us backward beyond the robber barons, back to a Medieval society of nobility and peasants. We need to bring back and strengthen the regulations from the FDR era. Then define which basic needs that we as a society will support, e.g. health care, housing, and education.
In other words, financial regulations to protect all of us from monopolies in media and corporate control of our political system, as well as to protect small businesses and entrepreneurshjp. We need a blended economy of limited socialism and regulated capitalism.
electric_blue68
(26,856 posts)Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)Government intervention is socialism. No country is 100% capitalism or socialism. Most all developed nations have a combination of the 2.
When capitalism put orphaned and poverty stricken toddlers and young children in factories to work, government had to intervene to protect the children from capitalists. When there is a horrific social problem rarely does capitalism offer a solution.
"In Finland, the government owns nearly one-third of the nation's wealth, and 90 percent of workers are covered by a union contract. That may not be socialism, but it's also not a “capitalist paradise.”"
https://jacobin.com/2019/12/finland-socialism-capitalism-welfare-state
"The Nordics are often characterised as welfare capitalist countries, featuring a combination of free market activity and government." intervention."https://nordics.info/show/artikel/preview-the-nordic-model-and-the-economy
Socialism has not failed when combined with democratic governments. It provides solutions that capitalism can't touch.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Having regulations--ones that strengthen capitalism in these Nordic countries--has nothing to do with state ownership of the means of production and distribution.
These are not socialist states. They are liberal democracies with strong social safety nets, made possible by the wealth-generating capacities of their capitalist economies.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)To backup your claims.
Do you have links to prove what you are saying?
Do you have facts to support your views?
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)economies?
This is really basic stuff.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)Are somehow magically capitalist because they use well regulated and controlled capitalism in some of their other economic systems. They use their democracy and feudalism to protect citizens from capitalism. They also have kings and queens doesn't that make them feudal economies?
No country uses only one system. This is basic stuff.
Emile
(42,289 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Which always ends up being the government.
As to the Nordic countries, are the means of production State owned? No, so not Socialism.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)By the state as in the US.
The government in a democracy is the community as a whole. It isn't in the US. But a lot of the Nordic countries have a more dynamic and active democracy. Even the Nordic countries with kings and queens have more effective democracies than what the US has.
Since they have kings and queens too does that make them feudal economies?
No country is just one system. Even US capitalism has socialist systems. Socialism is much more involved and dynamic than simply who holds all the means of production. In fact with that definition, no country is capitalist either.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)Look at countries like Guatemala, Russia, Malaysia on and on, all are Capitalist countries
paleotn
(22,218 posts)See the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, pre-Deng Xiaoping China. Hell, post Deng Xiaoping China.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)Guatemala, Ecuador, Somalia, Cambodia.
Show this to right wingers XD
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)They are not the means of production.
Highways, police, welfare, social security etc are not socialism, they are what all governments try to provide.
Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Which always ends up being the government and has never worked well.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)If we're talking volunteer vs city vs federal.
But you know that 
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Does not matter of they are volunteer or State or Fed.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)It's closer to communism than socialism.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)Read the UN report on poverty in America. We have millions more living in poverty than Venezuela has
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/15/extreme-poverty-america-un-special-monitor-report
JI7
(93,617 posts)Venezuela .
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)And we now having means tested poverty? Do you not see the problem with that?
JI7
(93,617 posts)venezuela. ANd unlike people coming into the US there are not many restrictions on people from US to go there.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)JI7
(93,617 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)US: The official poverty rate in 2021 was 11.6 percent, with 37.9 million people in poverty.
Venezuela: with a population of 28 million, has for years struggled under economic collapse, leading some 7 million people to flee the country. In 2021, 65.2% of the country's inhabitants lived in poverty according to the study, produced by the social investigations unit of the Universidad Catolica Andres Bello
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)paleotn
(22,218 posts)Stop beating the strawman!
I_UndergroundPanther
(13,369 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)Read the UN Special Report on poverty in America please
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/15/extreme-poverty-america-un-special-monitor-report
Capitalism is literally killing us. Why do you think 1000s die every year from not being able to afford healthcare?
Why do you think the unsheltered crisis is an all time high? Because people can't afford a house or apartment anymore.
A Record Number of Americans Can’t Afford Their Rent
Capitalism is why people don't have more than $400 in savings including yours truly.
40% of Americans don’t have $400 in the bank for emergency expenses: Federal Reserve
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)get on that asap.
malaise
(296,118 posts)The problem remains how to prevent the sabotage from the right.
Like everything else - we need to keep working on this.
Happy Hoosier
(9,535 posts)... I have yet to hear what that means.
I'm a systems engineer. One thing we do is transformation planning. We define the current state of the system and define the desired state of the system and devise a plan to move from the current to desired state.
I never really hear from lefties what exactly that "desired state" is other than very vague descriptions like "workers' cooperatives" or vague discussions of "decommodification." But I never see a detailed end state. And worse, I never see an actual plan of how to get from here to there other than hand-wavy stuff like we always hear from Bernie or Liz. Stuff like "the people of will demand!" or ""the people will rise up." Yeah, that's not a plan.
So to to "work on this" (whcih I agree with), we need to know what that plan looks like and what the next step is.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)Thomas More (1478–1535), book Utopia. In fact he defined the word Utopia.
Karl Marx. He is very long so I tend to read translations of mostly the last part of Capital. He is so prescient of what capitalism would become, it's as if he saw the future. The communist manifesto is a good short piece too.
Richard Wolff's lectures on economy are also very informative. He breaks down how capitalism is affecting our economy and government. He also provided a fascinating description of what Karl Marx was saying. He's a great speaker and has a bunch of talks on line
The reason you have problems visualizing a socialist society is the in the US, they have made every possible effort to crush and destroy socialism. They have labelled it a dangerous way of thinking. Rarely to colleges even teach socialism. Capitalist really hate and fear socialism because it would devalue their wealth.
and people romanticize capitalism (bourgeois economy) as quaint trading of commodities for commodities as a bunch happy artisans.
Vs capitalism as exclusively focusing on PROFIT. So medical and health issues? great more profit. War? great (unless you are in the front lines) great for profit. Climate change? great for profit (well, that is till the end but who cares oil, etc is UP and record profits). Illiteracy? Famine? Water shortages? Who cares profits are up. Throw a marketing team it as long as it doesn't cost too much.
Of course people will claim "that's NOT capitalism" (so call it corporatism I dont care) but it really is whether you like it or not - any mediation or consideration of the human consequences are merely a byproduct of "does it affect profit".
There's a reason "surplus value" is described as coming from LABOR - its what is extracted out of society and redistributed to the wealthy as profit ie taken OUT of the overall population and hoarded. You only have to look at the poster boys of Musk, Bezos, etc to realize how "great" all that works for everyone.
If anyone wants a easy to read book on "different systems of money etc" read Douglass Rushkoff's book "Life Inc"
"'Corporatism didn’t evolve naturally. The landscape on which we are living – the operating system on which we are now running our social software – was invented by people, sold to us as a better way of life, supported by myths, and ultimately allowed to develop into a self-sustaining reality. It is a map that has replaced the territory."
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)But Thomas More's book was a fun read, even if it was filled with run-on sentences.
Locrian
(4,523 posts)
Shrek
(4,428 posts)No thanks.
betsuni
(29,078 posts)
"These kinds of slaves are kept constantly at work, and are always fettered. The Utopians deal with their own people more harshly than with others, feeling that their crimes are worse and deserve stricter punishment because, it is argued, they had an excellent education and the best of moral training, yet still couldn't be constrained from wrong-doing."
Sounds awfully familiar, the purity test. As in, "I've come to the conclusion that the old guard of the Democratic Party is a greater roadblock to progress than Trump is" because corrupt blah blah blah.
Shrek
(4,428 posts)I have no idea how Utopia came to be regarded as some kind of ideal society.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I don't get it, but there you have it.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)It has many flaws.
I found it interesting that they used their criminals as slaves. Sound familiar?
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Celerity
(54,410 posts)The two terms are not at all interchangeable.
The Nordic model of social democracy is not socialist, as we have a vibrant, robust (and well regulated) capitalism-based private sector, that works synergistically with our expansive welfare state (folkhemmet) to provide one of the highest quality of life outcomes on the planet.
Probably my biggest disagreement with Sanders, AOC, et al, is when they falsely self label as democratic socialists, when they and their programmes are just bog standard social democratic ones.
No federally elected US Democrat advocates for the state to take over the means of production (Sanders himself has said he doesn't want that multiple times, as I have posted numerous times here before), which is a core tenet of an actual socialist nation state, democratic or otherwise.
I have been pushing back on this subject here since I joined DU.
malaise
(296,118 posts)Democratic Socialism under Manley was Democratic and functioned with both private and state owned elements of the economy.
What is ironic is that there have been and are many areas where research and development are financed by governments and are eventually privatized. Many other so called private businesses are heavily subsidized by the state in many so called capitalist countries.
I think we should spend more time examining how and why governments find billions to subsidize the rich while health care, education and the social good in general are being destroyed. Apparently socialism for the rich is OK.
Celerity
(54,410 posts)Multiple banks, plus the transport systems, utilities, sugar farms and production, some media outlets (RJR for example), and a majority of bauxite production, a majority of hotels, etc were nationalised.
That is far beyond the remit of present day social democracy, including the Nordic model. I have no quarrel with the PNP attempts being labelled as serious inroads (ultimately failing it must be added) aimed at installing a democratic socialist system.
malaise
(296,118 posts)The JUTC (new name) is still government owned but it is forced to compete with corrupt private owners including politicians and security folks.
It was the JPS as in Jamaica Public Service electricity company.
The government nationalized Barclays in 1977. Why should a pro-apartheid British Bank dominate the financial sector in JA. They only got involved in the hotel industry when foreign owners were shutting down as part of the sabotage. The Water Commission is still government owned.
And yes Manley took control of the bauxite industry. It is our bauxite and the government took majority shares and introduced a tax.
The unfair relationship between multinationals and developing countries is all part of institutional racism. And pressure is applied by Western governments and institutions.
I agree that there are differences between the Nordic countries’ social democracy and democratic socialism in developing countries, but there are socio-economic, political and historical factors that explain this.
Conceptually, I don’t think there are significant differences.
What’s for sure is that the people in the Nordic countries have a significantly better deal.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)and Democratic Socialism. They are not compatible ideologies. One is liberal. One is not.
Where you miss the boat, in my estimation, is on the "self-labeling."
When people tell you who they are, believe them.
Celerity
(54,410 posts)programmes mirror to a significant degree what is extant in the vast majority of the western advanced natiom states already, none of which are socialist. They also do not advocate for a mass expropiation of the means of production like Manley's PNP attempted in Jamaica (discussed above).
To insist that they are socialists (and thus by extension that many of their programmes and policies are socialist) just feeds into a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop, one that the RW exploits to falsely label ALL U.S. Dems and their policies as socialist (and often, even more disingenuously, communist and/or Marxist).
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)The most vocal policies and programs pushed by some Democratic Socialists are not the end of what they hope to achieve.
Don't be naive.
Believe those who tell you who they are. Don't infantilize adults and suggest that you know better than they do which ideologies they embrace. That's a huge mistake.
Celerity
(54,410 posts)https://bigthink.com/the-present/what-is-socialism-bernie-sanders/
snip
He goes a bit into the particulars of policy and explained that his conception of socialism would require — this is what it would look like — universal health care, total employment, free college education, more public spending, a living wage, environmental regulations, and a robust democratic culture to come into existence. He flatly denied any interest in nationalization, telling the audience:
The contents of this speech were very similar to other statements he has made about socialism across his entire political career. The entire speech could have been summed up neatly in a quote he gave to the Associated Press back in 1997:
snip
WAIT A MOMENT, PRAISE FOR THE NEW DEAL? NO INTEREST IN NATIONALIZATION? THAT DEFINITION SOUNDS A LOT LIKE CAPITALISM!
snip
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I know better.
I could provide very different evidence.
Individuals don't get to make up new definitions for established political ideologies and economic terms or provide self-serving "explanations" of long-professed core beliefs. Sorry.
Celerity
(54,410 posts)you said
Sanders, AOC, and the small handful of others are attempting to do just that
They want to re-label social democracy style policies and programmes as somehow (and falsely) being socialist.
They espouse social democracy, yet hubristically try to overturn long, long standing globally accepted definitions.
That in turn aids the RW to broad-brush and falsely tar-and-feather all Dems as being socialist, and our policies as socialist.
Your insistence that NO, they ARE socialists (because some self-label as democratic socialists) despite the actual programmes and policies they espouse simply being bog standard social democracy helps to feed that negative feedback loop as well.
It is every bit as false as when Bernie and others (including many here on DU) call Denmark, Sweden, etc, democratic socialist nations. If (as you correctly acknowledge) we Nordics as NOT democratic socialist nation states, and IF (they often do) Bernie and others hold us up as some of the best run (if not THE best run) nations on the planet, AND state that we are the models the U.S. should try to emulate, then it is clear that Bernie and others BOTH:
1. Want a social democracy-based model
AND YET
2. They also falsely label social democracies as democratic socialism. They do the exact same false/mis-labelling with themselves.
EOS
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I believe the man when he tells us what he is and what he believes.
The record is pretty clear.
Celerity
(54,410 posts)you said
'
well again, his own words (from the article above in my reply):
and
and
Here he is absolutely showing that he is falsely conflating democratic socialism (the actual core tenet of which he flatly denies as wanting to do, see above) with social democracy (policies he wants), again via mislabelling us Nordics. He and AOC, et all, do the same false self-labelling, when they espouse and push social democracy policies, praise Nordic social democracies, but try to call it,(and themselves), democratic socialism (and themselves democratic socialists)
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I could cite an array of counterexamples just as easily that demolish your case.
Believe people when they tell you who they are. Don't rationalize away problematic aspects with fairy tale thinking.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)And not even congruent ones.
Social Democracies all have advanced liberal market capitalist economies that generate the sort of wealth and innovation that makes their generous social programs feasible, combined with political freedom and pluralism.
Democratic Socialism is socialism. Places like Venezuela and Nicaragua, where socialist get voted in, but will they ever leave? Such regiemes destroy economies and show not respect for human rights, with a political hegemony. This is the last sort of "model" that liberals should embrace.
In most ways, these are opposing visions of societal organization. One is liberal, the other is quite anti-liberal.
Don't make very bad choices.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,204 posts)Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Every self-described Democratic Socialist regime has come to initial power via the ballot box, but has then turned authoritarian and dictatorial. They are anti-pluralist, anti-liberal, and abuse human rights, while destroying economic prosperity. Quite a model.
I'll take liberal solutions every time.
Response to Happy Hoosier (Reply #5)
malaise This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(61,033 posts)
Magoo48
(6,721 posts)control over their communities. These groups evolve at their own pace under the tutelage of those who’ve already become successful. Slower communities continue to depend on state and fed services until they strengthen.
Shitcan neoliberalism fast. Spend twice as much on social programs and a fourth as much on MIC. All policy decisions, at every level, must be viewed with the lens of Climate Catastrophe.
This would be a good beginning.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)His ideas ended up killing millions. See Joe Stalin, Mao and the whole communist disaster.
Moderation. That's the ticket. Take what works. A bit of this and a bit of that. discard what's stupid. And above all else, avoid zealots and true believers.
I_UndergroundPanther
(13,369 posts)
2naSalit
(102,801 posts)padfun
(1,897 posts)The autopsy had that and Income inequality as cause of death.
Watch out for those two as they are real killers!!
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Too stupid to get off the RR tracks when a train is coming or what?
And anyone can educate themselves if they desire in the US, library's are in every town.
JI7
(93,617 posts)People that don't support things that would help people because they don't want certain types of people to benefit even though these things benefit all people.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)For profit human rights shouldn't exist.
Capitalism steals from the lower classes to enrich the wealthy.
Poverty crosses racial lines and is a disease we can solve. We only need the will power to do so.
I do understand what you're saying though & without question that certainly does play a part. You'll hear no argument from me on that at all.
malaise
(296,118 posts)That is all
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)ck4829
(37,761 posts)ck4829
(37,761 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2023, 04:19 AM - Edit history (1)
DNA
Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)have a capitalist economic system and those nations kill fewer people than the undeveloped world.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)What socialist state is your model of a good and descent society?
paleotn
(22,218 posts)is because of.....you guess it!....capitalism. Dear god, do you even hear yourself? 
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)And again and again.
Capitalism has killed more people that Socialism has.
Think about it. Wars, not having access to healthcare because they can't afford it, climate change, poverty.
The laundry list is long and goes on for days.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Climate change caused by human pollution was worse in the socialist economy of the Soviet Union, WAY worse.
Poverty is WAY worse in socialists countries, see Venezuela
Dzerzhinsk, a chemical-weapons-production center during Soviet times, and Norilsk, a big mining and metallurgical city.
Three hundred thousands tons of contaminants from chemical-weapons production were buried in Dzerzhinsk between 1930 and 1998, according to a study by Green Cross and the consulting company Blacksmith in 2011. No fewer than 190 different chemicals contaminate not only the earth but also the groundwater, the report said.
The study blamed the pollutants for a surge in eye, lung and kidney cancer in the area. The researchers noted that the average life expectancy in the city and its surroundings in 2006 was only 47 for women and 42 for men.
Lake Karachay, where the nearby city of Chelyabinsk dumped radioactive waste from its nuclear-materials processing facilities during Soviet times.
The lake is so radioactive that visitors are warned not to walk along its shores for more than an hour, lest they suffer irreversible health damage.
You can see mind-boggling signs of pollution in the mining and smelting city of Leninsk-Kuznetski. Coal dust and ash cover the ground, and the Ilya River is so full of chemicals that it will not freeze in winter even when the temperature is well below freezing.
See:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764
Venezuela: with a population of 28 million, has for years struggled under economic collapse, leading some 7 million people to flee the country. In 2021, 65.2% of the country's inhabitants lived in poverty according to the study, produced by the social investigations unit of the Universidad Catolica Andres Bello.
The US rate is 11%
Polybius
(21,902 posts)Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)What about the millions of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin? What about the tens of thousands of Poles executed and buried in mass graves following the invasion of Poland in the second world war? You can't compare that to manufactured claims of deaths blamed on capitalism. Where are the death certificates?
Unlike the communist dictatorships, we have a free press. We are so free that ridiculous claims spread on the internet.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)in this country, the largest mass genocide in history all because of what? Capitalism.
Now add on all the millions who have died in the last 125 years in the United States because they didn't have healthcare.
Stalin was awful but that shouldn't be a denial of Socialism as a whole. Let's be honest, what is so bad about workers owning the means of production anyways? It sure beats the uber wealthy owning everything.
Socialism centers humanity and like Capitalist ideologies, there are many different ideologies & parties under the banner. Stalin isn't Cesar Chavez as example nor is he Eugene Debs.
Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)Do you have any idea?
anarch
(6,536 posts)in the undeveloped countries, which take the brunt of exploitation
Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)and the massive population increases in the undeveloped world, life expectancy has increased. India has gone from 42.4 years in 1962 to 69.9 in 2020. The world went from 52.6 to 72.7 in the same period.
Life Expectancy of the World Population
Life expectancy at birth. Data based on the latest United Nations Population Division estimates.
See also: Population
See also: Countries in the world ranked by Life Expectancy
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
During this same period, the Indian population approximately tripled.
This claim that capitalism causes deaths is contradicted by the actual, recorded data.
Emile
(42,289 posts)mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)in America says it all. I believe the lack of access to a flawed healthcare system coupled with nearly unlimited access to deadly firearms are the worst problems in America.
ck4829
(37,761 posts)Every bankruptcy stemming from medical debt is a policy failure.
Every maternal mortality death is a policy failure.
Every death from a condition that should be treatable is a policy failure.
Every medical bill sent to collections is a policy failure.
Every mass shooting that is linked to a shooter with parents who thought guns were a substitute for therapy and medication is a policy failure.
Period.
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)period!
GoodRaisin
(10,922 posts)paleotn
(22,218 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2023, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)
and don't suffer from the same healthcare debacle we do. It ain't capitalism itself. It's greedy Americans.
Ziggysmom
(4,123 posts)it's hard to choose the worst 
purr-rat beauty
(1,257 posts)Insurance and healthcare for profit?
ck4829
(37,761 posts)
Faux pas
(16,357 posts)for the TRUTH! 
FakeNoose
(41,634 posts)There's a lot of blame in that one - a lot of negligence, corporate greed and indifference to the suffering of others.
I think this list (from the OP) has some overlapping numbers - for instance "low education" and "income inequality" are certainly overlapping. Also it's hard to assign the blame to capitalism when these things can also exist in a democratic-socialist setting.
I doubt that Columbia University is going to sponsor a study of the opioid scandal though.
Just sayin'
ck4829
(37,761 posts)So it's a WIN and you're a horrible person if you even think of looking at it through any other lens.
... from me, anyway.
FakeNoose
(41,634 posts)They wouldn't show up in this study because they don't fit the criteria for Columbia. That's my guess.
Yes I realize you're being sarcastic. No offense taken.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Because our society is organized along capitalism rather than communism, things like sewers and sanitation are efficiently enabled by pipe manufacturers, digging equipment manufacturers and so forth.
Mind you, it is regulated capitalism, so cars have to have seatbelts and airbags and three brake lights, etc. Capitalism did provide those. Volvo introduced seatbelts and only later did they become required.
Never forget that in societies without capitalism (Soviet Russia, North Korea) life expectancy is significantly lower (hence deaths) than in capitalistic societies, especially socialistic-capitalistic societies. When food is efficiently available, people live longer. When well-regulated capitalism is functioning, industries are more efficient and less polluting so people live longer and more happily (happiness also increases longevity). Cuba is an exception to the communism rule because their society has focused heavily on healthcare, to the extent that they export it as services.
The problem is not capitalism or socialism or communism (though the last is not on the table). Nor do you require authoritarianism to get trains to run on time. They can make them run on time, but so inefficiently there ends up being fewer trains.
The problem is that the benefits of capitalism are not well distributed.
The society is rich enough to provide a basic income to everybody, a room with a locking door, and health care insurance. Everywhere those three things are provided, social costs go down and on balance governments (taxpayers) have to spend less while more people are able to get and keep jobs. Win-win.
The problem is that there is unsustainable wealth and income inequality. Sorry to have to say this (not really): the solution is to tax the rich like they were taxed in the Fifties when the groundwork for modern society was being laid down so successfully (interstates, public education, scientific research). That lead to groundbreaking social changes then and in the Sixties (integration, end to racial laws, emancipation of women) and beyond.
We are so close as a society to breaking through to a much better more harmonious world.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)
gulliver
(13,985 posts)anarch
(6,536 posts)somebody or other said that, I think...why do you say it's "not on the table?"
p.s. capitalism didn't produce all those benefits; labor did
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Boosting extremes denies the broad middle where rational choices are usually located.
Why is communism not on the table for USA and the West?
1. It's a dictatorship.
2. It's inefficient because it is command-and-control top to bottom.
3. It's proven a failure where it has been tried.
1. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat or the peasants or the Politburo or the Party. It's not democratic despite the names.
2. Command and control is slow to respond to changes, is slow because of bureaucratic ass-covering and forms in triplicate and fails due to automatic corruption.
3. It failed in the Soviet Union and Maoist China. Both abandoned it.
These facts are well-known.
anarch
(6,536 posts)in that one system is focused on increasing an imaginary/ideal concept of profit, and the benefits to society in that case are more of a side effect, where the other is intended to maximally benefit and improve the material conditions of all people in the society. So in that sense I am an all or nothing thinker--I am fundamentally opposed to having an economic system that prioritizes profit over all else forced on us, and I would prefer to live in a society where we are all cared for and look out for each other, rather than one where we are pitted against one another to best increase the wealth of those at the top.
I don't see the things that you mention as inherently necessary for a society if people have embraced a communist approach such that it doesn't need to be forced on anyone; maybe give up on the command-and-control aspects and don't do all those things that clearly didn't work in previous attempts to get there--I think truly embracing democracy (and not just name-checking the concept) is key to that, but democracy requires participation...and anyway, it's never going to work on a planet where there is an all-encompassing capitalist hegemony where any attempt to live in some way that seems aimed at communism is actively disrupted and frustrated by the capitalists.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)1. Capitalism is an ideal. Socialism is an ideal. Communism is an ideal.
2. When you define capitalism as all-in for an extreme goal that is anti-people, well yeah, we don't want that.
Good thing capitalism as practiced in various places around the world is not anywhere anything like you have defined it, except possibly Russia. That country is first and foremost a dictatorship and capitalism is dominant there because of a vacuum. There is a huge amount of government intervention in the economy because A) it needs propping up, and B) see point about it being a dictatorship above all else.
Nice looking straw man you set up there.
1. The only possible forms of communism on a national scale is a dictatorship, not the ideal of "maximally benefit and improve all people".
2. Communism kills more people than capitalism. Evidence: Maoism, Pol Pot, Eastern European pollution, and much more.
3. Communism has always failed on national scale.
anarch
(6,536 posts)They seem to be doing not so bad these days, certainly better than when they were under colonial rule. Or does that not count, since it exists in a capitalist world that we're all forced to exist in, therefore any "success" of any nation is due to capitalism and in spite of their stated national economic system? Because that's the preferred narrative?
I'm not even going to bother with your points 1 and 2, not because I agree with those points, but b/c this is clearly a pointless conversation since you have made up your mind and will not be swayed by any contrary evidence or logic that I or anyone else could bring.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)
paleotn
(22,218 posts)that the right does to socialism. Builds a straw man and then beats the shit out of it. Akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
OK, what kind of capitalism are we talking about here? Complete laissez faire capitalism? Reaganomics? Thatcherism? Those are different animals compared to the well regulated capitalism one sees in more civilized parts of the West.
First off, it's not an either / or deal, capitalism and socialism. It's a continuum where the extremes are unworkable long term for most people. But there are sweet spots in the middle where one reaps the benefit of both lines of thinking.
Let me put it this way. Capitalism is like fire. If contained and controlled, it can keep you warm, cook your food and a whole host of other benefits. Uncontrolled, it will burn down your house and kill you. On the other extreme, remember that "workers of the world unite!" also gave us Joe Stalin and Mao.
gulliver
(13,985 posts)So, as a firm believer in democracy and the right of one-person-one-vote, I have to say that the results are in. No Democratic leaders attack Capitalism. Democrats are a better friend to Capitalism, by far, than Republicans.
Those who want to talk about how Capitalism is bad are, imo, misguided and very few in number, but they have the right to speak—for themselves. Let's just make sure that we all know that Democrats are opposed to anti-capitalist theories as a matter of democratic, "voice of the people" fact.
Social justice theorists don't seem to look in the mirror much. They might not like what they see when it comes to who is really fostering social ills. It's them.
ck4829
(37,761 posts)According to data collected by the Commonwealth Fund and published Tuesday, American women have an avoidable mortality rate of 198 per 100,000, the highest of any nation included in the study. The United Kingdom had the next highest rate, at 146 per 100,000.
The US also had the highest maternal mortality rate: 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, more than triple the rate of any other country studied. When looking only at Black maternal mortality, the rate jumped to 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births.
By comparison, in Norway in 2019, the last year for which data was available, there were zero maternal deaths.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/health/us-women-health-care/index.html
I'm kind of intrigued as to how social justice theorists are fostering that particular social ill. How does that work?
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)
jalan48
(14,914 posts)that depends on greed and unlimited growth function in a world of scarcity? Will our public water systems stay public or will they be bought by corporations who will make trillions of dollars selling us what is needed to sustain life?
anarch
(6,536 posts)since that is the aim of a capitalist system--I think it probably can, as it has been historically very innovative at finding ways to keep making a profit when everything seems hopeless. The owner class will just have to find some way of squeezing profit out of people's misery and desperation, likely along the lines of what you describe, selling us water and air and such. And really, as long as the capitalists' relative wealth keeps increasing, capitalism will have succeeded. Eventually they can perhaps just put all the profit/wealth data into a computer program and install it on a satellite or something, so it can keep that line of profit generation going up up up, based on whatever innovative imaginary situation they can come up with to make it keep increasing, even after all life on the planet has been destroyed.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)I think we should call it dystopian capitalism.
RANDYWILDMAN
(3,163 posts)and they and their public mouthpieces have made the word dirty.
We need to swing services, wages and unions back into the picture.
Healthcare can't be a for profit business that people make money off of
restructure the retirement system, from on your own to something more by strengthening and over funding Social security
Corporate personhood has to go, they can wreck and rape the world and yet their responsible for nothing. except profit for shareholders
Some kind of election reform, too much dark/blood money in politucs
You can't have 600 or so millionaires representing so many people in poverty or near poverty they just don't understand your life and why you can't seem to get ahead.
The military budget needs to shrink, period, too much fat and too much profit. My grandparents in the Navy washed their own clothes my step brother had a contractor wash his clothes and he was not allowed (WTF)
myohmy2
(3,721 posts)...it's just about killed me...
...capitalism...
I_UndergroundPanther
(13,369 posts)And I have good and logical reasons to dispise it.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Venezuela?
Cuba?
Cuban-born UPS driver's reaction to first paycheck goes viral
PHOENIX, Ariz. (WKRC) -
A UPS driver who was born in Cuba went viral after his wife recorded him getting his first paycheck.
Yoel Diaz says, before he came to the US, he was struggling so much he could barely fill his refrigerator.
"Water, water, water, five, ten eggs, water," Diaz said, was usually all he had in it.
Back then, he was working as a computer science teacher for $12 a month.
"This is my first hourly paycheck that I feel every hour counted, that every hour of work has importance in my life and that I know I can work hard for something," Diaz said in the video. "I can't compare that emotion with anything, because I never had that in my country."
https://local12.com/news/offbeat/cuban-born-ups-drivers-reaction-first-paycheck-goes-viral-yoel-diaz-immigration-immigrant-social-media-clip-views-united-states-postal-service-phoenix-arizona?-fbpost-american-dream&fbclid=IwAR2z7wLS3STE6lzd2BD4GXRJ4mGvYD9_4KfcJ0iu0Ivhs_HePxwtlDMDNiM
I_UndergroundPanther
(13,369 posts)Capitalism is going to destroy this planet and all life with it
Just because I got born into a cruel exploitative system does mot mean I have to like it or feel positive about what it does.
Either way we better think up a new way or we are dead. We invented capitalism,we can get rid of it too.
Running an economy on greed as its basis was bound to fail most everyone.
mahatmakanejeeves
(69,854 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2023, 10:57 PM - Edit history (2)
That's not what the study found. Keep going.
No, they don't. Let's do a text search of the study. You can find it here:
August 2011: Estimated Deaths Attributable to Social Factors in the United States
The word "capitalism" does not appear in the study.
The term "social ills" does not appear in the study.
The text string "ills" does not appear in the study.
Invisible People is lying. Why do you suppose they would do that?
Can you find a source for your assertion that isn't based on a lie? Thanks.
Always go to the source.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)You may wish to read the study.
Capitalism is literally killing us.
mahatmakanejeeves
(69,854 posts)The study never said that. Invisible People claimed it did. They made up a conclusion to fit their agenda. As have you.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)I have an agenda? Ya like wanting everyone including you to have healthcare & not lose everything they own due to medical bills.
My agenda is Big Poor.
What do you think is causing all of that? I mean come on now lol Let's not be silly.
It's CAPITALISM.
Quit making excuses for a system which allows 10s of 1000s to die every year because they can't afford healthcare.
Are you a landlord?
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Even when the means are resorting to dishonesty?
betsuni
(29,078 posts)just enough of the pie not to make a fuss about it."
leftstreet
(40,681 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Yes, that's what it is - they try to call it their "hard work."
Maybe someone with more imagination who works hard should have more money, but to what extent?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Anyone noticed that, while our nation has taken enormous economic hits over the past 6 years, our governments have been able to handle them so the people have been able to continue life mostly as before?
The answer is not to get rid of the wealth but to get rid of the ultrawealthy, ultrapowerful classes through taxation and regulation.
100 million Democratic voters can DESTROY the new ultrawealthy classes even faster than we allowed them to develop and in the process redistribute our national wealth competently and justly.
Happily for the future, it's VERY doable, even eventually inevitable.
(In comparison, socialism with its supposedly egalitarian poverty and limited economic freedoms CAN'T happen here. Not while Americans can vote. Its appeal is strictly to a fringe niche mentality.)
Celerity
(54,410 posts)the rate for American children is far higher (and will only go up from this map below, due to the expanded CTC having ended thanks to Manchin)
so this, your statement:
is a curious one
and, as stated above,
that 37.9 million overall number will blow back up as the expanded Child Tax Credit was killed off by Manchin (one of his excuses was he that people often used it for drugs, smdh)
Joe Manchin Privately Told Colleagues Parents Use Child Tax Credit Money On Drugs
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-manchin-build-back-better-child-tax-credit-drugs_n_61bf8f6be4b061afe394006d
How Joe Manchin killed Biden's child tax credit
The loss of Biden’s expansion of the child tax credit has meant an increase in child poverty by something like 41 percent.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/how-joe-manchin-killed-biden-s-child-tax-credit-n1294320
Nearly 4 million children fall into poverty as expanded child tax credit ends
https://news.yahoo.com/nearly-4-million-children-fall-into-poverty-as-expanded-child-tax-credit-ends-163644670.html
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)draw back to look around at reality. Also at what poverty is. America's rich, rich, rich, and even American poverty is rich compared to poverty in poor nations.
I stand on our obvious reality of incredible, unprecedented prosperity, Celerity, unimaginable to most even 50 years ago, and we were wealthy then. Our problem of course is maldistribution of wealth.
As our current administration showed by making our child poverty number plummet 30% from one month to the next by enacting the temporary expanded child tax credit.
So easy to move wealth around. We do it all the time. What kind of mass mindf*king has been taking place that an additional 20M, 50M, 100M people don't just vote to do it better? Like Democrats do.
Mindf*king from one quarter takes the form of distraction from tending to our wealthy house to insisting it has to be torn down and replaced -- with an extremist LW authoritarian fairy tale that eliminates much wealth itself through inefficient economic functioning, while (theoretically) socially everyone would be content to live on equal shares of collective production and committee-decided benefits. (America's people?! 
Not to worry.)
In this era troubled by too much change too fast, including increased income inequality, extremism has grown and to some extent even infected the mainstream. That's the reason some are even talking about a LW authoritarian system on a Democratic forum, while some on RW forums eagerly espouse RW forms of authoritarian extremism. It'll pass, though, and shrink back to the fringes.
The Republican circus resumes in the house before long. When will one of the clowns become ringmaster?
Celerity
(54,410 posts)you also said:
Chalk and cheese. The far more apt comparison is to other advanced, wealthy nations. Also, the whole 'American poverty is rich' is problematic in its framing, and echoes constructions and rationalising from quarters who definitely are not part (neither politcally or structurally) of the solutions.
You also help make my point about the systemically flawed American model of capitalism (versus, for example, the far less rapacious Nordic model, which is NOT socialism) when you said:
On that we agree.
The United States Used to Have Scandinavia-Levels of Income Inequality
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/w9l7s7/oc_the_united_states_used_to_have/
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to accuse them of what they do not mean are wrong. Impede personal understanding, and god knows others are working way too hard on that to add to it.
Those who want to buy the capitalism requires poverty line for themselves of course have a right to, but their rights stop where another man's nose begins. They need to be honest in describing it to others. Various forms of socialism are real, and it IS possible to discuss real things honestly (including capitalism).
When an ideology cannot be promoted to others by truth, and socialism's advocates do widely depend on deceit, what are they doing? That's bad enough, but what about all those who've avoided knowing what socialism is and focus eagerly instead on dystopian deceits about what would have to be given up for it?
George Orwell, a knowledgeable socialist who lived through the last major period of societal anxiety, said most "socialists" he ran across then were very unserious and ignorant about it. (His actual description's a hoot!) While everyone needs security, some crave a lot more than others, and in times of anxiety longing grows for a world that will provide it better than democracy ever will. Even if that means refusing to believe anything suggesting that authoritarian security is...less than rosy and less than secure. And not caring that it'd have to be imposed on vast majorities who don't want it (very anti-democratic!).
Again, when society stabilizes again, the appeal of various authoritarian "improvements" to the imperfections and insecurities of "too much" individual freedom in liberal democracies will mostly disappear. Again.
Itm, no doubt everyone here can at least agree that socialism does not provide an excuse for those who bemoan poverty to fail to vote Democratic every time to lessen it, even if that means voting to make capitalism work better for all by regulating it. Pending the revolution, of course.
Celerity
(54,410 posts)I have never in my life advocated for socialism.
I have never said that capitalism automatically equals poverty.
I believe in capitalism, I just want it practiced in the US far more along the lines of the Nordic model, with far better regulation, a far more widespread and healthy labour union system, along with it (the capitalist private sector) buttressing a more expansive social welfare state. I want a removal (as much as it possible) of the profit motive from certain fundamental human rights where it exists (in the US), like healthcare.
I have also never advocated for a 3rd party, and have always voted straight Dem since the first time I voted in the US (well from overseas in that case), right after I turned 18 in 2014.
Your reply just now is written and constructed in such a way as though I am doing things or have advocated for things I never have.
So strawman indeed, but certainly not from me.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)their own ideological preferences constitutes a straw-man argument of the most egregious sort.
Celerity
(54,410 posts)on here over the years backing up what I posit (and far from just with you).
I did not say they were confused. I said they were under the hubristic notion that they could simply rename bog standard social democracy and its attendant policies as some being 'democratic socialism', AND also that they could extend that renaming to us Nordic nations and our systems of economics and governance.
You always come in with same hackneyed argument, repeated ad nauseum, from thread to thread, month over month, with nothing of import backing it up other than a framework that apparently consists mainly of the idea that you simply claiming something to be true somehow makes it true.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I realize you have a bunch of material that you cut and paste over and over again that is used to suggest that major political figures don’t understand their own political ideologies, but those are not at all persuasive.
And, frankly, it is a bit insulting to those politicians who openly embrace democratic socialism to claim that they are either highly ignorant of their politics or dishonest.
The difference between liberal social democracy and democratic socialism is such a huge chasm that no person of good faith and political acumen could confuse them—as you have rightfully argued yourself.
There is nothing remotely hackneyed about saying believe people when that tell you who they are, and that’s especially true when in comes to a personage who has called for the nationalization of major industries.
Your ongoing attempt to claim that those who embrace democratic socialism don’t know their own minds is unpersuasive and more than a little bit insulting.
Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #223)
Celerity This message was self-deleted by its author.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)People who have full time jobs and yet live like this:
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts) Bonx
(2,353 posts)Locutusofborg
(580 posts)3,659,289 babies in 2021 and probably even more in 2022.
mahatmakanejeeves
(69,854 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(26,956 posts)electric_blue68
(26,856 posts)I learned about it via Thom Hartmann in the (RIP) Air America days.
And still not that many people know about it.
From USHistory.org
Historic Documents
The Economic Bill of Rights
January 11, 1944
Often referred to as the "Second Bill of Rights"
Excerpted from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's message to Congress on the State of the Union. This was proposed not to amend the Constitution, but rather as a political challenge, encouraging Congress to draft legislation to achieve these aspirations. It is sometimes referred to as the "Second Bill of Rights."
"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
Seems like had this really been achieved we'd be in a much better place.
betsuni
(29,078 posts)And Why We Need It More Than Ever" in 2006 and said, "If a Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2008 were to take up Sunstein's modern update of Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights, he or she would certainly win the election." This is where the idea comes from. FDR liberalism.
Sunstein was a regulatory czar in the Obama administration. Bernie Sanders didn't vote for his confirmation -- you'd think he would have because he later talked about revolution and the Second Bill of Rights, too.
electric_blue68
(26,856 posts)Sounds like Bernie was wrong on that.
And after reading most of that long 😄 thread will finish up tomorrow looks like my ideal is pushing the USA towards a more Social Democracy model
But we have to get through the next 2 yea s AND keep the Presidency The Senate AND win back The House with better margins in both Houses.
I_UndergroundPanther
(13,369 posts)And those who benefit from capitalism the most will do everything they can to kill any bill of economic rights in this country.
The wealthy started the class war with slavery and they continue it via capitalism.
electric_blue68
(26,856 posts)unfortunately, as well as keeping our democracy.