In summary? As far as Karl Marx was concerned, I tend to agree with his assessment that if anything trumps nationalities, it is class. And it is hard to deny there are really to main classes, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat.
But that's as far as Marx was right in my opinion. Most of these political philosophers did fine in identifying the problems of society. But once they proposed their solutions to fixing them, they quickly became pretty inconsistent.
I understand the flaws of capitalism. I really do. But I've always sensed an even greater fallacy in communism. In principle, its a nice idea. In practice, it is too susceptible to human corruption and opportunism. And yes, I know most communists would reply, "And capitalism isn't?" Sure it is. Absolutely. I suppose the difference I see in capitalism and communism is that in capitalism you have a fairer chance to make it without as much interference from the government.
I understand I've never lived in a communist country. But even if there was no corruption in communism, it's such a bureaucratic nightmare to run such a system. Socialism is bad enough with all its red taping and heavily regulated labor markets and industries. But that doesn't mean either that governments like the U.S. can't afford to be a little more socialistic. Because it can in my opinion.
I don't believe a perfect form of government is possible. I don't believe in a utopian society. In fact I think its our kinks in the system that always keeps society innovative and resourceful. But without the kind of oversight that rarely exists in communism, the kinks rarely surface for everyone to see, where they can be scrutinized and analyzed by everyone. And so problems get buried deep so those in power can ultimately stay in power for their own benefit. This is not the aim of communism obviously. But it's one of communisms biggest weaknesses.
And strangely enough, the communist countries of the 21st century are adapting to the global market by embracing capitalism economically, but they still struggle with adopting the social aspects that are inherent in a free market society. This is part of the problem with China. The country is doing phenomenally well economically, but socially there are so many problems that stem from capitalism because they haven't embraced the democratic part of it that usually works well with capitalism.
You have a lot of people who are prospering, but then you also have a vast number of rural Chinese who are still very poor. This may be because the country's GDP has grown to so fast. But within the cities even, oppression is still rampant and citizens are heavily censored.
At any rate, I don't think any communist country today is something that Karl Marx would endorse. I think he'd be appalled even at the communist countries that call themselves so. And so I guess there remains a difference between a communist country and the basic principles behind the Communist Manifesto.
i hate it when some dictator twists the ideal image with propaganda and censorship. i have lived in a communist country, China, but nowadays its more capitalistic than some parts of the States and Europe, and i didnt really live there in poverty either...or that long...but i visit... :confused:
but when i read about what chairman mao did, its just horrible and a complete reverse of 'ideal.' When bourgeois was considered bad, and history, books, artifacts and so much of a rich past was burned and the citizens treated so harshly and lived skimming the poverty line, whats even close to utopia? when the regular men worked in fields and faced accusations of being bourgeois, which resulted in torture sometimes as punishment and excommunication (a lot like witch trials), while the party officials enjoyed all the vices and pleasures of fine suites and good food...its just corrupt.
i mean the idea is great, its just not in human nature though, to act in that ideal way and live like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Well, I'm a left-ist libertarian. So... (Leftist as in socialist, not democrat.)
The government needs to regulate the economy, and keep shit like the oil shit from going to 4 bucks a gallon, and stoping Microsoft from it's monopoly. However, in private matters such as marrige and abortion and what-not, keep it to the people, Socialistic nature in economy, capitalistic nature in society.
Well, I'm a left-ist libertarian. So... (Leftist as in socialist, not democrat.)
The government needs to regulate the economy, and keep shit like the oil shit from going to 4 bucks a gallon, and stoping Microsoft from it's monopoly. However, in private matters such as marrige and abortion and what-not, keep it to the people, Socialistic nature in economy, capitalistic nature in society.
oil cant really be controlled by any government unless its self-sustaining, OPEC decides what we pay at pumps.
what you are saying is less laissez-faire and more regulation. i see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
We gotta make a change...
It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes.
Let's change the way we eat, let's change the way we live
and let's change the way we treat each other.
You see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do
what we gotta do, to survive. Tupac Shakur
100% Legit baal runners SICK_Bambi 93 Barb (46th barb)
SICK_Paladin 95 Necromancer (12th necro)
SICK_ferret 95 Assassin (10th sin) ~~us West Ladder~~
Except, Communism hasn't been given a realistic chance to work. Russia was...well...complicated. There was no way such a spaciously populated country such as that would work. However, a country like the US or Japan, or England or the like could possibly pull it off. Maybe not pure Communism, but some form or another.
Also, Russia was not Marx's vision. And Marx was a very ideological in his youth, he became more realistic with his Communistic ideas in his later years. (And no, Marx is not my favorite Commie.)
personally i want some mix between socialism and capitalism, capitalism allows for more freedom of the markets which could be good or bad, but socialism controls the production which could be better for the econemy in many cases. i dont know enough to fully have a opinion.
Except, Communism hasn't been given a realistic chance to work. Russia was...well...complicated. There was no way such a spaciously populated country such as that would work. However, a country like the US or Japan, or England or the like could possibly pull it off. Maybe not pure Communism, but some form or another.
Russia's almost always been a total disaster. They get slapped with a tyrant at least once a century. It's absurd.
I agree with you LinkX. A combination of the two is the best choice. What is important to note when debating capitalism and communism is recognizing the role of government and business. In my opinion, the government's role is to protect the rights and well-being of its citizens. The role of the business is to make money. That, in many cases, works against citizens. This is why government regulation is needed.
Another thing to note, the problem with socializing industries is that by de-privatizing it, you're removing competition. That means less efficiency. Take, for example, education. Teachers are protected by a very powerful union, not to mention they have tenure after a few years. Not very long. No competition means less efficiency. Some might say education as a whole should be privatized in order to improve. But to totally privatize it would deny many the opportunity to have an education. That is why I simply advocate that the teaching profession should be privatized. Tenure should be guaranteed after much longer than a few years.
An example from the other side. Health care and insurance. Totally privatized. Totally business. Insurance companies make their money by making sure you don't get money for health care. Clinics and hospitals are geared towards profit. My solution, instead of private insurance, we should have government insurance. Steady rates for everyone based on your income bracket. In other words, a progressive income tax. While many might argue that it is not fair that those who work harder for their money have to lose more and still live like everyone else. Again, a compromise is needed between capitalist and communist philosophy. Hypothetically, let's say there are three income brackets:
-$50,000
-$100,000
-$150,000
I know it's a gross oversimplification, but bear with me. With a base income tax of 10% and a progression of 5% as you rise a bracket, the math works out like this:
-$50,000 income - 10% income tax
-$100,000 income - 15% income tax
-$150,000 income - 20% income tax
Now, let's take a look at income after taxation:
-$50,000 income - $45,000 post-tax income
-$100,000 income - $85,000 post-tax income
-$150,000 income - $120,000 post-tax income
Now, the figures can be different, based on context. I'm being very general about this. But I'm simply laying out theory here. As you can see, the wealthy are still contributing more to social programs like socialized insurance (everyone is insured, medicine is still a private practice, thus efficiency remains high). But hard workers can still reap the fruits of their labor. If they work hard, they can still enjoy the nice home, the nice car, etc. You'll be narrowing the gap between the rich and poor. But the contrast of the two is still necessary. There will always be a lower and upper class. It's just the way it works. There always needs to be social mobility.
Now, I know an issue would be for businesses like pharmaceutical companies to raise prices on medicine. Anti-trust laws should be geared to address the issue of predatory business practices such as trying to break the system. I think we can all agree that medicine is absurdly expensive. Although it is highly expensive to produce new medication, there must be pressure to lower prices after businesses have been able to profit.
The government? The government... a load of crap. If I could live by myself and a few close friends - a small community - I would. We should be able to be responsible over ourselves, and our families, without interference.
Don't get me wrong, I understand it all much better than that, but the situation I jotted down would suit me just fine. My escape is to take a backpack, and enter the wilderness for a week or 3.
Russia's almost always been a total disaster. They get slapped with a tyrant at least once a century. It's absurd.
I agree with you LinkX. A combination of the two is the best choice. What is important to note when debating capitalism and communism is recognizing the role of government and business. In my opinion, the government's role is to protect the rights and well-being of its citizens. The role of the business is to make money. That, in many cases, works against citizens. This is why government regulation is needed.
Another thing to note, the problem with socializing industries is that by de-privatizing it, you're removing competition. That means less efficiency. Take, for example, education. Teachers are protected by a very powerful union, not to mention they have tenure after a few years. Not very long. No competition means less efficiency. Some might say education as a whole should be privatized in order to improve. But to totally privatize it would deny many the opportunity to have an education. That is why I simply advocate that the teaching profession should be privatized. Tenure should be guaranteed after much longer than a few years.
An example from the other side. Health care and insurance. Totally privatized. Totally business. Insurance companies make their money by making sure you don't get money for health care. Clinics and hospitals are geared towards profit. My solution, instead of private insurance, we should have government insurance. Steady rates for everyone based on your income bracket. In other words, a progressive income tax. While many might argue that it is not fair that those who work harder for their money have to lose more and still live like everyone else. Again, a compromise is needed between capitalist and communist philosophy. Hypothetically, let's say there are three income brackets:
-$50,000
-$100,000
-$150,000
I know it's a gross oversimplification, but bear with me. With a base income tax of 10% and a progression of 5% as you rise a bracket, the math works out like this:
-$50,000 income - 10% income tax
-$100,000 income - 15% income tax
-$150,000 income - 20% income tax
Now, let's take a look at income after taxation:
-$50,000 income - $45,000 post-tax income
-$100,000 income - $85,000 post-tax income
-$150,000 income - $120,000 post-tax income
Now, the figures can be different, based on context. I'm being very general about this. But I'm simply laying out theory here. As you can see, the wealthy are still contributing more to social programs like socialized insurance (everyone is insured, medicine is still a private practice, thus efficiency remains high). But hard workers can still reap the fruits of their labor. If they work hard, they can still enjoy the nice home, the nice car, etc. You'll be narrowing the gap between the rich and poor. But the contrast of the two is still necessary. There will always be a lower and upper class. It's just the way it works. There always needs to be social mobility.
Now, I know an issue would be for businesses like pharmaceutical companies to raise prices on medicine. Anti-trust laws should be geared to address the issue of predatory business practices such as trying to break the system. I think we can all agree that medicine is absurdly expensive. Although it is highly expensive to produce new medication, there must be pressure to lower prices after businesses have been able to profit.
Call it socio-capitalism. XD
government provided healthcare is a GREAT idea, however, it also drastically reduces efficiency. i have a friend from canada, and he said that their healthcare system is far inferior in terms of service. he mentioned long lines and bad doctors, long waits and slow treatment. now that doesnt mean govt healthcare is a bust, in china, doctors are pretty fast, but still very vague and indifferent, thats mostly due to how many doctors there are, and how hard it is to keep their license (a test annually to renew); mostly you see nurses and get very powerful drugs early on.
in england its medium. its still hella slow, but at least the docs see you with some sense of caring.
a combination of 'the two' is actually what the US is closest too right now, or a couple years back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
government provided healthcare is a GREAT idea, however, it also drastically reduces efficiency. i have a friend from canada, and he said that their healthcare system is far inferior in terms of service. he mentioned long lines and bad doctors, long waits and slow treatment. now that doesnt mean govt healthcare is a bust, in china, doctors are pretty fast, but still very vague and indifferent, thats mostly due to how many doctors there are, and how hard it is to keep their license (a test annually to renew); mostly you see nurses and get very powerful drugs early on.
in england its medium. its still hella slow, but at least the docs see you with some sense of caring.
a combination of 'the two' is actually what the US is closest too right now, or a couple years back.
I think asking friends from Canada or other countries with socialized medicine is totally ineffective. People have different opinions of it. Some love it, some hate it.
I'm not advocating gov't-run healthcare though. I'm advocating gov't health insurance. I do not want to place my trust in a private business which makes its money off of not providing me with health care. The health care industry still remains a private practice and therefore, no gov't bureaucracy and total efficiency. But there needs to be price control. Pharmaceutical companies practically rape consumers for necessary medication.
I don't think America is in the middle at all. It is very much a capitalist country. The only social programs of significance are basically for the unemployed, education, and medicare. Our country's values are very much fiscally conservative.
I think asking friends from Canada or other countries with socialized medicine is totally ineffective. People have different opinions of it. Some love it, some hate it.
I'm not advocating gov't-run healthcare though. I'm advocating gov't health insurance. I do not want to place my trust in a private business which makes its money off of not providing me with health care. The health care industry still remains a private practice and therefore, no gov't bureaucracy and total efficiency. But there needs to be price control. Pharmaceutical companies practically rape consumers for necessary medication.
I don't think America is in the middle at all. It is very much a capitalist country. The only social programs of significance are basically for the unemployed, education, and medicare. Our country's values are very much fiscally conservative.
yea, but i have experience the last two examples, and most Americans think of canada first when they think of govt healthcare. and since i have health insurance here, id say its much better than whatever else ive experienced so far.
well, i never said it was a 50/50 split. i mean that would be disastrous. but businesses are managed firmly by the govt isnt it? i know in India, it takes years to get even a small business to get a foot in the door. china allows it pretty easily now, but back in the 'day' you didnt have a choice of what job you even wanted.
im not good at US govt, more of a global issues type.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The only thing I have to say about this topic is this:
People need to realize that communism isn't a governmental system it is an economic system. Economics is effected by government and vice versa, yes, but you can walk up to some yahoo ranting about communism and ask them what America has in place of communism and they will most likely say "Democracy" That is the ignorance that bothers me most. Like Siaynoq said, communism is a good idea but not a good practice necessarily. Same goes for all economic systems. Ideas get distorted when practice comes into play.
government provided healthcare is a GREAT idea, however, it also drastically reduces efficiency. i have a friend from canada, and he said that their healthcare system is far inferior in terms of service. he mentioned long lines and bad doctors, long waits and slow treatment. now that doesnt mean govt healthcare is a bust, in china, doctors are pretty fast, but still very vague and indifferent, thats mostly due to how many doctors there are, and how hard it is to keep their license (a test annually to renew); mostly you see nurses and get very powerful drugs early on.
I'm certain many people in the U.S. would be willing to sacrifice a bit of quality for some health care at all.
As of now, many Americans see preventative health care as a luxury. Preventative health care would save people and government lots of money. And the quality of it doesn't even need to be super high to make a difference. But the cost of just getting a checkup with numerous screenings without insurance is too high for most people.
And mutton is right, knowing a few people in Canada is hardly a consensus. But I know for a fact that buses of people from the U.S. ride over to Canada just to get some cheap prescriptions or basic medical attention.
Quote from "Tehstickleman" »
People need to realize that communism isn't a governmental system it is an economic system. Economics is effected by government and vice versa, yes, but you can walk up to some yahoo ranting about communism and ask them what America has in place of communism and they will most likely say "Democracy" That is the ignorance that bothers me most. Like Siaynoq said, communism is a good idea but not a good practice necessarily. Same goes for all economic systems. Ideas get distorted when practice comes into play.
If you took the most basic tenets of communism created by Karl Marx, such as, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" this isn't even possible today at all.
The reason why is because it would require an infinite amount of bureaucracy to work out in a modern populous country who is doing what for the community and how should the goods and services be distributed. This is why all communist countries today don't resemble anything that Karl Marx really talked about. He was initially a cynic, turned naive idealist.
People need to realize that communism isn't a governmental system it is an economic system. Economics is effected by government and vice versa, yes, but you can walk up to some yahoo ranting about communism and ask them what America has in place of communism and they will most likely say "Democracy" That is the ignorance that bothers me most. Like Siaynoq said, communism is a good idea but not a good practice necessarily. Same goes for all economic systems. Ideas get distorted when practice comes into play.
Read this:
The reason why is because it would require an infinite amount of bureaucracy to work out in a modern populous country who is doing what for the community and how should the goods and services be distributed. This is why all communist countries today don't resemble anything that Karl Marx really talked about. He was initially a cynic, turned naive idealist.
Communism defines the role of government. And the power of any government is derived from their financial strength.
And mutton is right, knowing a few people in Canada is hardly a consensus. But I know for a fact that buses of people from the U.S. ride over to Canada just to get some cheap prescriptions or basic medical attention.
Exactly, and there are many cases of Canadians who get private insurance or American medical care because of the "higher quality." It's totally on a case-by-case basis.
Quote from applesoffury »
yea, but i have experience the last two examples, and most Americans think of canada first when they think of govt healthcare. and since i have health insurance here, id say its much better than whatever else ive experienced so far.
well, i never said it was a 50/50 split. i mean that would be disastrous. but businesses are managed firmly by the govt isnt it? i know in India, it takes years to get even a small business to get a foot in the door. china allows it pretty easily now, but back in the 'day' you didnt have a choice of what job you even wanted.
im not good at US govt, more of a global issues type.
As a moderately liberal person, I think our government has a firm grip on businesses in some areas, but it quite lacking in others. For instance, the FCC is extremely efficient at keeping businesses such as Comcast from breaking net neutrality.
I can't think of a counter-argument to the FCC than the pharmaceutical companies. A bit late to be discussing political philosophy XD
Anyways, I've been at PharmFest and I understand the huge investments that go into medication. Hundreds of millions to billions are spent on medicinal research. And these companies need many years to recoup their losses. However, after many years of recouping and the eventual accruing of profit, prices don't drop much at all. This is due in part to the fact that the demand usually comes from fear of death or pain. Not much else is strongly needed enough that it can be dangled over people in such a manner.
But now that I think of such things, another unchecked threat comes to mind, which definitely could use gov't involvement, which is the practice of predatory lending. Almost all the pertinent information in this wiki article are properly cited and there aren't any flags. In this article, it specifies that there are no legal U.S. definitions of this practice. This sort of thing is exactly why many people are left homeless. Bear Sterns comes to mind right off the bat for me and I rejoiced when their CEO got brought to court. Their subprime lending, among other companies resulted in countless home repossessions. Enough about that for now, though.
You have NHS in Britain, am I correct? Well, that's a great example of it. If I understand correctly, hospitals and things of that sort operate independently, but the payment of services is financed by the gov't, which is sustained by taxation.
China's lack of gov't involvement in the affairs of businesses has many effects. For one, China is growing at an astonishing economic rate. But businesses are allowed to manufacture dangerous, damaging, sometimes deadly products. That's why we ended up with children's toys made from roofies and lead and all that other crap.
In summary? As far as Karl Marx was concerned, I tend to agree with his assessment that if anything trumps nationalities, it is class. And it is hard to deny there are really to main classes, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat.
But that's as far as Marx was right in my opinion. Most of these political philosophers did fine in identifying the problems of society. But once they proposed their solutions to fixing them, they quickly became pretty inconsistent.
I understand the flaws of capitalism. I really do. But I've always sensed an even greater fallacy in communism. In principle, its a nice idea. In practice, it is too susceptible to human corruption and opportunism. And yes, I know most communists would reply, "And capitalism isn't?" Sure it is. Absolutely. I suppose the difference I see in capitalism and communism is that in capitalism you have a fairer chance to make it without as much interference from the government.
I understand I've never lived in a communist country. But even if there was no corruption in communism, it's such a bureaucratic nightmare to run such a system. Socialism is bad enough with all its red taping and heavily regulated labor markets and industries. But that doesn't mean either that governments like the U.S. can't afford to be a little more socialistic. Because it can in my opinion.
I don't believe a perfect form of government is possible. I don't believe in a utopian society. In fact I think its our kinks in the system that always keeps society innovative and resourceful. But without the kind of oversight that rarely exists in communism, the kinks rarely surface for everyone to see, where they can be scrutinized and analyzed by everyone. And so problems get buried deep so those in power can ultimately stay in power for their own benefit. This is not the aim of communism obviously. But it's one of communisms biggest weaknesses.
And strangely enough, the communist countries of the 21st century are adapting to the global market by embracing capitalism economically, but they still struggle with adopting the social aspects that are inherent in a free market society. This is part of the problem with China. The country is doing phenomenally well economically, but socially there are so many problems that stem from capitalism because they haven't embraced the democratic part of it that usually works well with capitalism.
You have a lot of people who are prospering, but then you also have a vast number of rural Chinese who are still very poor. This may be because the country's GDP has grown to so fast. But within the cities even, oppression is still rampant and citizens are heavily censored.
At any rate, I don't think any communist country today is something that Karl Marx would endorse. I think he'd be appalled even at the communist countries that call themselves so. And so I guess there remains a difference between a communist country and the basic principles behind the Communist Manifesto.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
but when i read about what chairman mao did, its just horrible and a complete reverse of 'ideal.' When bourgeois was considered bad, and history, books, artifacts and so much of a rich past was burned and the citizens treated so harshly and lived skimming the poverty line, whats even close to utopia? when the regular men worked in fields and faced accusations of being bourgeois, which resulted in torture sometimes as punishment and excommunication (a lot like witch trials), while the party officials enjoyed all the vices and pleasures of fine suites and good food...its just corrupt.
i mean the idea is great, its just not in human nature though, to act in that ideal way and live like that.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The government needs to regulate the economy, and keep shit like the oil shit from going to 4 bucks a gallon, and stoping Microsoft from it's monopoly. However, in private matters such as marrige and abortion and what-not, keep it to the people, Socialistic nature in economy, capitalistic nature in society.
what you are saying is less laissez-faire and more regulation. i see.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Yes, the government needs to regulate alot of shit properly. And the government needs to stay the fuck out of our private lives.
But they don't and they don't.
Capitalism is inherently bad. Communism is inherently bad. A mixture of the two, taking the best from both, makes complete sense personally.
nothing else to it.
It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes.
Let's change the way we eat, let's change the way we live
and let's change the way we treat each other.
You see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do
what we gotta do, to survive.
Tupac Shakur
100% Legit baal runners
SICK_Bambi 93 Barb (46th barb)
SICK_Paladin 95 Necromancer (12th necro)
SICK_ferret 95 Assassin (10th sin)
~~us West Ladder~~
Also, Russia was not Marx's vision. And Marx was a very ideological in his youth, he became more realistic with his Communistic ideas in his later years. (And no, Marx is not my favorite Commie.)
Making Controversial points one post at a time!
Russia's almost always been a total disaster. They get slapped with a tyrant at least once a century. It's absurd.
I agree with you LinkX. A combination of the two is the best choice. What is important to note when debating capitalism and communism is recognizing the role of government and business. In my opinion, the government's role is to protect the rights and well-being of its citizens. The role of the business is to make money. That, in many cases, works against citizens. This is why government regulation is needed.
Another thing to note, the problem with socializing industries is that by de-privatizing it, you're removing competition. That means less efficiency. Take, for example, education. Teachers are protected by a very powerful union, not to mention they have tenure after a few years. Not very long. No competition means less efficiency. Some might say education as a whole should be privatized in order to improve. But to totally privatize it would deny many the opportunity to have an education. That is why I simply advocate that the teaching profession should be privatized. Tenure should be guaranteed after much longer than a few years.
An example from the other side. Health care and insurance. Totally privatized. Totally business. Insurance companies make their money by making sure you don't get money for health care. Clinics and hospitals are geared towards profit. My solution, instead of private insurance, we should have government insurance. Steady rates for everyone based on your income bracket. In other words, a progressive income tax. While many might argue that it is not fair that those who work harder for their money have to lose more and still live like everyone else. Again, a compromise is needed between capitalist and communist philosophy. Hypothetically, let's say there are three income brackets:
-$50,000
-$100,000
-$150,000
I know it's a gross oversimplification, but bear with me. With a base income tax of 10% and a progression of 5% as you rise a bracket, the math works out like this:
-$50,000 income - 10% income tax
-$100,000 income - 15% income tax
-$150,000 income - 20% income tax
Now, let's take a look at income after taxation:
-$50,000 income - $45,000 post-tax income
-$100,000 income - $85,000 post-tax income
-$150,000 income - $120,000 post-tax income
Now, the figures can be different, based on context. I'm being very general about this. But I'm simply laying out theory here. As you can see, the wealthy are still contributing more to social programs like socialized insurance (everyone is insured, medicine is still a private practice, thus efficiency remains high). But hard workers can still reap the fruits of their labor. If they work hard, they can still enjoy the nice home, the nice car, etc. You'll be narrowing the gap between the rich and poor. But the contrast of the two is still necessary. There will always be a lower and upper class. It's just the way it works. There always needs to be social mobility.
Now, I know an issue would be for businesses like pharmaceutical companies to raise prices on medicine. Anti-trust laws should be geared to address the issue of predatory business practices such as trying to break the system. I think we can all agree that medicine is absurdly expensive. Although it is highly expensive to produce new medication, there must be pressure to lower prices after businesses have been able to profit.
Call it socio-capitalism. XD
Don't get me wrong, I understand it all much better than that, but the situation I jotted down would suit me just fine. My escape is to take a backpack, and enter the wilderness for a week or 3.
in england its medium. its still hella slow, but at least the docs see you with some sense of caring.
a combination of 'the two' is actually what the US is closest too right now, or a couple years back.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I think asking friends from Canada or other countries with socialized medicine is totally ineffective. People have different opinions of it. Some love it, some hate it.
I'm not advocating gov't-run healthcare though. I'm advocating gov't health insurance. I do not want to place my trust in a private business which makes its money off of not providing me with health care. The health care industry still remains a private practice and therefore, no gov't bureaucracy and total efficiency. But there needs to be price control. Pharmaceutical companies practically rape consumers for necessary medication.
I don't think America is in the middle at all. It is very much a capitalist country. The only social programs of significance are basically for the unemployed, education, and medicare. Our country's values are very much fiscally conservative.
well, i never said it was a 50/50 split. i mean that would be disastrous. but businesses are managed firmly by the govt isnt it? i know in India, it takes years to get even a small business to get a foot in the door. china allows it pretty easily now, but back in the 'day' you didnt have a choice of what job you even wanted.
im not good at US govt, more of a global issues type.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
People need to realize that communism isn't a governmental system it is an economic system. Economics is effected by government and vice versa, yes, but you can walk up to some yahoo ranting about communism and ask them what America has in place of communism and they will most likely say "Democracy" That is the ignorance that bothers me most. Like Siaynoq said, communism is a good idea but not a good practice necessarily. Same goes for all economic systems. Ideas get distorted when practice comes into play.
As of now, many Americans see preventative health care as a luxury. Preventative health care would save people and government lots of money. And the quality of it doesn't even need to be super high to make a difference. But the cost of just getting a checkup with numerous screenings without insurance is too high for most people.
And mutton is right, knowing a few people in Canada is hardly a consensus. But I know for a fact that buses of people from the U.S. ride over to Canada just to get some cheap prescriptions or basic medical attention.
If you took the most basic tenets of communism created by Karl Marx, such as, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" this isn't even possible today at all.
The reason why is because it would require an infinite amount of bureaucracy to work out in a modern populous country who is doing what for the community and how should the goods and services be distributed. This is why all communist countries today don't resemble anything that Karl Marx really talked about. He was initially a cynic, turned naive idealist.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Read this:
Communism defines the role of government. And the power of any government is derived from their financial strength.
Exactly, and there are many cases of Canadians who get private insurance or American medical care because of the "higher quality." It's totally on a case-by-case basis.
As a moderately liberal person, I think our government has a firm grip on businesses in some areas, but it quite lacking in others. For instance, the FCC is extremely efficient at keeping businesses such as Comcast from breaking net neutrality.
I can't think of a counter-argument to the FCC than the pharmaceutical companies. A bit late to be discussing political philosophy XD
Anyways, I've been at PharmFest and I understand the huge investments that go into medication. Hundreds of millions to billions are spent on medicinal research. And these companies need many years to recoup their losses. However, after many years of recouping and the eventual accruing of profit, prices don't drop much at all. This is due in part to the fact that the demand usually comes from fear of death or pain. Not much else is strongly needed enough that it can be dangled over people in such a manner.
But now that I think of such things, another unchecked threat comes to mind, which definitely could use gov't involvement, which is the practice of predatory lending. Almost all the pertinent information in this wiki article are properly cited and there aren't any flags. In this article, it specifies that there are no legal U.S. definitions of this practice. This sort of thing is exactly why many people are left homeless. Bear Sterns comes to mind right off the bat for me and I rejoiced when their CEO got brought to court. Their subprime lending, among other companies resulted in countless home repossessions. Enough about that for now, though.
You have NHS in Britain, am I correct? Well, that's a great example of it. If I understand correctly, hospitals and things of that sort operate independently, but the payment of services is financed by the gov't, which is sustained by taxation.
China's lack of gov't involvement in the affairs of businesses has many effects. For one, China is growing at an astonishing economic rate. But businesses are allowed to manufacture dangerous, damaging, sometimes deadly products. That's why we ended up with children's toys made from roofies and lead and all that other crap.