We are All Socialist at Heart…it’s easier

[gmc]

Originally Posted by spot

"We are All Socialist at Heart…it’s easier"? And we're discussing core definitions of socialism? I don't see how it could. I do note, though, that you're the one person in the thread prepared to discuss my points rather than leave them like sleeping elephants.

I suspect you and I would end up writing long posts to each other arguing about what socialism means today and how it's changed over the years but we would be doing it from the standpoint of a shared heritage and understanding and interest in the politics of it all.

To most americans, however, and no offence intended to any american, socialism is synonymous with the revolutionary communism of stalin and lenin (without any appreciation of the difference between even those two) inevitably leading to dictatorship and control by the state and dependence on the government. Liberalism seems to be conflated with socialism and communism in a way that makes it difficult to talk round it. Since the original thread is by an american on a peculiarly american issue it seems to me it would be impolite to hijack the thread in that manner.

I find the discussions about the american healthcare system interesting as they are very similar to the debates we had back in 1947 with the big difference that the population here wanted radical change for reasons which are completely irrelevant and hard to relate to if you are not british. I don't understand why people would object to universal healthcare just as many americans don't understand why we would want it. Even those who would not call themselves socialist support the concept in the UK. It is no longer a peculiarly socialist policy in the UK and most of europe which notion freaks american out and they don't really believe when you point that out to them. European political parties also tend to be social democratic in outlook but not necessarily with the ultimate socialist end in mind.

We just don't look at things the same way, it's one of the reasons I like this forum-you end up talking(?) to people with completely alien world views-makes me think about why I think the way I do. (no I'm not suggesting Americans are space aliens so please don't take it that way)

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by gmc

We just don't look at things the same way, it's one of the reasons I like this forum-you end up talking(?) to people with completely alien world views-makes me think about why I think the way I do.

That's the best thing about forums for me as well.

[Nomad]

Originally Posted by Accountable

The Persuit of Happyness is a true story of a man who took foolish chances with his life and the life of his son, but was able to triumph and make millions

So thats where happiness comes from......... pbbtttthhhh

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

I am learning that there are very different views on a subject depending on the side of the Atlantic you are on. There seems to be a very different perspective on many things and an acceptance of some things that are alien to the other side.

Health care is one of many. For example, Americans want it all, they want what they demand, they believe that the doctor is always right and the "insurance company" always wrong. They believe fundamentally that they should not have to pay for health care, hence "free" government care so they may be willing to have the cost buried in taxes which is probably one of the greatest risks in changing the system. The government can't control costs without some form of rationing, but no one wants to tell the American people that. Today Medicare shifts costs all the time to the private sector, they reduce fees to doctors and the doctors merely charge more to the rest of the population, but no one has asked what happens if there is no other system. Will US doctors be happy with an income more in line with Europe, who knows. My wife went to a doctor the other day and the office visit was $200. He refused to participate in any health plan and demanded payment immediately, he then ordered an x-ray and when that was not sufficient he ordered an MRI. In all we spent over a $1,000 so far. How do you cope with that in a universal system (rhetorical question).

I also do not understand this obsession with wealthy people. What is wrong with wealth and its accumulation as long as it is honest? Bill Gates is filthy rich, but he earned it. There are hundreds of millionaires at Microsoft from secretaries on up who took a change, got paid in stock and it paid off. So what, did they take from anyone else?

I understand the concept of government services and many are necessary as has been stated, but that is far different than attacking the rich. Even hedge fund managers who make billions make it by charging high fees to other investors, mostly other wealthy people and pension funds. If they are willing to pay such fees in return for above average returns on their investments whose business is it other than theirs?

When it comes to the wealth debate I detect a strong does of sour grapes and envy.

I must admit this is a personal issue with me. Forty-seven years ago I started out as the lowest paid person in a company with 15,000 employees. When I retired last year I was earning 20 from the top in that same organization. And yet when some people look at me it is like I rolled out of bed at 18 and instantly had what I have accumulated (and earned) over a lifetime of work and saving. So, now I am the target of the government for higher taxes, ineligible for this or that because by government standards I am wealthy. I never earned a million dollars or close to it, I don't have billions or millions, but I am still in the top 5% of Americans. So, am I and people like me bad guys, do we not deserve the fruits of our labor?

What would a true socialist say?

Isn't the real issue that everyone should have a fair and equal chance to achieve what they want, be it wealth or something else?

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

What would a true socialist say?

There's no such thing. You're not talking about a monolithic political theory.

Left wing parties tend to spend more time arguing with each other about what is the right way to do things rather than concentrate on the areas they agree on. Lenin coined the phrase an infantile disorder to describe the phenomenon. The communists were pretty good at shooting their fellow socialists because they didn't toe the party line it's an attitude that leads invariably to totalitarianism.

Think in terms of religuious sects-catholic and protestant fought each other over whose way was right yet they all had the same basic belief system. Power politics ruins everything.

One of the main reasons you never had communist revolutions in western europe-not that the possibility wasn't there- is an educated literate workforce is quite capable of working out where it's going to lead and what was going on in russia was widely known at the time. It didn't actually happen in isolation. We ended up with left wing political parties socialist in nature and social democratic in approach but not necessarily socialist as in the way most Americans would see it (IMO anyway). We kind of cherry pick the bits we like rather than buy the whole bush.

posted by quinns commentary

Isn't the real issue that everyone should have a fair and equal chance to achieve what they want, be it wealth or something else?

That's it exactly. The thing is you can get so hung up on the label out on a suggestion it can forestall rational discussion on the merits or otherwise of the suggestion. Comparisons with our or European welfare systems are only useful if you cherry pick the bits you like and that would work in the states without getting hung up on the ideaology behind it.

posted by quinns commentary

When it comes to the wealth debate I detect a strong does of sour grapes and envy.

I must admit this is a personal issue with me. Forty-seven years ago I started out as the lowest paid person in a company with 15,000 employees. When I retired last year I was earning 20 from the top in that same organization. And yet when some people look at me it is like I rolled out of bed at 18 and instantly had what I have accumulated (and earned) over a lifetime of work and saving. So, now I am the target of the government for higher taxes, ineligible for this or that because by government standards I am wealthy. I never earned a million dollars or close to it, I don't have billions or millions, but I am still in the top 5% of Americans. So, am I and people like me bad guys, do we not deserve the fruits of our labor?

It's something americans need to think about for themselves. We actively use our taxation sytem to re-distribute wealth. Our history is very different in that the decision was taken and widely supported, that one function of government is to make life better for people in all sections of society. Why we took that decision is not something that can be understood unless you are familiar with our history and society in a way that you can't be unless you live here. Well perhaps on an intellectual level perhaps you can but there is also a visceral element that i think is harder to grasp.

Objectively though. If you have a situation where the wealth of a nation is concentrated in a few powerful hands is that a good or a bad thing? Once upon a time it would have been kings and warlords. I doubt many would argue they should be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains and status.

I understand the concept of government services and many are necessary as has been stated, but that is far different than attacking the rich. Even hedge fund managers who make billions make it by charging high fees to other investors, mostly other wealthy people and pension funds. If they are willing to pay such fees in return for above average returns on their investments whose business is it other than theirs?

Now it's individuals and corporations. If the workers of a corporation have generated that wealth how much should they benefit from it? If the wealth has been generated by producing nothing but by buying and selling money is that morally right? Whom put the money in to the pension funds in the first place? What do you do about it.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Objectively though. If you have a situation where the wealth of a nation is concentrated in a few powerful hands is that a good or a bad thing? Once upon a time it would have been kings and warlords. I doubt many would argue they should be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains and status.

I have to harken back to the concept of how the wealth was accumulated. In your example, clearly ill gotten gains are one thing, while a Bill Gates scenario quite another. I hope no one would classify Gates as having benefited from ill gotten gains.

Now it's individuals and corporations. If the workers of a corporation have generated that wealth how much should they benefit from it? If the wealth has been generated by producing nothing but by buying and selling money is that morally right? Whom put the money in to the pension funds in the first place? What do you do about it.

Workers receive a fair wage for their input, more skill, more wage and they do benefit from the wealth generated by the corporation. they have a job, they have benefits (in most cases), etc. But workers who may work hard at a physical job cannot create wealth without the leaders who make it all come together. If they could then everyone would be an entrepreneur. Clearly workers should not be exploited in the name of the organization or its owners, but I don't see justification for more equal distribution of the wealth beyond fair pay based on skill and the input by the worker.

I don't see why there is a moral question regarding generating wealth from finance, buying and selling stocks, commodities or whatever. As far as pension funds go, in the vast majority of cases the employer put the money in the fund, which is a form of deferred wages for the workers.

[spot]

Originally Posted by QUINNSCOMMENTARY

I don't see justification for more equal distribution of the wealth beyond fair pay based on skill and the input by the worker.

It's called fair pay based on need. It's not the American Way, of course, but it's arguable and in Europe it's practiced at least to some extent. Capitalism died last year and thank goodness for that.

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

I have to harken back to the concept of how the wealth was accumulated. In your example, clearly ill gotten gains are one thing, while a Bill Gates scenario quite another. I hope no one would classify Gates as having benefited from ill gotten gains.

Well I would argue that some of microsofts' business practices have been unethical and most definitely anti capitalist in nature-allowing monopolies to develop is bad for business and there should be legislation in place to prevent it-in fact the US has some of the toughest anti-trust laws around but they seem loathe to use it to curb Microsoft. Instead of trying to stifle competition they should have tried competing on an equal basis-just think how good things might have been if hey devoted their expertise to product. So ill-gotten gains? another thread perhaps.

posted by quinns commentary

I don't see why there is a moral question regarding generating wealth from finance, buying and selling stocks, commodities or whatever. As far as pension funds go, in the vast majority of cases the employer put the money in the fund, which is a form of deferred wages for the workers.

At the heart of any economic system are people who make or grow things to sell. Yo need a structure to get those things to market to service the demand and perhaps create but those who just manipulate the money market to make a profit are in a sense parasites. No one will miss fund managers but you will miss the engineers and scientists that create and make things work. We ended up feting the money men beyond their true worth. It's not the accountant that makes a company profitable it's the one that started it and the ones that make the things it sells. What's happened is that the money makers have created a massive finance bubble selling things to each other are inflated prices making money as they go. a property bubble was created that finally burst because the underlying asset was worthless. The bankers have no excuse and can't claim they didn't know what was happening.

You can generate as much money as you like but unless it s being used to create and make things it's useless. Individuals get wealthy not society as a whole. It's not so much a moral question as one whether allowing it to go to the extreme it did is actually good for society. I think it's a case that the churning of money to generate profit became the purpose rather than a means to an end. You need capital to lend to businesses but when short term gain is the only criteria and it's economists calling the tune you are stuffed. Not one single major company in the US was started by a business graduate or an economist-so far as I know anyway correct me if I am wrong.

posted by spot

It's called fair pay based on need. It's not the American Way, of course, but it's arguable and in Europe it's practiced at least to some extent. Capitalism died last year and thank goodness for that.

It's not actually the UK way either-fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Utopian socialism always was a fantasy doomed to fail.

No it didn't die, it was corporatism that died. Maybe now the US and Europe will go back to old fashioned capitalism with markets regulated to curb monopolies and cartels developing and political parties not beholden to big contributors or in thrall to economists with no understanding of basic arithmetic. (in the olden days priests used to cut open chickens to look at the entrails and predict the future and people all around said-they are intelligent they must know what they are doing. Nowadays we have economists with spreadsheets but the basic principle seems to remain the same and just as reliable)

Monetarism is arguably anti capitalist in nature, you generate wealth by making things and selling them not by relying on controlling the money supply and allowing companies to shelter from the winds of competition.

Look at the american car companies. they used their political clout to try and keep out foreign competition and stall legislation that would have made them build more fuel efficient cars and keep a market for their cars that was in reality not really there any more. In europe they can make competitive cars but when yopu see an american made chrysler next to a european or even korean car you can see what the difference is in quality. There's a garage near me with a combined chrysler, citroen and hyundai dealership. They can't sell things like the chrysler sebring for instance even with buy one get one free offer. It's like a car from the nineties. Nice leather seats mind you bit less leg room in the back than the smallest european car-are you all midgets?

posted by quinns commentary

but I don't see justification for more equal distribution of the wealth beyond fair pay based on skill and the input by the worker.

Our different histories come in to it. We had a situation-as in europe-where a ruling elite held all the power and wealth while the vast majority of the population lived in squalor and factory owners exploited the workforce unmercifully . It's been taken off them in the interests of social justice but there's generations of change in all of that and a shared experience that might be hard t grasp without spending some time reading up on UK social history. We started the industrial revolution remember, europe followed suit then the US. The kind of discussions you are now having about universal healthcare and so forth we had sixty or so years ago. Nor have you had the experience of rebuilding towns and cities and a society that was shattered by warfare.

The oft quoted comment by karl marx that all property is theft was actually about the practice common in europe in the 1840's of powerful landowners enclosing common land and forcing tenants off their farms in to the cities so they could farm in an industrial manner. they stole what wasn't theirs in the first place and the land they rented out had been stolen by their warlord ancestors at some point in the past. Since land is the basis of all wealth that's where the sentiment comes from. those who held vast acres had taken it by force and then convinced everybody it was legitimately theirs. Maybe we still have an inbuilt resentment of people who accumulate wealth and do nothing with it except hoard it. The idea that wealth trickles down is nonsense-is gets scooped up from those above if you're not careful.

You have a similar thing in the states your popular literature is full of stories about nesters fending off the land grabbing cattle baron. Carpet baggers as well? Now you have corporations strip mining whole mountaintops and polluting water courses regardless of what those who live there might feel about it. What's the difference in practice? those at the bottom are helpless unless they band together to control big business but then that makes them anti capitalist socialist types doesn't it? Have you been conned in to thinking you shouldn't complain and demand a fairer deal for all and a greater share of the nations wealth.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

You know, the world is not a nice place or a fair place, it has always been so and will be so forever. Each society has social structures and classes, the have, the have not and the have most. That too will never change because those qualities are inherent in human beings.

In a good society the have nots get a fair chance to move up the ladder, in my mind in a fair society those that do move up and accumulate some wealth are viewed as successful not as a class from which to redistribute that wealth. Of course, that implies a fair tax structure along the way with all members of society sharing the responsibilities.

In a fair society the unfortunate and those that cannot help themselves are supported by the collective society, but the structure does encourage such dependency.

I find it interesting that in the US those that cry the loudest for wealth redistribution and social programs have largely made their fortunes, in some cases the result of their previous government "service." The current White House is full of such people, yet they dare to call those who earn $250,000 (or in some cases $100,000) a year wealthy when they have millions already in the bank. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House is worth an estimate $16 million. That's fine her family earned it, but the same opportunity should not be taken from others. Obama's Chief of Staff is worth about $7 million made mostly using his contacts during a previous period in government. That's OK too, I would do the same thing. Warren Buffet is in favor of an estate tax, easy to say when you have $50 billion and intend to donate it to charity, not so nice if you have a small business to pass down or you want to help your grandchildren get a start in life and you are able to do that as opposed to paying taxes to the federal and state governments on money that has already been taxes several times along the way.

The point is that society has no obligation to people other than to provide common services for all, infrasturucture, education, defense, etc and to assure that the truly needed do not suffer. If a person lives his life and uses his capabilities and sets his priorities such that he is low income, so be it. If another person does the same thing and takes advantage fairly of each opportunity and is successful so be it. They have no obligation to the other person in my view.

It was mentioned that corporations exploit, harm the environment, etc. Corporations are legal entities they do nothing, the people who run them do all that stuff and should be accountable. the same holds true for governments, they do nothing the people who run them do. The problem is that we are very bad at holding politicians and beauracrats responsible for anything and they act accordingly.

It seems to me that a society that collectively depends more and more on services from government becomes so dependent on that government they risk their own independence at some point. In addition, the "free" mentatility for government services dampens the human spirit of achievement, individual responsibility and risk taking. More and more people become complacent and fewer break those bounds to move the society forward. I think some countries in Europe show that attitude. Marching in the streets for false job security and more government services while the population and productivity are declining just isn't' a good thing in my view.

[spot]

Originally Posted by QUINNSCOMMENTARY

The point is that society has no obligation to people other than to provide common services for all, infrasturucture, education, defense, etc and to assure that the truly needed do not suffer.

It depends entirely on how you view society. Jesus disagrees with you at an absolutely fundamental level, for example. So do I, for similar reasons.