The US welfare system

[zion]

As there are different types of Liberalism so also of Socialism. It's a bit cheap to automatically assume I'm here to justify the excesses of dictatorship.

That's fair, and there is a continuum between radically free-market economies and communistic economies. I'm not going to assume that you automatically support every abuse committed by communist economies, just as I am not going to support every abuse committed by radically free-market economies.

I think that the problem that I have in endorsing a socialistic aim for society is that I have not seen an example of a society with socialistic aims that has genuinely made life better decade on decade for poor people. I know that free market economies have not enabled the poor to participate in economic growth to the same extent as the rich, but that doesn't reconcile me to the proposition that a socialistic economy would provide for them better.

The current capitalistic system enables rich countries to benefit from unfair trade agreements with the Third World, relating to the attempts to protect the livelihoods of First World farmers. Rich countries, including the US and France, do attempt to screw the trade rounds to benefit themselves. But it's also fair to say that the economic performance of colonized countries has been very different in large part because of their own policies and their own governance. India has performed better by engaging with the world economy and by maintaining democracy than equally colonized Pakistan has done by veering from dictatorship to dictatorship, and India itself only began to improve its economy after it turned away from Soviet-style "industrial development".

There are plenty of corrupt CEO's and government officials in the many countries.

True that. I've seen plenty of it. I think that socialism fosters it, and that capitalism unrestrained by democracy or law also fosters it.

I don't think that [lack of status] should deprive someone of a roof over their head or a hot meal

I agree - which is why I do what I do.

Without the threat of eviction, starvation or the gulag people just sit around doing nothing?

I think that people do much, much less if there is no difference between the rewards for working hard and the rewards for not working. That doesn't mean that people have to starve, and I don't see people who are starving in my daily work. I do see people who desperately need health insurance and a well-paying job.

I suppose that's the key point. The "needs assessors" rather than the "invisible hand" of the market. Of course I wonder if those are the only two alternatives?

Given the two, I'd FAR prefer the invisible hand. What's your third?

 

[zion]

I too appreciate your thoughtful posts, Yield. Thanks for your patience. I find it weird for me to be weighing in on British discussions again after seven years of working in the United States - my ideas have been shaped a lot by being in this culture rather than my original one!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I thought by that later stage you were making money, not paying. (not much, but at least money)...

But anyway, don't they leave Canada so they can go make more money in the US?

Yes, especially nurses. They make a good living under our system, but admittedly, they can make a substantial amount more under your private system.

But the fact that doctors are better paid, isn't justification for having a user pay system such as the US has.

 

[yield]

zion, I come here to debate and it's good that we can.

I think that the problem that I have in endorsing a socialistic aim for society is that I have not seen an example of a society with socialistic aims that has genuinely made life better decade on decade for poor people. I know that free market economies have not enabled the poor to participate in economic growth to the same extent as the rich, but that doesn't reconcile me to the proposition that a socialistic economy would provide for them better.

Some of the problems I have with free-market Liberalism are that often short term profit is put ahead of long term consequences. Pollution, environment, health etc. Biodegradable packaging being more expensive. Waste in general. The cheaper ingredients being hazardous... that sort of thing.
Rather than manufacturing goods for which there is a genuine need they will create demand through marketing and advertisements. Often by targeting the young, elderly and/or vulnerable. Toys with happymeals at MacDonalds. High pressure selling off burglar alarms to the elderly, playing on their fears, courtesy of performance related pay.
Economic growth is not the be all and end all of existence. How much of a success is modern capitalist society with it's anti-depressants and ritalin?

Basically given a choice between co-operation or competition I'd take the former.

The current capitalistic system enables rich countries to benefit from unfair trade agreements with the Third World, relating to the attempts to protect the livelihoods of First World farmers. Rich countries, including the US and France, do attempt to screw the trade rounds to benefit themselves. But it's also fair to say that the economic performance of colonized countries has been very different in large part because of their own policies and their own governance. India has performed better by engaging with the world economy and by maintaining democracy than equally colonized Pakistan has done by veering from dictatorship to dictatorship, and India itself only began to improve its economy after it turned away from Soviet-style "industrial development".

As I said before the examples of "real existing" socialism the former USSR and others were failures.
Historically contingent, threatened both internally and externally, the so called vanguard of the proletariat become a dictatorship. We both know that.
I'm not trying to defend them.
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist but I still think there is on the horizon the possibly of something more than *this*.

I suppose that's the key point. The "needs assessors" rather than the "invisible hand" of the market. Of course I wonder if those are the only two alternatives?

Given the two, I'd FAR prefer the invisible hand. What's your third?

I'm still searching but no "third way" (giddens eat your heart out) so far. It's got to be "need assessors" for me, possibly mediated by direct democracy. (Representative democracy perhaps being now unnecessary with the current levels of education in the West.)
How to prevent them becoming a corrupt bloated bureaucracy, history repeating itself, is what concerns me...

 

[catrina]

But the fact that doctors are better paid, isn't justification for having a user pay system such as the US has.

I completely agree.

I'm just saying that they're going to have a hard time convincing doctors to move toward a public service profession in a public health service like in Canada, if they're already making vastly more money now privately. Without relieving some of the costs of medical education through federal grants (not loans), it's nearly an impossible task I would think.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino_savatte,

Every nation-state - including the US - tends to embrace more than one form of ideology.

People within the nation-state do. What I am talking about is the kind of unifying ideology that sets the terms of political and social debate, and in the United States, for nearly all people, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence set the terms of debate. Even if GWB's Constitutional arguments for, say, torture or warrantless wiretapping are specious, he still feels the need to advance them as Constitutional ideas.

Most people in the US are not Randians - indeed, most people in the US don't know who Rand is or what she taught. Most Americans too are not conservative Christians. But the Constitution and Declaration lay out a set of principles that people do believe in very deeply here, and that make the US a more ideological state than Britain or the Netherlands. When you become a citizen in the US (and in the US everyone's family has someone in it who has gone through that process at some time, even if it was a hundred years ago), you sign up explicitly and state your allegiance to those documents. In Britain, as far as I know, you sign up explicitly to nothing that is uniquely British. Not even allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors defines what it is to be British.

Again, there is no such thing as a specific "American ideology". What you are talking about here is a combination of ideologies that are melded together to form something that can be identified as "Americanism", which is actually a form of nationalism. Indeed the dominant ideology is one that says "Those who claim welfare are spongers" or "You're either with us or for the terrorists".

Many people may not know who Rand is but her ideas are still in circulation and have been adopted by the dominant ideological culture.So-called conservative Xtianity has found an ally in the White House and many of those ideas have been absorbed into mainstream political thought (ID and Creationism for instance).

But because the US has a written constitution and a Bill of Rights, does not make it any more an ideological state than Holland or elsewhere. Oh, btw, the UK does have a constitution.

 

[nino_savatte]

Canada would be a great model, and it might be one that US folks would accept (they would resist very strongly anything on the model of the NHS).

Tell me, how did the Canadians manage to get Medicare passed?

I think you're going to have convince the very powerful medical industry and the pharmaceutical companies of the merits of a universal healthcare system; that is the major obstacle to any change. But the very idea of such a system is seen as "socialistic" by its opponents.

 

[spring-peeper]

Here's a brief history of how Canada got the medicare in -> http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...pdf+medicare+history&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1

Our system is fair from perfect and varies from province to province. Some provinces perfer the private method, so there is much wrangling between the provinces and the federal govenment.

By the way, I have a friend who lost his house while trying to fight his cancer. Insurance agencies are now selling insurance against it. I will need medication for the rest of my life, but this, as well, is not covered by our government.

I live in a border town with the US where they train nurses. Most go to the States - many return.

 

[catrina]

Here's a brief history of how Canada got the medicare in -> http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...pdf+medicare+history&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1


By the way, I have a friend who lost his house while trying to fight his cancer. Insurance agencies are now selling insurance against it. I will need medication for the rest of my life, but this, as well, is not covered by our government.

.

It's really sick, it's the primary reason keeping me from moving back to the US.

It just seems so ingrained in the system, I don't see a way out. I mean, I've actually heard people, left leaning democratic voters, complaining about the people with no health insurance turning up at A and E to get treatment. What the hell else are they supposed to do?

 

[zion]

Johnny Canuck2,

[Nurses] can make a substantial amount more under [the US] private system.

True. My mother is a nurse in the UK. When I came to the US, I told her how much nurses make there, and she thought I must have gotten it wrong. Five years later she visited, and boggled at how much money she could have been making for doing the same work.

often short term profit is put ahead of long term consequences.

I feel as if this is less the case as people devise ways to enable companies to think long-term - and companies do usually want to be around for the long term. Strong environmental regulations and enforcement, emissions trading mechanisms, and governmental promotion of alternative energy should all play a part, but (unlike some) I call none of that socialism. Just as strong financial regulations can maintain trust in the financial system, I believe that strong regulation can subordinate capitalism to democracy to form a system that truly benefits ordinary people's lives.

Much of what you're saying is true, but my perspective is that socialistic aims cannot suppress competition: they merely drive it underground, making it less money-based and more connections-based.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist but I still think there is on the horizon the possibly of something more than *this*.

What I see on the horizon is a capitalistic democracy where poor people have more equal opportunities to prosper than they do now. The society on Earth where people have the most hope for the future is the United States. Everyone feels themselves to be going somewhere, to have a future, to have plans. I get frustrated coming back to the UK because the culture is very different and much less optimistic, and I wonder why it has to be that way.

It's got to be "need assessors" for me, possibly mediated by direct democracy.

Just can't bring myself to approve of that. To me, if you accept that, then corrupt bloated bureaucracy is only half a step away, and I can't just hope that it won't happen.

Indeed the dominant ideology is one that says "Those who claim welfare are spongers" or "You're either with us or for the terrorists".

Those are historically contingent statements identified closely with the Republican Party, not transhistorical expressions of America's core ideology. Remember always that America is not monolithic, but split down the middle between people who, increasingly unhappily, endorse the worldview of the Republicans and people who, increasingly enthusiastically, endorse the worldview of the Democrats. I don't believe that either of your statements unify those camps.

Oh, btw, the UK does have a constitution.

Are you referring to what my father always called the UK constitution, the morass of statutes and customs that bind the actions of British leaders? Are you referring to the Human Rights Act? I don't call either of those an actual constitution, but maybe I am wrong. When what is and is not constitutional is pretty much a matter of feeling and interpretation rather than a single text, it's a pretty poor constitutional setup.

 

[nino_savatte]

Indeed the dominant ideology is one that says "Those who claim welfare are spongers" or "You're either with us or for the terrorists".

Those are historically contingent statements identified closely with the Republican Party, not transhistorical expressions of America's core ideology. Remember always that America is not monolithic, but split down the middle between people who, increasingly unhappily, endorse the worldview of the Republicans and people who, increasingly enthusiastically, endorse the worldview of the Democrats. I don't believe that either of your statements unify those camps.

Oh, btw, the UK does have a constitution.

Are you referring to what my father always called the UK constitution, the morass of statutes and customs that bind the actions of British leaders? Are you referring to the Human Rights Act? I don't call either of those an actual constitution, but maybe I am wrong. When what is and is not constitutional is pretty much a matter of feeling and interpretation rather than a single text, it's a pretty poor constitutional setup.

In that case, you don't understand what is meant by the phrase "dominant ideology" nor would it seem that you are entirely clear what is meant by the word "ideology". To put it briefly, the dominant ideology is what it is: dominant; and in resides outside of party political structures and is accepted by both parties as 'correct'. A dominant ideology is built into the fabric of the state; it is hegemonic. Anything that opposes it, is counter-hegemonic. If there is an ideology called "Americanism", then it is a localised strain of nationalism; that is to say, a local inflection of nationalism peculiar to the US.

I don't believe that either of your statements unify those camps.

It isn't meant to, though there is little difference between the two - particularly when one thinks of Lieberman and Spector. The two main parties may embrace a number of different ideologies (they do not represent a single ideology respectively) but they are agreed on certain ideologies (these are dominant) such as free market economics, defence and national security spending and the perpetuation of a system that punishes the working classes, the poor and the disadvantaged and rewards corporate bullies. You know for all his liberal-sounding rhetoric, JFK was just as big a red hunter as Eisenhower. The foreign policy objectives were pretty much the same. This points to an operationally dominant ideology

With regards to the British Constitution, you are comparing apples with oranges. You are also labouring under the assumption that a constitution must be a single written document. Many Americans - and I would include you here - believe that because the US Constitution is a single written document, that means it is not only a superior document, but those who live under its auspices are entirely free of "tyranny". I don't see anything particularly "poor" about the British Constitution at all. It lays out the functions of state and the role of the monarch: it's all rather simple really. Quite what the Human Rights act has to do with this is anyone's guess. After all, many Americans often confuse the entire US Constitution for the Bill of Rights.

The US Constitution or, rather, the Bill of Rights is being circumvented all the time: The Sedition Act, The suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War, The Smith Act, The Walter-McCarran Act, Taft-Hartley. The latter three pieces of legislation were anti-working class, while the Sedition act was reactively promulgated in response to the French revolution (ironically enough) and Irish unrest. It would be fair to say that one dominant ideology is that of anti-trade unionism (a feature of anti-working classism) and many goverments, regardless of political party, have at one time or another, crushed working class movements through a combination of physical violence and legislation.

You missed this

I think you're going to have convince the very powerful medical industry and the pharmaceutical companies of the merits of a universal healthcare system; that is the major obstacle to any change. But the very idea of such a system is seen as "socialistic" by its opponents.

Social Darwinism is a dominant ideological theme and it is the bedfellow of the profit motive. The medical industry is loath to give up its right to charge $21 for a swab and it will find many ways to justify its right to charge patients vastly inflated prices for the most simplest of items. Any move to provide a universal healthcare system will be fought tooth and nail by the corporations and they will use the dirtiest tricks in order to win.

So, to return to the issue of whether the Constitution imparts a particular ideology, I say it doesn't and it is only the interpretations of the text that are ideological.

 

[zion]

Nino_savatte,

"The dominant ideology is what it is: dominant; and in resides outside of party political structures and is accepted by both parties as 'correct'."

That's exactly what I have been saying, and the quotes cited earlier don't meet this test.

There is little difference between the two - particularly when one thinks of Lieberman and Spector.

First, Lieberman does not even belong to the Democratic party any more, so he's a poor example to choose. Second, there are huge differences between senators from the different parties: a good illustration of that is http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/senator-ratings.html (though this deals only with domestic policies).

The foreign policies pursued by Clinton and by Bush have been recognizably different (I strongly preferred Clinton's).

You are also labouring under the assumption that a constitution must be a single written document.

Yes, I am. You know as well as I do that British people don't tend to have the faintest notion of what is and is not constitutional to do. Americans at least have a clear, simple text they can discuss and use in their everyday lives. A Constitution is in a real sense not usable if it is not known.

Many Americans - and I would include you here - believe that ... those who live under its auspices are entirely free of "tyranny".

Oh Lord. What have I said that would make you think that I think that tyranny is impossible in America?

What I do think is that the division of powers set up by the American constitution makes tyranny (defined as the unity of powers under one, usually executive, authority) much harder to achieve.

[The British Constitution] sets out the functions of state and the role of the monarch: it's all rather simple really

Quite simple? Really? How about these simple questions?

- What are the powers of the Prime Minister?
- What are the powers of the counties?
- What is the process for reconciling differences between the House of Lords and the House of Commons?
- Does the monarch have veto power over legislation?
- What are the rights of a British subject that a British government cannot constitutionally transgress?

The Bill of Rights is being circumvented all the time: The Sedition Act, The suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War, The Smith Act, The Walter-McCarran Act, Taft-Hartley.

All the time. Right. [rolls eyes] Your own evidence for this is five Acts spaced across over two centuries of history, of which the newest dates to the early 20th century.

Legislation is proposed all the time that would contravene the Bill of Rights, and what happens to it is this. If the House and Senate pass it and the President does not veto it, a lawsuit is launched to challenge its constitutionality, and the Supreme Court eventually rules on whether it is constitutional, typically striking down violations of the Bill of Rights. A good example of this is the history of the Communications Decency Act (see http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACLU_v_Reno_II/ for the decision).

Something being anti-working-class does not of itself make it unconstitutional, and I think that's your real basis of criticism of the US Constitution. The problem is not really that it is not enforced, because on the whole it is. The problem from your point of view is that it does not contain enough protections for the poor.

Any move to provide a universal healthcare system will be fought tooth and nail by the corporations and they will use the dirtiest tricks in order to win.

I agree. But a majority of US citizens do support socialized healthcare, which does not support your contention that Social Darwinism is part of America's dominant ideology.

 

[nino_savatte]

[The British Constitution] sets out the functions of state and the role of the monarch: it's all rather simple really

Quite simple? Really? How about these simple questions?

- What are the powers of the Prime Minister?
- What are the powers of the counties?
- What is the process for reconciling differences between the House of Lords and the House of Commons?
- Does the monarch have veto power over legislation?
- What are the rights of a British subject that a British government cannot constitutionally transgress?

It's that auld "apples and oranges" thing. The US is not the only country in the world with a constitution.

All of the things that you list above are contained in the constitution...or would you like me to tell you exactly what the PM does and what powers the monarch has (though I would have thought that this was obvious)? It's simply a different form of governance to the US; it's neither right nor wrong, nor is it worse or better.

Hmmmm,

Yes, I am. You know as well as I do that British people don't tend to have the faintest notion of what is and is not constitutional to do. Americans at least have a clear, simple text they can discuss and use in their everyday lives. A Constitution is in a real sense not usable if it is not known.

Are you at all familiar with this country or are you making judgements that are informed by disinformation/speculation? There are laws and I think most people know what they can and cannot do. The idea of a written constitution is interesting but it is an inflexible document that is open to interpretation.

The US constitution was pretty useless as far as the enfranchisement of southern Black voters was concerned. It wasn't until 1965 when another amendment (to follow those that were enacted after the Civil War) had to be drafted and put into law.

First, Lieberman does not even belong to the Democratic party any more, so he's a poor example to choose. Second, there are huge differences between senators from the different parties: a good illustration of that is http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...r-ratings.html (though this deals only with domestic policies).

Au contraire! Lieberman is a good choice and he has only recently lost his fight to retain his Democratic candidature. I realise that there are differences between senators of different parties - that's bloody obvious! I chose those two, simply, because both are derided by members of their own parties for being either "too liberal" or "too conservative". It was a way of highlighting the fact that both parites do not embrace a single homogenising ideology that is loosely referred to as "conservative" or "liberal". It might help if the US had specific conservative and liberal parties, then no one would be in any doubt...though you could still have right and left wings within those parties.

Something being anti-working-class does not of itself make it unconstitutional, and I think that's your real basis of criticism of the US Constitution. The problem is not really that it is not enforced, because on the whole it is. The problem from your point of view is that it does not contain enough protections for the poor.

Where did I say it was? I merely said that there is a distinct "anti-working class" ideology in the States. The US working class are always referred to as "blue collar middle class"...which makes about as much sense as a "bosses union". What gives you the idea that the constitution is there to protect the poor?

You also have a nack for putting words into my mouth and making some pretty awful presumptions about what I think. Where, for instance, did I give you the idea that My "criticism" of your consititution is based on class issues? Furthermore I have already made my position clear: just because the US has a constitution does not mean that it is more or less ideological than any other country. That is simply another form of cultural snobbery.

If you want to continue debating, do try reading and comprehending the other person's posts. It's also helpful not to make too many presumptions as it weakens your arguments.

 

[zion]

Nino_savatte,

To give you an example, if the UK constitution set out the powers of the Prime Minister, there would have been no need for a Private Members' Bill to be presented in the last Parliament that attempted to delimit them (which was, naturally, opposed by Blair). The Prime Minister appears to have pretty much inherited wholesale the vague and massive powers of the monarch, but truthfully no-one really knows.

The US is not the only country in the world with a constitution.

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth? When did I say that it was?

It's simply a different form of governance to the US; it's neither right nor wrong, nor is it worse or better.

Each has their faults; but I don't see any reason why having an array of statutes and customs is superior to having a simple written document. All that the former allows is a steady encroachment by the executive power on the powers of the legislative and judicial branches. That may be possible, but is much harder under the latter.

Are you at all familiar with this country

Well, I lived in Britain for 22 years. I think that argues familiarity at least with Britain in the period 1977-1999.

There are laws and I think most people know what they can and cannot do.

People have some sense of what is legal and what is illegal in Britain. What they don't have a sense of is what is constitutional and what is not. How would a British person evaluate whether a recently passed law conformed to the constitution or not?

The US constitution was pretty useless as far as X

Didn't say it was flawless, did I?

both parites do not embrace a single homogenising ideology that is loosely referred to as "conservative" or "liberal".

I agree. To a greater extent than in the UK, both major parties here are loose coalitions of factions without much central control.

I merely said that there is a distinct "anti-working class" ideology in the States.

I think there's a distinct anti-class ideology that is shared by both parties.

just because the US has a constitution does not mean that it is more or less ideological than any other country. That is simply another form of cultural snobbery.

I didn't realize that you viewed "ideological" as a compliment. If you are arguing that thinking you are more ideological means you're a snob, then you must, logically, view being ideological as being better.

I think that, in order to be ideological, it helps for a nation to state what its core principles are, and for its population to be trained to accept those principles. I don't see that process happening in the UK, so therefore I think of the UK as being less ideological.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino_savatte,

To give you an example, if the UK constitution set out the powers of the Prime Minister, there would have been no need for a Private Members' Bill to be presented in the last Parliament that attempted to delimit them (which was, naturally, opposed by Blair). The Prime Minister appears to have pretty much inherited wholesale the vague and massive powers of the monarch, but truthfully no-one really knows.

The US is not the only country in the world with a constitution.

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth? When did I say that it was?

It's simply a different form of governance to the US; it's neither right nor wrong, nor is it worse or better.

Each has their faults; but I don't see any reason why having an array of statutes and customs is superior to having a simple written document. All that the former allows is a steady encroachment by the executive power on the powers of the legislative and judicial branches. That may be possible, but is much harder under the latter.

Are you at all familiar with this country

Well, I lived in Britain for 22 years. I think that argues familiarity at least with Britain in the period 1977-1999.

There are laws and I think most people know what they can and cannot do.

People have some sense of what is legal and what is illegal in Britain. What they don't have a sense of is what is constitutional and what is not. How would a British person evaluate whether a recently passed law conformed to the constitution or not?

The US constitution was pretty useless as far as X

Didn't say it was flawless, did I?

both parites do not embrace a single homogenising ideology that is loosely referred to as "conservative" or "liberal".

I agree. To a greater extent than in the UK, both major parties here are loose coalitions of factions without much central control.

I merely said that there is a distinct "anti-working class" ideology in the States.

I think there's a distinct anti-class ideology that is shared by both parties.

just because the US has a constitution does not mean that it is more or less ideological than any other country. That is simply another form of cultural snobbery.

I didn't realize that you viewed "ideological" as a compliment. If you are arguing that thinking you are more ideological means you're a snob, then you must, logically, view being ideological as being better.

I think that, in order to be ideological, it helps for a nation to state what its core principles are, and for its population to be trained to accept those principles. I don't see that process happening in the UK, so therefore I think of the UK as being less ideological.

This reply appears to have been written as a response to something in your imagination. Again, you cannot resist the temptation to make things up and to presume.

You're dishonest and if it's one thing I cannot stand, it's dishonesty.

 

[zion]

???

Everything in my previous post responded to a direct quotation from YOUR previous post. It's not my fevered imagination at work here, Nino. You asked me to read and comprehend your posts, and I did so as best as I could.

Please let me know anything that I have said that is dishonest. I really don't know what you're talking about.

By the way - happy birthday!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

???

Everything in my previous post responded to a direct quotation from YOUR previous post. It's not my fevered imagination at work here, Nino. You asked me to read and comprehend your posts, and I did so as best as I could.

Please let me know anything that I have said that is dishonest. I really don't know what you're talking about.
)

You've just had your initiation.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I was recently reading an article talking about the VA (veterans adminstration) system in the US. That *is* a National Health Service, and is the best medical care you can get in the country.

But good luck instituting that on a national scale.

I think you've been misinformed. No one who has another option uses the VA system. I've heard (recent) stories about rats in the hallways. One friend of mine recently died in a VA hospital when they botched an operation and cut an artery. (Miss ya Caveman).

The criminallly underfunded VA system is one of the reasons that we don't have a national healthcare system because most people see this as the example.

 

[Julie]

This continues a discussion from the UK politics thread regarding working-class politics. It discusses the US experience with addressing poverty and with reforming the welfare system.

I run a "community development corporation" in the US, a unique model of community-supported nonprofit originally created by Robert F. Kennedy and civil rights pioneers that uses donations from banks, foundations, corporations, local philanthropists and government to build affordable housing, provide adult education and training, help tenants and mobilize low-income people's civic participation. CDCs provide an alternative to direct welfare assistance from government sources, and are a key part of US attempts to address poverty and spiralling housing costs.

Yield,

When you say foundations do you mean charities?

Yes. The Gates Foundation is the largest foundation on earth ... etc, etc

Thought you were talking to yourself there for a minute

 

[nino_savatte]

???

Everything in my previous post responded to a direct quotation from YOUR previous post. It's not my fevered imagination at work here, Nino. You asked me to read and comprehend your posts, and I did so as best as I could.

Please let me know anything that I have said that is dishonest. I really don't know what you're talking about.

By the way - happy birthday!

Oh but I think it is, you continue to make presumptions and that is getting in the way of any discussion.

 

[nino_savatte]

You've just had your initiation.

Prick.

 

[Streathamite]

zion, the system you outlined in your Op is liberal tory philanthropy under another name, and is no substitute for working-class collective action to get social and economic justice

 

[Streathamite]

. However, a system where you get resources based on proving that you need more than the next person discourages altruism toward your neighbor. You hate the person next to you for their needs. How dare they have children? How dare they get sick? How dare they have a dying grandmother? How dare they get ahead in the need queue? .

no they don't, not when and where you have had genuine working class solidarity built up, then there is the culture that, "we're all in this together, let's look out for each other, cas the bosses shaft us all".

Accounts of the Soviet Union are filled with this resentment and suspicion of your fellow man, and of little plots and intrigues to get ahead in the need queue

the USSR was genuinely socialist for about 30 minutes! what you've described is typical of a hierarchical, Statist system.

 

[nino_savatte]

zion, the system you outlined in your Op is liberal tory philanthropy under another name, and is no substitute for working-class collective action to get social and economic justice

You've encapsulated that so well, Jezza. Whereas I went around the houses a bit.

 

[zion]

First, what we do is based around community organizing. It's not based on class as such, but on the ways American society operates to make it harder for some kinds of people (usually nonwhite people, recent immigrants and so on) to get ahead. Not doing a Marxist analysis does not make us unconscious of the systemic injustices in American society. Having a consciousness of not being alone and of the worth and power of their community can help people rise out of poverty.

Second, "working class solidarity" is a thin reed to rest on. What happens to that solidarity once the "working class" becomes the "bosses"?

Third, the Soviet Union was never, not even for thirty minutes, genuinely socialist, unless you define socialism as the trying and executing of the previous bosses and then the systematic repression of internal political dissent of all kinds. Lenin was as much of a bastard as Stalin was: he just had fewer years in which to kill people with his theories.

 

[Crispy]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but if you didn't hate the US medical system - you will after reading this:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2006/sep/28/566668048.html

This is a good friend of my parents and a friend of mine, basically chewed up by an incompetant doctor and spat out by a system that puts money above the welfare of human beings. Sick.

"Reasons that have not been made clear" are "we removed your bile duct in a botched operation.oops"

 

[nino_savatte]

First, what we do is based around community organizing. It's not based on class as such, but on the ways American society operates to make it harder for some kinds of people (usually nonwhite people, recent immigrants and so on) to get ahead. Not doing a Marxist analysis does not make us unconscious of the systemic injustices in American society. Having a consciousness of not being alone and of the worth and power of their community can help people rise out of poverty.

Second, "working class solidarity" is a thin reed to rest on. What happens to that solidarity once the "working class" becomes the "bosses"? "

Third, the Soviet Union was never, not even for thirty minutes, genuinely socialist, unless you define socialism as the trying and executing of the previous bosses and then the systematic repression of internal political dissent of all kinds. Lenin was as much of a bastard as Stalin was: he just had fewer years in which to kill people with his theories.

There will always be a working class and, beneath that, an underclass. That is a feature of the late western capitalist system and it is unavoidable. Working class become the bosses"? I see precious little evidence of this happening and while there is social mobility, there are still large numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled labour, all of whom have little access to proper healthcare and who are content to stay where they are - there is no right or wrong about that.

The Soviet Union under Stalin is a poor example of "socialism". Suffice to say, it isn't socialism in the accepted sense, it is authoritarian state captitalism. All you seem to be doing here is venting some anti-left wing spleen. But I have to say, your 'analysis' of socialism is badly misinformed. Furthermore, any mention of Marx to the average American is likely to provoke apoplexy, though these people would quite happily accept the cod philosophy of Rand without question....or the ideas of Strauss (which have an enormous amount of currency in political circles). Stalin didn't kill anyone with "theories" as you somewhat crassly suggest, those people died as a result of his paranoia and total control of the state. In fact, Stalin had very few theories and tbh, I'm not even aware of any "Stalinist theories". He was one for slogans, like "Socialism in one country",for instance. "Five year plan" is another. No theories there....none whatsoever.

You say you grew up in rural Oxfordshire. It wasn't Upper Heyford by any chance, was it?

 

[Fruitloop]

Healthcare in the states

This kind of figure makes me glad even of the flakey old NHS. Best ignore the unnecessary 9/11 comparisons....

http://prorev.com/2006/09/lack-of-health-isurance-kills-six.htm

 

[zion]

Nino,

There will always be a working class and, beneath that, an underclass. That is a feature of the late western capitalist system and it is unavoidable.

It is an unavoidable effect of believing in a Marxist analysis of history. I am prepared to believe that some people will always be poorer than others; it's just that the terms "working class" and "underclass" are inherently somewhat alien to American culture. By rights, under the Marxist analysis of history, the US, as the most developed capitalist economy, should have become communist before anywhere else, which makes me distrust that theory of history.

I see precious little evidence of this happening [workers becoming the bosses]

I was inviting Red_Jezza to consider whether the solidarity of the working class would be maintained if a workers' revolution succeeded.

The Soviet Union under Stalin is a poor example of "socialism". Suffice to say, it isn't socialism in the accepted sense, it is authoritarian state captitalism.

You guys seem to all be drinking from the same fountain on this one. But Red_Jezza did claim that the Soviet Union had been socialist for "about thirty minutes", and I was trying to identify when those thirty minutes were. Presumably, they were under Lenin, and I was suggesting that Lenin was a no-good authoritarian bastard himself.

What I resist is this highly misinformed notion that somehow, if men were angels, communism would be OK and would have better effects than capitalism. There is a process inherent to communist theory, and the proposition that you take according to ability and give according to need, that necessarily results in the tyranny of the needs assessors and the turning of non-needs-assessors into beggars. You could equally well maintain that if men were angels, the inequalities prevalent under capitalism would disappear. It's a poor basis for defending the viability of a theory.

Stalin had plenty of theories. His theories, ruthlessly implemented, included the idea that anyone who had risen above the level of subsistence (the kulaks) was a capitalist oppressor who deserved to be liquidated (except, of course, for people who had risen through the Party and the secret police). His theories included the idea that anyone who criticized his ideas was a counterrevolutionary and a spy for foreign powers. His theories included the idea that individual people had no value as individuals, but only insofar as their life or death would advance communism.

You say you grew up in rural Oxfordshire. It wasn't Upper Heyford by any chance, was it?

Mostly in Wallingford and then in Oxford itself.

 

[Fruitloop]

But being working class is about poverty only tangentially, the important feature is your relation to capital.

With regard to capitalism and decadence theory, I think everyone here has more or less rejected that kind of grand narrative.

Socialism in no way relies on men becoming like angels (we're not actually nuts, you know...), just on them discerning their collective interests through the fog of capitalist ideology.

With regard to Stalin, firstly it's important to remember that the worker's state is only viewed as being a transition to socialism, not the thing itself, and secondly that not very many marxists at the time thought that a successful transition to socialism in Russia alone was in the slightest way possible - of those that were involved in the revolution, many had simply intended to hang onto power there until revolutionary activity in the advanced capitalist countries made a global transition to socialism possible. Unfortunately, as Marx and Engels had already observed, the state bureaucracy can with the right conditions become fairly autonomous even in capitalist societies, and this effect was much more pronounced in the comparative power vacuum that followed the revolution. Stalin and 'socialism in one country' was in this sense just the logical conclusion of inhibiting factors that had been obvious from the outset.