Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCapitalism Produces Rich Bankers, but Socialism Produces Happiness
Socialism is better than capitalism. So say 20 percent of Americans, and another 27 percent say they can't say which is better, according to an April 9 Rasmussen poll.
There's hope.
When you consider that virtually no newspaper, broadcaster, well-funded think tank, teacher, or anybody's boss or commander ever said something nice about socialism, it's remarkable that only 53 percent of us still favor rule by the moneyed class. Perhaps folks are learning how capitalism sacrifices happiness for individual gain.
As Billy Bragg exhorts us in his update of the socialist anthem "The Internationale": "Stand up, all victims of oppression/for tyrants fear your might/Don't cling so hard to your possessions/For you have nothing if you have no rights."
No less a "capitalist tool" than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. High per-capita GDP certainly plays a role in their felicity, but even social democratic New Zealand, with per-capita GDP only 64 percent of the United States', ranks with the 10 democracies above us in the happiness index. They pay high taxes in these pinkotopias, but folks enjoy entitlements like free college, extensive elder care, and 52-week paid maternity leave.
The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. Forbes suggests that such happiness derives from family, social and community networks, and a decent work-life balance, noting that the average workweek in Scandinavia is 37 hours.
Nice dream, but how do we get there? Most of these countries dumped capitalist exploitation long ago and instituted mixed economies with socialist ideals. More contemporary models are the 11 Latin America countries pursuing "Socialism in the 21st Century." They too reject top-down Leninism for a system based on participatory democracy and solidarity.
In Ecuador, a land I have studied and worked in, a broad coalition of indigenous, environmentalists, trade unions, professional organizations, feminists, gay activists, left parties, and students laid the groundwork for transformation. They just re-elected Rafael Correa, their leftist standard-bearer, as president. They fought racism, oligarchs, oil companies, and corrupt politicians for decades.
The economies of Latin America's red eleven are improving, although none of them has instituted a socialist utopia. They are still subject to the slings and arrows of egotism, error, and internecine conflict. But they have overcome the greatest impediments to their advancement, including the U.S.-based bankers who are draining our treasury now. And the civil society they created in the struggle is the guarantor of their democracy.
Before finding the path of progress, many of these countries had lurched from violent paroxysm to confusion and resignation, not unlike what the U.S. currently endures.
For example, our Auto Industry Task Force just bankrupted GM and Chrysler, fired tens of thousands of employees, extorted immense sacrifices from active and retired autoworkers, and is dominated by the investment bankers who absorbed trillions in national wealth to keep themselves rich after destroying the economy.
Instead of seizing plants as our Canadian comrades are doing, or adding "bossnapping" to plant occupations as the French have done, we shake our heads as the union negotiates the terms of surrender.
What could we do with socialism? Well, take banks for starters: take them, so instead of private scams that go broke gambling with money they don't own, they'd become public utilities that finance production, infrastructure, and homes. And treat aging industries like autos: instead of dumping, we'd transform them according to a national plan for green jobs and a healthy environment.
Solidarity is the path as well as the destination of socialism. Solidarity grieves when a worker loses his job or sees her pension slashed. Solidarity cheers when a union wins middle-class pay. Solidarity rejects the greed of insurers as the distributor of healthcare and demands single payer for all.
Solidarity smells the rat who divides white from black, black from gay, native from newcomer, or America from the rest of humanity.
"So come brothers and sisters/For the struggle carries on/The Internationale/Unites the world in Song.
"So comrades come rally/For this is the time and place/The international ideal/Unites the human race."
155 Comments so far
Show AllJust as Rome wasn't built in one day, these social democratic changes have come with time, patience and humanity. That is one thing Americans lack severly: patience!
Most of those 20% PRobably think Socialism is Obama and Free healthcare. I'm sure probably 10% of em are actual socialists, and I'm sure more than 20% of Aemrica would be socialists if they knew truley what it was.
It isn't Obama and it isnt yo mama
And where is THE LEFT?
The Real Obama Legacy: Where is the Left?
Alan Greenspan declares the failure of free-booting capitalism.
Joseph Stiglitz fights for more jobs and relief for the unemployed.
Paul Krugman advocates the nationalization of the banks.
Jon Stewart takes on Wall Street.
The Corporate Mass Media reports on tent cities for the foreclosed.
Putin and Medvedev point out the hypocrisy of the "new" U.S. Foreign Policy.
European conservatives threaten War Crimes prosecutions of the Bush Administration.
Where is the Left?
While the criticism of the current - dismal - state of society is left to infamous reactionaries, irrelevant technicians, corporate anomalies, arbitrary entertainers, and foreign politicians, where is "the Left"? Where is that political movement whose sole reason for existence is to raise the banner of the fightback precisely at this moment... arguably, whose entire existence is predicated solely on their actions at such moments?
The question is asked without distinction. Left Democrats, Left Independents, Left Radicals... Labor Unions and mass organizations and the CBC and anyone else who would remotely identify with "the Left" - where are they?
Where is it? It is standing in defense of the government, that's where it is. It is entrenched in opposition to a political party which is already split fragmented and irrelevant. And through that continued "loyalty and opposition", it has already assured its own irrelevance.
Is that too harsh? What then does "the Left" say to the rising tide of anger and misery, 650 thousand unemployed per month and tens of thousands of foreclosures... two wars without end and endless deprivation? It counsels patience, understanding of the government's "problems", education on political realities and distractions without purpose.
This is the real legacy of the "Obama Movement"... of incrementalism and electoralism and bankruptcy without limits.
Hasta la victoria siempre, Bannowsky,
We have the ability to build socialist institutions that meet the needs of the people.
For example, why do Americans continue to patronize banks that we all know are ripping us off when there is the credit union alternative.
Credit unions are owned by the people, are managed by the people and are responsive to the people.
Fair interest is paid on deposits. Fair rates are charged on debt. All services available in banks are available.
We should all boycott Bank of America and move to credit unions. We should work with credit unions to find ways that eliminate the debt and servitude of the millions who suffer from major credit cards managed by major banks.
The solutions are there. We have turned our backs on an institution that can free us.
..............
Food coops have been in existence for years. We should work with food coops to provide a more socialistic mode of healthy food distribution.
See news article in common dreams about Dave the Iowan who promotes food democracy.
.................
There are ways to build peoples' health programs and peoples' insurance programs (Medicare is insurance).
Virtually every capitalist industry and institution can be made more socialistic. We can still encourage profit. We need a fairer distribition of profit.
Do not confuse socialism with communism. I do not want or advocate state control of anything.
.............
I, for one, am guilty of waiting for the government to solve my problems. This is especially sad when there are institutions and industries that exist that can make my life and the lives of my friends and neighbors better.
And if the institution or industry does not exist - more power to the people to make it happen.
The government should exist to fund and regulate peoples' insitutions. We need to take back control from the government
Wow ! What a really long discussion and debate on socialism vs capitalism ! I must say that the only people making sense here are those who understand that neither socialism nor capitalism are perfect. The rest of you who appear to be socialist only idealists need to wake up to reality. Preach to the choir all you want but socialism by itself will not stay. Try improving capitalism and learn to slowly blend in socialism with capitalism or all you'll be doing is spending more time preaching to the choir and going nowhere. Let's see how many of you can retain that in your memory.
Capitolism that is left unchecked or unregulated causes I think a mindset of greed that becomes rampant in a society. Case in point what has and is going on in our own country right now. Capitolism is one upmanship taken to the extreme. To be a capitolist there is either sucess or failure in that mode of viewing a society. Middle class is viewed as a "staging" area of either upward mobility or downward failure.
Socialism is concerned with individuals within a societal framework the opposite of a capitolist who is concerned with self and society only if that society can provide more to the "self". Capitolism is selfcentered socialism is concerned for the many to help the indidivual achieve his or her goals.
Neither capitolism nor socialism is perfect because one must take into consideration human nature, and human nature is definitely not perfect. But for myself, after living within a capitolist society all of my life I would like to see this country move in the direction of a Socialist regime as in Northern Europe.
I had the privilege of working in the USA for one year, (twenty years ago now). I am much happier to be back home in pinko Canada now.
Unfortunately we have been electing governments up here which want to emulate USA MIC & FCM (fawning corporate media) methodology, this is making me less happy.
I would appreciate the socialism of the Iroquois Confederation with the potlatch tradition of the totem pole carvers of the left coast mixed in.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
There are two types of people in the world: those who know they're socialists, and those who don't know they're socialists.
Oops....there is a third type you don't know about apparently.
The original lyrics of the Internationale are far more inspiring than the Billy Bragg dilution into a spinoff of "Imagine".
As a real socialist, people misusing the term "socialism" irks me. A dictionary definition is community ownership of the means of production. In other words, you wouldn't have "owners" who own factories and workers labor, that would be controlled by the community. Of course, this does not have to be the state, and in fact, many prefer that it not be the state. And of course, if it is the state, the state must be controlled by the people, not a dictatorship or a one party bureaucracy. That's state control over the people, not the people's control over the means of production.
Sweden is admittedly better than the U.S. But it might be called a "cradle to the grave welfare state." The benefits are significant, but this is still a form of capitalism.
Unfortunately, I think those who voted for socialism in that poll think of Sweden, and those who voted against it think of the Soviet Union. Both views are wrong.
You are pointing to the ancient dispute between social democracy and communism (or socialist-anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism). Strictly speaking, even Cuba is not a socialist country, state being the sole owner of the means of production and the ultimate regulator of the society and economy.
True, Sweden is a full-fledged capitalist country (even more so than the USA, since more public services are privitized in Sweden than in the USA), yet Sweden is closer to socialism. How so? The answer is: distribution of national wealth.
Socialism is not defined exclusively by ownership over the means of production, but also by wealth distribution. Actually, that's the only basis US liberal capitalists* use to "accuse" Sweden of socialism, cleverly keeping quiet about true capitalist nature of Sweden.
I may try to discern three crucial ingredients of socialism: ownership of the means of production and services; ownership of the economy's output; direct democracy (self-government, both in production process and in societal affairs).
------------
* "liberal capitalists" in the 19th century laissez-faire sence, which is a smokescreen in itself considering concentration of the capital in form of monopolies.
It's true that to maximize the people's well-being you have to maximize distribution of power, both economic and civic.
One might label this ideology Localism, and seek out an uncompromising full distribution of power. When one argues that Localism is inefficient, because the elites are more capable than the people, you can argue that the people no longer need the elites, thanks to several important Localist policies: 1.) we ensure that natural resources and the fruits of progress (industrial, scientific, civic, social) are property distributed to the people, 2.) we've established the priority of economic, social, environmental stability and dismissed economic growth, 3.) we ensure the free flow of all information to all people, i.e. no trade secrets, mass awareness, 4.) renewed emphasis on mass enlightenment, responsibility.
As much as we all need socialism, I am afraid that capitalism is here to stay and no amount of questionable polling will change that truth. There has always been a see-sawing of capitalism and socialism. Kyle Jamerson, BeForKids, and WJM are correct to point out that neither system is perfect and that each has its strengths and weaknesses. Most of us on this forum are a tiny minority of those who would like to switch from capitalism to socialism. Even if we have a Great Depression this time around, the lessons learned by the capitalists have been very well taken into account so they know how to trick people into slowly accepting yuppie style capitalism. Even as we speak, our educational textbooks are being further corrupted into teaching our children to accept rich bankers as "god's messengers". Are there any plans to counter infiltrate the educational system other than putting up progressive websites and hoping that children will read all this useful information ? I would also like to caution some of those who badly want socialism and look to it to be the panacea. For socialism to work, everyone has to cooperate. I have noticed a lot of mad behavior on this site recently. Perhaps some of the obnoxious posters really do feel threatened that socialism will take away what little hard work they have done even if they're proven wrong. Efforts need to be made to push for people's socialism and not rely on Republican pollsters such as Rasmussen to keep us disappointed. People will only be ready for a change when more people cooperate and can be convinced that the change is worth it. When I voted Obama last year, I had no expectations that Obama would actually push for changing the direction of our economy from capitalism to socialism and am not surprised to find him voicing his strong opposition to single payer healthcare and even starting to force EFCA on to the backburner while simultaneously giving more bailouts to various huge corporations who don't deserve it. I do regret my vote by the way.
While at times I certainly wished for the best from Obama, and even urged others to believe that, my analysis was that either Obama would have to move towards a progressive solution on the basis of his stated pragmatism, or he would turn out to be the Kerensky of capitalism. The degree to which the practitioners of capitalism have poisoned themselves -- and all the rest of us -- is measured by the enthusiasm their acolytes express over small decreases in the rate of descent, just as a terminally-ill individual feels that brief respites from spasms and fevers presage another decade of life. Make no mistake: these are deathbed symptoms, not a see-sawing back & forth.
Of course socialism won't just happen, and it won't as long as we wait for everyone to learn how to co-operate. No human endeavor has ever been able to wait for universal co-operation: if real socialism, not a few shreds of it, is to be established, it can't wait for a secular millennium or the lions to suddenly yield to an impulse to nap with the lambs.
The end result of capitalism is a monopoly. Run and owned by Robber Barron(s).
Period.!!!
I don't have a solution, but if this nation never spent a penny fighting "communism", I think we'd be better off.
Of course, the pols had to scare us with something to stay in power.
Now the the great actor defeated them, they have as many brand new robber barron billionaires as nearly any nation.
The people of the Russia were serfs, they could have been easily better off with communism. But then, power corrupts, it seems.
What do the conservatives want us to do with people who don't earn their keep? Drive them out in the desert and let them starve? Torture them until they work? Whatever your answer, doesn't that apply to the mentally retarded and the senile?
Work house, prison for the poor?
The knee-jerkers never seem to come up with a complete thought.
Milt. Friedman felt fraud was OK because the market would make it go away. Talk about fools leading the blind.
Just who are we going to appoint to wrest the assets away from those that have more than their share, and who will decide who gets how much given to them? I suppose it will all go smoothly and we will all share the wealth equally and be happy. As someone is directing the sharing of wealth, someone will also be appointing us to do our share of creating the wealth, which could mean much hard work for some that are not accustomed to that. However, it will all be done by some one we all love and respect as we take what we are given and do what we are told.
By the way, I believe in a progressive tax system as one of the best ways to make this country work for everyone. The Bush tax cuts and endless war is part of the reason for our mess. Dropping the taxes on the rich just made them more greedy and corrupted.
Capitalism has done nothing but produce division, unhappiness, and even restlessness among the well to do. After feeling like a loser no matter how hard I work and try to keep up thanks to the cruelty of capitalism, my heart cries for socialism to ease my pain and put a smile on my face. My parents hate me but love my two greedy brothers who are rich brokers. Worse, they're tilting towards giving them all to inherit and leaving me with the scraps which I don't mind at this point.
My parents and my late husband's parents accuse me of being a house wife and a home schooling parent as the reason my husband died even when it was evident that he was the victim of his stressful employment and his company's insurance provider not covering for life-saving treatment. Instead, my parents will rave on with their rants and keep insisting that I wouldn't be poor if I weren't an uneducated secretary, consorting with poor blacks and illegal aliens, relying on government to give handouts to poor losers, and would just shut up and do an MBA in finance when I can't possibly afford it and my current employer doesn't pay for tuition at all. This alone is the reason I hate my parents and wished they'd die already ! If I try to talk to them about the benefits of socialism, they froth like mad and say that god will punish commies ! Maybe that's why I got called the "underground girl" by my family !
I had to seek employment after my husband's death 5 years ago. My brothers and their wives have treated me like shit even before my husband passed away and have been worse ever since. They will admit that there are times when they're getting worried about losing a lot of money because of their daytrading and ripping off their customers as middle men but will still laugh at me and call me a "crying loser". I only bother to see them because my two children and their children miss each other otherwise.
My looney parents and siblings may turn grumpy if socialism exists but in the end I think that we would all be happy and that even the rich would never have restless nights to worry about the sins they committed.
You might try telling your parents and in laws that until they are willing to pay for that MBA, they can STFU. And remind them that one USED to be able to afford to have a life on a secretary's wage, but when their republican buddies took over, that all changed. And they might want to actually contribute to the well being of their own family, for the love of God. How selfish.
They are clearly classists, which really means that they have no class at all.
Boy oh boy did I go through hell trying to tell them any of that. No matter how nicely I tried to explain it to them, they just got worse. I just live paycheck to paycheck and I don't gamble on the markets or invest in annuities because I believe in earning money based on my job or at the very most a money gift from a dear friend or relative. Plus, all that gambling my brothers have been doing has turned out to be negative and they're always worried about money losses but when I try to tell them to stop, they never listen. I don't have enough money to bail them out should they fail and I don't feel like helping them even if they do ask. And I stopped visiting my elderly parents after they insulted me with the suggestion that I shouldn't have given birth to my two children if I wanted to escape the economic crunch. Some of my family votes Democrat, usually DLC type, or Republican. Either way, they're so addicted to capitalism. Some people will never learn except the hard way.
If they were my family,
they wouldn't be.
Divorce them.
They are sadistic bigots.
You should just cut them all off from any contact with you AND your children. They really sound like they are insane. Don't let them "damage" your children. Good luck to you!
It has become evident that the U.S. dollar isn't real anymore. For instance; a trillion dollars laid end to end will reach from earth to the sun (1 AU) and Bush and his bankers have taken about 6 AU and thrir depression has consumed about 60 AU worth of dollars. Are there enough trees on this planet to print that much paper money? Where will the bankers keep such a sum? It's more than a pocketful. Why would any happly sane person work for such worthless tokens? GAME OVER!
Socialism__Great idea, until the working people with some ambition notice their work is taking care of the lazy and unmotivated ones.
I keep hearing that from the greedy and selfish who seem to think that they do everything while no one else does anything. What a persecution complex. I heard it about "welfare mothers" while the corporate welfare has always outdone the social welfare at dramatic levels. Social welfare was never more than 1% of the total federal budget, and we all know that you can't say that about corporate welfare.
What does NOT taking care of others cost society? We can see that just in our health care spending, where those who don't have any coverage cost society far more than they would if we just afforded them health care in the first place. The costs of emergency room treatments are FAR higher than preventative health care is. It's like what I said earlier about taking care of the infrastructure BEFORE it collapses. It's FAR less expensive to take care of it first. Penny wise and hundred dollar foolish.
The problem is that all sorts of those who complain like this seem to think that they have accomplished everything by themselves. They ignore the roads, bridges, airports, hospitals and the like that we ALL paid to build, and think that they alone built their fortunes without the help of workers, designers, accountants, etc, who did the actual work.
Bill Gates didn't program windows by himself, and in fact, didn't program DOS, the thing that started his empire off. He stole it from someone else who DID program it, selling it before he even owned rights to it. And yet, he has amassed a fortune of $90 Billion, while those who work for his company are getting laid off and have always had to struggle for enough hours to pay their bills.
The costs of taking care of those who need help is far lower than the costs of cleaning up the messes they make later on. It's like when Reagan shut down all the mental institutions and kicked the mentally ill all out on the streets. The increase in crimes committed by them and the costs of locking them all up later FAR outweighed the costs of the mental hospitals. Penny wise, and hundred dollar foolish. You WILL pay for them, one way or another.
Sioux Rose
WJM: Apart from your intelligence & clear reasoning abilities, thank you for being a human being, that is, not willing to compromise your fundamental humanity (as consideration for others) in pursuit of the naked profit motive, the seductive sell-out of our broken times.
Yeah you must have got your wires crossed kernelz: what we have is where millions of hard-working underpaid folks with few benefits subsidize the top 1% so that they can make 20 million plus per year. So that hard-working taxpayers "bail out"the banksters to the tune of trillions, rewarding those who crashed the system with their greedy betting and speculating. We reward their failure by letting them keep their jobs and billions in bonuses. Now that's a great system! (If I'm a Billionaire Bankster that is)
Socialist___Most of us resent the top 5 0r 10 percent running off with everything. However there are millions of good working people that are helping keep the country running and paying there share of taxes or more to help with social programs. The problem is not socialism or capitalism, it is how much of each do we need and when do we need it? Some folks are in bad shape because of circumstances beyond their control__those are the ones to help out and get them on their feet.
"However there are millions of good working people that are helping keep the country running and paying there share of taxes or more to help with social programs."
And where does that money go towards? Wars and bailing out the bankers at the expense of cutting the social programs you capitalist pigs keep attacking as "too socialist" !
"Some folks are in bad shape because of circumstances beyond their control__those are the ones to help out and get them on their feet."
And what happens when most of us are in bad shape? The rich elites are hell bent on keeping their own loot. We need a government that balances out the wealth and will not allow wealth to be too consolidated to the top few, not a government that keeps putting policies that rewards the wealthy and punishes the rest of us like the one we've been stuck with for 40 years. Corporations aren't there to help people but to profit at the expense of other people's hard work. I'll take socialism over capitalism any day !
Unregulated capitalism, same result.
I wouldn't go that far on socialism. If you can make it to a point where you can be sure you want to be able to make choices without intending to inflict economic harm, then capitalism can be a great thing. But the unchecked capitalism results in corporate socialism unless that's what you favor. I don't hate socialism but if I were rich, I would prepare myself to suffer any consequences of capitalism such as not asking for bailouts if I owned a too big to fail business unlike most of corporate America currently taking bailouts from Washington if not taxpayer funded subsidizations.
education people, education... we now educate our young for the 'job' market.. to work.. we do no education on 'citizenship' and the responsibilities thereof.. voting, paying taxes, spending money responsibly, being part of the solution to our social problems, etc... our economic model demands we get all 'we can' for ourselves and let the rest 'eat cake'... after 30 years of unbridled capitalism, what would you expect... the monied class using the ignorance of the proletariet to further their 'agenda'... It is amazing to drive through some poor white neighborhoods of this bible belt town I live in and see how enamered they are to the GOP and their cronies....
Free market capitalism rests on the naive assumption that all the players are honest. History doesn't bear that out.
To the extent we abdicate responsibility for the common good to the oligarchs and plutocrats, we become a party to our own enslavement.
"including the U.S.-based bankers who are draining our treasury now."
Guess you missed the headline:
"Obama: The US Government Is Broke!"
http://www.businessinsider.com/
The bankersters have looted the US Treasury. There is nothing left, but IOU's and debts.
Mr. Obama is the man who has brought us "change we can believe in."
And what does the sheeple have to say?: "Obbbaaaaahhmaaaah, Obbbbaaaaaaahhhhmmmaaaah."
The U.S. form of capitalism has become distorted and disfigured by the elite and has become an ugly troll of a type of government which is finally coming to light with the "bailouts" for the theives who distorted the democracy we now live under. At age 65, I can categorically state that our current government is not anything like the Democracy of my childhood and young adulthood.
This month I received my money market bank statement with the interest for the month. My account has a modest $17,000.00 in it, which took me some time to accumulate. My interst for this past month on that balance was a lousy $1.25!!!! That will amount to less than $15.00 per year this year. That is absolutely pathetic!!! You know that my bank will earn a lot more than $15.00 this year through the use of my $17,000.00.
I also noticed on my online statement that my mortgage payment (which I pay online through my bank) was sent to the Bank of America instead of Countrywide. I called the bank and discovered that Bank of America now had my mortgage. I couldn't believe that no one - neither Countrywide, my own bank (Wachovia), nor Bank of America, ever bothered to notify me of this change. I was completely left out of the loop.
These criminal operations that used to be banks have robbed us of our money and our pride. They should all be closed because they're all "too criminal to stay open." As far as I'm concerned, they have indeed "FAILED!" They have failed the people who trusted them.
I will be moving all of my accounts to the Credit Union this week which is run by people like you and me. No more banks for me - ever!!!!
FrankS
Go Frank go! You are correct in every instance. Isn't the spread betwen your mortgage rate and your return on savings a real customer service.
Credit Unions deserve your business if the treat you like a customer and give you some kind of decent return. BA can go to Hades.
You're absolutely right, Thomas! There's a spread of 4.41 percentage points between my mortgage rate and the return on my savings (as of this writing .09%).
How could anyone complain about this kind of "Customer Service"????? We are in desperate need of some genuine consumer protection legislation that actually favors the consumer!!!
Excellent point, markpaddles. Our entire history has been bassd on taking resources form others, starting with our own indigenous population.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
WJM, your comment, as usual, was very well put and thoughtful.
This article produced many interesting and thought provoking comments. I tend to agree that capitalism and socialism both have strengths and weaknesses, and that a well regulated balance of both would work well. Good luck with getting that. Actually I'm hopeful that when we get over the current chaos we may end up moving in that direction, but I think it will be a long bumpy ride.
ShadowDancer's comment about the earth heating up should be a heads up warning. So now they're predicting twice as hot as they did 6 years ago? I do remember reading that recently. It hasn't exactly hit the front page. One thing I've seen is that Mother Earth has always exceeded their predictions. For quite some time the rate of change and now, the degree of change. One thing our scientists haven't been able to keep up with is all the unexpected feedback loops and unpredicted consequences that keep showing up. More to come. I'm not a gambler, but I would bet on that. We're like little children who think we know everything. And the climate scientists rush back to their computers to program the new information into their models and come up with new predictions. - over and over.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Give me a system that assures that no one goes hungry or without proper shelter or without adequate health care or without guaranteed quality education. Add enough of democratic freedoms and call that system what you want.
The real question is what works for the majority of the people in any given country. It's been proven that either socialism or capitalism in their purest forms do not work. What DOES work is a system with elements of both.
This country built it's greatest middle class with a regulated version of capitalism. Those who made what was considered excessive were taxed, and that money was used to provide a safety net for those who didn't make as much. When those regulations and taxes were removed, that allowed the ultra greedy and the already too rich to run rampant through the economic sector of the country for over 25 years. In that time, they have succeeded in making themselves incredibly wealthy, far beyond what the kings of other countries would or could have dreamed of. However, they have destroyed the lives of countless others in doing so.
Socialism in it's extreme form can lead to national stagnation, where no one feels a necessity to go further, to innovate, or to excel in anything. While that may be fine in that no one starves or goes without, it doesn't further mankind or innovate anything. Extreme capitalism can have the same effects, however, so it's not alone in that. However, when it's regulated, socialism provides roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, libraries, and all sorts of other amenities that assist and improve the quality of life for the citizens of the country involved.
In this country, we have gone WAY too far in what I consider the wrong direction. We have allowed private entities to take over our hospitals, schools, prison system, and roads. As a result, those things are falling apart, have been allowed to become huge and bloated for the profits, and become huge and faceless, uncaring institutions. Our prisons are full of people who don't belong there, and are costing us billions to destroy the lives of those we lock up for victimless crimes. Lots of profit, though. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, sometimes with death involved for those unlucky enough to trust them at the time. Our health care system ignores the needs of tens of millions of us, and costs tens of thousands their lives every year. Lots of profits, though.
Profit cannot be allowed to be the reason for things to exist that should be considered basic rights. Whether they like it or not, those with too much are still members of the society, and in fact, they benefit from our system even more than the rest of us do. Without the basic infrastructure that we have ALL paid to build, they would not be able to make such inordinately obscene profits. They have to be made to contribute back to the society that allows them to get so stinking rich.
BTW, the period after FDR's changes to our capitalistic society gave us 50+ years of no serious banking issues, no depressions, no collapses, etc, which we had been going through ever 20 years or so prior to that. Once we got rid of his regulations and safeguards, SURPRISE, 25 years later, the system collapses! Think there might be a connection there? Like it or not, the FDR approach gave us the most stable period for the longest in our nation's history. I say that it's time to put this Reagan era nonsense behind us and return to what we have PROVED works. This nonsense of giving the rich even more is just nationally suicidal.
Thank you for confirming what I had said earlier about making clear distinctions between good and bad socialism and good and bad capitalism. Some people refuse to learn and have a knack of being very narrow minded and prejudiced. If more people could think like you and stop being foul mouthed and narrow minded for a changed, we progressives and liberals would be winning instead of losing and snipping at one another.
"This country built it's greatest middle class with a regulated version of capitalism."
It was a fossil-fueled version of capitalism. It was a military-industrial version of capitalism. It was a version of capitalism that was met by a great counter-culture revolt. You may promote a return of such a capitalism as many many in the liberal mainstream are doing, and the consensus will feel good, that is until it fails, again like last time, but harder, worst, due to peak oil, global warming, and imperial blowback, war without end, unsustainable public debt, and the fact that the people are getting fed up with this status quo. We're moving beyond the 1950s now.
I'm not saying that we need to return to the exact same form of economics, but we do have to return to the regulations that kept people honest. There is nothing that says that we have to do things with the same products or even industries that we had in the 50's. We have come too far to return to tube based electronics, for example, though I really do prefer the sound of tubes to solid state.
I myself would LOVE to do away with the M/I complex, and replace it with something that does humans some good, rather than to be based on killing off as many of us as possible. More people would benefit from a system that rewarded good work and products rather than death and destruction, both monetarily and spiritually. Making items of death all day has a very negative effect on the psyche.
As to fossil fuels, there is nothing other than will that keeps us from changing over to solar, wind, water, and other alternative means of providing power. The Germans provide their country with 18% of their power needs through solar, and they don't have nearly the number of sunny days as many parts of the US do. There is no reason why we couldn't do that very thing as well other than the entrenched money interests that would rather kill us all off as long as they make the profits from it.
I don't have any interest in returning to the 50's. I know full well the problems with those days. And it wasn't entirely the economic system that caused the unrest of the 60's, though that was part of it. But you shoot yourself in the foot if your idea is that socialism would stop that from occurring. it was the very regimentation that can occur from pure socialism OR pure capitalism that caused a lot of it. People didn't want to just go into a job like their fathers had without at least trying to "do their own thing". Trust me, I lived through it, and it had a very strong effect on me and my formative years.
A system that allows people to do what they want to do, and provides them with a safety net so that if and when they fail, they can try again at something else would be a FAR better system than what we have now. Our system now pretty much forces you to work for someone else unless you have independent wealth or funding from some other source. That leaves those with an idea next to no chance to try it and see if it works.
We can do better, and should. We can make a future that isn't based on all the old problems that we caused ourselves that we still haven't dealt with. if we just aim ourselves at solving these problems and not leaving anyone behind in the process, we can revive our economy, replace old technologies that are problematic, and create jobs that benefit and inspire people to do better, not just to make money.
A combination of the two main economic systems would make that possible, wouldn't it? Time to return to those things that worked and jettison those which haven't.
> People didn't want to just go into a job like their
> fathers had without at least trying to "do their own thing".
> A system that allows people to do what they want to do,
> and provides them with a safety net so that if and when
> they fail, they can try again at something else
Sure, people want micro-enterprises for entrepreneurial pursuit. If the New Deal had sufficiently protected the family farm, and included infrastructure allowing their diversification, we'd have diverse local economies of micro-enterprises (farmers, craftsmen, merchants) sprinkled all around the country. So let's take it farther than the New Deal this time, toward a socialism that truly benefits the people.
Sioux Rose
WJM: I'm with you! Great post.
"It's been proven that either socialism or capitalism in their purest forms do not work."
Cuba proves that socialism in its purest form does work. First healthcare. The value (outputs over inputs) in Cuba's healthcare sector is at least ten times and perhaps even twenty times the value in the USA's healthcare sector. The values in Cuba's education and food sectors are also far superior to the USA's. That Cuba has chosen to prioritize these three sectors over the others is also a testament that socialism works.
Granted you may instill different priorities in a society, i.e. an idea that healthcare, education and food are less important, and thereby make it much easier to conclude that socialism doesn't work. And in fact the liberal elites in the USA have worked feverishly over the past fifty years developing an elitespeak, to instill just that idea, that what is good is bad and what is bad is good.
But the liberal elites can't change human nature. Cuba's nearly perfect socialism proves itself most supportive to human needs. So all the "balance" arguments are really themselves off-kilter. This isn't an argument for total public ownership of property. Cuba's economy may be improved upon, probably with private assets and enterprises limited to ten man-powers and great expansion of information infrastructure. Up to 90% of the economy might be implemented in such private micro-enterprises as was Japan's before occupation by Uncle Monopoly.
Sioux Rose
RTDRURY: Uncle Monopoly, I think I've met him and he bears a striking resemblance to Uncle Sam. (Good laugh, thanks.)
But Cubans do not have political freedom, are you saying you would trade Political freedom for free health care? Ask those Cuban doctors if they can be sued for malpractice, ask them if they have to buy malpractice insurance? Ask a group of pepole if they would like free health care and everyone would raise their hand, but then ask if they had free health care, would they trade their right to sew a doctor for malpractice if they recieved free health care, how many would raise their hand then? We need free health care, yes, but to use Cuba as an exsample is not a good example. We need to get rid of the sew mentality in this country, it only raises cost for everyone.
You're missing a few points in the equation in regards to Cuba. They do not rely entirely on their socialism to take care of everything, in fact, they rely on capitalism a great deal to help pay the way.
1st, they export a large number of medical staff and technicians to the rest of Central and South America in exchange for help with their food needs. They are not a large enough country or land mass to feed their people on their own.
2nd, they count on tourism for a large part of their economy. That is capitalism right there, is it not?
3rd, they also have a system that makes products that they sell to other parts of the world, including refrigerators, which the average Cuban can't hope to afford. But they benefit from it in that their gov't doesn't go bankrupt. Last I checked, making a product and selling it is the essence of capitalism, is it not?
Cuba was in real trouble when the Soviet Union fell and stopped subsidizing them. They had to change and come up with ways to keep their people alive or risk becoming another Haiti.
BTW, a large number of Cuban families count on the money sent to them by their American based relatives. One of the biggest ways that many Cubans have to make ends meet is through various other means, like prostitution, which is HUGE in Cuba.
Granted, and with no reservations, Cuba's medical situation FAR surpasses our when it comes to meeting it's people's needs. But when their people are relegated to depending on foreign money and demeaning professions like hooking to meet their economic needs, I don't think you can call that a complete success.
Once again, it's a combination of socialism and capitalism BOTH that works for the majority. It provides the means for both social and economic well being. I just don't see evidence of ANY pure economic system that provides for both.
If you want to look at money flowing in then you have to also look at money flowing out. If a country is paying market prices, then it has to also charge market prices. Cuba's dependence on global markets is more related to the capitalist structure of the global economy than on the socialist structure of the Cuban economy. So if the whole world were socialist, Cuba could become more socialist, and it appears likely that its progress would accelerate, because more Cubans would be engaged in activities more beneficial to Cubans, e.g. education or crop selection programs, etc, instead of enslaving themselves to elite tourists.
Earlier, someone mentioned peak oil and its deep impact. When oil production peaked, socialism was the only ticket out of Cuba's darkest days. Capitalism is already crumbling no matter how much money is being provided to bail it out. We may be stuck with a crumbling capitalism for now like it or not but like it or not, socialism will take over and we all can rest in peace and quit fighting each other for scraps. I can only hope.
Except for where you mentioned extreme socialism, I agree with your post. Socialism is what got this country out of the Great Depression. It is capitalism that is turning us against one another. I would rather be a happy camper with socialism than punished no matter how hard I work under the cruel capitalist system. Socialism is never extreme. Capitalism, on the other hand, is very easy to show its cruel extremism. Even the rich often find themselves having restless days because they continue to get caught up with getting richer and richer at the expense of pitting the rest of us against one another. The richer the rich get the more they'll have to fear that an uprising from the rest of us is more likely. Capitalism produces nothing but restlessness and unhappiness. Socialism will give us stability and happiness.
Peace
It was PARTLY socialistic policies that helped get us out of the depression. It was also regulations placed on our form of capitalism that did it. It was regulations that kept certain forms of banking separate, for instance. They were repealed after 50 years by Clinton and the republicans, and a decade later the whole system fails. I don't consider that to be a coincidence.
If regulating things so that the "game" stays fair, and people whose greed outweighs their common sense don't get to live down to their lowest instincts, then it needs to be brought back. It has proved itself.
I still stand by my contention that neither approach in it's entirety works, at least not in this country. Capitalism if left unchecked and unregulated offers nothing but a rush to the bottom for the vast majority. Socialism in it's extremes leads to a lack of growth. A mix of the two seems to me to be the best approach. I do believe that too much gov't control leads to corruption and overreaching intrusion. We have had that shown to us in this country more than once. Perhaps it is just the American mindset that does it, but I think it's been shown that we can't allow others too much power and control over the majority, or you have something that isn't really that much better than what we have now.
"Socialism in it's extremes leads to a lack of growth"
This economy doesn't need growth. In fact it needs a big permanent contraction, because we consume way too much. If that's your only criticism of socialism, then let us implement it today.
I've seen a lot of what you and Kyle had to say about regulated capitalism. I apologize for my earlier reply. It's just that I felt like a victim of capitalism. I see you've read my post and even replied about what I believe capitalism has done to divide us even in family. I don't know when I will gain trust in capitalism after my unhappy experience with capitalism overall. I'm sorry.
Lets just say managed mixed economies are the way to go....
Sioux Rose
WJM: Excellent post.
WJM
Absolutely terrific post. I feel you made a very fair comparison and comment that pretty much also explains our arrival at the crossroads we find ourselves at.
I would only add that though correct about what socialism can provide it is a case of declining benefits due to its inherent design.
I would also say I'm having trouble finding what we are going to base our recovery on? With the removal of priotections Corporate America has effectively dismantled our industrial base and I see no interest by the President or Congress in dealing with this fact. At least I believe its a fact.
Sioux Rose
THOMAS: I just watched a movie and it made me think of you. Have you ever seen "Fast Food Nation" based on the book by Eric Schlosser? If you have not, I would appreciate it if at some point you viewed it. It would show you what the Mexicans who cross the border endure on this side of the "line."
My "outrage index" is pretty high at the moment having watched "Sicko" last night, and now this. The common denominator in these films is what happens to real peoples' lives when the profit motive commands all decisions and defines policy. The answer is pain and an ostensibly depraved indifference to basic decency. It is this same disease that allows capitalism to make the rules to its own game, regardless of the fact these often violate our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The huge sums involved make persons expendable and ensure that government "leaders" can be bought if the price is right.
It's difficult to know what one's "price" would be if walking in the mocassins of such as these. Like preventive medicine, I think the key is not to end up in those shoes in the first place. Just about everything ailing this nation can be traced to the influence of big money over everything. With enough $ to buy media and judges, torture can be repackaged as "motivation," and war can be made to look like a peace initiative. Shit in beef can be made to seem like natural flavoring, filthy coal is dressed up as the clean alternative, and not having access to medical care (a basic system to fall back on) can be presented as liberty. Upside down world has arrived in the U.S. and it's impacting every one of us.
Sioux Rose
"It would show you what the Mexicans who cross the border endure on this side of the "line."
Dear Sioux Rose, I've seen "Fast Food Nation" and I believe I know far more about what Mexicans endure on this side of the border than you because I grew up with them, have worked beside them and still know quite a few. It boggles my mind that you seem to miss my point continually and insist on not listening to what I say, but rather prefer the propaganda of business.
When someone oposes illegal immigration the first word you hear is bigot or racist. Next its people just want to provide for their families and all the rest. Some of it is actually true. But unless you look at and discuss this matter honestly with none of the straw man reasoning, I guess you won't hear what I say, but only what you want to believe.
I would also suggest that perhaps you not take these films quite so literally. Moore presents both films to give his view and to make money. Cuba is not quite the Nirvana of medecine he presents nor is ours so bad.
Perhaps on a day when we honor all the kids that have given their lives for this country, right or wrong, good wars and bad, you could consider that our country is not quite as bad as presented by folks that are suspect at best.
Peace
Moore also makes money by investing in defense stocks such as Halliburton. Do a google search on "Peter Schweitzer" and "Michael Moore". I kid you not. PS caught MM redhanded on his tax returns. Some "progressive" MM is huh ? Where's a real progressive and liberal when you need one? Thanks for seeing through the cultists.
"Dear Sioux Rose, I've seen "Fast Food Nation" and I believe I know far more about what Mexicans endure on this side of the border than you because I grew up with them, have worked beside them and still know quite a few. It boggles my mind that you seem to miss my point continually and insist on not listening to what I say, but rather prefer the propaganda of business.
When someone oposes illegal immigration the first word you hear is bigot or racist. Next its people just want to provide for their families and all the rest. Some of it is actually true. But unless you look at and discuss this matter honestly with none of the straw man reasoning, I guess you won't hear what I say, but only what you want to believe."
Thomas, I found out that when it comes to immigration, a lot of those people who cross the border do so out of sheer poverty and in the case of women and children, additional abuse. While I think that Eric Schloss was somewhat clumsy to use Mcdonalds as an example and eat everyday from there even though Mcdonalds never said to eat there every day, what he's trying to say is that Mcdonalds desperately wants to profit even if it means seducing and poisoning the public with their addictive fast food regardless of long term health damages that have no doubt raised the costs of healthcare and he's correct. He may profit off films yet he is being more truthful about it and it's getting harder to deny that truth. As much as we would like to curb illegal immigration, until we understand the real meaning of poverty both here and in Mexico and engage in more community organizing and less in subtle racial segregation, the immigrants are here to stay with more to pour in. I hate to tell you this but if you have noticed a historical trend here, the more people scream "illegal aliens", the more pour in. On the other hand, the more we cut down our shouting and abuse of these immigrants, the less they pour in. Have you even lived in Mexico? Every Mexican who has come to live in this country has told me their memories and labor and worker abuse and even rape. It is wrong to tell them to go back to Mexico when the country there doesn't even want them back lest they suffer more hell. Perhaps we could empower them and then encourage them to take the fight back to Mexico.
"Cuba is not quite the Nirvana of medecine he presents nor is ours so bad."
Wait a minute. The other day you agreed with others who pointed out that the drug companies are ruining the medical field. Unlike here where medicine is privatized just like healthcare, in Cuba it's all open. Cuba may not be perfect but I think that we would honor ourselves and our children if we would learn from them and give some more socialism a chance. Even you expressed your strong support for single payer but there's no chance of getting it until our medical and healthcare system actually adopt more towards Cuba's style. It doesn't have to mirror theirs but even a little more socialism would help.
"I would also say I'm having trouble finding what we are going to base our recovery on? With the removal of priotections Corporate America has effectively dismantled our industrial base and I see no interest by the President or Congress in dealing with this fact. At least I believe its a fact."
It's going to be MUCH harder this time, compared to the great depression of the 30's. Back then we hadn't sent all of our factories off to foreign shores, and still had a population that knew how to do such work.
One way to start, though, is to start dong the basic maintenance on our infrastructure that has been ignored since Reagan. The way that he was able to cut taxes on business and the wealthy and have it not look as disastrous as it really was was to stop doing things like bridge and road inspections and repairs. The next administrations didn't put those things back into the budgets for the same reasons. The short sightedness of these policies is deadly, as has been proven on more than one occasion. And to do these things at this late date will no doubt cost us about ten times more than they would have had we taken care of them at the time.
That, and returning ourselves to a policy of the tariffs that served us well for the first 200 years of our country's existence and that every other country in the world uses to protect their industries. For instance, China imports our goods at a tariff rate of 24%, while we place a 2% tariff of their goods we import. With that kind of foolishness in place, we are bound to never have a manufacturing sector again in this country. Between that and the stupidity of giving tax breaks to companies that dismantle factories and send them overseas, it's pretty clear that we did this to ourselves.
What pisses me off is that this is all common sense, or at least it would seem to be. I saw this coming every time I heard about one of these things going through. I knew when Reagan said that we needed to give the rich more money so they couls trickle it down on us that it was a complete lie, bound to do nothing but bankrupt the rest of us. I knew when they were talking about "free market" ideas that it would be workable ONLY if everyone else on the planet did the same things, and that it would be clear that no one else would, as it's economic suicide. I knew that the tax breaks for dismantling factories would just mean NO jobs left here. How is it that most of the rest of the country fell for such pure and utter BS? I'm not a trained economist, I'm a professional musician. As such I shouldn't have been able to see through this crap nearly as easily as I did. But it's so obvious and was at that time that it was nothing but a looting.
Now, because it's pretty clear that no one will ever be held accountable for this looting, that we will have to start all over rebuilding everything from the ground up. It's going to take decades to rebuild everything they have destroyed. My one hope is that when we do that we put in place some safeguards to keep this from happening again. I would love to see the ill gotten gains taken back from the thieves, but I'm sure that won't ever happen, and they will just use those dollars to do further damage. It's a real shame that we have ever allowed ourselves to fall under such a foolish philosophy as the neocon BS. It's what Franklin said about us keeping our republic. At this point, we've lost it thanks to greed, the most shallow of all reasons to lose anything.
WJM
Boy-oh-Boy are we on the same wavelength. If I could say things that well I could have written it!
Something that folks forget about ole Ronnie, it wasn't just Taxes he cut that got the economy moving,he also put in things like MACRS that MADE you take accelerated depreciation....want to or not....yeah it boosted the economy, but manufacturing got ripped when they had to recapture.
I love the "free market" bit. Capitalism is way ahead of whats in second place, but not the unregulated form as you pointed out. And trade policies negotiated by our government don't even have a passing "howdy" for real free markets.
The thing that is beginning to worry me most is that it is beginning to look like we have traded one bunch of extremists for another. Whats best for them, not our country or its citizens.
Good comment.
Don't forget though... The stability of the 50+ years after FDR also gave us war after war, and a steady increase in military spending. So, yes, safeguards and regulations are good for many things (social programs, no banking issues, etc), but these safeguards sure didn't help stop the needless deaths of other people in far away countries at the hands of the capitalist war profiteers.
Sioux Rose
MARK: Good point, and it reinforces points made earlier by Rich M.
It's hard to tell if socialism or capitalism is responsible for the 50 years of warfare. I think that the people who kept the war machines running exploited the weaknesses of each system and very successfully. It has been shown that exploiting the weaknesses of capitalism can be far more dangerous than exploiting the weaknesses of socialism.
Oh, I agree totally. The M/I complex was allowed to grow at an unprecedented rate, and it is to our shame that it was never shut down after WWII like it SHOULD have been.
The number of wars since WWII is astonishing, and is largely due to the lack of restraints on the CIA and the other secret US agencies. We have been sticking our faces into other countries to purposely destabilize them for some twisted idea of being number one. The fact that it's completely against everything that this country says it stands for is purely disgusting. Too bad the country didn't pay attention to Eisenhower, the last GOOD republican. We and the rest of the world would be far better off if we had.
The regulations WOULD have prevented this had they been put in place ON those industries, and they SHOULD have been. Once again, a place where less regulation has been a bad thing.
Good one. Mind if I share this with my "staunch Republican" father?
"Good one. Mind if I share this with my "staunch Republican" father?"
Feel free. There is nothing revolutionary about it, it's just common sense, which I have been saying for years, now, is far from common. But don't be surprised if your father doesn't see it. Those who are "staunch" about their republicanism tend to have their minds made up and facts won't sway them one bit. It's a shame to be able to say that about ANYONE, regardless of which "side" they are one. Funny, back when I was a kid (in the 60's, for the record), I always thought hat we were all on the side of America. Not so much anymore, after 29 years of divide and conquer politics.
Excellent comments. Good insights. Thanks
"No less a "capitalist tool" than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. "
"happiness index"
"The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. "
So Forbes is reporting *this month* on a survey done in 2005?
This single poll offered by the author sounds impossibly vague and ill defined to qualify as a "happiness index". He could have given a little more information on it.
Forget Forbes, there have been studies and indexes compiled on this from a whole host of sources. Google it and study up. Better yet, read a book. I could recommend: "The Impact of Inequality..." by Richard Wilkinson for starters.
If you have been studying this for awhile t is pretty straightforward: if you live in a country where you have job security, universal health care, extremely low violent crime rates, average 6 weeks paid vacation per year, at least a minimum level of consumer protectiosn etc.; this leads to a less stressful life and higher hapiness and higher life-expectancies. Just about every country in Europe, Canada, New Zealand and others fall into this category.
Unfortunately the USA is not one of these countries, we have the highest imprisonment rates in the world, the highest seratonin uptake inhibitor prescriptions in the world, the highest rates of violent crime in the industrialized world, a very high level of income and wealth disparity, the only country in the industrialized world with no universal healthcare, no sick leave, no vacation guarantee and a declining life-expectancy. The record is crystal clear.
And no Homes or Employment or Money or Credit
“ there have been studies and indexes compiled on this from a whole host of sources. Google it and study up.”
Sorry, but if you or Phillip Bannowsky wish to claim that people in socialist countries are “happier” and that the data supports it, then the burden of proof is on the two of you and not me. At best this approach makes you look unprepared, at worst disingenuous when you know that shifting burden of proof is an established fallacy since the days of the Greeks.
“ I could recommend: "The Impact of Inequality..." by Richard Wilkinson for starters.”
Thank you.
“If you have been studying this for awhile t is pretty straightforward: if you live in a country where you have job security, universal health care, extremely low violent crime rates, average 6 weeks paid vacation per year, at least a minimum level of consumer protectiosn etc.; this leads to a less stressful life and higher hapiness “
Or instead they may just suffer from low expectations and may merely be “content” rather than “happy” with their lot. A better explanation of the study that was cited by the author would help support the idea and we could parse it out.
“The record is crystal clear.”
Hardly so.
"...they may just suffer from low expectations and may merely be “content” rather than “happy” with their lot."
Pray tell what's the universally accepted definition of happyness, and then we can talk about its quantification ("in studies"). Where is the line separating "being content" from "being happy"? When are our expectations low, and do high expectations imply happyness? Thank you.
"Pray tell what's the universally accepted definition of happyness, "
I don't know, and this is another problem with trying to claim that socialism promotes it.
The people of Poland have a saying these days: "The worst thing about communism is what comes afterwards". Can you deny their experience, with "scientific objectivness"? Explain to them, "scientifically", that they are deluded?
No one here claims that people in socialism are 14.5% happier than people in capitalism, but you insist on splitting the hair in your jesuit way - and that's annoying.
If you just give it a try, you'll see what makes people happy. In a country with lower infant mortality rate, job security, universal health care, free education, absence of racism and wars of aggression, fervent social life (Cuba vs. USA), of course people are prone to be happier - or is it that they are in their ignorance just "content" due to their "lower expectations", as you insinuate. Are *you* to tell them what's happiness?
Human nature is the same all over the world, our needs are the same, and it appears that socialism meets those needs sooner than capitalism. No rocket science needed to figure it out, just a grain of honest observation.
But you have a problem even with that much.
I don't know where socialism produces happiness. I noticed that even on this thread some of the hard-core socialists show their negative tone and vicious attacks on others who don't fully agree with it. I hate to say this but capitalism is still here to stay even in its darkest days. Just ask WJM and Kyle Jamerson.
" I noticed that even on this thread some of the hard-core socialists show their negative tone and vicious attacks on others who don't fully agree with it. "
I have no doudt it makes them happy.
I agree with you but wish to add: it is the avarice of too high expectations which leads to suffering.
usually of others.
capitalism promises equality of opportunity.
socialism provides equality of life.
vdb, capitalism may promise quality of opportunity, but if so, has no intention of delivering on that promise. Capitalism is all about whoever has the most gets more and everyone else gets less. the game Monopoly is the best example of how capitalism works (as some have pointed out in other posts). And we are seeing it here and now, as our national wealth is becoming more and more concentrated at the top 1% income bracket.
And the autoworkers union has just been destroyed, with Obama neatly stepping aside for the slaughter. Their pay and benefits have been reduced to the level of the Toyota factory workers in the South. The retirement benefits they worked all their lives for are gone. I was reading about the 1877 railroad strikes and it was the same story that provoked them. Financial market collapse with massive wage and job cuts. When people are denied the opportunity to earn a living and support their families, they get desperate. That's what capitalism produces, over and over. We were supposed to learn our lesson in the Great Depression, but we didn't. So now we're getting to learn it again, with even tougher obstacles. A most recalcitrant and corrupt Congress and a spineless president who shrinks from conflict, surrounds himself with bottom feeders and does what they say.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
That's exactly my point. My questions are not rhetorical.
"Unhappiness is best defined as the difference between our talents and our expectations.", Edward de Bono
"Happiness comes when your work and words are of benefit to yourself and others.", Buddha
Then provide some evidence to the contrary. Unless we are just talking about gut feelings.
You think in general are happier in the USA? Have you been to Europe or Costa Rica?
*Then provide some evidence to the contrary."
*I* never made any claim one way or the other, the burden is on those who claim something to be true to show that it is true. The author of this article teased us with a flakey citation. What I would like to do is look at the "study", see how it was conducted, look at the questions posed, and parse out if it really amounted to a "happiness index".
"You think in general are happier in the USA?"
I have no idea and never said so.
Then I guess I missed the point sorry
The point was made by the author, and you seemed to agree with it, that people are "happier" in socialist countries. I say no one has demonstrated this to be true. Clear?
Well I guess we agree to disagree. I have seen academic evidence to the contrary and personal experience as well, having lived in a "socialist" country for a number of years.