NG 191 controlled euthanasia in the UK.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Every communist is a socialist but not every socialist is a communist.

Speaking as someone who survived communism, I can't agree with this.

Where Iived access to the writing of people like marx was restricted because our flavor of communism had several key differences due to the level of poverty making marxs goals unachievable for generations without substantial structural reforms which the leadership opposed, and because we operated on a proxy system that also went against marxs writting.

a reply to: nickyw

the value of the welfare state, the idea is to create smaller families so those who do survive have the better genetics and learn the right kind of virtues.

I can see how Beveredge as a social planner may believe that getting people to plan smaller families might make sense, But as a whole, eugenics tends to smack of certain unfavorable activities which have been used in a totalitarian fashion. Darwinism itself along with Malthusian concepts have dominated. Thomas Malthus himself thought that the earth would just run out of food, and therefore he considered it the job of society to weed out the sick and unhealthy. In America, the Pioneers and plantation owners had large families in order to sustain their lands.
We have this little thing though where we think it’s our right to decide ourselves rather than have the State tell us. Not so long ago, the Communist Chinese had the One Child Policy and it was quite brutal. They encouraged boys in family “planning” and many women would abort.

China's one-child policy, enacted in 1979 as a form of population growth. Intended to stop a repeat of the starvation of previous decades, the policy eventually resulted in a large gender imbalance, due to a traditional preference for sons, and the abandonment of baby girls. For decades, the policy was enforced through fines, economic incentives and propaganda. It was replaced with a two-child policy in 2015.

Wang said that women who already had children were sometimes forced to undergo abortions for subsequent pregnancies, administered by officials who felt they were performing their duty to uphold the policy. Sterilizations were performed in the same way.

www.cbc.ca...
This not only says something about communist( as China was and still is a communist state) it says something about the dangers of enforced family planning. This is exacerbated by the UN, which promotes policies wherein they give monetary rewards to families who practice “family planning” in order to reduce population growth.
Here is more along that vein about China’s family planning policies. www.cbc.ca...

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Speaking as someone who survived communism, I can't agree with this

Well, I am genuinely surprised to hear this. I would be interested to hear more of the specifics of what was different from the philosophy of Marx.
Just as a point of notation, socialism has been embedded in the communist system no matter where. Socialism contains a mechanism for the forced redistribution of wealth through government policies. This is part of what is wrong with socialism. When people tout socialism as a means to a better society, it turns out in reality to be a brutal enforcement of communist policies… you know…

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
It turns out that people generally don’t produce well when the fruits of their labor can be confiscated and given to those who didn’t produce, and likewise, many who are given welfare benefits don’t feel the need to work hard for it. This is why the concept by Adam Smith of “the hidden hand” works so well in advanced free market economies.
This is not to say that crony capitalism is great… it isn’t and it’s not true free enterprise.

Interesting article on the current state of the NHS:

BBC News - The NHS crisis - decades in the making
www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: anonentity

Great information. I remember being shocked when my Dad had a heart attack & the doctors just stated matter-of-factly that they were going to withdraw all care, because he had suffered severe brain damage due to the lack of oxygen to the brain while his heart had been stopped. They ceased all water & food, and started giving him very high doses of Midazolam, which I actually consented to after I saw his condition (he was non-verbal with a repeptititve, constant verbal tic, a vocalisation which made it highly apparent that he was totally mentally disabled by the event he had suffered..) It took two more days for him to finally die, and I'm certain the Midazolam probably had something to do with it, though ultimately (long story) he actually passed away peacefully, after I had prayed with him, he gave one final, louder vocalisation & breathed his last. I know that he had been waiting for me to arrive that morning, essentially I issued a sort of 'last rites', he knew at some level that he could not recover from what had happened, and just held on long enough to be reassured spiritually before letting go. I count it as a blessing, the way it all occurred (there are other details I haven't shared), ultimately he left this world in peace, despite being horribly impacted by the brain damage, and my family & I have received several reassurances that indeed, he is content in paradise at this moment.

I must confess that even before this incident, my heart was torn on the matter of euthanasia. I have come to the conclusion that in the hands of righteous men, the provision of a 'good death' for those who are suffering without hope of relief is a better thing than constantly keeping people alive just because we can, when in truth their active life is over & even they themselves are literally waiting with hope for the final moments. The problem is that we live in a corrupt world, and there are a great many doctors who clearly already have a death camp mentality towards the elderly & the 'useless eaters', as was so ably proved from the onset of the pandemic until now. Anyone who is suffering without hope of relief, who consents to having their passing hastened, who is truly CARED FOR by the medical professionals at their bedside, whose decision can be ratified by a council of specialists in medicine, law & social care, should be allowed to ask for their care to be altered to support an end-of-life winding down, a deliberate search for euthanasia at a reasonable pace of transition to a lifeless state (determined by the patient/advocate, not the accountants).

The problem is, the accountants & corporatists, the eugenicists, are the ones in control of this plan, and I KNOW that it will be rampantly abused by those whose eyes light up with cash symbols when the word euthanasia is spoken. We are already seeing the effects in Canada as one example.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Speaking as someone who survived communism, I can't agree with this

Well, I am genuinely surprised to hear this. I would be interested to hear more of the specifics of what was different from the philosophy of Marx.
Just as a point of notation, socialism has been embedded in the communist system no matter where. Socialism contains a mechanism for the forced redistribution of wealth through government policies. This is part of what is wrong with socialism. When people tout socialism as a means to a better society, it turns out in reality to be a brutal enforcement of communist policies… you know…

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
It turns out that people generally don’t produce well when the fruits of their labor can be confiscated and given to those who didn’t produce, and likewise, many who are given welfare benefits don’t feel the need to work hard for it. This is why the concept by Adam Smith of “the hidden hand” works so well in advanced free market economies.
This is not to say that crony capitalism is great… it isn’t and it’s not true free enterprise.

I could write a book about this, but the short answer is that it did what happened on animal farm, at least to some extent, and the writings of marx and trotsky were restricted so that people couldn't see that this version differed considerably from the original intention.

In short, the country was poor and agrarian, so it would have taken decades to reach even the lowest rungs of socialism through Educating laborers and having them run the country on an egalitarian basis. So instead they appointed people to run everything on behalf of the people, who they considered too poor and illiterate to be trained to do it themselves.

These people tended to be appointed based on their loyalty to the party rather than their ability. And we're the exact kind of people that marx and trotsky said should be torn down. Hence why their writing was restricted.

Things went about as well as can be expected.

Famine, poor productivity, labor camps. Yadda, yadda, yadda.