Socialism - The Motive Powers of Destructionism - Ludwig von Mises

reply to post by Bluesma


Eventhough I'm pro socialist/communist, I go with ketsuko.
"Choice" is not communist strong point. He does have a point.
You get a free healthcare, but it wont be the best and you dont have much option, that is true.
Communism fulfilled your "needs" not your "wants" or greed.

If you want to fulfilled your "wants" capitalism is the way, but notice ? there a more losers than gainers and "wants" have no limit.

The problem with capitalism is this - once healthcare "wants" more money, there will be lots of people who cannot afford the price. The real reason you have USA healthcare problem in the first place.

reply to post by olaru12


A but I have choices, not just the one system.

There are several insurance companies I can choose from (or at least there used to be). All of them needed to convince me to spend money with them, so they competed against each other to provide the best service for the dollar I provided. If I didn't like one company, I had the option of another.

I have a pre-existing condition, and aside from a few years right out of college, I never went without. Yes, I paid more for coverage because of said condition because it's chronic, so I'll always have it ... but I was never denied coverage, either. And that was whether I was employed or not.

As to schools, there are many schools and systems to look into from homeschooling to hybrids to private. When I was only part-time employed, we were looking at either home-schooling with a co-op or a hybrid private arrangement that would fit our budget. Now that I'm full-time again, we've found a really good private school that's just affordable, but nowhere near the price tag of the elite schools.

In a fully socialized economy, they tax ever more and more of what you make to prop up ever larger bureaucratized systems that wind up being pretty much the only ones allowed under law. You can't even go outside those systems unless you go all the way outside those systems, so in the NHS, if they decide not to offer a medication, you don't get it ... unless you are prepared to pick up 100% of all your medical expenses, even if you could pay for the cost of your medicine alone. They don't let you do that.

So, you settle and you hope it's good enough.

If I'm forced to settle, I want it to be my choice and my responsibility that caused it, not some lame bureaucrat somewhere who decided it was "best" and for the "greater good."

NullVoid
reply to post by Bluesma

 

If you want to fulfilled your "wants" capitalism is the way, but notice ? there a more losers than gainers and "wants" have no limit.

The problem with capitalism is this - once healthcare "wants" more money, there will be lots of people who cannot afford the price. The real reason you have USA healthcare problem in the first place.

This is only true up to a point.

In a true free market, it's the market that dictates the price. If the doctor gets too greedy, none of his clients can pay. All it takes is for another doctor to come along who charges less ... what they can pay, and the first doctor either lowers his standards or goes out of business.

Conversely, if the clients refuse to pay a doctor even reasonable price for his services, he cannot afford to stay in business and provide, and thus no one has any health care that way, either. The doctor either leaves to where he can make enough return to make offering his services worthwhile or he takes up a new trade or the clients realize they must pay some more in order to have services.

Is it really reasonable to expect a service as difficult to learn as medicine to be free? And yet, there are far too many people who think they are entitled to just that.

What the real problem with the health care so-called market in the US is ... is that it's not free. The government is hip deep involved in it, and we have middlemen called insurers standing between us and our providers. The people receiving the service aren't the actual customers.

And, everyone knows that both the government and the insurance companies have much deeper pockets than almost any private individual which is now the "market" our system is priced into. If we removed those two entities, there would be a price correction of epic proportions throughout the health care industry because no one could afford the prices. Things would have to get cheaper and/or the entire industry would crash.

Obamacare just may achieve this.

NullVoid
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Eventhough I'm pro socialist/communist, I go with ketsuko.
"Choice" is not communist strong point. He does have a point.
You get a free healthcare, but it wont be the best and you dont have much option, that is true.
Communism fulfilled your "needs" not your "wants" or greed.

If you want to fulfilled your "wants" capitalism is the way, but notice ? there a more losers than gainers and "wants" have no limit.

The problem with capitalism is this - once healthcare "wants" more money, there will be lots of people who cannot afford the price. The real reason you have USA healthcare problem in the first place.

I don't care where you live... health care is never free. I live in Canada where the health care is supposedly free, but nobody looks at where the money actually comes from. You want to know why we are paying 5 bucks a gallon for gas, 5% sales tax on every good and service, high income taxes, provincial taxes, and higher costs for pretty much EVERYTHING we do???? It's to pay for health care among other social programs.

Socialism and Communism are not the answer. All that results is a rationed system or care, and broke citizens.

reply to post by greencmp

I choose to measure outcomes instead of intentions, reality instead of imagination.

I applaud you.

truth over deception.

reply to post by greencmp

I think your final point reflects the vast majority of public opinion, the idea that it isn't so much the tangible improvement in the lives of the impoverished that is of concern as much as it is the "fairness" of the distribution of the totality of the resources. When you believe that the sum of all wealth in a society is fixed, this is an understandable position. The truth is that it is not a zero-sum game and by restricting entrepreneurship the whole is reduced resulting in an overall decrease in wealth for all which happens to negatively affect the poorest among us the most.

Resources are scarce. If you put a colony of bacteria in a sealed petri dish (or plate), it will grow exponentially - unless there are a high level of casualties. This growth will peak as resources are fully consumed, and then they all start to die. There is nothing left to live on.

Earth is our petri dish. Exponential growth is impossible unless we climb into the stars - and we may have missed our chance. It's worrisome, because we know how the experiment plays out in the lab. In the short-term, it's not a zero-sum game, but everyone's dead in the long-run.

Capitalism, as a functional system, depends on continual growth. We will probably run out of oil in the next fifty years - likely as early as the 2030s. This is why people at the forefront are pushing for alternative tech so hard - they know we only have a few decades at best. Without high-density, easily-transportable energy that comes from petroleum products, what do you think is going to happen to growth?

Even in the short-term, it's rather close to a zero-sum game by some measures. Total income as a percentage of GDP factoring in population remains in a rather narrow range - I'd have to dig the figures up later, if you wish. Bit sleepy and have an appointment to keep.

NullVoid
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Eventhough I'm pro socialist/communist, I go with ketsuko.
"Choice" is not communist strong point. He does have a point.
You get a free healthcare, but it wont be the best and you dont have much option, that is true.
Communism fulfilled your "needs" not your "wants" or greed.

If you want to fulfilled your "wants" capitalism is the way, but notice ? there a more losers than gainers and "wants" have no limit.

The problem with capitalism is this - once healthcare "wants" more money, there will be lots of people who cannot afford the price. The real reason you have USA healthcare problem in the first place.

Wait you are talking about Communism- I thought this thread was talking about Socialism?

I get better quality healthcare than in the states in this socialized system- it is not "free" (that is a false american idea, people here do not call it free) we pay for it with our taxes. And we have the choice- we can go to a private or public hospital, as we wish- they are in competition with each other and that keeps the quality up.

I never experienced such good quality care, or choice, in the US! Back there, insurance companies dictated to me which doctors and establishments I could go to!

The way it works is-
Social security has a fixed amount they will pay for a particular medical act. Let's say a simple visit to a generalist is 22 euros.
You can go to any doctor you like, they will pay 22 euros.
Most doctors, therefore, charge 22 euros for a visit, because a large majority of the clients do not want to pay out of their pocket and choose doctors who will not charge more.
Some doctors or establishments will choose to charge more, hoping to attract the higher classes who are willing to pay more out of pocket.

As a a very capitalist minded american, with a nice financial situation, I automatically went to such doctors and hospitals at first- but soon figured out that their quality of care was less desirable than the others. I guess the difference in price didn't make up for the smaller client list or something. I eventually stopped doing that. The private clinics which charge more only run off the people who want to project the image that they have more money- even if it means being less comfortable and getting slow low quality care.

So, yes, the socialistic part tends to "needs"- but we are perfectly free to focus on our "wants" and go after those if we desire.

But I just find that if your needs are fulfilled, than the appetite for luxury and pleasure is less pressing. Like when you get used to having a normal meal three times a day, you don't get overtaken and lose control when you see a pack of chips. You know what I mean? Contentment is possible.

That is what I think is wrong with our american values and morals which dictate that individual power should be what disciplines the choices- "buyer beware". Expecting anyone who is lacking in basic necessities to keep a rational and intelligent control of their self is next to impossible. Especially faced with the bombardment of unrestrained manipulation à la Bernays from the media and businesses.

.....So you end up with the government eventually having to step in and start taking action to do it for them- to dictate what they can do or not. The extreme ends up swinging to the other extreme.

reply to post by Bluesma


Capitalism depends on socialist policies to survive (American 'socialism' developed to protect the rich from full anti-capitalst revolution). To kill capitaism, you must kill the idea of money , contemporary ideas of profit and land ownership rights.

LDragonFire

greencmp

It is important to reiterate that it is not the goals of socialism that raise the ire of capitalists like myself. We want the same result that is desired by socialists, happiness and prosperity for all.

Are you suggesting that capitalism or to capitalize another wishes for all to have happiness and prosperity for all? Capitalism only produced happiness and prosperity to the percentage at the top. Its just another failed system waiting for its ultimate demise.

Yes, private ownership in the means of production and free market labor has demonstrated the ability to uplift the impoverished and provide incentive to constructive and productive human activity.

I believe that you are saying that supporters of liberalism and capitalism are evil mean-spirited ghouls conniving to destroy the "little guy". This couldn't be further from the truth.

Since we are discussing the results rather than the claims of socialists, I find the expansion of poverty under socialistic policies ample evidence in support of this conclusion.

In fact Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created. Since a socialist order of society cannot exist, unless it be as a fragment of Socialism within an economic order resting otherwise on private property, each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.

Our welfare state has expended almost $20 trillion in its efforts to eliminate poverty. I see no evidence that it has worked, indeed, I only see dramatic increases in the disparity between the poor and the wealthy and a reduction in socioeconomic mobility wherever socialistic policies are implemented.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


"I have nothing more to add." This is the coward's QED, especially after such an insubstantial post.

greencmp

Since we are discussing the results rather than the claims of socialists, I find the expansion of poverty under socialistic policies ample evidence in support of this conclusion.

I can only go on personal experience here, so I would appreciate if you could put up some facts, some statistics, to illustrate this?
Because living in a a very socialist country myself, I have only witnessed LESS poverty than I grew up around in the US.

Our welfare state has expended almost $20 trillion in its efforts to eliminate poverty. I see no evidence that it has worked, indeed, I only see dramatic increases in the disparity between the poor and the wealthy and a reduction in socioeconomic mobility wherever socialistic policies are implemented.

Which state is the "welfare" one? Did it ever occur to anyone that the problem might lie in the way it is implemented?
I mean, I know that if you get any welfare, you stop getting it if you find a job- even if the job doesn't give you enough to live.
Did anyone ever think that maybe that might incite people to not get a job?

Or that there just might be a cultural problem- something about the collective morals and ideals, that causes the system to fail?

I don't know, I am tired at the moment, having just got off work, and perhaps my logic is fuzzy. But I have noticed that things work totally differently where I am, partly due to such differences in the system (all people get a measure of social security- not just the terribly poor), and in cultural values (like more value upon being a part of your community, a member of a herd, rather than an individualist that refuses to cooperate with the whole).

I just doubt that the failure of the US in matters of social security is definitive "proof" that social programs are inherently flawed. I can't accept that because I have seen them work elsewhere. Apparently it is not as simple as you'd have us believe.

Bluesma

greencmp

Since we are discussing the results rather than the claims of socialists, I find the expansion of poverty under socialistic policies ample evidence in support of this conclusion.

I can only go on personal experience here, so I would appreciate if you could put up some facts, some statistics, to illustrate this?
Because living in a a very socialist country myself, I have only witnessed LESS poverty than I grew up around in the US.

Our welfare state has expended almost $20 trillion in its efforts to eliminate poverty. I see no evidence that it has worked, indeed, I only see dramatic increases in the disparity between the poor and the wealthy and a reduction in socioeconomic mobility wherever socialistic policies are implemented.

Which state is the "welfare" one?

Did it ever occur to anyone that the problem might lie in the way it is implemented?
I mean, I know that if you get any welfare, you stop getting it if you find a job- even if the job doesn't give you enough to live.
Did anyone ever think that maybe that might incite people to not get a job?

Or that there just might be a cultural problem- something about the collective morals and ideals, that causes the system to fail?

I don't know, I am tired at the moment, having just got off work, and perhaps my logic is fuzzy. But I have noticed that things work totally differently where I am, partly due to such differences in the system (all people get a measure of social security- not just the terribly poor), and in cultural values (like more value upon being a part of your community, a member of a herd, rather than an individualist that refuses to cooperate with the whole).

I just doubt that the failure of the US in matters of social security is definitive "proof" that social programs are inherently flawed. I can't accept that because I have seen them work elsewhere. Apparently it is not as simple as you'd have us believe.

Well, nothing is ever simple but, I would rather trust the whole of humanity's independent endeavors than a central plan from anyone.

Think about what people could do if they could keep most if not all of their money. If you want poor people to be better off, remove the tax burden and they will instantly get more take home pay than a minimum wage pay increase which produces more revenue for the state under the current code.

reply to post by greencmp


I enjoyed your polemic. S & F

I don't think there is any difference between working for the state or working for the corporation. Both are abstract entities that require no work being done for them. Furthermore, both ideologies are concerned with the well-being of purely invented and inhuman systems (the state, the corporation), rather than the well-being of the individual or community or nature. This amounts to mere superstition.

EC666
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Capitalism depends on socialist policies to survive (American 'socialism' developed to protect the rich from full anti-capitalst revolution). To kill capitaism, you must kill the idea of money , contemporary ideas of profit and land ownership rights.

Actually, it is the other way around. Socialism cannot exist without consuming all of the resources created by humanity to date. Eventually destructionism runs out of fuel to feed the cultural furnace. It hasn't failed every time simply because of mismanagement or a few bad eggs as some would have you believe.

Rationality is not optional.

Cuervo

greencmp
Among my friends on the left (and the right, frankly) I have noticed that, while acknowledging the impracticability of outright communism, they tend to espouse a certain sympathy for what I can only call "socialism light".

Every society, everywhere, practices the basic tenants of socialism. Socialism is the foundation of civilization. If not for socialist concepts, the world would be one large Somalia.

Socialism is the basic idea that the community should own things together to get the most efficient use out of them. Cops, firemen, infrastructure, military, public buildings... all socialist. It's a sliding scale.

When a GOP member votes to increase military spending? Socialist.
When a democrat votes to increase infrastructure spending? Socialist.
When a town decides to put in a library or fire station? Socialist.
When a society functions as a society? Socialist.

The disconnect here is from people not knowing what socialism even is. They think they can enjoy all of the benefits of society but then draw an imaginary line in the sand and say "THIS right here is where socialism begins!" It's ridiculous.

A very good question and an important threshold to identify.

Whatever we entrust to/require the state to tend to ought to be a thing that cannot be provided from the private sector be it a product, service or institution.

NullVoid
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Eventhough I'm pro socialist/communist, I go with ketsuko.
"Choice" is not communist strong point. He does have a point.
You get a free healthcare, but it wont be the best and you dont have much option, that is true.
Communism fulfilled your "needs" not your "wants" or greed.

If you want to fulfilled your "wants" capitalism is the way, but notice ? there a more losers than gainers and "wants" have no limit.

The problem with capitalism is this - once healthcare "wants" more money, there will be lots of people who cannot afford the price. The real reason you have USA healthcare problem in the first place.

The problem with respect to health care is that the solutions have all been about health insurance, not health care.

Now that what remaining vestiges of free market doctoring have been swept aside, conveniently, the only political solution is the "single payer" nationalized health department.

While it certainly merits a separate thread, I can confidently defend my opposition to nationalized health care in this context.

Greven
reply to post by greencmp

 

I think your final point reflects the vast majority of public opinion, the idea that it isn't so much the tangible improvement in the lives of the impoverished that is of concern as much as it is the "fairness" of the distribution of the totality of the resources. When you believe that the sum of all wealth in a society is fixed, this is an understandable position. The truth is that it is not a zero-sum game and by restricting entrepreneurship the whole is reduced resulting in an overall decrease in wealth for all which happens to negatively affect the poorest among us the most.

Resources are scarce. If you put a colony of bacteria in a sealed petri dish (or plate), it will grow exponentially - unless there are a high level of casualties. This growth will peak as resources are fully consumed, and then they all start to die. There is nothing left to live on.

Earth is our petri dish. Exponential growth is impossible unless we climb into the stars - and we may have missed our chance. It's worrisome, because we know how the experiment plays out in the lab. In the short-term, it's not a zero-sum game, but everyone's dead in the long-run.

Capitalism, as a functional system, depends on continual growth. We will probably run out of oil in the next fifty years - likely as early as the 2030s. This is why people at the forefront are pushing for alternative tech so hard - they know we only have a few decades at best. Without high-density, easily-transportable energy that comes from petroleum products, what do you think is going to happen to growth?

Even in the short-term, it's rather close to a zero-sum game by some measures. Total income as a percentage of GDP factoring in population remains in a rather narrow range - I'd have to dig the figures up later, if you wish. Bit sleepy and have an appointment to keep.

Not only is there enormous room for growth, most of the immediate growth is in the resource efficiency improvement markets. I would rather encourage everyone to pursue those solutions than to find out what our single team did this year.

We have and have had pollution problems and they are important to keep an eye on and were horrendous at times but, unless we invade China and India, we will not be legislating for "the planet". If we want to lead the charge on that cause, let the American people compete.

originally posted by: Cuervo


Every society, everywhere, practices the basic tenants of socialism. Socialism is the foundation of civilization. If not for socialist concepts, the world would be one large Somalia.

Actually, slavery is the foundation of civilization. That is why overt slavery was allowed to linger so long after the Enlightenment.

Socialism is the basic idea that the community should own things together to get the most efficient use out of them. Cops, firemen, infrastructure, military, public buildings... all socialist. It's a sliding scale.

Emergency services and infrastructure are paid for by surplus production. First a surplus is needed. Socialism decreases that.

When a GOP member votes to increase military spending? Socialist.
When a democrat votes to increase infrastructure spending? Socialist.

Both true

When a town decides to put in a library or fire station? Socialist.

A town is not alive and cannot do anything. A town is a concept. When people in the town are able to spend money they legally took from other people, then its socialism.

When a society functions as a society? Socialist.

A society is only socialist when its government is socialist. Society itself is simply people living with other people near by, and coping or thriving with the interaction.

The disconnect here is from people not knowing what socialism even is. They think they can enjoy all of the benefits of society but then draw an imaginary line in the sand and say "THIS right here is where socialism begins!" It's ridiculous.

Socialism is an entire economy controlled, or at least stewarded by, a small group of people who cannot possibly know how best to run it. Socialism is like a committee deciding where each drop of rain should rise from the ocean and where it should fall.

Socialism begins with the notion that all of society can be understood completely, down to the finest detail of each person's inner most thoughts. Either that or it begins with a desire to take other peoples stuff.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by greencmp

 

There is no evidence that socialism has or will result in happiness and prosperity despite the frequent claims of success from socialist policies.

Well take socialized health care for example, in the UK the NHS is free, universal and comprehensive, now it is by no means perfect, it has lots of problems, but if my old dad has a stroke he will receive the care he needs free of charge, if i need a operation i will get that also free of charge and i will receive a high standard of care.

We could do the same with education, why is it fair that a child born into poverty can expect a worse education than someone born with a rich mummy and daddy. That is just wrong.

And i could say the same about capitalism, the success of capitalism seems to only be measured by the dollars in your pocket, much of which comes down to luck and external before hard work as influencing factors. that does not seem very fair either.

If socialism had been implemented before the industrial revolution, there would have been no industrial revolution.

Everything from grocery stores to airplanes happened because of free enterprise.

Socialism seems to be working today because of technological gains of the industrial revolution and unlimited credit.

It wont last forever.