Why can't they just say it?? WE NEED SOME "SOCIALISM" IN AMERICA!!!

[leftyandproud]

Seriously, why can't any of our leaders grow a spine and admit this? We need some serious socialist programs to promote fairness in this country, and we need them NOW. Until the democrats start announcing loudly and proudly that they care about workers more than corporations...that they value healthcare more than hospital PROFITS, equality more than so-called economic freedoms that allow the rich to trounce and exploit the rest of us...Until they get the guts to ADMIT THIS and NOT be ashamed of it, they will continue to lose progressive votes. And as much as I hate Bush, I think this is JUSTIFIED. If they don't stand up for real progressive principles including those eeeevil "socialist" plans that promote equality and a decent standard of living for all, while sacrificing the so-called "freedom" of the ultra rich to make more money than they could possibly need...Until our dems start standing up for these principles, they haven't EARNED the progressive vote...and in my view...If they don't EARN your vote, they DON'T DESERVE IT!!

Come on dems! Stand up for what you believe and to hell with what the pubbies say about it!

[Cobalt Violet]

1. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

[TahitiNut]

48. Our corporations are half-socialized ... they 'externalize' costs

Whenever a corporation externalizes costs like pollution and class liabilities, or receives public bailouts without a corresponding equity, or rapes the planet, that's "half-socialized." Demonstrably, capitalists love socialism ... as long as it's only on one side of the balance sheet.

[Dookus]

2. lol...

another one who thinks catering to the fringe left will win elections. I guess that's why Kucinich did so well in the primaries... oh wait... he didn't.

[DieboldMustDie]

29. Kucinich had little in the way of campaign funds...

and was marginalized by the corporate media.   Had he been able to get his message out he may well have done much better.

[K-W]

65. Yes, im sure letting them control the language is a great idea.

There is a huge difference between catering to the fringe and fighting for our ideological ground.

If we refuse to do the latter we become the DLC party.

[Inland]

3. "Socialism" in quotes--you mean not socialism at all

Can't have a speed limit or mail service without the pubbies screaming socialism. But that's not socialism. That's just good government. Why pubbies are against everything that has made this country great is beyond me.

[UdoKier]

19. Great post.

Wish I had put it that way.

[JanMichael]

4. Because they suffer from Moral Sclerosis.

They've hardened their hearts to anyone who hasn't done that "bootstrap" thing.

[Kanary]

7. excepting, of course......... *

*love* that "moral sclerosis" term!

I decided quite some time ago that the DEMs need some moral viagra. :hi:

Kanary

[noahmijo]

5. I still prefer the hybrid system

Watchdog Capitalism with a Socialist base which is pretty much what we have now.

What we need to do is unseat the crooks who are overseeing the system.

Absolutely I agree our current healthcare and education systems are complete shams and there are plenty of things I agree with that would be considered by freepers to be "communist" like say increasing teacher salaries to start at about $70k or so and lower the salaries of tobbaco lobbyists down to about 1 cent.

[Kanary]

9. Oh yeah, what we have now is doing just great.......

:eyes:

That's why we had that story the other day about the grandfather who killed his grandson, then himself. Because it's just working ever so well.

:eyes:

Kanary

[noahmijo]

15. I didn't say it was working great

Would say it was doing as bad under Clinton? we happen to have a horrific administration which completely spits in the face of the system I prefer.

Read the update to the post I just typed.

[Kanary]

46. It doesn't bother you because it isn't hurting *YOU*

Try walking in the moccasins of those on the bottom, and see how that feels.

Yes, I'm angry that we've lost our compassion for others, and are only interested in what directly affects us.

Oh, and watch "A Day's Work For A Day's Pay" to see what Clinton did to poor folk. But, those deaths may not matter to you, because it isn't threatening *you*.

Kanary

[noahmijo]

51. Oh please spare me your righteous rant

All of a sudden I care nothing of the poor just because I don't agree with Socialism? yea I know Clinton was no angel to the poor, however you really think socialism would bring outright equality to everyone? you really think there'd be no people starving it would just magically make everything and everyone equal? what would you do if someone like Bush was at the top of this system? THAT'S why I fear putting central power into the government because what you're seeing right now with this criminal administration is a kind of twisted socialism.

By the way don't give me this I don't know what it's like to be poor, sure I've never lived in poverty but I haven't lived a life wrapped in modernities and luxories I've lived from New York to Mexico and I've done what I could to help people in need.

Systems are only as good as the people running them that is all I am saying.

[Kanary]

55. And spare me your lack of compassion.

I'm sick to death of what has happened to the party who used to care about those on the bottom rung.

If that was only a "righteous rant" when FDR moved this country to more compassion, then we need a hell of a lot more righteous rants.

Kanary

[noahmijo]

66. That's right get emotional not logical

Once again emotions over mind, I'll say it again: slapping a socialist system or any kind of system onto the problem isn't the simple answer. It is only as good as the people at the top.

I take a different approach than you do because I'm willing to do more than just take reckless action (Change it all overnight!!) I think things through, I feel that carefully analyzing and strategically implementing a system is far more important than just a simple slap on.

See I take it you want to just set up a system where everyone is equal we snatch 80% of the rich people's wealth and give it to the poor yay! great idea! how equal! one problem you think the rich are gonna let you do that without a fight? you think for one moment in this socialist utopia they wouldn't have 10 up over people like you and me?

Also once again what do you in this centralized government utopia of yours when someone like Bush takes the steering wheel? all of a sudden it's not so equal anymore is it?

THAT is all I'm saying a system is only as good as the people running it. You want socialism? you want equality? it takes more than righteous rants and harsh words you gotta work for it you gotta mobilize and you gotta stop picking fights with your friends cause like it or not, differences or not, we all got one thing in common here and that is to oust out the Bush crime family and that ain't gonna happen so long as two people like us with minor differences are fighting eachother.

[Kanary]

67. ~~holding up mirror~~

Don't know what you're so afraid of, but turning this into a personal attack is just plain silly.

Nighty-night...... you'll feel better in the morning.

Kanary

[noahmijo]

68. Personal attack? I didn't call you any names

ah hell forget it, go in peace I love you anyway, if I seem harsh I'm in the middle of tearing up some freepers on a different forumn and the last thing I need was to get into a civil war here.

[leftyandproud]

13. "hybrid capitalism" = corporate government

pure capitalism = no government, pure free markets
pure socialism = government of the people, collectively controlled markets

hybrid capitalism/socialism mix = privately owned politicians on both sides of the aisle

[noahmijo]

21. Alright fine what do you suggest in your socialist utopia?

Universal Healthcare like in Canada? great idea in principal, one problem Canada doesn't have an impoverished nation living below it. I would support Universal Healthcare so long as we enforced the fact that only citizens are entitled to it.

Increase funding for schools absolutely no arguments there.

So what about goods like the computer you're typing on or the car you drive? the government decides for you the price and what type of quality it is or the brand you use? people complain about Microsoft having monopolies on software you'd sooner turn it over to the government? better yet a government that is controlled by an administration like the bush crime family?

[Djinn]

38. but it's OK for AMerican citizens

to go to Canada and get their medicine cheaper because it's subsidised by Canadian taxpayers?

Besides this isn't actually all that difficult - we have Medicare numbers here - if you don't have one you don't get subsidised care.

Always makes me laugh when I see this sort of thread and the amount of people who seem to equate an education and medical policy that enables everyone to receive decent health care and education as "socialist" most of the rest of the developed world don't see themselves as raving socialists living in a "utopia" just because they have these things.

[leftyandproud]

69. yes!

If govt. were in charge of distributing computers, a lot of good people would be helped...people who can't afford one today. When you take out the profit motive (greed), a greater good can be accomplished. Government has no interest in gouging consumers...They could buy good computers in bulk and distribute them to everyone very cheaply. No more "digital divide" between rich/poor and black/white in this country.

[Selwynn]

63. I have to disagree that this is what we have now.

1. Nothing in the original post is asking for the end of capitalism - unless I'm wrong... I'm intoxicated.
2. Respectfully I have to disagree that we have "capitalism with a socialist base" right now. Really? Where exactly is the socialist base? What we have now is Capitalism run rampant and totally unchecked. I am ok with Captialism, when it is well governed and well-regulated. Captialism with limits. That needs to be coupled with more than token social programs. Social progams should be the bedrock of our country and Capitalism should serve social programs, or social-ism. It should serve society, not itself.

[bloom]

6. I love it when the top 1% or 10% or whatever

say they didn't need the tax cut - we need more social services, etc.

Clinton, Mellencamp (in today's local paper), ...others?

[seabeyond]

8. i hope we dont have to be socialist to be democrat.

socialism isnt an utopia. if you seriously want to change our health care into a socialist program, i suggest you do research in canada. it doesnt solve everything. there are some good, yet over time they have found the bad in it also and it is not what i would want to happen to our medical field. i am not a cheerleader for our present healthcare either, by any means. but i would hope we could be creative enough to come up with something beyond socialism that address the issue socialism creates

[Kanary]

16. I would suggest *you* start with "research in Canada"

This has been discussed repeatedly here, and all the RW scare stories about Canada just don't hold here.

Of course, every system has it's imperfections.... EVERY. But, when 90-some % of Canadians wouldn't change their health care system to be like the US, then don't you think that says something we need to listen to? Canadians just had a big election there, and defeated those who wanted to turn their system in the what the US has.

Canada and the UK aren't the best examples. What the Scandinavians have is more like what I'd like to look into.

Kanary

[Minstrel Boy]

31. very true

Poll after poll, year after year, what Canadians are saying is we want more socialized medicine: a renewed and expanded public investment in health care. Dissatisfaction with the system has been caused by years of successive governments cutting services. Yet no politician, not even the far right of the Conservative Party, is suggesting scrapping public health system for an American model. The furthest they go is tentatively floating a "two tier" system, which is rejected by the majority. Every public figure needs to pay at least lip service to public health care. It's become a part of our national identity.

[Kanary]

37. Thanks for speaking up, Canada! These RW talking points need refutation

from the source!

Sorry your system has been eroding. :( At least you still have a firm foothold to keep fighting.

I hope you will speak up whenever you see these assertions about your system brought up. I know it's a drag, but hearing it from you directly is more powerful.

Thanks! :toast:

Kanary

[Mel]

39. Kanary

about Scandinavian Health Care do you have any good links? I sure would appreciate them.
That's the one I know the least about and want to be prepared with facts.
I'm not seeing the boogie bad man when it comes to the Canadians system. I understand everything has flaws as you do and nothing is going to be perfect but we have to start doing something. We have a serious health care problem and it's only going to get worse. I really think it's pretty unwise of people to wait till we have a crisis.
What are we going to have to do? Maybe we should start having die-ins on hospital steps or how about on the steps of the HHS building?

I bet the over 43 million people in our country that have no health care insurance would love the Canadians system. Your right we don't have to be just like Canada (90% is a pretty darn good number though)
Why can't people understand that we could take the good from all of the different systems and make a USA one? Never mind. I know the answer "What's the Matter with Kansas" ;)

Count me in for Universal Health Care.

[Kanary]

42. Mel, there is a thread in the Health, etc forum here where a dedicated DUe

errrrrrr, make that DUer has collected a lot of the links of discussions here on DU. There have been Scandinavians posting here, as well as a former insurance agent delineating the inadequacies of our *#+Q$(!! system.

I'm in the middle of Dean on CNBC, and I'll post that link shortly.

I SOOO much appreciate your interest! I'd like to talk with you more about this!

Kanary

[Mel]

56. thanks

I will check over in the Health forum.

[Kanary]

61. whoa...... here's the link....

It had sunk again, so here's the link, so you don't have to go sifting through everything there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=117x3831

There's a lot there to pile through, but so much valuable information!

Hurrah for Lars for compiling all that!

:toast:

Kanary

[NMDemDist2]

10. I'm all for a socialist third party and about 3 more parties after that

i worry that with only two parties it would be dangerous for either to go to the extreme on one side (Bush is the perfect example)

The strength of a democracy is the slow progress of change. While that upsets many, it is truly it's strength.

Think about it, there are so many points of view that there is almost nothing that every one can agree on. So democracy at it's finest is getting policies we all can LIVE with. Not endorse enthusiastically or abhor passionately, but can live with and vow to "improve" the next time.

I know that is frustrating and may anger some but think about what it's been like the last 3 years when our issues had no backing and the issues we passionately feared and disagreed with got shoved down our throats, with out even a minority sop thrown.

Democracies are slow and frustrating when they work the best.

Just a thought....

[Kanary]

20. "Frustrating" is fine...... except when it's costing many lives.

It's easy for the middle class to turn it's back on the *painful* issues, and say "You have to wait until the time is right".

If the present regime continues, and the middle class goes down the tubes, people will begin to see things a whole lot differently.

Kanary

[NMDemDist2]

24. i'm not arguing that at all, that was the point of my post

our democracy is failing right now because one extreme party has all the power.

[Bjornsdotter]

11. Hmmmm....

...I don't think it will ever happen here; at least not in my life time.

Cheers,
Kim :toast:

[gmoney]

12. Hell, I'd settle for a representative democracy

Socialism will be a dirty word for at least another 50 years in this country...

We'll be lucky if we can rescue public schools, libraries, the postal service, and social security/medicare.

I think Kerry's idea of letting people buy into the government health plan is a good start... if it's allowed to negotiate, presumably the bigger it gets, the lower the costs, and hopefully they'll be able to maintain the efficiency of medicare (5% administrative costs compared to 30% or more for insurance companies). Tie that in with the expansion of medicare due to the baby boom spike, the transition to single payer with some public health care for all is not too much of a pipe dream. If the government program is allowed to compete with the private plans in this so-called free market, I might have decent health coverage by the time I die.

[robcon]

14. Nonsense. We don't need any socialism in America.

Social ownership of the means of production has been a disaster wherever it has been tried.

[Postman]

28. maybe we shouldn't get hung up on definitions soo much..

your idea of socialism is something that I wouldn't want either but, the idea of people helping others who need help through governmental programs is a good start.

The difference between my definition above and what passes for corporate welfare is that corporations don't need my money, yet they get it at the expense of those who truly need it but go without.

Don't you find it a bit hypocritical that conservative America espouses the "rugged individualism" "do it on your own" diatribe and then turns around with their hands out waiting for that lucrative goverenment contract? Isn't THAT socialism for the rich?

[politicat]

30. Ben and Jerry's. Avis. Credit Unions. Co-ops. Oglethorpe Power. United

Power. Arizona Public Service.

All of the above are some sort of either consumer owned means of production or employee owned means of production.

The companies I have worked for that have been employee owned have been far more fiscally stable than the sole proprietorships or corps.

Check your premises.

Pcat

[WLKjr]

17. Socialism is often misunderstood and miscategorized

To mean Liberal, or Democrat in some way.

Webster says otherwise:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Socialism


Also make sure to stop by my post here on DU about a personal experience I had that made the DU homepage. Spread it around.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2172523&mesg_id=2172523&page=

[noahmijo]

26. So with "no private property" this means your home isn't yours?

Please clarify because under this system it sounds like you don't own your home, the govt does, therefore they are free to walk on and off what would be your property anytime they want.

In fact it sounds like anyone could at anytime for any reason since it's "public" instead of private.

[WLKjr]

33. my bad, what I am trying to say is that

the right is sort of wrong when it talks about liberal programs being socialistic. Like take the universal health care proposal, I hear so many righties say its bad becuase it's socialism.........I don't believe they know what the diference between socialism and their ass is. I should have posted that in the first place. Am I making a little since in how I am trying to put it across, if not help me out here because I have it up in my head I just can't word it too good right at the moment( a little tired right now)

[noahmijo]

36. It's cool bro we all make little screw-ups

Have a drink calm your head man it's all good I know what you're saying and I fully agree.

This is why I fear outright Socialism is though is what it could be twisted into with the Repukes at the helm.

Universal Healthcare is really something I support however with a few key restrictions being that unlike Canada we have an impoverished country right below us in which its citizens hate so much that they attempt to cross over constantly and we cannot afford to give healthcare to our nation AND Mexico at the same time therefore I would say that a law would be required that only citizens recieve full access.

[GreenArrow]

41. do you really own your home?

Try not paying your property taxes and see how far your home "ownership" takes you.

Consider eminent domain. Asset forfeiture.

[WLKjr]

43. I do own and read my reply to noahmijo

I should have worded my first post a little better.

[noahmijo]

44. No you don't if you want to get technical

Especially with the current administration I'm sure any govt official could bounce out some 20 page document as to why they are allowed to check under my bed and room for explosives, however if Joe citizen decides to take a piss in my driveway I could have him arrested for tresspassing among other things.

Could you do that in a socialist nation?

[WLKjr]

47. I have no idea, you lost me, lol

bedtime, peace out......

[leftyandproud]

70. I think the traditional definitions are wrong..

we don't need complete nationalization of all business and abolition of property rights...Property rights will be maintained for most people, but they will be more LIMITED than they are today. Putting a few reasonable restrictions on how much people can own is not a bad thing. The wealth from the top 5-10% can be put to much better use by a government concerned about all the people...and while I suppose this could be going down the road towards abolition, it really isn't close to full socialism, and I think the American people will be happy to accept the idea. We just need someone with the courage to be direct about it.

[UdoKier]

18. We need New Deal-style programs not socialism.

How would state control of industry and an overly-managed economy help?

New Deal style works projects , a progressive tax code and a strong labor movement made this country highly prosperous in the post-war era. Why not go back to that?

[Kanary]

23. Actually, the "New Deal" *was* characterized as socialism.

"How would state control of industry and an overly-managed economy help?"

Have you actually read about the Scandinavian systems at all? Do you know what Democratic Socialism is?

It might be worth your while to read up on it, before making such blanket statements.

Kanary

[K-W]

57. The New Deal was socialism.

You are arguing that we shouldnt socialize everything, I dont think anyone suggested we socialize everything.

[leftyandproud]

71. The new deal was characterized at socialism...BUT..

99% of the pubs today support it! Really, it is a question of FAIRNESS...not socialism. Are we going to care for all of our people (even the reich wingers)...or let them die in the streets? I think it is generally accepted today that FDR did the right thing. Only a fringe group in America are against those "socialist" policies today, and this shows we are winning. :)

Time to make another push, and I'm hopeful Kerry/Edwards can do it.

[Kanary]

72. I hope you're right. I don't have the same confidence.

It won't happen at all without a huge push from us reg'lar folks, and you can see from this thread, there's just too much fear.

I guess everyone will have to suffer a whole lot more before they are able to really start thinking....... and caring about those besides themselves.

:(

Kanary

[K-W]

74. but fairness isnt a political theory

You need a system that provides fairness and socialism is one approach to government that can potentially provide fairness. By allowing the conservatives to erease socialism from our political discourse, they cut off our ability to discuss ways to produce fairness and feed into thier false picture of a world where fairness is unrealistic and silly.

We need a public discourse that includes discussions of various social structures, the right wing has done a great job of killing that. People take for granted that the system we have is somehow the best system and that it is in some sense natural and normal. This objectivist philosophy is one of the many factors that has led to the disengagement of the people from the government. Getting theories like socialism into the public discourse would do a world of good.

[leftyandproud]

75. just don't call it socialism!

The POLICIES are what matter...If we just push the policies that will benefit every American, the pubs can call us socialists till they are blue in the face. The fact is, these policies are good for Americans and the people will overwhelmingly accept them when given the choice. FDR proved that. So socialism is a dirty word...fine!..Just don't use it!! Describe the policies as progressive (they are), and as ways to promote justice for all Americans (they are). If we ignore the labels, and be specific and direct about the PLANS and how they will help the voters, we can't lose.

[K-W]

76. Yes, call it socialism.

Dont you get it, they are controlling the language and using it as a tool to control ideas. We cant just let them villify words and ideas and back off them. That is a losing prospect.

We have let them make lots of dirty words, socialism, liberal, welfare, affermative action. Every time the democratic party backs off the word and retreats a little trying to find a new way to push the ideas that will just itself be turned into a dirty word. We cant fight a battle for this country with one hand tied behind our backs.

Socialism is not a dirty word. Liberal is not a dirty word. Welfare is not a dirty word.

[eridani]

81. Socialism for the basics, markets for the extras

Things that should be in the public domain are health care, defense, emergency response, land use regulation, environment, infrastructure.

Since wants are potentially infinite, markets are the only way to allocate goods after survival needs have been met. The government should have no part of production decisions for consumer electronics, etc.--the only role here would be to make sure that people play fair with labor standards, SEC and environmental rules, etc.

Interesting paradox--'capitalist' Taiwan has single payer health care, but 'communist' China does not, and has drastically rolled back its investment in public health.

[Selwynn]

64. That IS socialism in nature.

[no name no slogan]

22. We already have it-- for the ruling class, that is

Just look at the current system: if you're a big company, and you make a shitty investment, you get to write off the expense of that investment on your taxes. Not only that, but you'll probably qualify for some special loophole that will let you get not only your investment back, but additional compensation from the government, too.

If you're a big company and make a good investment, you get to reap ALL the benefits of that investment, regardless of how much government support you may have had to make it.

THIS is the worst kind of "socialism": where risk is socialized, yet gain is privatized. Where the rich get "socialism", and the rest of us are free to suffer the "magic of the marketplace".

Woo-freaking-hoo. :crazy:

[dudeness]

25. if it means..

environmentally sound policies
universal health care
educational opportunities regardless of income
adherance to internationally recognised covenants
multilateralism not unilateralism
negotiation not preemption
ratifing the ICC and Kyoto protocols
slashing military budgets
regulating corporate behaviour
closing corporate tax loopholes

yep..bring it on brother..

[ButterflyBlood]

27. yes we do

FDR realized this and that's what he did. He created a bunch of a socialist programs and socialized our nation. Was that a bad thing?

[NMDemDist2]

54. not just FDR.....

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards.

He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too because his employer needs to offer competitive benefits to hire the best people.

Joe prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

Joe drives to work in one of the safest cars in the world because some liberal fought to raise safety standards and emission controls.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with good pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC up to $100,000 because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from greedy, unscrupulous bankers like the ones who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe needs to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican's might still be sitting in the dark!)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)

Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".

[ParisFrance]

32. NO.....I Think

I guess I would rather have people with no health care be provided for ,but we don't need socialism in the business sector. Personal incentive goes away obviously if you will recieve the same wages as everybody; if your performance is better or worse and america no longer leads the world in inovations, that further presents why America doesn't need complete socialism. I don't know if the effects of socialism would be horrible and I also don't know if socialism would radically affect inovation. IMO and I also am no expert on the economy.

[MikeG]

34. I agree. Time for dictatorship of the proletariat.

I get to pick the Olympics team.

[Zorra]

35. Can you give an example of a country that has a political/social/economic

system with the type of socialism that you are referring to?

Many countries that define themselves as "socialist" seem to have totalitarian governments, and if that is the type of socialism you mean, count me out.

Do you consider Canada or Sweden to be "socialist" countries?

[DaveSZ]

40. Exactly

Are we talking Canadian "socialism" or USSR/Cuban "socialism?"

I personally like driving a car that was built after 1955, and being able to start my own business if I want to, so count me out of the latter brand of "socialism."

[Mika]

50. Last time I was in Cuba I rented a brand new Fiat

in 2000

Could have rented a new little Peugeot if I wanted to, or some other brands not sold in the US. There are new cars in Cuba - just not American cars.

Funny how so many Americans buy into the myths (or lies) about Cuba.

Just why do you think that there are no new American cars in Cuba? Do you think that "Castro" has an embargo on US products? If you do, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya


I guess that the near total lack of knowledge about Cuba in America is because the American government doesn't permit the level of freedom to its citizens that is enjoyed by the millions of people from all over the world who go to Cuba every year to see for themselves.

[K-W]

58. What a horrible way to look at the world.

It is that kind of irrational fear of change that feuls conservatism.

[LiberalPersona]

45. Unfortunately

There is a sort of taboo about socialism in America, thanks to the dirty work of the right-wing propaganda machine painting it as something that it isn't. A candidate that openly suggested that we incorporate socialism into our country would be effectively committing political suicide.

[UdoKier]

49. Monday Morning, if it's a slow news day, I can just see it...

Ruch will start reading threads off of DU and have a big chuckle ffrom this one.

"See my friends!, It really IS evil Soviet socialism that they want! Guffaw! Golden microphone! Talent on loan from one hand tied behind my back in the Atilla the Hun chair!"

[Djinn]

52. who gives a shit what Rush says

it's not like he's not going to say all that crap anyway - it's not like there are intelligent, reasoning swing voters tuning in to his show.

[Kanary]

59. Ah yes, FEAR...... watch what you say, alert, alert....

:eyes:

[Mika]

53. Learn from Cuba

Now, plenty of Americans would rather stick their head in the sand than understand that NO ONE needs to have world class health care forced on them or their kids or their parents and grandparents in Cuba, or anywhere. Same thing goes with world class education.

Castro didn't do it. A fool would believe such nonsense.

Dedicated Cuban doctors, Cuban researchers, Cuban technicians, Cuban educators, Cuban assistants, Cuban parents, Cuban students, etc. etc.. Those are the people who do it - every day. With dedication and excellence. I've seen it myself.



Demonize away, but..

Learn from Cuba
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/learn.htm

“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.

-

It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.

By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;

Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.

Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.

“Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”

Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.

“Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”

It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.

There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.

The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.

“Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”

Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.

The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.

“What does it, is the incredible dedication,” according to Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times since.

Mr Kerry, Tear down the wall!

[Kanary]

60. Great link -- thanks for posting! Haven't seen this before.....

Moonbeam, you're getting some helpful links...... really do need to start collecting these.......

~~nudge~~ ~~nudge~~

Kanary

[Zorra]

80. Human Rights Watch: Cuba One Year After The Crackdown

Cuba: One Year After the Crackdown
A Joint Statement by Freedom House, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations on the first anniversary of the crackdown on peaceful dissent in Cuba

Exactly one year ago, on March 18, 2003, the Cuban government launched a massive crackdown on peaceful dissidents, independent journalists, human rights defenders, and independent labor unionists, librarians, medical doctors, and teachers. Almost 90 democracy advocates were detained in a matter of days, their houses thoroughly searched, and many of their belongings confiscated.

Over the following three weeks, 75 of those arrested were tried, convicted and sent to prison with sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years. The government accused the democracy advocates of attempting to subvert state authority, of spying for the United States and other governments, and of reporting lies to the foreign press about the Cuban economy. The trials fell far short of international human rights standards. Judges and prosecutors in Cuba are not independent, but operate under direct government control. International observers were barred from the proceedings. Defense lawyers were not given an adequate opportunity to prepare their client’s defense. They were granted access to court files less than 24 hours before trial, and, in most cases, they did not see their clients until an hour before court proceedings began.

Since the crackdown, all 75 prisoners remain incarcerated and are reportedly being held in substandard and inhumane conditions. Most of them are held in prisons hundreds of miles from their homes, making family visits very difficult if not almost impossible. Many of the imprisoned, such as economists Oscar Espinosa Chepe and Marta Beatriz Roque, are not receiving adequate medical treatment for conditions that, in some cases, have developed during incarceration and are life-threatening. Others, like Dr. Oscar Elías Biscet, have been held in solitary confinement for months, denied family visits and access to sunlight. In some cases, like that of prisoner Blas Giraldo Reyes, the government is harassing relatives of the incarcerated so that they avoid contact with other dissidents, threatening harsher punishments for their loved ones in prison.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/17/cuba8126.htm

Official Corruption

Despite official rhetoric extolling egalitarianism and the regime's purported commitment to "the new socialist man," corruption and clientelism are endemic to Cuban institutions, almost all of which are controlled by the state. Like a well-oiled urban political machine, the regime relies on the allocation of goods and services based on demonstrated political loyalty to maintain the support of the military and the Communist Party rank and file. In the circumstances of scarcity that pervade life in Cuba, and with the discrediting of Communism as the legitimizing ideology of the regime, government largesse has become a highly effective method of maintaining the support of traditional regime loyalists within the Communist Party (PCC).

High PCC functionaries and military officers constitute a privileged class (mayimbes) within Cuban society. They enjoy a variety of perks, including luxury housing, priority access to scarce transportation resources, freedom to travel overseas and to import foreign luxury items duty free, and access to segregated medical and recreational facilities. Moreover, the children of high party functionaries enjoy superior educational opportunities and are exempted from the military draft and from agricultural labor.

In 1997 Forbes magazine placed Fidel Castro among the world’s richest individuals, with a personal fortune estimated at US$1.5 billion. Many observers have suggested that this is a conservative estimate. It is rumored that Castro maintains more than a dozen residences across Cuba, as well as large tracts of land for personal recreational use.

http://www.cubafacts.com/Polsys/government_structure4.htm

An anthropologist friend of mine that has lived and done research in Cuba agrees with you that Cuba has very impressive healthcare and educational systems. She despises Castro and is disgusted at the political repression that quietly underlies every aspect of human interaction among the people of Cuba.

I'll take liberty over security 24/7, and will press for free healthcare and higher education after Bu$h is booted.

[Selwynn]

62. Man, it just warms my heart to hear you say it!

Right on! :toast:

[jdj]

73. Because the U.S. is all about S&M, heavy on the S, and without

it, how will joe sixpack get his rocks off?

[tedzbear]

77. Read A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, by Howard Zinn...

That will answer your question.

[leftyandproud]

78. thanks...I'll pick it up

[Joe Chi Minh]

79. socialism of natural persons, not legal entities - the corporations

You mean "personal socialism", as opposed to "corporate socialism"; a welfare state for the citizens, rather than the corporations.

Thatcher believed that society stopped at her front door, but not the society of societies qua corporations...

Only a cretinous psycho could have come up with the term, "the Nanny State" as a term of disparagement. The antonym is obviously the "psycho State".