Unchallenged achievement of the American health care (non)system: costs twice as much as comparable OECD countries, proportionately covers the least amount of its population, consistently ranks at the bottom of key health care indicators. Now that takes some (non-)doing.
Actually, I think the majority of Americans know their healthcare system is really bad. Look at how popular Bernie Sanders campaign was, and he ran strongly on healthcare reform.
But the American government - pretty obvious now to the world, and a lot of Americans - has been hijacked by the money changers - of the three branches of American government, the Executive and Legislative branches are now pretty much corrupted and in the hands of oligarchs. The only last vestige of Institutional power left to the American people is the Judicial branch - of which it is currently being subverted by a corrupt Supreme Court. The US Constitution - a remarkable document, does remain the bedrock of the original American dream, but if the oligarchs succeed in fully corrupting all three branches of US governance - then the only thing left will be probably decades of unrest, and a descent into mass poverty, militarized police, and the kind of authoritarianism and dictatorship Americans used to watch on their TV sets in other countries.
That's the darker outcome - and a very possible outcome. If you listen to Chris Hedges (bless his heart) it's already a foregone conclusion. I don't know. I still hold out some hope that Americans will somehow come to their senses soon. You know, start organizing resistance, mass strikes, going to the courts when possible etc. I mean - it is going to happen eventually, people will only put up with so much - but the thing is, it can keep going this way for a long time before any real change does happen. Sadly.
A couple of dope slaps are in order, or as Cher in "Moonstruck," "Snap out of it!" 1) Mitch McConnell accomplished his 20-year quest not only to secure a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, but also much of the rest of the federal judiciary. For this his legacy will justifiably read, "Did more than his fair share of damage to the country."
2) This country has only about 20 years to go before collapsing. Reason? Payment on the interest on the national debt currently stands at 13% of the federal budget. In twenty years time, it will climb to 42% if nothing is done - and it won't be. That means good-bye to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Penta-gone budget and "aid" to Israel will remain untouched. At 42%,, government becomes increasingly powerless and irrelevant, a criterion of a "failed state." Fun (for some) while it lasted.
There's a statistical, actuarial chance I'll still be around to see it happen, to get tear gassed, tasered, or whatever new crowd control means they will have by then.
Some also think that obama's magic would not have a sinister left hand under the table to play ponzi tricks with obama care. Jimmy Dore for instance was blind for it.
I have nothing against him. He makes good stuff. But on obama care he drank gallons of cool aid
Obama care was a scam. It was just another handout to the rich and their corporations. He also completely lied to Americans about his support for the Public Option.
Obama was a scam. Just like Ronald Reagan was a scam. Just like Clinton was a scam. In fact, I would say all the presidents the US has had since Reagan have been increasingly corrupt and rich: ending with perhaps the most corrupt and rich US president in US history: STrump.
Those who make the policy decisions believe it. Those who have to use it often have their maladies compounded by virtue of having encountered it, trying to pay for it.
To be accurate, the aforementioned have very comprehensive health coverage, or are also on Medicare, and have very little if any out-of-deep-pocket expenses. This they do not feel should be extended to the rest of the population, so as not to violate the natural law that suffering is good for the soul, and thus will help them through any illness or injury they may suffer.
Historically, etymologically you are correct, I was referencing the rabid Right's certainties in how the cosmos is ordered, their chumminess with the Almighty.
A solid majority of Americans want universal healthcare, and that includes a significant number of Republicans. And they could have it were it not for the corporate overlords who control the government and work tirelessly to block social welfare programs, especially the ones that reduce their profits. So it’s unfair and untrue to call the masses stupid.
I remember many years (decades) ago a relative was visiting. The talk turned to another relative who had suffered some recent health reversals, had been hospitalized. The visiting relative then added that so-and-so had no health insurance either. In my adolescent or post-adolescent cocksureness I said that just can't be, everyone has health insurance of some type. Uh-uh. Not then. Not now.
Point being, I - and I assume everyone else in a civilized society - felt it's just a basic right to have health coverage, "brother's keeper" kind of stuff. Well apparently a notion not shared by all, especially those on the right, who are loathe to have any of their money support those whom they regard as slackers, they simply gotta pay, at least something, otherwise their mooching. And if they can't pay, then they're next to worthless anyway, let 'em suffer and die.
That's still the prevailing attitude with the work requirements for Medicaid coverage under the Big, Beautiful, Budget-Busting Bill, another stellar instance of Trump and the rabid Right fornicating over whom they see as the leeches of society. Enlightened, 21st (or are those digits reversed?) century America.
The irony is, even corporate health insurance is a type of "sharing" or dare I say the bad word "socialism". Think about it. Everyone who buys American corporate Health Insurance pays into a pool of money, that is only paid out to those who get sick. Well that's the theory, but we all know these corporatized health insurance companies do whatever they can to get out of paying - for profits. But, that is socialism in a nutshell. Everyone pays in, and it goes out to those who need it.
It should also be noted that part of the social pack/agreement between the rich and poor, is that all should benefit from the social structure that has been built up - and labor should be given a fair return. But instead, we now see the worst wealth inequality in the US since its gilded robber baron age, and we have a bunch of sociopathic rich guys - telling Americans they're not entitled to anything else but the breadcrumbs they give them for their back breaking, wage slave labor. But none of these billionaires would be rich if it weren't for the working class in the first place. Labor is more primary than Capital. Labor comes first. Without labor, there is no Capital.
"and we have a bunch of sociopathic rich guys - telling Americans they're not entitled to anything else but the breadcrumbs they give them for their back breaking, wage slave labor."
"And the rich relations may give a crust of bread and such/You can help yourself, but don't take too much." - Billie Holiday, "God Bless the Child"
Taiwan is not part of China. It is an independent sovereign state. Public opinion polls consistently indicate a strong majority support for sovereignty. Why would a fledgling democracy like Taiwan submit to a Stalinist dictatorship like Beijing ?
Ever hear of the "One China Policy"? It's in the law of China, Taiwan AND the USA. Constitutionally, Taiwan IS part of China - they are simply arguing which part of China is the real Govt, Beijing or Taipei.
On every real polsci metric of Democracy, China stands out as one of the big achievers. The Govt really do give the population want they want.
The US among Western nations squats near the bottom, along with the UK. The population never get what they want.
China getting its population out of poverty has to rank as one of the great public welfare, public health, public education, public/social whatever you wanna call it achievements of the past half-century, if not past millennium. Here we seek to deprive 12.2% of the population of food, impose work requirements in order for them to get government health care (Medicaid). It doesn't matter if you're on the short end of the stick in life, ya still gotta pay up one way or another.
America, shining beacon to the world, God shed his grace on thee.
Uber Stalin raised literacy, housed the poor, lived a minimalistic lifestyle. He was so beloved, he wasn't allowed to retire. I stan Stalin, China, and the 60+ countries that threw off western colonialism interference through Marxist Leninism 💪
You clearly haven't read Russian history if THAT is your take on Stalin. In fact, Stalisn was all about State Capitalism (and not Communism). He even led several purges of the Bolshevik party. (The Stalin purges against the Bolsheviks, particularly during the Great Purge from 1936 to 1938, involved the systematic elimination of political opponents, including many original Bolsheviks who had previously supported the revolution. This campaign led to widespread arrests, executions, and imprisonment in labor camps, significantly consolidating Stalin's power and instilling fear throughout Soviet society.) (https://www.history.com/articles/great-purge, https://lost-in-history.com/stalins-great-purge-and-the-brutal-gulags/)
Stalin was one of the most murderous, totalitarian, dictators ever (and I say this as a Socialist and Marxist) and did more to HARM Communism than any other world leader.
to keep its socialized healthcare. no way they'll get to keep their nhc if they submit to the us empire. us corporate healthcare will break any 'sovereign nation's socialized healthcare down, imo.
I've remembered of folks on Discord who say the US is not real capitalist because they can't do capitalism right while there are also ppl who say the US is real capitalist and the rest of the world is Socialist lmao. But yeah, both end up agreeing that capitalism without socialism will only lead into what the US is nowadays, but it debatable of course.
Except that the Dutch healthcare system is a ponzi that leeches insurance into bankers and politicians pockets.
Obama care would have copied that. .. not sure if americans would have liked that. Yet it sucks that we cant see how obama whould have ponzied all the pharma out of his huggers.
You mean the American healthcare system doesn't leach money into the hands of Wallstreet & Healthcare corporations, by literally killing off Americans with robotic/AI rejection letters?
I mean, even if the Dutch system is as bad as you claim - there's 16 other countries I put on that list as well. In fact, all other advanced nations in the world have some form of Universal Healthcare for their citizens *except* the United States. And we all know why that is the case. CORPORATE BILLIONAIRE GREED.
😃🤣 what a list!... pity in many of those countries you can't go in banckrupcy by force due medical bills because simply you HAVEN'T heath Service that cover your need and you csn permit to use it or you CAN'T have axcess to health care due deficient health pubblic services which if you need some kind of exams or checking you need to go to Private Institutions and you CAN'T agfird it?, how the heck will you generate the "Debt" that breack your Economy if you can't, or are blocked to use the Service?
Actually - what your are describing is US healthcare to a T.
And by the way, your ignorance regarding how good the health care is in other countries is pretty strong. Also, you should be aware that Universal Single Healthcare is actually less expensive for a country - than the privatized ripoff monstrosity we have here in the States.
An especially poignant message during the onset of the season of forced-maximal-consumption, aka season of light and all the other euphemisms for the season of grotesque capitalist excess.
"If you want a high-speed rail system, build it yourself."
Was recently on an AMTRAK Northeast Corridor trip, 6 hours down (not counting 35-minute delay along the way), a shade less on the way back (Europe, China, Japan probably cover the same distance in half the time or less). Jostled virtually the entire way, as if in a washing machine, had to take care anticipating the lurches to the left and then to the right on the way to the cafe' car, and taking a leak required bracing against the side to have a reasonable chance of staying on target.
All this because we send $4+ billion to Israel each year so they can kill the people whose land they stole so that they don't complain anymore, and so that the combat - but not morally - fatigued Israelis can go on Mediterranean vacations to recoup, instead of putting that money toward modernizing the track and signalling along the NE Corridor to approach a respectable level of passenger rail service in this country.
Apparently, fatigued Israelis go to places like Amsterdam, watch a soccer game, bash the local population with broken street signs, then claim they're the victims of a pogrom.
All Jewish Zionists are exactly the same in that regard. Just google the video of the girl whining to the police that she felt unsafe on campus at Columbia because there was a pro-Palestine vigil several buildings over. Eternal victimhood is not preached or expected by accident, and neither is eternal projection when committing all sorts of unethical, immoral and even otherwise illegal acts.
This past summer in Rhodes, Piraeus, other sites, there were protests at arriving Israeli cruise ships upon docking, one to such an extent that they couldn't even disembark and had to set sail again in a couple of hours.
Then there was the war of words between the Israeli ambassador who rebuked the mayor of Athens for not doing enough to remove "upsetting" anti-Semitic graffiti in the city, and the mayor who replied, "It is revolting that the ambassador concentrates on graffiti (that is clearly wiped off) while an unprecedented genocide is taking place in Gaza,” άντε γαμήσου.
Spunty, Not only that, the IDF on R&R goes to poor countries as tourists and create havoc for the local people - disregarding the laws of the land, starting their own eateries, shops, and taking jobs away from the locals and behaving totally badly. Maybe Amsterdam can cope with the soccer hooligans but poor nations dependent on tourism to pay off IMF debts are helpless.
I've had the same comparative experience and here out west the Amtrak ride is even worse than on the east coast. We got a sleeper car and traveled all across TX and NM a few years ago and I maybe got 3 hours of sleep in 35 hours on the train. Contrast that with Europe (Spain, Chechia, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, etc.) and I can easily grab 2-4 hours of sleep on a trip from say Budapest to Prague.
God damned socialist commies and their functioning infrastructure!!! [but that's actually more proof of what Feral Finster said elsewhere in this thread - our system is functioning exactly as intended by the people who actually own it.]
Yup, brag about the new Acela, twenty years and $2 billion in development, and it goes 10 mph faster (160 v. 150) than the old, for only a short stretch of track. Feed that to the huddled masses, yearning to get from point A to point B, whether by train, plane, or automobile in this country, as efficiently, smoothly, safely as possible. See the American Society of Civil Engineers rankings of infrastructure in this country, then compare the dollars needed there v. the obscene $1+ TRILLION PER YEAR in "defense" spending and the billions we give to Israel to kill people and take vacations in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.
Funny. I was loosely involved with an ARRA program management team back in the late aughts for the improvement of Amtrak's services. Needless to say it involved a bevy of high priced (and "boutique") US and international consultants and other "services" firms like Jacobs and Systra, the latter of which was rather ironic considering their role in the much better European (in this case French) rail systems.
The cover page of the proposal had a big fat photo of Amtrak's Acela unit #2001. Hope that doesn't give too much away. While not a TOTAL boondoggle it was exactly what you said.
I cannot understand, why call in the consultants? Just get on a regular Northeast Corridor train BOS --> WAS, experience it, talk with passengers. Then reverse getting on an Acela. That should be more than enough, if you ask the right questions, listen to what "the customers/clients" have to say.
A couple/three years ago AMTRAK was boasting how it had refurbished a lot of its regular rail cars, new upholstery (using "green," recycled materials!), other touches. I thought, okay, nice, but how old is this rolling stock anyway? Not quite lipstick on a pig, but there does come a time when even venerable rail carriages are to meet their Valhalla as reef foundations.
Then there was? is? the Gateway Project (may not have the name right) on display at PHL's 30 St. Station (AMTRAK's home base) outlining a modernization of the entire Northeast Corridor. This also was three, four years ago. Looked rather impressive, with a promising time schedule. (Just made that BOS --> PHL trip last week, didn't notice any change along the way, aside from a lot of scaffolding extending to the ceiling at 30th St., don't know what that's all about. Didn't see any display about the mega-project, then again they had to clear out floor space.
Now I may have may stories crossed here, but the overall theme still applies. Whether it was for the New Generation Acela, or the Gateway Project, it wasn't to be financed by the federal government, oh no, no, no, no... the feds would LOAN the money to AMTRAK. Of course the Republicans were in control of such funding, so any financing through taxes, through a commitment to national passenger rail service, was DOA.
I thought how splendid, the feds will support air travel, served by the private sector; will support vehicular travel and commerce principally through the interstate highway system, again served by the private sector (car and truck manufacturers), but when it comes to intercity passenger rail, or municipal public transit, fuhggedabouddit.
The state of Denmark is probably comparatively okay in this regard, it's this place where things are rotten.
Why the consultants? Efficiency of course! But truthfully, it wasn't geared toward anything *directly* 'passenger-facing'. That said, to this day I don't fully understand what was being proposed, and at the time the total ARRA budget was something like $600M, which today sounds like an average tech "founder's" compensation package and not a nationwide "recovery" act. The whole ARRA deal with Amtrak involved mainly procurement and construction of safety upgrades that somehow fell under the "RPM" (Revenue Passenger Miles) program. Part of the proposed "solution" involved setting up an office in Philly within a certain # of miles radius of Amtrak HQ (I think I got the city correct).
I have no idea what ever became of this particular acquisition. My search tools aren't even turning up the original RFP number from 2009. But as noted, in spirit anyway, it seemed like their hearts were near the right place.
"it seemed like their hearts were near the right place."
I'll hafta take your word for it, too often it seems to me call in the pricey consultants to lend weight to an over-the-top, pricey solution, but I've been diagnosed as chronically jaded.
>>"All this because we send $4+ billion to Israel each year"
The spending on Israel, Ukraine, military is DIFFERENT (i.e. different accounts) from spending on the things you talk about. At the FEDERAL level, taxes ARE NOT USED for spending.
An easy mnemonic to remember this is S(TAB) - Spending BEFORE Taxes and Borrowing. Taxes are used for multiple things - like controlling inflation, getting people working and producing things for the government, etc., but NOT for spending.
Also, I suggest learning how the Govt. ACTUALLY creates money. The U.S. Fed Govt. can spend $5 trillion on infrastructure AND spend $5 trillion of evil stuff (like Israel, military, etc.) at the same time - it is NOT 'either/or' (though this is the ILLUSION created by politicians and most other people that don't understand the 'money and banking system' as it is implemented in the REAL WORLD.
Well said XK. Remarkable how money that could be used to improve decaying and antiquated infrastructure here is instead sent to a foreign government to be used to give its' citizens free healthcare and education, as well as to provide means for them to exterminate the people whose land they have occupied and stolen.
You wouldn't know a "Commie" if you fell over one. If you don't understand the definition, it just makes you look silly if you keep using the word. Talk later, Don.
I admit, I've never really met a "Commie" in my life. I mean, it's something my grandad used to talk about in the 1950s and Mr. Joe. But that's about it.
My favorite line is "Stop buying $5 cups of coffee and save up for a new car!" I've never bought a cup of coffee like that in my life. What do I give up to get a new car then?
Just the other day Trump said people should stop haggling with car dealers over the price of their Cadillac (avg. new price >$60K) and instead spend that time haggling with their health insurance providers.
LOL - How he managed to pass himself off as an economic populist should be the subject of a book. And one of the chief, uncomfortable conclusions will be that he did it with a lot of help (intentional and otherwise) from the Democrats.
For those carrying an antiquated view of what is happening in the USA, the most capitalist of nations, here are some recent developments that should cause you to recalibrate your perspective:
"Recent polls show a stark partisan divide in views of socialism: a majority of Democrats (around 66%) have a positive view, while an overwhelming majority of Republicans (around 84%) have a negative view.
Key Findings from Recent Polls
Democrats A Gallup poll from September 2025 found that 66% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism, compared to only 42% who view capitalism favorably. This marks the first time in Gallup's polling history that less than half of Democrats view capitalism positively. Younger Democrats are particularly less likely to view capitalism favorably compared to older Democrats.
Republicans In sharp contrast, only about 14% of Republicans have a positive view of socialism. Views among Republicans have become even more negative over time. Meanwhile, 74% of Republicans hold a positive opinion of capitalism.
Generational Differences Age plays a significant role in these views. Young adults (under 30) across the political spectrum are more open to socialism. One November 2025 poll found that a majority of young likely voters would want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including about a quarter of self-identified Republicans in that age group."
I am 84: never in my life has democratic socialism been the preferred ideology of young Americans or Democrats. Never, Recently, in Seattle and New York city, Democratic Socialists coming from nowhere (1% support) have won! Something is happening, the antithesis of the Trump agenda...the descent into fascism has created a powerful backlash to the effect that while most Americans still cling to capitalism, the writing is on the wall: democratic socialism has become mainstream; young Americans are voting at an unprecedented rate, and those who cannot lend a hand to this amazing transformation in the making need to get out of the way.
"Make a new gig economy app that helps poor people sell and deliver their organs to rich people."
I think they already have one or are working it. I see the ads EVERYWHERE: Sell your blood plasma and make money! Start today! That's all the poor are good for--their blood and organs to give to rich people. Just look at what all the Israelis took out of the bodies of the Palestinian hostages. "Health tourism" is a real and deadly thing for us poors.
Israelis probably do have exactly such an "app" but likely not available to the mass market. I'm not even joking. Organ harvesting from Palestinians who have been assassinated by a bullet to the head is rampant in Gaza. There are reports of surgically clean cuts with multiple vital organs missing and evidence of surgical sanitization chemicals. The Israelis are a stand-in for me for arch-capitalists in the sense that they are hypocritical semi-socialists who still have zero scruples when it comes time to make a buck. And I mean ZEE-ROH.
Capitalism is the best it is ever been and will always be until its end... That is what it does. There is no capitalism in nature because animals can not horde resources without consequences. If they eat too much food the reduce their survival and the survival of their species, if they wreck their environment they threaten their own lives. Capitalism continuously takes resources from the planet and imbalances them to an absurd degree. Polluted oceans, deforestation, polluted air, fracking, etc... The more people there are and the more resources the rich take, the fewer resources there are for the rest of us...and even fewer for the rest of the life on the planet that has no say in capitalism. My point here is that the system is the best at what it was designed to do...destroy life on this planet.
Well, it is a good thing that capitalism is doing so well. It will allow people to be happy before the world collapses from climate catastrophe or before all those brilliant capitalists in power decide to nuke someone they consider to be their enemy or who has resources they "need".
Immigration is the ultimate victory for Capitalism.
No need to invest in training, robotics, automation or increase pay and conditions if it can just fly in labour. Its a race to the bottom for the working class and the Left are cheering it on.
Yes. A lot of leftists and socialists don't really understand the many nuances of immigration (and the different KINDS of immigration), and default to black-and-white approaches/opinions to it.
For instance, the Cato Institute (which is a Conservative Think Tank) has for years come out with reports on 'debunking the immigration myths' of the conservative (republican) politicians (https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myths-facts-immigration-policy) and showing (with DATA) how immigration BENEFITS the Capitalists (at the expense of all the workers AND the immigrants themselves).
There are environments (and conditions) where immigration works, and there are those in which it doesn't. There is a fantastic book by Hein de Hass called "How Migration Really Works: The Facts About the Most Divisive Issue in Politics" (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/123204515) that really goes into the NUANCES of different aspects of immigration that work for leftists, immigrants, and others. Unfortunately, IMMIGRATION is a VERY misunderstood subject (by people that are all across the political spectrum).
Problem with Capitalism is that it always needs to expand the markets (GROW) in order to survive (hence the Globalism/Imperialism). It's like a tumor that keeps growing, devouring competitors and their market share (hence the Monopolization and Merger with the Government).
Problem is, our planet is finite. And you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet:
"The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force."
"Imperialism meant Capitalism expansion. It meant that European Capitalists were forced by the internal logic of their competitive system to seek abroad in less developed countries, opportunities to control raw materials, to find markets, and find profitable field of investment"
-Walter Rodney, "How Europe underdeveloped Africa", 1972
When Capitalism can no longer expand it destroys everything that has already been built in order to reuse the same markets by "rebuilding" them anew (like post WW2 Marshall plan, which was also aimed at destruction of rising socialist movements across Europe and engineered its complete dependency on the U.S.:
"In order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for our goods. "
Capitalism requires an absence of government interference its definition.
What most countries have is Crony Capitalism, which sucks.
And socialism has never worked, and will never work. That is, unless one is actually deluded enough to believe that individual humans can regain their rapidly disappearing moral fiber.
Humans are far less moral than any other animals in the kingdom at this point, however.
No valid definition of capitalism includes "an absence of government interference". That is not and has never been a thing; that's just some nonsense ancaps started saying a short time ago.
Actually the only truly valid definition of capitalism is the one Marxists have been using since their contemporaries coined and popularized the phrase. It's their word, so theirs is the correct definition.
ancap is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. I think libertarianism is the same thing. There is no way to be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time. I don't think it would make sense to be an anarchist and a communist at the same time either. I consider myself an anarchist most of the time; I have read a lot about anarchism and, to me, it makes more sense than what is happening in the world now. As Emma Goldman says, communism is nor the answer, but it is a step in the right direction. That is not a direct quote, just a summary of what she said in one of her books.
'true capitalism' (also known as pure or laissez-faire capitalism), government interference is by definition absent or minimal. However, in reality, all existing capitalist systems feature some degree of government involvement." - Google
As the ancaps, and I am one, say, you are seeing "crony capitalism," or "corporatism."
Pretty sure that Adam Smith predated Marx by some wide margin, actually. The term refers to the Liberal concept of "You own your own labour", in juxtaposition to what came before, IE Feudalism, where your labour could be owned directly in slavery, or forced indenture, or Serfdom.
Capitalism divides into two paths, worker-owned companies, ie private, for-profit cooperatives - purest form of free market capitalism, and what lifted Denmark out of deep poverty, and minority-ownership Capitalism, Ie Corporatism.
Socialism is where either taxes are collected to spend on social welfare, lifting the poorer into the ranks of the middle classes, or where the State/Party assumes ownership and control of the economy.
They are not actually opposed, as even Marx recognised.
What you are deriding Caitlin as "Capitalism" is actually a new form of Feudalism - Technofeudalism, the inevitable result of disgusting Neoliberalism in a technological society.
In a private, shared-wealth society built on cooperatives, there is no need for authoritarian States - in minority-control, such as Feudalism, techno-feudalism, or top-down communist systems, the regime HAS to be scared of the public, as they could lose their power and privileges by an uprising.
Adam Smith never once used the word capitalism. It's really fascinating how capitalism's most ardent defenders are uniformly clueless as to what the thing is they're meant to be defending.
Adam Smith laid all the groundwork. I would recommend a read of the impeccable David Graeber to understand this, Caitlin. Fx his 'Debt, The First 5000 Years'.
Capitalism is part of LIBERAL ideology, and therefore it is most correct to use the Liberal definitions.
Freedom of Association, Democracy, Freedom of Conscience, Free Markets (Free from RENTIERISM is the correct interpretation), Freedom from Slavery/Indenturism - and implicitly, Freedom from WAGE-SLAVERY too.
The proper Capitalism is Worker-Ownership, aka Cooperatives.
Now, perhaps you are that kind of Marxist that HATES the idea that workers can and should run their own companies, receiving the equal profits, it's about 50/50 on that in that theological group, yet I do expect that actually you do like that notion - which is based entirely on Liberal Capitalism.
Even Marx openly admitted that the Path to Socialism lead through a stage of Capitalism, which knee-jerk modern Marxists can't get their head around.
When the revolutionary notion of Capitalism won the fight against Feudalism, there was a bitter fight to ban wage-slavery along with direct slavery - sadly, that fight was lost. Apparently even the US FF had this debate as well, perhaps surprising for a bunch of wealthy white slave-owning Freemasons.
It WILL come, in due course, although the planet may be in ruins by that time, caused by unlimited greed of the rentiers.
No you're just objectively wrong. Communists invented the word and they've been using it the same way ever since. It's their word, and theirs is the only correct definition. You don't get to just change the definitions of someone else's words just because you can't address their arguments. That's not a thing.
Actually, I've spent a life as long as yourself researching this topic. I cut my teeth on my Marxist Polsci teacher - who was the WORST teacher I've ever had - hung out with the RCPGB for a couple of years, and completed my degree in a Danish avowedly Maoist college. And never hid or deviated from my Liberal ideology the entire time. Many, incl a RCPGB senior, said that I was "More left than most Lefties he'd ever met". But I'm a Liberal. In terms of ideology, not party affiliation.
Actually, I think I have a better grasp than you do about these matters.
Tell me, what is your ultimate goal? Worker-ownership? I call that Liberal Capitalism - just as the Danish did in the late 18th century, and Americans have always done.
Or perhaps you want a single Party in control of the entire economy? Then we part ways.
China's phenomenal growth has been because they have state control of finance and investment, and leave the actual economic activity up the private companies.
Sounds fine to me. Backbone industries such as health, education, finance, transport are natural monopolies, more importantly essential to the health and productivity of a country, and the country should own them as state assets.
I justify this through traditional, classical Liberal arguments - and have done vocally since I was 17 - arguing with hard-Leftists who want to hand EVERYTHING to the state. I grew up under Thatcher's regime - fuck that.
Do we disagree on any POLICIES? I'd be fascinated to hear if we do.
You call them "Socialism", I call them "Liberalism".
And I've defended them successfully with far more committed and ideological Leftists than you could ever be.
Imo you are far too humanistic and gentlehearted, too CARING, to be so ideologically committed.
I've met MANY hard-Leftists who LOATHE the idea of worker-owned cooperatives, abusing them as "Counter-revolutionary Bourgeois filth" - and not just in the Leninist-Stalinist RCPGB. Do you see me painting ALL of the Left with that brush? NO! Because the Left is considerably wider, with lots of differing opinions and ideologies within it.
But the one thig THAT REAALLY pisses me off when those hard-Leftists assume that THEY KNOW EVERYTHING, AND ONLY THEIR OWN DEFINTIONS ARE VALID.
Well, Liberalism stretches back many centuries longer than Marxism, and Leftism in general. It encompasses Anarchist thought, Anarchism relating to Liberalism as Communism does the left, and Fascism the right.
So can you can repeat your limited viewpoint until you are blue in the face, I will take David Graeber, Adam Smith's own words, and all the other political theorists I've covered in the previous decades over your own opinions.
I'm sorry we've had this argument, I GREATLY respect your general humanity, and your incredible ability to keep going writing every day on topics that left me emotionally exhausted a long time ago. ABSOLUTE respect for that.
But I'm buggered if you're going to browbeat me on things that I clearly know and understand better than you do.
>>"Capitalism is part of LIBERAL ideology, and therefore it is most correct to use the Liberal definitions."
What kind of logic is that?
Capitalism is SEPARATE from liberal/conservative ideologies (and not 'a part). Again, it seems you haven't bothered to understand Capitalism (or are too afraid to). For instance, conservative ideologies ALSO subscribe to Capitalism, so your notion of 'Capitalism being a part of liberal ideologies' is flat-out incorrect.
Liberal ideologies INTERSECT with some aspects of the properties of the economic and political system that is Capitalism,
Regardless, as Caitlin says, you don't get to DEFINE concepts according to YOUR 'beliefs, prejudices, etc.', just as Israeli Zionists don't get to define being 'the most moral army' and other concepts (that they have violated) according to what is most convenient to them.
>>"Even Marx openly admitted that the Path to Socialism lead through a stage of Capitalism, which knee-jerk modern Marxists can't get their head around."
Read Marx. He specifically talks about how a 'capitalist system' is necessary for the transition FROM feudal/other systems to Communism. He does not talk about Socialism directly, but hints at an inbetween phase between Capitalism and Communism that can be considered as Socialism. And, I've yet to meet a Marxist that denies the VERY BASIS of Marx's analysis - that of the need of a stage of hyper-industrialization (i.e. Capitalism) to successfully and eventually transition to Communism.
Again, CHANGING 'the definition' of Capitalism is not a valid argument for objecting to the 'consequences of Capitalism'.
>>"The term refers to the Liberal concept of "You own your own labour""
No, it doesn't. If you really want to understand Capitalism (and how it really works), I suggest reading the 3 volumes of Das Kapital. Marx takes the work of Ricardo and Smith and shows the many mistakes they make in understanding Capitalism (and how it works).
Capitalism is generally defined as the 'private ownership' of the 'means of production' - this definition requires unpacking, since each word in it has a VERY specific meaning that describes exactly what Capitalism is and isn't.
For instance, capitalism is not 'free markets' or 'making profits' or price-discovery mechanisms or a particular kind of trading of 'goods and services' (as making profits exists in all economic systems and so do markets, and trading and dynamic prices exist in all economic systems to different extents).
Private ownership of the means of production = the raw materials, tools, land/other resources used for the production of 'goods and services' are 'privately owned' (rather than owned by the state or workers) where a primary mode of production is wage labor (though there are other kinds of labor in capitalism too).
There's more to it, but this is the most succint definition. Of course, then you have different VARIETIES of Capitalism (like State Capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, crony capitalism, imperial capitalism, colonial capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, and it gets more varied from here...). But all these varieties of Capitalism follow the 'principle definition' above.
>>"Socialism is where either taxes are collected to spend on social welfare, lifting the poorer into the ranks of the middle classes, or where the State/Party assumes ownership and control of the economy."
Acutally, no. There are different kinds of socialism, and 'spending on social welfare, etc. occurs in ALL economic systems (including capitalism, feudalism, etc.).
In brief, Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.
"'goods and services' are 'privately owned' (rather than owned by the state or workers"
I'm PRETTY damned sure you will find that a private cooperative is privately owned.
The clue is hidden in the words, if you look carefully.
"In brief, Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee."
Ahh, you missed "PARTY" ownership, as in the USSR, once they had murdered the original worker-owned soviets.
You have heard of HYBRID economic systems, right? China is an example of such - a combination of State Captitalism, private capitalism, and State Socialism.
If you're expecting PURE economic systems (i.e. 100% capitalism/socialism/etc.) then you will be hard-pressed to find one in the real world. But that does NOT change the definitions (and well-understood meanings) of such systems. As for Communism, that has always been in 'theoretical' form, and never been practiced in reality. If you doubt that, then I suggest understanding what Communism is and isn't (and not according to WHATEVER definitions Capitalists like to ascribe to it).
As for Marxism, it is NEITHER an economic NOR political system. It is a way of analysis of the 'political economy' using dialectical and historical materialism, and more.
Horse putty. Plenty of Democratic socialist countries are doing just fine. And their citizens aren't going bankrupt because of medical bills. And their education systems don't stink. You know why, because they're not privatizing everything in sight for a bunch of sociopathic billionaires and their paid for loser sycophants.
Nah, socialism has never worked, whether you think it has or not. It would be great if NYC would become a paradise. But will you need to see it with your own eyes? It will not prosper; evacuation of wealthy people and companies is prevalent and rapid. (Capping rent is a disastrous idea.) Seattle too. Chicago has no hope anytime soon, if ever.
That's all guys like you got, the fear you spread. Like once the billionaires leave the city, it will collapse. What a load of hokum, including the fact that the majority of them ain't going to leave. They rarely do. They'll just continue doing what they are good at: bribing US politicians and breaking laws they can get away with.
Your big lie - that billionaire sycophants like you always push: government itself is the big evil. Meanwhile, you completely ignore wealth inequality, worker exploitation, and the lack of regulations in a market place that is increasingly becoming completely rigged. Nothing about your arguments is ever done in good faith. You listen to no one but yourself, and that's the hallmark of fanaticism (not patriotism).
🎯 Yes! Thank you for that Brucker. Democratic Socialists (like Bernie Sanders et. al.) are STILL Capitalists, though people keep confusing them (intentionally or unintentionally) with Socialism.
More threats. More fear. That's all you and bullies like Trump have ain't it? You wouldn't know what it means to have a free, civilized society if it smacked you in the face.
Hooray jamenta! I have been following your comments right through and being one with your righteous anger. Expressed so very eloquently.
I have been watching the bizarre happenings in the White House - too many to note here - and the general venality of a declining empire sliding to fascism. Wondering why Americans haven't yet risen up against the oligarchy.
The global south countries under threat from the autocrat's rampage demands it.
“ Socialism has never worked”… Socialism is just a word . What’s wrong with being social? Isn’t that the root of the word. Socialism. Unfortunately, words can only express a partial perspective of its image.
Why limit yourself to other people’s perspectives….. which all too often deny the progression of ideas from those who do not impose limits on themselves??
Funny that democratic socialism is alive and doing very well in places like Finland, Norway et al. Just because you don't understand what socialism is, doesn't mean it's not working in more sane places than the USA.
Here's a dumb idea: Westerners must abandon the smug belief that our governments are good for us. That incompetence and corruption and self-serving shit-for-brainedness are all foreign Johnny problems. That we've got it good, and will essentially be looked after no matter which crowd of clowns we unenthusiastically rouse ourselves to vote for. This belief - that Western governments are as good as it gets - is difficult to shake. Decades of relative prosperity and success after WW2 made it seem so self-evidently true. Our schools taught that our systems were as good as we would get, and not even the evidence of our own eyes was sufficient to shake our complacency. We, after all, never needed to fear armed thugs battering at our doors, ready to break limbs and terrorise children because we'd thought something our bought and paid for local MP had taken against. We never needed to view old age or infirmity with horror because all the safety nets we'd paid taxes all our lives to put in place were being sacrificed so billionaires could get richer. We never had to watch as our governments supported religitard genocidal regimes, bringing shame and embarrassment upon us all. We never, in short, had to plod through our lives with the growing certainty that our elected representatives were there just to fuck us. Not to save the world. Not, even, to save ourselves from ourselves. Far from being a Good Example to bad governments, our broke, unprincipled, short-termist, lousy, lap dog, original idea-less, chickenshit, self serving, hopelessly muddling, often simply nasty, eternally preening, self satisfied, demonstrably useless 'leaders' would rather lurch from crisis to crisis than ever consider that there might be a better way. That making the world a better place for everyone might be a good idea. That steering the world towards the brink of WW III might not be good for anyone, that preserving us from climate change might be. Little wonder, with only more-of-the-same hopelessness on offer, that increasingly desperate electorates are drawn to extremist thugs who at least offer some sort of change. We have, by refusing to see that our own governments are at least as incompetent as anyone else's, allowed banana republic standards to creep in everywhere. No matter what is awful about a country, we need to re-remember: the buck stops with its government. It allowed it to happen. It had no plan to prevent it. It was out-manouevred by circumstances it was put in place to foresee. Would you trust your government to manage a tea shop? To lead a puppy? It is time for politicians to start earning some respect from their electorates again.
Capitalists run amok in the USA,
the number of people who go bankrupt every year because of medical bills.
Norway - 0
UK - 0
Israel - 0
France - 0
Spain - 0
Portugal - 0
Denmark - 0
Australia - 0
Iceland - 0
Italy - 0
Finland - 0
Ireland - 0
Germany - 0
Netherlands - 0
Sweden - 0
Japan - 0
Canada - 0
United States - 643,000
"Best health care in the world," they still touting that line...?
Yep. But less and less Americans are believing these lying pieces of shit every day.
Unchallenged achievement of the American health care (non)system: costs twice as much as comparable OECD countries, proportionately covers the least amount of its population, consistently ranks at the bottom of key health care indicators. Now that takes some (non-)doing.
Takes some non-thinking.
What Amurdicans have been trained in.
Excellent students in at least 1 discipline.
Top - or should that be bottom? - of the class.
Top of the bottom?
I hope so.
seriously? do U.S.A'ians believe their medical system is the best in the world?
We in other contries scare our kids with stories of the U.S.A. health care system...
Actually, I think the majority of Americans know their healthcare system is really bad. Look at how popular Bernie Sanders campaign was, and he ran strongly on healthcare reform.
But the American government - pretty obvious now to the world, and a lot of Americans - has been hijacked by the money changers - of the three branches of American government, the Executive and Legislative branches are now pretty much corrupted and in the hands of oligarchs. The only last vestige of Institutional power left to the American people is the Judicial branch - of which it is currently being subverted by a corrupt Supreme Court. The US Constitution - a remarkable document, does remain the bedrock of the original American dream, but if the oligarchs succeed in fully corrupting all three branches of US governance - then the only thing left will be probably decades of unrest, and a descent into mass poverty, militarized police, and the kind of authoritarianism and dictatorship Americans used to watch on their TV sets in other countries.
That's the darker outcome - and a very possible outcome. If you listen to Chris Hedges (bless his heart) it's already a foregone conclusion. I don't know. I still hold out some hope that Americans will somehow come to their senses soon. You know, start organizing resistance, mass strikes, going to the courts when possible etc. I mean - it is going to happen eventually, people will only put up with so much - but the thing is, it can keep going this way for a long time before any real change does happen. Sadly.
I wholeheartedly agree Jamenta.
I learned from Chris Hedges, a quote from Howard Zinn: 'The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those who they oppress'.
Chris Hedges, one of the few people I read who actually lives in a library.
I sometimes think he carries one around in his head.
A couple of dope slaps are in order, or as Cher in "Moonstruck," "Snap out of it!" 1) Mitch McConnell accomplished his 20-year quest not only to secure a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, but also much of the rest of the federal judiciary. For this his legacy will justifiably read, "Did more than his fair share of damage to the country."
2) This country has only about 20 years to go before collapsing. Reason? Payment on the interest on the national debt currently stands at 13% of the federal budget. In twenty years time, it will climb to 42% if nothing is done - and it won't be. That means good-bye to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Penta-gone budget and "aid" to Israel will remain untouched. At 42%,, government becomes increasingly powerless and irrelevant, a criterion of a "failed state." Fun (for some) while it lasted.
Reminds me of something JFK said:
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
And they will come for the rich - if human history teaches us anything.
There needs to be a focus on working class people.
The middle class bloggers vloggers and podcasters say so many stupid things that working class people call worthless advice.
And it goes deep... very deep.
I'll be dead in 20 years. I'm old now.
There's a statistical, actuarial chance I'll still be around to see it happen, to get tear gassed, tasered, or whatever new crowd control means they will have by then.
Imagine gow much life is being schredded by these clowns that rule over us.
Likewise. So what's next? Was this all some kind of absurd joke played upon us? Or do we dare believe there's more to us then just brain?
Never under estimate the power of apathy.
Some also think that obama's magic would not have a sinister left hand under the table to play ponzi tricks with obama care. Jimmy Dore for instance was blind for it.
I have nothing against him. He makes good stuff. But on obama care he drank gallons of cool aid
Obama care was a scam. It was just another handout to the rich and their corporations. He also completely lied to Americans about his support for the Public Option.
Obama was a scam. Just like Ronald Reagan was a scam. Just like Clinton was a scam. In fact, I would say all the presidents the US has had since Reagan have been increasingly corrupt and rich: ending with perhaps the most corrupt and rich US president in US history: STrump.
Those who make the policy decisions believe it. Those who have to use it often have their maladies compounded by virtue of having encountered it, trying to pay for it.
My local bank (US) is closing at 2pm on “Black Friday”, presumably so their employees can go shopping, wtf??!
The US healthcare is good for those who can afford to pay cash for the very best.
Ask the billionaires about their healthcare.
Ask members of Congress about their healthcare.
To be accurate, the aforementioned have very comprehensive health coverage, or are also on Medicare, and have very little if any out-of-deep-pocket expenses. This they do not feel should be extended to the rest of the population, so as not to violate the natural law that suffering is good for the soul, and thus will help them through any illness or injury they may suffer.
Natural law? I thought it was Calvinist theology. One has to suffer to do good.
Historically, etymologically you are correct, I was referencing the rabid Right's certainties in how the cosmos is ordered, their chumminess with the Almighty.
A solid majority of Americans want universal healthcare, and that includes a significant number of Republicans. And they could have it were it not for the corporate overlords who control the government and work tirelessly to block social welfare programs, especially the ones that reduce their profits. So it’s unfair and untrue to call the masses stupid.
I remember many years (decades) ago a relative was visiting. The talk turned to another relative who had suffered some recent health reversals, had been hospitalized. The visiting relative then added that so-and-so had no health insurance either. In my adolescent or post-adolescent cocksureness I said that just can't be, everyone has health insurance of some type. Uh-uh. Not then. Not now.
Point being, I - and I assume everyone else in a civilized society - felt it's just a basic right to have health coverage, "brother's keeper" kind of stuff. Well apparently a notion not shared by all, especially those on the right, who are loathe to have any of their money support those whom they regard as slackers, they simply gotta pay, at least something, otherwise their mooching. And if they can't pay, then they're next to worthless anyway, let 'em suffer and die.
That's still the prevailing attitude with the work requirements for Medicaid coverage under the Big, Beautiful, Budget-Busting Bill, another stellar instance of Trump and the rabid Right fornicating over whom they see as the leeches of society. Enlightened, 21st (or are those digits reversed?) century America.
The irony is, even corporate health insurance is a type of "sharing" or dare I say the bad word "socialism". Think about it. Everyone who buys American corporate Health Insurance pays into a pool of money, that is only paid out to those who get sick. Well that's the theory, but we all know these corporatized health insurance companies do whatever they can to get out of paying - for profits. But, that is socialism in a nutshell. Everyone pays in, and it goes out to those who need it.
It should also be noted that part of the social pack/agreement between the rich and poor, is that all should benefit from the social structure that has been built up - and labor should be given a fair return. But instead, we now see the worst wealth inequality in the US since its gilded robber baron age, and we have a bunch of sociopathic rich guys - telling Americans they're not entitled to anything else but the breadcrumbs they give them for their back breaking, wage slave labor. But none of these billionaires would be rich if it weren't for the working class in the first place. Labor is more primary than Capital. Labor comes first. Without labor, there is no Capital.
"and we have a bunch of sociopathic rich guys - telling Americans they're not entitled to anything else but the breadcrumbs they give them for their back breaking, wage slave labor."
"And the rich relations may give a crust of bread and such/You can help yourself, but don't take too much." - Billie Holiday, "God Bless the Child"
The best in everything. Lately I saw "the US reading the biggest quantity of books in a year".
You can add Taiwan to that list. I live there and the National Health Care works quite well. Even poor little Taiwan has Socialized Medicine.
That's because it is part of China. If the U.S. has its way, Taiwan will lose its healthcare.
Taiwan is not part of China. It is an independent sovereign state. Public opinion polls consistently indicate a strong majority support for sovereignty. Why would a fledgling democracy like Taiwan submit to a Stalinist dictatorship like Beijing ?
Ever hear of the "One China Policy"? It's in the law of China, Taiwan AND the USA. Constitutionally, Taiwan IS part of China - they are simply arguing which part of China is the real Govt, Beijing or Taipei.
On every real polsci metric of Democracy, China stands out as one of the big achievers. The Govt really do give the population want they want.
The US among Western nations squats near the bottom, along with the UK. The population never get what they want.
Stick that in your pipe.
China getting its population out of poverty has to rank as one of the great public welfare, public health, public education, public/social whatever you wanna call it achievements of the past half-century, if not past millennium. Here we seek to deprive 12.2% of the population of food, impose work requirements in order for them to get government health care (Medicaid). It doesn't matter if you're on the short end of the stick in life, ya still gotta pay up one way or another.
America, shining beacon to the world, God shed his grace on thee.
Uber Stalin raised literacy, housed the poor, lived a minimalistic lifestyle. He was so beloved, he wasn't allowed to retire. I stan Stalin, China, and the 60+ countries that threw off western colonialism interference through Marxist Leninism 💪
You clearly haven't read Russian history if THAT is your take on Stalin. In fact, Stalisn was all about State Capitalism (and not Communism). He even led several purges of the Bolshevik party. (The Stalin purges against the Bolsheviks, particularly during the Great Purge from 1936 to 1938, involved the systematic elimination of political opponents, including many original Bolsheviks who had previously supported the revolution. This campaign led to widespread arrests, executions, and imprisonment in labor camps, significantly consolidating Stalin's power and instilling fear throughout Soviet society.) (https://www.history.com/articles/great-purge, https://lost-in-history.com/stalins-great-purge-and-the-brutal-gulags/)
Stalin was one of the most murderous, totalitarian, dictators ever (and I say this as a Socialist and Marxist) and did more to HARM Communism than any other world leader.
Maybe read some REAL HISTORY.
to keep its socialized healthcare. no way they'll get to keep their nhc if they submit to the us empire. us corporate healthcare will break any 'sovereign nation's socialized healthcare down, imo.
Ya gotta see this evisceration of "health care" in America by Christopher Hitchens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4wfR3LWAUk.
I've remembered of folks on Discord who say the US is not real capitalist because they can't do capitalism right while there are also ppl who say the US is real capitalist and the rest of the world is Socialist lmao. But yeah, both end up agreeing that capitalism without socialism will only lead into what the US is nowadays, but it debatable of course.
Except that the Dutch healthcare system is a ponzi that leeches insurance into bankers and politicians pockets.
Obama care would have copied that. .. not sure if americans would have liked that. Yet it sucks that we cant see how obama whould have ponzied all the pharma out of his huggers.
You mean the American healthcare system doesn't leach money into the hands of Wallstreet & Healthcare corporations, by literally killing off Americans with robotic/AI rejection letters?
I mean, even if the Dutch system is as bad as you claim - there's 16 other countries I put on that list as well. In fact, all other advanced nations in the world have some form of Universal Healthcare for their citizens *except* the United States. And we all know why that is the case. CORPORATE BILLIONAIRE GREED.
😃🤣 what a list!... pity in many of those countries you can't go in banckrupcy by force due medical bills because simply you HAVEN'T heath Service that cover your need and you csn permit to use it or you CAN'T have axcess to health care due deficient health pubblic services which if you need some kind of exams or checking you need to go to Private Institutions and you CAN'T agfird it?, how the heck will you generate the "Debt" that breack your Economy if you can't, or are blocked to use the Service?
Actually - what your are describing is US healthcare to a T.
And by the way, your ignorance regarding how good the health care is in other countries is pretty strong. Also, you should be aware that Universal Single Healthcare is actually less expensive for a country - than the privatized ripoff monstrosity we have here in the States.
An especially poignant message during the onset of the season of forced-maximal-consumption, aka season of light and all the other euphemisms for the season of grotesque capitalist excess.
"If you want a high-speed rail system, build it yourself."
Was recently on an AMTRAK Northeast Corridor trip, 6 hours down (not counting 35-minute delay along the way), a shade less on the way back (Europe, China, Japan probably cover the same distance in half the time or less). Jostled virtually the entire way, as if in a washing machine, had to take care anticipating the lurches to the left and then to the right on the way to the cafe' car, and taking a leak required bracing against the side to have a reasonable chance of staying on target.
All this because we send $4+ billion to Israel each year so they can kill the people whose land they stole so that they don't complain anymore, and so that the combat - but not morally - fatigued Israelis can go on Mediterranean vacations to recoup, instead of putting that money toward modernizing the track and signalling along the NE Corridor to approach a respectable level of passenger rail service in this country.
Apparently, fatigued Israelis go to places like Amsterdam, watch a soccer game, bash the local population with broken street signs, then claim they're the victims of a pogrom.
All Jewish Zionists are exactly the same in that regard. Just google the video of the girl whining to the police that she felt unsafe on campus at Columbia because there was a pro-Palestine vigil several buildings over. Eternal victimhood is not preached or expected by accident, and neither is eternal projection when committing all sorts of unethical, immoral and even otherwise illegal acts.
They're also taking over Cyprus with a private enclave there, see Dimitri Lascaris (he's very good) at https://reason2resist.substack.com/p/is-israel-taking-over-cyprus?utm_source=publication-search for openers. Possible future flashpoint, as the Israelis bump up against the Turkish presence there.
This past summer in Rhodes, Piraeus, other sites, there were protests at arriving Israeli cruise ships upon docking, one to such an extent that they couldn't even disembark and had to set sail again in a couple of hours.
Then there was the war of words between the Israeli ambassador who rebuked the mayor of Athens for not doing enough to remove "upsetting" anti-Semitic graffiti in the city, and the mayor who replied, "It is revolting that the ambassador concentrates on graffiti (that is clearly wiped off) while an unprecedented genocide is taking place in Gaza,” άντε γαμήσου.
Spunty, Not only that, the IDF on R&R goes to poor countries as tourists and create havoc for the local people - disregarding the laws of the land, starting their own eateries, shops, and taking jobs away from the locals and behaving totally badly. Maybe Amsterdam can cope with the soccer hooligans but poor nations dependent on tourism to pay off IMF debts are helpless.
I've had the same comparative experience and here out west the Amtrak ride is even worse than on the east coast. We got a sleeper car and traveled all across TX and NM a few years ago and I maybe got 3 hours of sleep in 35 hours on the train. Contrast that with Europe (Spain, Chechia, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, etc.) and I can easily grab 2-4 hours of sleep on a trip from say Budapest to Prague.
God damned socialist commies and their functioning infrastructure!!! [but that's actually more proof of what Feral Finster said elsewhere in this thread - our system is functioning exactly as intended by the people who actually own it.]
Yup, brag about the new Acela, twenty years and $2 billion in development, and it goes 10 mph faster (160 v. 150) than the old, for only a short stretch of track. Feed that to the huddled masses, yearning to get from point A to point B, whether by train, plane, or automobile in this country, as efficiently, smoothly, safely as possible. See the American Society of Civil Engineers rankings of infrastructure in this country, then compare the dollars needed there v. the obscene $1+ TRILLION PER YEAR in "defense" spending and the billions we give to Israel to kill people and take vacations in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.
Funny. I was loosely involved with an ARRA program management team back in the late aughts for the improvement of Amtrak's services. Needless to say it involved a bevy of high priced (and "boutique") US and international consultants and other "services" firms like Jacobs and Systra, the latter of which was rather ironic considering their role in the much better European (in this case French) rail systems.
The cover page of the proposal had a big fat photo of Amtrak's Acela unit #2001. Hope that doesn't give too much away. While not a TOTAL boondoggle it was exactly what you said.
I cannot understand, why call in the consultants? Just get on a regular Northeast Corridor train BOS --> WAS, experience it, talk with passengers. Then reverse getting on an Acela. That should be more than enough, if you ask the right questions, listen to what "the customers/clients" have to say.
A couple/three years ago AMTRAK was boasting how it had refurbished a lot of its regular rail cars, new upholstery (using "green," recycled materials!), other touches. I thought, okay, nice, but how old is this rolling stock anyway? Not quite lipstick on a pig, but there does come a time when even venerable rail carriages are to meet their Valhalla as reef foundations.
Then there was? is? the Gateway Project (may not have the name right) on display at PHL's 30 St. Station (AMTRAK's home base) outlining a modernization of the entire Northeast Corridor. This also was three, four years ago. Looked rather impressive, with a promising time schedule. (Just made that BOS --> PHL trip last week, didn't notice any change along the way, aside from a lot of scaffolding extending to the ceiling at 30th St., don't know what that's all about. Didn't see any display about the mega-project, then again they had to clear out floor space.
Now I may have may stories crossed here, but the overall theme still applies. Whether it was for the New Generation Acela, or the Gateway Project, it wasn't to be financed by the federal government, oh no, no, no, no... the feds would LOAN the money to AMTRAK. Of course the Republicans were in control of such funding, so any financing through taxes, through a commitment to national passenger rail service, was DOA.
I thought how splendid, the feds will support air travel, served by the private sector; will support vehicular travel and commerce principally through the interstate highway system, again served by the private sector (car and truck manufacturers), but when it comes to intercity passenger rail, or municipal public transit, fuhggedabouddit.
The state of Denmark is probably comparatively okay in this regard, it's this place where things are rotten.
LOL I just dug up the full proposal and one of their cited examples of "relevant experience" was the California HST project. Ha ha ha.
Ooo...
Why the consultants? Efficiency of course! But truthfully, it wasn't geared toward anything *directly* 'passenger-facing'. That said, to this day I don't fully understand what was being proposed, and at the time the total ARRA budget was something like $600M, which today sounds like an average tech "founder's" compensation package and not a nationwide "recovery" act. The whole ARRA deal with Amtrak involved mainly procurement and construction of safety upgrades that somehow fell under the "RPM" (Revenue Passenger Miles) program. Part of the proposed "solution" involved setting up an office in Philly within a certain # of miles radius of Amtrak HQ (I think I got the city correct).
I have no idea what ever became of this particular acquisition. My search tools aren't even turning up the original RFP number from 2009. But as noted, in spirit anyway, it seemed like their hearts were near the right place.
"it seemed like their hearts were near the right place."
I'll hafta take your word for it, too often it seems to me call in the pricey consultants to lend weight to an over-the-top, pricey solution, but I've been diagnosed as chronically jaded.
>>"All this because we send $4+ billion to Israel each year"
The spending on Israel, Ukraine, military is DIFFERENT (i.e. different accounts) from spending on the things you talk about. At the FEDERAL level, taxes ARE NOT USED for spending.
An easy mnemonic to remember this is S(TAB) - Spending BEFORE Taxes and Borrowing. Taxes are used for multiple things - like controlling inflation, getting people working and producing things for the government, etc., but NOT for spending.
Also, I suggest learning how the Govt. ACTUALLY creates money. The U.S. Fed Govt. can spend $5 trillion on infrastructure AND spend $5 trillion of evil stuff (like Israel, military, etc.) at the same time - it is NOT 'either/or' (though this is the ILLUSION created by politicians and most other people that don't understand the 'money and banking system' as it is implemented in the REAL WORLD.
Read this for more info -> "The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy" by Stephanie Kelton (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45731395)
Well said XK. Remarkable how money that could be used to improve decaying and antiquated infrastructure here is instead sent to a foreign government to be used to give its' citizens free healthcare and education, as well as to provide means for them to exterminate the people whose land they have occupied and stolen.
Just no sense in trying to make sense of this world.
It is working exactly as intended.
Not if the Commies take over!
Is that you, Donald?
Commie Punk!!!
You wouldn't know a "Commie" if you fell over one. If you don't understand the definition, it just makes you look silly if you keep using the word. Talk later, Don.
I admit, I've never really met a "Commie" in my life. I mean, it's something my grandad used to talk about in the 1950s and Mr. Joe. But that's about it.
Later Spunty.
WTF Commies, you imperalist idiot.
>Sell your phone and use the money buy a house, you idiot.
They really do sound like this
My favorite line is "Stop buying $5 cups of coffee and save up for a new car!" I've never bought a cup of coffee like that in my life. What do I give up to get a new car then?
Israelis will buy your first born. Contact Mossad for more information.
Just the other day Trump said people should stop haggling with car dealers over the price of their Cadillac (avg. new price >$60K) and instead spend that time haggling with their health insurance providers.
LOL - How he managed to pass himself off as an economic populist should be the subject of a book. And one of the chief, uncomfortable conclusions will be that he did it with a lot of help (intentional and otherwise) from the Democrats.
>>"What do I give up to get a new car then?"
Maybe your organs? 😵
Yeah, why would I need my organs--I got a new car, right?
(SIGH! So many would fall for this line of reasoning, I'm afraid...)
For those carrying an antiquated view of what is happening in the USA, the most capitalist of nations, here are some recent developments that should cause you to recalibrate your perspective:
"Recent polls show a stark partisan divide in views of socialism: a majority of Democrats (around 66%) have a positive view, while an overwhelming majority of Republicans (around 84%) have a negative view.
Key Findings from Recent Polls
Democrats A Gallup poll from September 2025 found that 66% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism, compared to only 42% who view capitalism favorably. This marks the first time in Gallup's polling history that less than half of Democrats view capitalism positively. Younger Democrats are particularly less likely to view capitalism favorably compared to older Democrats.
Republicans In sharp contrast, only about 14% of Republicans have a positive view of socialism. Views among Republicans have become even more negative over time. Meanwhile, 74% of Republicans hold a positive opinion of capitalism.
Generational Differences Age plays a significant role in these views. Young adults (under 30) across the political spectrum are more open to socialism. One November 2025 poll found that a majority of young likely voters would want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including about a quarter of self-identified Republicans in that age group."
I am 84: never in my life has democratic socialism been the preferred ideology of young Americans or Democrats. Never, Recently, in Seattle and New York city, Democratic Socialists coming from nowhere (1% support) have won! Something is happening, the antithesis of the Trump agenda...the descent into fascism has created a powerful backlash to the effect that while most Americans still cling to capitalism, the writing is on the wall: democratic socialism has become mainstream; young Americans are voting at an unprecedented rate, and those who cannot lend a hand to this amazing transformation in the making need to get out of the way.
"Make a new gig economy app that helps poor people sell and deliver their organs to rich people."
I think they already have one or are working it. I see the ads EVERYWHERE: Sell your blood plasma and make money! Start today! That's all the poor are good for--their blood and organs to give to rich people. Just look at what all the Israelis took out of the bodies of the Palestinian hostages. "Health tourism" is a real and deadly thing for us poors.
We are being factory-farmed
And How
Israelis probably do have exactly such an "app" but likely not available to the mass market. I'm not even joking. Organ harvesting from Palestinians who have been assassinated by a bullet to the head is rampant in Gaza. There are reports of surgically clean cuts with multiple vital organs missing and evidence of surgical sanitization chemicals. The Israelis are a stand-in for me for arch-capitalists in the sense that they are hypocritical semi-socialists who still have zero scruples when it comes time to make a buck. And I mean ZEE-ROH.
It's been going on since at least the NATO war against Yugoslavia. The woman who whistleblew about it was hounded to her death.
It's when the modern slavery "Sex-trafficking" industry really took off as well.
NATO itself is neck deep in these practices.
Absolutely.
The Idiocracy is alive and well
Capitalism is the best it is ever been and will always be until its end... That is what it does. There is no capitalism in nature because animals can not horde resources without consequences. If they eat too much food the reduce their survival and the survival of their species, if they wreck their environment they threaten their own lives. Capitalism continuously takes resources from the planet and imbalances them to an absurd degree. Polluted oceans, deforestation, polluted air, fracking, etc... The more people there are and the more resources the rich take, the fewer resources there are for the rest of us...and even fewer for the rest of the life on the planet that has no say in capitalism. My point here is that the system is the best at what it was designed to do...destroy life on this planet.
If capitalism is the best it's ever been, then it can only get worse! And it's time for it to go!
Well, it is a good thing that capitalism is doing so well. It will allow people to be happy before the world collapses from climate catastrophe or before all those brilliant capitalists in power decide to nuke someone they consider to be their enemy or who has resources they "need".
Scary how true this!
Immigration is the ultimate victory for Capitalism.
No need to invest in training, robotics, automation or increase pay and conditions if it can just fly in labour. Its a race to the bottom for the working class and the Left are cheering it on.
Unless we start to see humans as one race with equal rights, regardless of our artificial 'borders'
Yes. A lot of leftists and socialists don't really understand the many nuances of immigration (and the different KINDS of immigration), and default to black-and-white approaches/opinions to it.
For instance, the Cato Institute (which is a Conservative Think Tank) has for years come out with reports on 'debunking the immigration myths' of the conservative (republican) politicians (https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myths-facts-immigration-policy) and showing (with DATA) how immigration BENEFITS the Capitalists (at the expense of all the workers AND the immigrants themselves).
There are environments (and conditions) where immigration works, and there are those in which it doesn't. There is a fantastic book by Hein de Hass called "How Migration Really Works: The Facts About the Most Divisive Issue in Politics" (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/123204515) that really goes into the NUANCES of different aspects of immigration that work for leftists, immigrants, and others. Unfortunately, IMMIGRATION is a VERY misunderstood subject (by people that are all across the political spectrum).
Problem with Capitalism is that it always needs to expand the markets (GROW) in order to survive (hence the Globalism/Imperialism). It's like a tumor that keeps growing, devouring competitors and their market share (hence the Monopolization and Merger with the Government).
Problem is, our planet is finite. And you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet:
youtu.be/oeWyARGkFDc?t=723
youtu.be/Lskj8TADSdM?t=306
Look up why Capitalists had to invent "planned obsolescence" and think about what a waste of natural resources that is..
***
Another problem is, our planet is not only finite, it's also divided into different countries. That's how Capitalism INEVITABLY leads to WARS:
youtube.com/watch?v=_fSIghXDHJY
youtube.com/watch?v=RDUT8OnMqeU
youtu.be/rTkzYWCYU3g?t=1199
***
"The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force."
-Michael Parenti
"Imperialism meant Capitalism expansion. It meant that European Capitalists were forced by the internal logic of their competitive system to seek abroad in less developed countries, opportunities to control raw materials, to find markets, and find profitable field of investment"
-Walter Rodney, "How Europe underdeveloped Africa", 1972
***
youtu.be/LJlRIHUfsxs?t=1160
Capitalists/Imperialists LOVE war
When Capitalism can no longer expand it destroys everything that has already been built in order to reuse the same markets by "rebuilding" them anew (like post WW2 Marshall plan, which was also aimed at destruction of rising socialist movements across Europe and engineered its complete dependency on the U.S.:
youtu.be/-Kvqe2iY0aU?t=319
***
"In order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for our goods. "
-Cecil Rhodes
Capitalism requires an absence of government interference its definition.
What most countries have is Crony Capitalism, which sucks.
And socialism has never worked, and will never work. That is, unless one is actually deluded enough to believe that individual humans can regain their rapidly disappearing moral fiber.
Humans are far less moral than any other animals in the kingdom at this point, however.
No valid definition of capitalism includes "an absence of government interference". That is not and has never been a thing; that's just some nonsense ancaps started saying a short time ago.
Actually the only truly valid definition of capitalism is the one Marxists have been using since their contemporaries coined and popularized the phrase. It's their word, so theirs is the correct definition.
ancap is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. I think libertarianism is the same thing. There is no way to be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time. I don't think it would make sense to be an anarchist and a communist at the same time either. I consider myself an anarchist most of the time; I have read a lot about anarchism and, to me, it makes more sense than what is happening in the world now. As Emma Goldman says, communism is nor the answer, but it is a step in the right direction. That is not a direct quote, just a summary of what she said in one of her books.
"In the theoretical concept of
'true capitalism' (also known as pure or laissez-faire capitalism), government interference is by definition absent or minimal. However, in reality, all existing capitalist systems feature some degree of government involvement." - Google
As the ancaps, and I am one, say, you are seeing "crony capitalism," or "corporatism."
Stop correcting people for using a word you don't understand.
Nice.
"Crony capitalism" or "corporatism", also known as "capitalism".
see above
For what?
You don't get to manipulate established historical definitions to justify referring to yourself as two opposing things. Not without criticism anyway.
Words have meanings. People are out here just putting any old words next to each other and calling it a thing, and expect the world to bend around it.
Which is exactly how Marxists behave, ironically.
Pretty sure that Adam Smith predated Marx by some wide margin, actually. The term refers to the Liberal concept of "You own your own labour", in juxtaposition to what came before, IE Feudalism, where your labour could be owned directly in slavery, or forced indenture, or Serfdom.
Capitalism divides into two paths, worker-owned companies, ie private, for-profit cooperatives - purest form of free market capitalism, and what lifted Denmark out of deep poverty, and minority-ownership Capitalism, Ie Corporatism.
Socialism is where either taxes are collected to spend on social welfare, lifting the poorer into the ranks of the middle classes, or where the State/Party assumes ownership and control of the economy.
They are not actually opposed, as even Marx recognised.
What you are deriding Caitlin as "Capitalism" is actually a new form of Feudalism - Technofeudalism, the inevitable result of disgusting Neoliberalism in a technological society.
In a private, shared-wealth society built on cooperatives, there is no need for authoritarian States - in minority-control, such as Feudalism, techno-feudalism, or top-down communist systems, the regime HAS to be scared of the public, as they could lose their power and privileges by an uprising.
From that fear, everything else flows.
Adam Smith never once used the word capitalism. It's really fascinating how capitalism's most ardent defenders are uniformly clueless as to what the thing is they're meant to be defending.
Adam Smith laid all the groundwork. I would recommend a read of the impeccable David Graeber to understand this, Caitlin. Fx his 'Debt, The First 5000 Years'.
Capitalism is part of LIBERAL ideology, and therefore it is most correct to use the Liberal definitions.
Freedom of Association, Democracy, Freedom of Conscience, Free Markets (Free from RENTIERISM is the correct interpretation), Freedom from Slavery/Indenturism - and implicitly, Freedom from WAGE-SLAVERY too.
The proper Capitalism is Worker-Ownership, aka Cooperatives.
Now, perhaps you are that kind of Marxist that HATES the idea that workers can and should run their own companies, receiving the equal profits, it's about 50/50 on that in that theological group, yet I do expect that actually you do like that notion - which is based entirely on Liberal Capitalism.
Even Marx openly admitted that the Path to Socialism lead through a stage of Capitalism, which knee-jerk modern Marxists can't get their head around.
When the revolutionary notion of Capitalism won the fight against Feudalism, there was a bitter fight to ban wage-slavery along with direct slavery - sadly, that fight was lost. Apparently even the US FF had this debate as well, perhaps surprising for a bunch of wealthy white slave-owning Freemasons.
It WILL come, in due course, although the planet may be in ruins by that time, caused by unlimited greed of the rentiers.
No you're just objectively wrong. Communists invented the word and they've been using it the same way ever since. It's their word, and theirs is the only correct definition. You don't get to just change the definitions of someone else's words just because you can't address their arguments. That's not a thing.
Actually, I've spent a life as long as yourself researching this topic. I cut my teeth on my Marxist Polsci teacher - who was the WORST teacher I've ever had - hung out with the RCPGB for a couple of years, and completed my degree in a Danish avowedly Maoist college. And never hid or deviated from my Liberal ideology the entire time. Many, incl a RCPGB senior, said that I was "More left than most Lefties he'd ever met". But I'm a Liberal. In terms of ideology, not party affiliation.
Actually, I think I have a better grasp than you do about these matters.
Tell me, what is your ultimate goal? Worker-ownership? I call that Liberal Capitalism - just as the Danish did in the late 18th century, and Americans have always done.
Or perhaps you want a single Party in control of the entire economy? Then we part ways.
China's phenomenal growth has been because they have state control of finance and investment, and leave the actual economic activity up the private companies.
Sounds fine to me. Backbone industries such as health, education, finance, transport are natural monopolies, more importantly essential to the health and productivity of a country, and the country should own them as state assets.
I justify this through traditional, classical Liberal arguments - and have done vocally since I was 17 - arguing with hard-Leftists who want to hand EVERYTHING to the state. I grew up under Thatcher's regime - fuck that.
Do we disagree on any POLICIES? I'd be fascinated to hear if we do.
You call them "Socialism", I call them "Liberalism".
And I've defended them successfully with far more committed and ideological Leftists than you could ever be.
Imo you are far too humanistic and gentlehearted, too CARING, to be so ideologically committed.
I've met MANY hard-Leftists who LOATHE the idea of worker-owned cooperatives, abusing them as "Counter-revolutionary Bourgeois filth" - and not just in the Leninist-Stalinist RCPGB. Do you see me painting ALL of the Left with that brush? NO! Because the Left is considerably wider, with lots of differing opinions and ideologies within it.
But the one thig THAT REAALLY pisses me off when those hard-Leftists assume that THEY KNOW EVERYTHING, AND ONLY THEIR OWN DEFINTIONS ARE VALID.
Well, Liberalism stretches back many centuries longer than Marxism, and Leftism in general. It encompasses Anarchist thought, Anarchism relating to Liberalism as Communism does the left, and Fascism the right.
So can you can repeat your limited viewpoint until you are blue in the face, I will take David Graeber, Adam Smith's own words, and all the other political theorists I've covered in the previous decades over your own opinions.
I'm sorry we've had this argument, I GREATLY respect your general humanity, and your incredible ability to keep going writing every day on topics that left me emotionally exhausted a long time ago. ABSOLUTE respect for that.
But I'm buggered if you're going to browbeat me on things that I clearly know and understand better than you do.
Love out.
>>"Capitalism is part of LIBERAL ideology, and therefore it is most correct to use the Liberal definitions."
What kind of logic is that?
Capitalism is SEPARATE from liberal/conservative ideologies (and not 'a part). Again, it seems you haven't bothered to understand Capitalism (or are too afraid to). For instance, conservative ideologies ALSO subscribe to Capitalism, so your notion of 'Capitalism being a part of liberal ideologies' is flat-out incorrect.
Liberal ideologies INTERSECT with some aspects of the properties of the economic and political system that is Capitalism,
Regardless, as Caitlin says, you don't get to DEFINE concepts according to YOUR 'beliefs, prejudices, etc.', just as Israeli Zionists don't get to define being 'the most moral army' and other concepts (that they have violated) according to what is most convenient to them.
>>"Even Marx openly admitted that the Path to Socialism lead through a stage of Capitalism, which knee-jerk modern Marxists can't get their head around."
Read Marx. He specifically talks about how a 'capitalist system' is necessary for the transition FROM feudal/other systems to Communism. He does not talk about Socialism directly, but hints at an inbetween phase between Capitalism and Communism that can be considered as Socialism. And, I've yet to meet a Marxist that denies the VERY BASIS of Marx's analysis - that of the need of a stage of hyper-industrialization (i.e. Capitalism) to successfully and eventually transition to Communism.
Again, CHANGING 'the definition' of Capitalism is not a valid argument for objecting to the 'consequences of Capitalism'.
>>"The term refers to the Liberal concept of "You own your own labour""
No, it doesn't. If you really want to understand Capitalism (and how it really works), I suggest reading the 3 volumes of Das Kapital. Marx takes the work of Ricardo and Smith and shows the many mistakes they make in understanding Capitalism (and how it works).
Capitalism is generally defined as the 'private ownership' of the 'means of production' - this definition requires unpacking, since each word in it has a VERY specific meaning that describes exactly what Capitalism is and isn't.
For instance, capitalism is not 'free markets' or 'making profits' or price-discovery mechanisms or a particular kind of trading of 'goods and services' (as making profits exists in all economic systems and so do markets, and trading and dynamic prices exist in all economic systems to different extents).
Private ownership of the means of production = the raw materials, tools, land/other resources used for the production of 'goods and services' are 'privately owned' (rather than owned by the state or workers) where a primary mode of production is wage labor (though there are other kinds of labor in capitalism too).
There's more to it, but this is the most succint definition. Of course, then you have different VARIETIES of Capitalism (like State Capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, crony capitalism, imperial capitalism, colonial capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, and it gets more varied from here...). But all these varieties of Capitalism follow the 'principle definition' above.
>>"Socialism is where either taxes are collected to spend on social welfare, lifting the poorer into the ranks of the middle classes, or where the State/Party assumes ownership and control of the economy."
Acutally, no. There are different kinds of socialism, and 'spending on social welfare, etc. occurs in ALL economic systems (including capitalism, feudalism, etc.).
In brief, Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.
"'goods and services' are 'privately owned' (rather than owned by the state or workers"
I'm PRETTY damned sure you will find that a private cooperative is privately owned.
The clue is hidden in the words, if you look carefully.
"In brief, Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee."
Ahh, you missed "PARTY" ownership, as in the USSR, once they had murdered the original worker-owned soviets.
You have heard of HYBRID economic systems, right? China is an example of such - a combination of State Captitalism, private capitalism, and State Socialism.
If you're expecting PURE economic systems (i.e. 100% capitalism/socialism/etc.) then you will be hard-pressed to find one in the real world. But that does NOT change the definitions (and well-understood meanings) of such systems. As for Communism, that has always been in 'theoretical' form, and never been practiced in reality. If you doubt that, then I suggest understanding what Communism is and isn't (and not according to WHATEVER definitions Capitalists like to ascribe to it).
As for Marxism, it is NEITHER an economic NOR political system. It is a way of analysis of the 'political economy' using dialectical and historical materialism, and more.
"And socialism has never worked"
Horse putty. Plenty of Democratic socialist countries are doing just fine. And their citizens aren't going bankrupt because of medical bills. And their education systems don't stink. You know why, because they're not privatizing everything in sight for a bunch of sociopathic billionaires and their paid for loser sycophants.
Nah, socialism has never worked, whether you think it has or not. It would be great if NYC would become a paradise. But will you need to see it with your own eyes? It will not prosper; evacuation of wealthy people and companies is prevalent and rapid. (Capping rent is a disastrous idea.) Seattle too. Chicago has no hope anytime soon, if ever.
"evacuation of wealthy people" "no prosperity"
That's all guys like you got, the fear you spread. Like once the billionaires leave the city, it will collapse. What a load of hokum, including the fact that the majority of them ain't going to leave. They rarely do. They'll just continue doing what they are good at: bribing US politicians and breaking laws they can get away with.
Your big lie - that billionaire sycophants like you always push: government itself is the big evil. Meanwhile, you completely ignore wealth inequality, worker exploitation, and the lack of regulations in a market place that is increasingly becoming completely rigged. Nothing about your arguments is ever done in good faith. You listen to no one but yourself, and that's the hallmark of fanaticism (not patriotism).
Let me guess: when NYC sinks to newer lows, you will not consider it the fault of the socialist mayor and his enacted policies, will you?
Come back and flaunt it if I am wrong. I'll be here.
I love how "capitalists" don't know the difference between socialism and "democratic socialism", the latter being capitalism with social safety nets.
🎯 Yes! Thank you for that Brucker. Democratic Socialists (like Bernie Sanders et. al.) are STILL Capitalists, though people keep confusing them (intentionally or unintentionally) with Socialism.
More threats. More fear. That's all you and bullies like Trump have ain't it? You wouldn't know what it means to have a free, civilized society if it smacked you in the face.
Hooray jamenta! I have been following your comments right through and being one with your righteous anger. Expressed so very eloquently.
I have been watching the bizarre happenings in the White House - too many to note here - and the general venality of a declining empire sliding to fascism. Wondering why Americans haven't yet risen up against the oligarchy.
The global south countries under threat from the autocrat's rampage demands it.
I'll be here when you beckon. Have a nice evening.
And when NYC thrives? Where will you be then?
Jink,
“ Socialism has never worked”… Socialism is just a word . What’s wrong with being social? Isn’t that the root of the word. Socialism. Unfortunately, words can only express a partial perspective of its image.
Why limit yourself to other people’s perspectives….. which all too often deny the progression of ideas from those who do not impose limits on themselves??
Everything in moderation. It’s the answer to many problems
Let's start with the trillionaires then.
Funny that democratic socialism is alive and doing very well in places like Finland, Norway et al. Just because you don't understand what socialism is, doesn't mean it's not working in more sane places than the USA.
Here's a dumb idea: Westerners must abandon the smug belief that our governments are good for us. That incompetence and corruption and self-serving shit-for-brainedness are all foreign Johnny problems. That we've got it good, and will essentially be looked after no matter which crowd of clowns we unenthusiastically rouse ourselves to vote for. This belief - that Western governments are as good as it gets - is difficult to shake. Decades of relative prosperity and success after WW2 made it seem so self-evidently true. Our schools taught that our systems were as good as we would get, and not even the evidence of our own eyes was sufficient to shake our complacency. We, after all, never needed to fear armed thugs battering at our doors, ready to break limbs and terrorise children because we'd thought something our bought and paid for local MP had taken against. We never needed to view old age or infirmity with horror because all the safety nets we'd paid taxes all our lives to put in place were being sacrificed so billionaires could get richer. We never had to watch as our governments supported religitard genocidal regimes, bringing shame and embarrassment upon us all. We never, in short, had to plod through our lives with the growing certainty that our elected representatives were there just to fuck us. Not to save the world. Not, even, to save ourselves from ourselves. Far from being a Good Example to bad governments, our broke, unprincipled, short-termist, lousy, lap dog, original idea-less, chickenshit, self serving, hopelessly muddling, often simply nasty, eternally preening, self satisfied, demonstrably useless 'leaders' would rather lurch from crisis to crisis than ever consider that there might be a better way. That making the world a better place for everyone might be a good idea. That steering the world towards the brink of WW III might not be good for anyone, that preserving us from climate change might be. Little wonder, with only more-of-the-same hopelessness on offer, that increasingly desperate electorates are drawn to extremist thugs who at least offer some sort of change. We have, by refusing to see that our own governments are at least as incompetent as anyone else's, allowed banana republic standards to creep in everywhere. No matter what is awful about a country, we need to re-remember: the buck stops with its government. It allowed it to happen. It had no plan to prevent it. It was out-manouevred by circumstances it was put in place to foresee. Would you trust your government to manage a tea shop? To lead a puppy? It is time for politicians to start earning some respect from their electorates again.