Jump to content
Right on, Dan S. I've asked Ken three times now what he would call services such as Public Works if not socialist and haven't gotten a response yet. I made it clear that I'm referring to shared services that benefit society, and he continues to focus on the Marx economic model.
If compelled single-payer healthcare would be socialist, what would single-payer healthcare with a private option be?
For whatever reason, the righties on here don't want to admit that we live in a society with both socialistic and capitalistic elements, and that yes, it's possible to have both at the same time.
Mark and Tom here sound like prime candidates for the sovereign citizen movement.
Okay, that's socialism according to that model, but I see no reason why there can't be another.
I think most Americans would agree that services provided by the government are socialistic, as in, for the benefit of all society.
And no, unfortunately we don't get to decide which programs are taxes will pay for and which they won't. That'd be nice, but it's certainly not practical.
If services like snow plowing or a public healthcare system with a private option aren't socialistic, what would you call them?
So again I ask, what would you call it? Some sort of hybrid?
If a plow driver decided he didn't want to work anymore, or he wanted to work for a property owner directly, the government would hire another one.
If we put single-payer healthcare into place here, there would undoubtedly be a private system people could use if they wish -- just as in Britain today.
If that's the case, that type of system isn't exactly socialist according to the Marxist definition,
So what would you call it?
I was wondering if anyone would recognize that quote.
So Ken, what would you call those shared services?
After all, the government could privatize the DPW, but it doesn't. It does the plowing and roadwork itself. Why would single-payer healthcare be socialist while, say, plowing/roadwork are not?
You will be assimilated; resistance is futile.
I'm not talking about their economic policies; I'm saying that people like Mark who have all this anger and hatred toward government are still part of a society that they depend on, whether they like it or not. If they really don't like it, I'm sure there's an island out there somewhere. But if they're part of society, they by default take advantage and contribute to social services. Therefore, they are socialistic to some extent. This has nothing to do with Marx. The only reason I got involved in this was to debunk the absurd notion that you can't be socialistic and capitalistic simultaneously. Some would prefer such a black and white world, but that's not the one we live in.
Many people who think this way tend to like Trump, an authoritarian ultranationalist if ever I've seen one. History is full of countries that have gone down that road, and the results were never pretty.
If contributing to government so we can all take advantage of certain shared services that benefit society isn't called socialism, then what's it called?
lol; call it what you want, but if we all pay into a big pot so we can afford services that we all use, say, roads, that's socialist. I know you hate to think of yourself that way, but I'm afraid it's true. Welcome to society, Mark.
Anyway, I'm sure your views on the government won't change.
I just wanted to disabuse you of the notion that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
Last login: Monday, November 2, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.