Health Care reform in the US

[RGacky3]

This I think is the issue of the last couple of decades and is hopefully will be a changing point in the US. This is beyond socialization vrs privitization, this is peoples lives healthcare.

I'd like to know peoples thoughts on this.

Some smart people talking about the reform:

Heres a representative from new york being a badass mofo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTh-Yu9RfF0

Here he leaves a newscaster speacheless
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LX0nPFKkow&feature=channel
and part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wOB04FZUrg&feature=channel


Also heres Bernie Sanders (Another badass Dude, and in my opinion one of the smartest voices for American socialism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_2gFsEHRRU&feature=channel

[Patchd]

Agreed with the sentiments in this blog article (http://afed.org.uk/blog/international/114-private-versus-socialised-healthcare.html).




Private versus 'Socialised' Healthcare


The noisy, controversial and increasingly confrontational ‘debate’ in the USA over the Obama administration’s proposed healthcare reforms has received a good deal of attention in the UK, especially after a series of speeches, articles, email circulars and TV ads began making outlandish claims about both the contents of the proposals and the UK NHS, which is supposedly about to be emulated in the US. Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, not someone known for thoughtful analysis, chipped in with a comment which would be entertainingly absurd if it wasn’t representative of the level of debate: “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” Some of the more focussed claims have been just as detached from reality. Senior republican senator Chuck Crassley claimed that the 77 year old Ted Kennedy would have been denied treatment for his brain tumour in the UK due to his age. Though the falsehood of the statement was quickly pointed out, similar claims have been made, with one circular email claiming that those over 59 are ineligible for Heart Disease treatments and the US paper Investor’s Daily stating that if Stephen Hawking was British ( which he is) he would be dead (which he isn’t).

Much of the rhetoric plays on deep-seated fears about “socialism” which have been ingrained into the American psyche since before the beginning of the cold war. References to creeping tyranny, the erosion of liberties and ballooning government are easy enough to find in the literature and placards of protestors against the plans, alongside references to Nazi Germany and its “euthanasia” policies.

However, party political manoeuvring, rather than any genuine concern over ‘big government’ or ‘liberty’ lies behind the origins of the current campaign. The US right has been dealt a bloody nose over the last year, as Obama (who it should be remembered is to the right of many European conservatives) made a stronger case to both corporate power and a large section of the population in the US that he was better posed to manage capitalism in that country and globally. The failure of the McCain/Palin campaign and the deep unpopularity of the Bush administration in its final years have put the Republican section of the ruling class on the back foot. Capitalising on sixty years of anti-communist propaganda and whipping up hysteria over “Orwellian” “socialised” healthcare is an opportunity to put a dent in their rivals’ popularity that they can’t afford to miss. High profile republicans have made as much clear, with Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina claiming that Healthcare reform would be Obama’s “Waterloo”. Rightwing forces are coalescing around the issue accordingly.

At the forefront of the campaign has been the rightwing organisation ‘Conservatives for Patients Rights’ (CPR), founded by Rick Scott. That the rights of patients are at the bottom of Scott’s list of priorities is observable in his history of corruption and mismanagement in healthcare. In 1987 he founded a hospital which would grow into the financially successful healthcare company Columbia/HCA. Ten years later, the FBI raided HCA hospitals across the country following evidence that the company had been overcharging one of the existing government health programs, Medicare, and passing on the difference to doctors in exchange for patients being sent to HCA hospitals. Scott was ousted by the board, but HCA was still found to be responsible for what the Department of Justice called the “largest health care fraud case in U.S. history.” CPR has hired the PR firm responsible for the notorious “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” attack ads during the 2004 elections, and similarly scaremongering ads have been produced for the current campaign.

There are clearly significant concentrations of private power behind the attacks. However, there are concentrations which are even more significant behind Obama. We should not fall into the trap of seeing the controversy as one where “corporate interests” are clashing with the popular will. Universal healthcare has had wide popular support in the US for many years, and the emergence of plans to put in place something with a family resemblance to it during the last presidential elections were not due to any change in public opinion. That the resemblance is familial is important, as the Obama administration is proposing to allow a government healthcare option for everyone, whilst at the same time avowing its commitment to “competition”. Healthcare options already exist for the elderly, those on low income, members of congress and members of the armed forces, amongst others. What the administration is not proposing is the wholesale replication of the NHS. According to Noam Chomsky, “the opposition, who regard themselves as free market advocates, charge that the proposal would be unfair to the private sector, which will be unable to compete with a more efficient public system. Though a bit odd, the argument is plausible.” Chomsky goes on to quote the economist Dean Baker’s observations that on the Open Market, medicare has outcompeted private alternatives. However, Chomsky goes on to note that 85% of the population support the government negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical corporations, a proposal not on the agenda. The Obama-backed plans look set to create, in Baker’s words “the largest tax increase in the history of the world - all of it going into the pockets of the health care industry."

Significant concentration of capitalist power look set to do pretty well from healthcare reform, and support it accordingly. It is for this reason that it is even on the political agenda. The US healthcare system is a disaster by comparison to those of similar countries, with the cost of healthcare per head being twice that of the UK despite life expectancies being lower. Though demands for healthcare reform have been consistently popular with much the population for many years, the effects of the crisis on private capital have been the motive for the move to reform the system – according to General Motors Chairman and Chief exec G. Richard Wagoner Jr, "Failing to address the health care crisis would be the worst kind of procrastination, the kind that places our children and our grandchildren at risk and threatens the health and global competitiveness of our nation's economy."

Ordinary working class people are therefore being drawn into a faction fight between sections of US capital in which their needs and requirements are secondary to profitability. However, it is undeniable that healthcare is of vital importance to the lives of ordinary people, forming part of what we can call the “social wage” – the range of social provisions which on the one hand are vital to both the reproduction of the workforce for capitalism and to the quality of life of the majority of the population. The fact that under capitalism these will be cut back when the system requires it (for example with likely cuts to the NHS following the banking bailout here) while the popular need and demand for them continues makes them a site of class struggle in their own right. The question is how to approach the issue without being drawn into the false dichotomies of capitalist politics, or capitalist faction fights.

Likewise, healthcare in the UK is by no means “socialised”, as critics in the US claim. Though healthcare in the UK is undoubtedly better than healthcare in the US - just as other countries have better healthcare than the UK - it is still subject to the pressures and dynamics of capitalism, existing as it does in a capitalist society. It has also been increasingly marketised over recent decades, with attacks on both social provision and NHS workers coming under the cover of “privatisation” – the introduction of payment by results has introduced a market in health services, many non-frontline services have been privatised or contracted to companies like DHL, the introduction of wholly privately owned and operated “NHS treatment centres”, the rollout of Private Finance Initiatives etc all represent part of the same project of “rationalising” social provisions to the benefit of the overall capitalist system. Even the NHS in its classic form, as the centrepiece of the postwar welfare state came as part of the attempt to stave off prewar-style class conflict and integrate the working class more closely into the state following the end of the war, as well as from the needs for capitalism to stabilise itself after the turbulence of the 1920s, in a change of tactic well-known as the postwar settlement.

The question then is how we, as working class people, go about defending our immediate living conditions. This must be an issue of asserting our needs, independent of faction fighting inside the capitalist class. Clearly, in the US, free access to quality healthcare is paramount and should be fought for on its own terms – and that fight for quality will have to include the fight against the distortions produced by capitalism alongside “responsible” attempts to keep the costs of our quality of life down. Though quality of life may be improved in one sector – through access to universal healthcare - it may be attacked in another – through tax hikes and the like. To avoid getting drawn into the question of how to successfully and “responsibly” manage the capitalist system, making “sacrifices” in one area in order to make gains in another, we must consistently struggle in our interests for our needs, whether that means fighting for better services in “privatised” systems or “socialised” ones.

I'd like to hear what American comrades would think, I have talked to a few American Anarchists here and there, and some would still not support it under the pretence that it would increase state power, and that in itself is worse.

[Havet]

Since the reforms proposed so far won't follow these (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-libertarian-approach-t115079/index.html?t=115079&highlight=left-libertarian+approach+healthcare) guidelines, then I think they will be useless and probably aggravate the problem.

[RGacky3]

I'd like to hear what American comrades would think, I have talked to a few American Anarchists here and there, and some would still not support it under the pretence that it would increase state power, and that in itself is worse.

The State is much much much more accountable to public pressure than private companies protected by the state are.


Since the reforms proposed so far won't follow these (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-libertarian-approach-t115079/index.html?t=115079&highlight=left-libertarian+approach+healthcare) guidelines, then I think they will be useless and probably aggravate the problem.

Really? like they are useless and aggravate the problem in the rest of the industrialized world?

[danyboy27]

haha, this guy kick ass. really loved the video.

[Havet]

Really? like they are useless and aggravate the problem in the rest of the industrialized world?

Who is talking about the rest of the industrialized world? I thought we were talking about America?

[RGacky3]

Who is talking about the rest of the industrialized world? I thought we were talking about America?

Yeah we are, but why does your claim that it would be useless and aggrivate the problem ONLY apply to the US, while it works fine everywhere else?

[Havet]

Yeah we are, but why does your claim that it would be useless and aggrivate the problem ONLY apply to the US, while it works fine everywhere else?

The thing is its never been applied.

Have you seen a country without laws that have the effect of cartelising the medical industry?

Have you seen a country without oligopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony)?

Have you every seen a country without intellectual property laws?

Have you ever seen a country without massively centralized healthcare institutions?

These, and many more (as shown in my post), are important into creating a fair healthcare system.

So you can't really say it works fine anywhere else, because both in the US and outside of the US the conditions i've talked above aren't met

[RGacky3]

I don't know what YOUR talking about, but I'm talking about public government healthcare .... which is what they have IN the rest of the industrialized work.

[Havet]

I don't know what YOUR talking about, but I'm talking about public government healthcare .... which is what they have IN the rest of the industrialized work.

And does that public government healthcare seem to be doing the job right to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)#Waiting_lists_an d_the_18_week_target

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Wait_times

I mean, i'm not saying the current system in the US is better, far from it, i'm saying that this reformist alternative will not suffice.

[RGacky3]

Sure its not perfect, but guess what, this is more important than ideological thought, this is peoples lives, and it IS many many times better than corporate run health care.

[danyboy27]

healthcare isnt a commodity pretty much did the trick.

this guy is dope man, he strike the conservative with their own stick by mentionnin g it will be cheaper for the system to have free healthcare.

[Ele'ill]

Thank you for this thread RGacky3 and thanks for those links.

[Havet]

Sure its not perfect, but guess what, this is more important than ideological thought, this is peoples lives, and it IS many many times better than corporate run health care.

Yes, the data does seem to confirm socialized healthcare is better than corporate healthcare, although I still don't like the idea of a centralized entity, and I HATE reformism ^^

[RGacky3]

Well then I suppose you'll just sit by and let people die until a full blown total revolution comes.

[Havet]

Well then I suppose you'll just sit by and let people die until a full blown total revolution comes.

Nah, i'll work for the revolution, and in the meantime, with the money I can make, I will try to provide alternative institutions to deal with current problems, including healthcare.

[RGacky3]

Right now the best feasable option, IS public single payer health care.

[Brusilov(Conservative]

Socialized healthcare................. Just peachy.

Now, instead of having quality health care for 90% of the people, 100% of the people will now have really crappy health care. I really hope when you all have a health emergency, you enjoy spending 10 hours in the ER, waiting in line behind a bevy of indolents(including many colonists) who came in to the hospital with their little cards merely to get out of the rain. Enjoy standing in long lines, infirm people.

Brusilov........ OUT

[Havet]

Socialized healthcare................. Just peachy.

Now, instead of having quality health care for 90% of the people, 100% of the people will now have really crappy health care. I really hope when you all have a health emergency, you enjoy spending 10 hours in the ER, waiting in line behind a bevy of indolents(including many colonists) who came in to the hospital with their little cards merely to get out of the rain. Enjoy standing in long lines, infirm people.

Brusilov........ OUT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Healthcare#The_uninsured

The problem isn't just that there's around 50 million uninsured, its that the other folks pay extremely artificial costly insurance due to several factors, like i pointed out above: cartelization, oligopsony, intellecual property, etc.

[danyboy27]

Socialized healthcare................. Just peachy.

Now, instead of having quality health care for 90% of the people, 100% of the people will now have really crappy health care. I really hope when you all have a health emergency, you enjoy spending 10 hours in the ER, waiting in line behind a bevy of indolents(including many colonists) who came in to the hospital with their little cards merely to get out of the rain. Enjoy standing in long lines, infirm people.

Brusilov........ OUT

you need to explain how most of the canada,france and great britain actually can offer care of great quality to its citizens for free and the us cant.

you never experienced a free healthcare system, how dare you brag about its inneficiency?
i do live in a system with free healtcare and it work damn good.

dany.. OUT

[Havet]

i do live in a system with free healtcare and it work damn good.


I live with free healthcare and it sucks. Of course, through government action, there aren't many alternatives, so either you have the money to extremely costly private hospitals, or you have to go to public ones.

Gladly we still have some family doctors with personal clinics and cooperatives that work pretty good.

[Brusilov(Conservative]

you need to explain how most of the canada,france and great britain actually can offer care of great quality to its citizens for free and the us cant.



The health care is of "great quality?" OK. Many who live with socialized health care would beg to differ. Why do you think so many seniors and citizens from Canada prefer to trek to the US and pay for private health care here or get their perscription meds in the states? I doubt they would do so if the Canadian system was on a par with the current system in the USA.


you never experienced a free healthcare system

And I hope I never do. Of course, I would still pay more for private insurance.



i do live in a system with free healtcare and it work damn good.



Looks like your schools(and in particular the English dept.) aren't quite as proficient.

Brusilov......... OUT

[danyboy27]

The health care is of "great quality?" OK. Many who live with socialized health care would beg to differ. Why do you think so many seniors and citizens from Canada prefer to trek to the US and pay for private health care here or get their perscription meds in the states? I doubt they would do so if the Canadian system was on a par with the current system in the USA.

any proof to back it up? and beside, having a verry fews rich canadian going to the us dosnt proof nothing, to be revelant you would need to have a massive amount of people going to the us, not only the super-rich.



And I hope I never do. Of course, I would still pay more for private insurance.

haha, faire enough. enjoy paying you HMO fat cat, just dont complain if they refuse you treatements over pre-existing conditions.



Looks like your schools(and in particular the English dept.) aren't quite as proficient.

Brusilov......... OUT

i am not gonna answer to this...hoo wait i will..you are an assole.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Socialized healthcare................. Just peachy.

Now, instead of having quality health care for 90% of the people, 100% of the people will now have really crappy health care.Can you cite any of this form sources other than the right-wing radio programs you hear on the bus to junior high school?


I really hope when you all have a health emergency, you enjoy spending 10 hours in the ER, waiting in line behind a bevy of indolents(including many colonists) who came in to the hospital with their little cards merely to get out of the rain. Enjoy standing in long lines, infirm people.Come visit me in Oakland CA and I will take you to Highland hospital and then you can tell all the people in the emergency waiting room about all your theories.

Neither myself or my partner have healthcare - she has epilepsy and so can not get insurance. She is in debt because of ambulance rides and trips to the emergency room. I was misdiagnosed by Kaiser and then dropped from my plan for "pre-exisiting" conditions when I tried to upgrade to a different Kaiser plan.

The last time my partner had a seizure, she was waiting in the emergency room for over 5 hours. Then they put her on a gurney and left her in the hallway until a room opened up. This is the reality of healthcare for many many people in the US.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I live with free healthcare and it sucks. Of course, through government action, there aren't many alternatives, so either you have the money to extremely costly private hospitals, or you have to go to public ones.

Gladly we still have some family doctors with personal clinics and cooperatives that work pretty good.So then the problem isn't universal healthcare its neoliberal cuts to the national health system. It's the same in the US with education; politicians have cut public education for 30 years and then act shocked that schools aren't as good as they were 30 years ago. Then politicians argue that we need to privatize the system:rolleyes:

Why is it the same people who say you can't fix education by "throwing money at schools" fix the financial system by throwing billions at the banks, and cry a river when the government wants to stop building military jets and vehicles that the military doesn't even use.

Conservatives have no concept of logic. If conservatives followed through with their own arguments, then we should privitize the military - oh wait, Blackwater is not as effective and it is more costly.

You people are chumps and puppets for whatever the rich and ruling class tell you.

[danyboy27]

the issue about socialised healthcare isnt the fact that its nationalised,its all about the organisation and gestion. some place are better than others on that issue beccause they manage it better than other.

an expert hired by the governement actually succeded into making an hospital more efficient and cutting the cost just by enhencing the gestion around it.

its all about gestion and the ability for a governement to change it.

[Havet]

So then the problem isn't universal healthcare its neoliberal cuts to the national health system. It's the same in the US with education; politicians have cut public education for 30 years and then act shocked that schools aren't as good as they were 30 years ago. Then politicians argue that we need to privatize the system:rolleyes:

Why is it the same people who say you can't fix education by "throwing money at schools" fix the financial system by throwing billions at the banks, and cry a river when the government wants to stop building military jets and vehicles that the military doesn't even use.

Conservatives have no concept of logic. If conservatives followed through with their own arguments, then we should privitize the military - oh wait, Blackwater is not as effective and it is more costly.

You people are chumps and puppets for whatever the rich and ruling class tell you.

I am not a conservative lol.

The problem is not lack of money, but bad management of money, and this happens because the manager of the money is a centralized monopoly, which increases the impact and scope of fatally bad decisions and suppresses the competitive signals that allow the identification of better and worse policies.

It also ddoesn't help that centralized management entities always get taken over by the ruling class in order to serve their own interests by exploiting the rest.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you live in some kind of M. C. Esher world made entirely of abstractions? Can you speak a sentence without some kind of anachro-capitalist jargon? I guess you could but then your arguments would sound as aburd as they really are.

Noctice how everyone in the US complains about their SOCIALIZED tap-water or SOCIALIZED fire departments? They don't because it works for people and there would be a justifyable uproar if the government tried to privitize these things. The only reason people complain about schools are because they have been underfunded since the 1970s - partially because the right has use rascist fears of intergration and wacko fears of evolution and secularism to try and poison the well of public education.


The problem is not lack of money, but bad management of money, and this happens because the manager of the money is a centralized monopoly,You're right, a council of doctors and nurses making decisions would be a much better system than for-profit health run by corporations and beurocrats.


which increases the impact and scope of fatally bad decisions and suppresses the competitive signals that allow the identification of better and worse policies.Insurance is quite competitive - in fact part of the problem in the US is that insurance companies have great policies for the goal of cutting costs (and letting people rot and die). So the real question is better or worse policies FOR WHAT GAIN AND IN WHOSE INTERESTS.


It also ddoesn't help that centralized management entities always get taken over by the ruling class in order to serve their own interests by exploiting the rest.This is just backwards logic - it's like saying that the problem with tanks is that they always get taken over by armies and used for war. Insurance companies and HMOs were CREATED by sectors of the ruling class. Kaiser Permanente was created by Kaiser of Kaiser Steel in California - he created it to be more competative with the old Steel companies, but then after WWII, he found he could make a profit from it.

[Skooma Addict]

Do you live in some kind of M. C. Esher world made entirely of abstractions? Can you speak a sentence without some kind of anachro-capitalist jargon? I guess you could but then your arguments would sound as aburd as they really are.

Just assertions. No real argument here.


Noctice how everyone in the US complains about their SOCIALIZED tap-water or SOCIALIZED fire departments? They don't because it works for people and there would be a justifyable uproar if the government tried to privitize these things. The only reason people complain about schools are because they have been underfunded since the 1970s - partially because the right has use rascist fears of intergration and wacko fears of evolution and secularism to try and poison the well of public education.

Who cares if most of the people in the U.S. thinks fire departments and tap-water need to be socialized. That does not change the fact that privatizing these sectors of the economy would have beneficial results. Public Schools are a complete disaster. If we had private schools, the price would go down, and people could choose what kind of education they want. For example, some people would want to go to a school that teaches evolution, and other people would not.


You're right, a council of doctors and nurses making decisions would be a much better system than for-profit health run by corporations and beurocrats.

Businessmen are better at running businesses than Doctors are.



Insurance companies and HMOs were CREATED by sectors of the ruling class.

But your class analysis is flawed. The capitalists do not "rule" anybody.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just assertions. No real argument here.Why do you care - I was talking to hayenmill and his/her jargon that's so abstract that it's meaningless. Can you look at that last comment and tell me what these terms he uses mean? "Centralized management" - of what? It's meaningless.


Who cares if most of the people in the U.S. thinks fire departments and tap-water need to be socialized. That does not change the fact that privatizing these sectors of the economy would have beneficial results.Fact? you mean like the fact that fire departments used to be private in the US and that led to extortion by fire departments - pay up otherwise something might happen to your nice business here. Fire departments would not put out fires of buildings that were not under their contract - so if your neighbor's house caught on fire, then the firemen would let your house burn down if you didn't have insurance.

But we don't even have to look back at history to see how insane and heartless the privatization of essential services are... what's really the difference between only putting out a neighborhood fire for houses that have a contract and only treating some people in a city for contagious diseases?

Imagine if the military was run like US healthcare or the old private fire departments... "Well, only your house was occupied by the NAZIs; I have military insurance!"


Public Schools are a complete disaster. If we had private schools, the price would go down, and people could choose what kind of education they want. For example, some people would want to go to a school that teaches evolution, and other people would not. Have you ever read any Dickens? There used to ONLY be private schools. there also used to be workhouses for all the kids who did not come from families with enough money to pay for school.


Businessmen are better at running businesses than Doctors are. Yeah, if the point of health is weather or not it is profitable. If the question is how to provide the best care for the patients and the best way to use skills and resources... doctors, nurses, and patients are infinitely more qualified.


But your class analysis is flawed. The capitalists do not "rule" anybody.You're right, they rule everybody.

[Brusilov(Conservative]

GRAVEDIGGER
Come visit me in Oakland CA and I will take you to Highland hospital


Quoting a personal anecdote from your own life or citing your own situation and then saying, "This is common for anyone involved with privatized health-care" is absurd. Just because conditions are shoddy at one Oakland hospital does not mean that that is the way things are universally around the country(although these will become the standard conditions if healthcare does become socialized.) Taking your personal situation and then saying "this is how it is for everyone," is completely ridiculous."



than the right-wing radio programs you hear on the bus to junior high school?


Geez, what a pathetic attempt at provocation.

(I can't post the link, because I have fewer than 25 posts. The stats are at the census bureau website.)

The US Census Bureau has it that 15% of American residents(counting illegal inhabitors) are currently without health care in this country. I just don't see the point of punishing the working, legal majority of people with having to accept a much lower standard of health care just so that the odds-n-ends can have it(and they would have health care if they actually found a job with benefits.) Say what you will about them being "disadvantatged," or "oppressed," or whatever jargon you will............ Why must we keep "equalizing" those whom are actually contributing for the sake of the lesser's. It stinks of Harrison Bergeron.

and btw I don't count illegals in the same category as actual citizens.

IMO having to prop up noncontributing communities is a waste, a gaping wound.

[Skooma Addict]

Why do you care - I was talking to hayenmill and hayenmill's jargon that was so abstract that it is meaningless. Can you look at that last comment and tell me what these terms he uses mean?

Maybe I misinterpreted what you said. As I understood it, you implied that anarcho-capitalism was nothing but jargon.


Fact? you mean like the fact that fire departments used to be private in the US and that led to extortion by fire departments - pay up otherwise something might happen to your nice business here. Fire departments would not put out fires of buildings that were not under their contract - so if your neighbor's house caught on fire, then the firemen would let your house burn down if you didn't have insurance.

Right, people who don't want fire insurance don't have to pay for it. Do you want to force everyone to pay for fire insurance? Also, many poor towns use volunteer firemen.


Imagine if the military was run like US healthcare or the old private fire departments... "Well, only your house was occupied by the NAZIs; I have military insurence!"

The NAZIs never would have come into power if the U.S. privatized the defense industry. The treaty of Versailles is what ultimately allowed a party like the NAZIs to become so influential. But the treaty of Versailles never would have been formed if the U.S. did not enter WW1.


Have you ever read any Dickens? There used to ONLY be private schools. there also used to be workhouses for all the kids who did not come from families with enough money to pay for school.

Not everyone wanted to go to school. Some people worked as an apprentice in order to learn a valuable skill while others went to school. It is not like you needed to go to school to get a good job, and it sure beat going to a public school and wasting over a decade of your life.


Yeah, if the point of health is weather or not it is profitable. If the question is how to provide the best care for the patients and the best way to use skills and resources... doctors, nurses, and patients are infinately more qualified.


Yes, Doctors are better at caring for sick people than businessmen are. But the businessman is better at dealing with other aspects of running the hospital.


You're right, they rule everybody.

I just don't see how a capitalist can rule anybody.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe I misinterpreted what you said. As I understood it, you implied that anarcho-capitalism was nothing but jargon. No, you use concrete examples.


Right, people who don't want fire insurance don't have to pay for it. Do you want to force everyone to pay for fire insurance? Also, many poor towns use volunteer firemen.[quote]I don't want to pay for fire insurgence - so make sure the embers from your burning house don't float onto my house. Can you see how crazy your position is?

[QUOTE]The NAZIs never would have come into power if the U.S. privatized the defense industry. The treaty of Versailles is what ultimately allowed a party like the NAZIs to become so influential. But the treaty of Versailles never would have been formed if the U.S. did not enter WW1. This is where the abstractions come in. Historically you can not separate capitalism and the modern state - they rose together because capitalism can not exist without some kind of state and agreed apon set of rules. But since it is a minority system there needs to be institutions to facilitate these rules as well as laws, courts, and military to enforce these rules.

WWI was about world powers trying to reorder the way the world was split up among them. Germany's economic growth (built through a militarized capitalist system - military style public schools, unification of all the induvidual states) was pinned in by the other european powers. The older poweres were industrailly weaker than some of the up and comers and so they wanted to maintain the status quo. Some kind of conflict was necissary from the capitalist standpoint in each capitalist state.


Not everyone wanted to go to school. Some people worked as an apprentice in order to learn a valuable skill while others went to school. It is not like you needed to go to school to get a good job, and it sure beat going to a public school and wasting over a decade of your life. In the US in the 1820, many people worked as aprentices and school was not necissary - by the 1860s, that "Jeffersonian" artisan life was over - replaced by industrial capitalism. In you lived in a city and were poor, there were no apprenticships, there was street-life and crime or industral slavery.


Yes, Doctors are better at caring for sick people than businessmen are. But the businessman is better at dealing with other aspects of running the hospital....running the hospital for profit. And here i thought the point of health was caring for sick people. I'm sorry, apparently it's main perpose is being a cash cow.:rolleyes:


I just don't see how a capitalist can rule anybody.Through the state and police and military they built in order to meet the needs of business as capitalism progressed.

For capitalism you need trade. Right?

For trade you need secure trade routes. Correct?

For secure trade routes, you need a Navy.

This may be a reasonable example of the use of force, but it shows how state power is necissary for capitalism. American strikers in Ludlow found out that the capitalists will also use state power against strikers... first pinkertons, then police, when that filed they brought in the US military. In fact when West cost Longshoremen threatened to strike in 2002, George W. Bush said that would be an act of treason in a time of war and threatened to emply the military to force longshoremen back to work.

Capitalist contracts are meaningless paper without guns to enforce the contract. This is what the state is. The capitalists rulers emply it, and Stalinists use it, and ganglords use it. Any system that imposes the interests of a minority onto the majority makes all kinds of excuses about how their rule is God's will or a neutral social contract... but the bottom line is guns and warships and planes and bombs is what really keeps that order together.

The working class, on the other hand has the majority and our labor power.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't want to pay for fire insurgence - so make sure the embers from your burning house don't float onto my house. Can you see how crazy your position is?

If a person started a fire in their house, and it spread to your house, you could sue them.


This is where the abstractions come in. Historically you can not separate capitalism and the modern state - they rose together because capitalism can not exist without some kind of state and agreed apon set of rules. But since it is a minority system there needs to be institutions to facilitate these rules as well as laws, courts, and military to enforce these rules.

Capitalism does not need a State in order to exist. Maybe we are using different definitions of capitalism. By capitalism I mean: A free Market economy. The state provision of police, courts, and the military is anti-free market.


In the US in the 1820, many people worked as aprentices and school was not necissary - by the 1860s, that "Jeffersonian" artisan life was over - replaced by industrial capitalism. In you lived in a city and were poor, there were no apprenticships, there was street-life and crime or industral slavery.

Actually, living standards went up during the industrial revolution. However, some companies were granted a quasi-monopoly status by the Federal government, which was anti-free market.


...running the hospital for profit. And here i thought the point of health was caring for sick people. I'm sorry, apparently it's main perpose is being a cash cow.:rolleyes:

Except the hospital could only make a profit if it takes good care of patients.


Through the state and police and military they built in order to meet the needs of business as capitalism progressed.

For capitalism you need trade. Right?

For trade you need secure trade routes. Correct?

For secure trade routes, you need a Navy.

You don't need a government in order to protect trade routs.


This may be a reasonable example of the use of force, but it shows how state power is necissary for capitalism. American strikers in Ludlow found out that the capitalists will also use state power against strikers... first pinkertons, then police, when that filed they brought in the US military. In fact when West cost Longshoremen threatened to strike in 2002, George W. Bush said that would be an act of treason in a time of war and threatened to emply the military to force longshoremen back to work.

I obviously oppose forcing people to work. But one can support capitalism while rejecting State intervention and violent aggression.


Capitalist contracts are meaningless paper without guns to enforce the contract. This is what the state is. The capitalists rulers emply it, and Stalinists use it, and ganglords use it. Any system that imposes the interests of a minority onto the majority makes all kinds of excuses about how their rule is God's will or a neutral social contract... but the bottom line is guns and warships and planes and bombs is what really keeps that order together.

As I said before, you can support Capitalism without supporting a central government.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Looks like your schools(and in particular the English dept.) aren't quite as proficient.

Brusilov......... OUT

I think schools in the US focus on ourselves way too much, especially in history and a lack of teaching geography.

Point being, there is a big chunk of Canada that is French speaking. Just fyi.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If a person started a fire in their house, and it spread to your house, you could sue them. Except you're dead and your family's DEAD!


Capitalism does not need a State in order to exist. Maybe we are using different definitions of capitalism. By capitalism I mean: A free Market economy. The state provision of police, courts, and the military is anti-free market.In theory yes, in real history and practice, no. This has never been historically true - even from the start. In order for capitalism to work there needs to be a labor force with no access to means of production - so capitalist nations needed to get rid of common lands otherwise the would have to pay laborers too much. In England there was a series of enclosures, followed by laws against vagabonds (jobless people) and so much of the ex-peasantry essentially had not choice but to work in country mills. So, again, states employ laws and the courts and brute force to shape society to meet the needs of capitalism.

In modern times, states have been able to push people off lands by forcing them out by underselling them at the market and causing them to go into debt, but it is essentially the same process.


Actually, living standards went up during the industrial revolution. However, some companies were granted a quasi-monopoly status by the Federal government, which was anti-free market.The industrial revolution and capitalism in general were huge advances from what came before... I'm not a primitiveist. Industrialization allows for much greater production and the ability to meet the needs of all people - unfortunately the same system also gets in the way of doing this and eventually becomes a barrier to further progress and development. So even though we could feed everyone, capitalist states pay farmers not to grow. Yeah, yeah, that's "bad capitalism as it exists" not in the magical land of anarcho-capitalism.


Except the hospital could only make a profit if it takes good care of patients.Ummm.... that is the most hilarious statement ever if you've had experience with health care for the working poor in the US. Heath care is hugely profitable in the US and yet we have a lower standard of care and lower life expectancy than most industrialized countries (just below Costa Rica).

Cole mines killed their workers and had no problem filling positions... could it be that the working class has no other choice in capitalism?! It's the same with healthcare... if you don't like the private system in the US, what's the alternative?


You don't need a government in order to protect trade routs.Wait, that's the funniest statement I 've heard. Let me perform a little one-act for you:


Me: Yarrr... that be my gold ya anarcho-capitalist land lubber! You'll be handin' it ovar now sos I can delivaaer it to my Queen!

You: But I have the invisible hand as well as these hired guards.

Me: But I have the Queen's law on my side and more guns, so whacha going to do tharrr?

You: But that's illegal.

Me: Arrccording to wat?

You: My laws and the my Queen of Spain.

Me: Too bad, I don't recognize the laws of yer Pope-ish queen! And I have me more guns!

You: Oh, shit. I wish that queen with all her laws would develop a navy to enforce some kind of civil form of trade and protect the gold I just ripped-off form that middle eastern king.


I obviously oppose forcing people to work. But one can support capitalism while rejecting State intervention and violent aggression.

As I said before, you can support Capitalism without supporting a central government.And I can eat raw chicken and reject salmonella poisoning. I can choose to reject the theory of gravity... but I'll still fall if I jump off my roof!

It's not a question of what you choose to support - historically, capitalism and the capitalists state have developed together and are inseparable. It's like Stalinists who say they reject some aspect of the USSR - if you are going to have a system where minority of society create wealth on the back of the majority, you need the state and state violence to enforce and keep that order.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Actually, living standards went up during the industrial revolution.
I've heard libertarians repeat this claim often, but it is a lie - or, to be more exact, a misleading half-truth.

Yes, the average monetary wealth of individuals went up during the industrial revolution. But looking at the average tells you nothing about the distribution of wealth. It's possible for average wealth to go up while most people's wealth stays the same or even goes down.

And more importantly, there were numerous goods and services provided outside the market before the industrial revolution, and those goods and services disappeared; this means that although people had more money, they had to spend this new money to buy things which they used to get without spending money. The biggest example is food. Before the industrial revolution, most people were farmers, and grew their own food. As such, their food did not enter the market, and it was not bought for a price. If you measured their wealth in terms of purchasing power, those farmers would look far poorer than they were in reality, because most of the goods they consumed were not purchased on the market. When the farmers became workers, their purchasing power grew, but now they had to buy their food. And the same holds true for many other goods - most clothes, for example.

In other words, most of the supposed growth of living standards during the industrial revolution was an illusion, caused by the fact that all sorts of previously unpriced goods were brought into the market. There was more money around, but, for most people, there was no more wealth than before.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Except the hospital could only make a profit if it takes good care of patients.
First of all, that's not true. Since patients are not medical experts and cannot usually judge the effectiveness of the treatment they are given, profit-seeking hospitals succeed not by taking good care of patients, but by having a reputation of taking good care of patients. The difference is significant. It is possible to build a false reputation.

Second - and this is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain, which is to say everyone except "anarcho-capitalists" - for-profit hospitals are only going to treat patients who can afford to pay for the treatment. If you happen to get sick with a disease for which you cannot afford the treatment, you die. And, of course, the rich will get better care than the poor.


You don't need a government in order to... [insert capitalist behaviour here]
Isn't it funny how ALL capitalists seem to be absolutely convinced that they DO need a government to protect their interests? Maybe they're on to something. Or perhaps you think they're all delusional...?

Oh, and isn't it equally surprising how the entire global capitalist system of today was built on a foundation of government-sponsored violence, murder, and pillaging of most of the world? The industrial revolution, if you'll recall, was sparked by the cotton business, which developed in the first place only due to colonial conquests. No government = no industrial revolution = no capitalism.

[Havet]

Do you live in some kind of M. C. Esher world made entirely of abstractions? Can you speak a sentence without some kind of anachro-capitalist jargon? I guess you could but then your arguments would sound as aburd as they really are.

Jesus, did you woke up on the wrong side of bed or something? What the hell is wrong with you? Where have i spelled ANY anarcho-capitalist jargon?

You still fail to see the difference between mutualist/market anarchism/ free market anti-capitalism and "anarcho"-capitalism...

Let me sum it up for you: ancapies think a stateless society would look the same as now except with less taxes, slightly less expensive services and products and everything being run for profit.

free-market anti-capitalism sees radical differences in the way organizations are created. No more corporations, for once. Not everything being run for profit: communes, cooperatives, mutualist banks all welcomed.

Read up on it before making statements out of your ass. I even have a thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html) explaining it in very detail. Please check it out.


Noctice how everyone in the US complains about their SOCIALIZED tap-water or SOCIALIZED fire departments? They don't because it works for people and there would be a justifyable uproar if the government tried to privitize these things. The only reason people complain about schools are because they have been underfunded since the 1970s - partially because the right has use rascist fears of intergration and wacko fears of evolution and secularism to try and poison the well of public education.

The point I was making is that one does not need a centralized management system like today - a government/State. People can take care of this things locally (http://www.revleft.com/vb/statists-mutual-aid-t115665/index.html?t=115665&highlight=mutual+works) (in their communities), for example.


You're right, a council of doctors and nurses making decisions would be a much better system than for-profit health run by corporations and beurocrats.

Yes, but I would still be against it if this countil had the monopoly of all the healthcare services in a country.

I don't get it sometimes, some communists criticize Capitalism (justly, If i may add so) because of its affinity for creating monopolies, but then suggest an even bigger monopoly to take care of the problem.


Insurance is quite competitive - in fact part of the problem in the US is that insurance companies have great policies for the goal of cutting costs (and letting people rot and die). So the real question is better or worse policies FOR WHAT GAIN AND IN WHOSE INTERESTS.

No, insurance is not competitive. The employees are free to compete, and so are the business owners to a certain extent, but between the employees and the business owners there is no competition, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the employees cannot make alternative competing systems, like cooperatives and workeer-owned institutions.

This governmental priviliege also artifically increases the power of these insurance companies. They probably couldn't last one day without some tax-payer money.


This is just backwards logic - it's like saying that the problem with tanks is that they always get taken over by armies and used for war. Insurance companies and HMOs were CREATED by sectors of the ruling class. Kaiser Permanente was created by Kaiser of Kaiser Steel in California - he created it to be more competative with the old Steel companies, but then after WWII, he found he could make a profit from it.

Yes, they were created by the ruling class. No one is questioning that. What i'm saying is that the ruling class has allied themselves with the other ruling class (the government) in order to more easily exploit, and to prevent alternatives which i've already mentioned above.

[RGacky3]

The health care is of "great quality?" OK. Many who live with socialized health care would beg to differ. Why do you think so many seniors and citizens from Canada prefer to trek to the US and pay for private health care here or get their perscription meds in the states? I doubt they would do so if the Canadian system was on a par with the current system in the USA.


Being someone who has lived in both style, I'd have to say that socialized healthcare is MUCH better. Of coarse you might cite specific examples, but overall statistics overwhelmingly show that socialized health care is more efficient and of a better quality.


Looks like your schools(and in particular the English dept.) aren't quite as proficient.

Brusilov......... OUT

Hey dickhead, how well do you speak french? Yeah, I thought so.


The US Census Bureau has it that 15% of American residents(counting illegal inhabitors) are currently without health care in this country. I just don't see the point of punishing the working, legal majority of people with having to accept a much lower standard of health care just so that the odds-n-ends can have it(and they would have health care if they actually found a job with benefits.) Say what you will about them being "disadvantatged," or "oppressed," or whatever jargon you will............ Why must we keep "equalizing" those whom are actually contributing for the sake of the lesser's. It stinks of Harrison Bergeron.

and btw I don't count illegals in the same category as actual citizens.

IMO having to prop up noncontributing communities is a waste, a gaping wound.

Noncontributing communities??? Ok, again, do you know how much wealth in say, California, is made in the agricultural industry? Its actually the top money maker for California, who are the ones that work the farms? YOu got it, illigal immigrants, if anything the socalled "illigal immigrants" (imo calling someone illigal for being somewhere is rediculous), contribute many times over what they recieve.

If anything the non contributers are the rich guys who are just making money off of money and not contributing anything but get great healthcare.

The fact is, public healthcare will reduce healthcare costs for almost all Americans, meaning working americans will pay LESS, because they won't be paying for corprate profits, ads, administration costs, overhead and whatever, they would ONLY be paying for their healthcare, also because of that, the companies could'nt mess people around for a profit (trying to refuse payment and such), because there is an efficiant program to compete with.

BTW, 15% is over 45 million.

[Skooma Addict]

Except you're dead and your family's DEAD!

Well, It's your imaginary scenario, so I cannot claim they are alive, but I would assume they didn't purchase fire alarms. Regardless, it is a fact that some people in the world will die from fires.


In theory yes, in real history and practice, no. This has never been historically true - even from the start. In order for capitalism to work there needs to be a labor force with no access to means of production - so capitalist nations needed to get rid of common lands otherwise the would have to pay laborers too much. In England there was a series of enclosures, followed by laws against vagabonds (jobless people) and so much of the ex-peasantry essentially had not choice but to work in country mills. So, again, states employ laws and the courts and brute force to shape society to meet the needs of capitalism.

In theory capitalism can work without the State. Therefore, in practice capitalism can work without the State. Also, the free market I support can only exist when no state is present.


In modern times, states have been able to push people off lands by forcing them out by underselling them at the market and causing them to go into debt, but it is essentially the same process.

Which is a violation of property rights and therefore anti-free market.



The industrial revolution and capitalism in general were huge advances from what came before... I'm not a primitiveist. Industrialization allows for much greater production and the ability to meet the needs of all people - unfortunately the same system also gets in the way of doing this and eventually becomes a barrier to further progress and development. So even though we could feed everyone, capitalist states pay farmers not to grow. Yeah, yeah, that's "bad capitalism as it exists" not in the magical land of anarcho-capitalism.

How exactly does industrialization become a barrier to further economic development? When you cite examples of poor decisions made by the state, you are not giving arguments against my position.



Ummm.... that is the most hilarious statement ever if you've had experience with health care for the working poor in the US. Heath care is hugely profitable in the US and yet we have a lower standard of care and lower life expectancy than most industrialized countries (just below Costa Rica).

Do you know how much these countries spend on health care? But maybe Americans are just unhealthy, and that is why they have lower life expectancies. Maybe it has nothing to do with health care. But anyways, the health care system is semi-socialized.


And more importantly, there were numerous goods and services provided outside the market before the industrial revolution, and those goods and services disappeared; this means that although people had more money, they had to spend this new money to buy things which they used to get without spending money. The biggest example is food. Before the industrial revolution, most people were farmers, and grew their own food. As such, their food did not enter the market, and it was not bought for a price. If you measured their wealth in terms of purchasing power, those farmers would look far poorer than they were in reality, because most of the goods they consumed were not purchased on the market. When the farmers became workers, their purchasing power grew, but now they had to buy their food. And the same holds true for many other goods - most clothes, for example.

In other words, most of the supposed growth of living standards during the industrial revolution was an illusion, caused by the fact that all sorts of previously unpriced goods were brought into the market. There was more money around, but, for most people, there was no more wealth than before.

Yes, some goods became obsolete. It is good that they disappeared. If nobody wants to buy a certain good, we don't want the production of these goods to continue. People didn't grow their food because they could make more money if they simply worked and bought their food. A day spent working on a farm is one day less you could spend working. People could work, buy just as much food as they could grow, and have money leftover.


First of all, that's not true. Since patients are not medical experts and cannot usually judge the effectiveness of the treatment they are given, profit-seeking hospitals succeed not by taking good care of patients, but by having a reputation of taking good care of patients. The difference is significant. It is possible to build a false reputation.

Second - and this is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain, which is to say everyone except "anarcho-capitalists" - for-profit hospitals are only going to treat patients who can afford to pay for the treatment. If you happen to get sick with a disease for which you cannot afford the treatment, you die. And, of course, the rich will get better care than the poor.


Yes, it is possible to have a false reputation. Lots of things are possible. Its still very unlikely.

The poor will still get care, although the rich will end up getting better care than he poor. If there is some operation that would cost 2 million dollars, then only the rich could afford it. But the poor can always purchase medical insurance.


Isn't it funny how ALL capitalists seem to be absolutely convinced that they DO need a government to protect their interests? Maybe they're on to something. Or perhaps you think they're all delusional...?

Many capitalists do need a government to protect their interests. Their interests often are anti-free market however. If they think a government is needed in order to maintain capitalism, they are wrong.


Oh, and isn't it equally surprising how the entire global capitalist system of today was built on a foundation of government-sponsored violence, murder, and pillaging of most of the world? The industrial revolution, if you'll recall, was sparked by the cotton business, which developed in the first place only due to colonial conquests. No government = no industrial revolution = no capitalism.

The government postponed the industrial revolution. How? IP laws.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, some goods became obsolete. It is good that they disappeared. If nobody wants to buy a certain good, we don't want the production of these goods to continue. People didn't grow their food because they could make more money if they simply worked and bought their food.
Wrong. People didn't grow their food because the state kicked them off their land (in Britain, this took the form of the "enclosure of the commons" - read up on it).


A day spent working on a farm is one day less you could spend working. People could work, buy just as much food as they could grow, and have money leftover.
That's only true if you're assuming that people had a choice between continuing to be farmers as before or going to the cities to become workers. This is false, because the choice to remain a farmer was usually not available. They didn't go work in factories because it was better than farming; they went to work in factories because farming was no longer an option.


Yes, it is possible to have a false reputation. Lots of things are possible. Its still very unlikely.
On the contrary, I think it's very likely. Do you realize how easy it is to persuade people to buy "medicine" that does them no good whatsoever? There's an entire crackpot pseudoscience called Homeopathy dedicated to producing and selling drugs which have no effect (other than the placebo effect).


The poor will still get care...
How do you know that? Yes, the poor might possibly get care, but, to paraphrase you, "lots of things are possible. Its still very unlikely."


But the poor can always purchase medical insurance.
...which may not cover their particular illness. And of course, many of the poor can't even afford insurance.


The government postponed the industrial revolution. How? IP laws.
IP laws reduce innovation, true. But you cannot assume that the industrial revolution will happen automatically if you just encourage innovation in an agricultural society. There is no guarantee that people will invent the right things to start an industrial revolution.

Again, the inventions that made the industrial revolution possible came out of colonialism. Maybe they would have been invented without colonialism, but you don't know that.

[Skooma Addict]

Wrong. People didn't grow their food because the state kicked them off their land (in Britain, this took the form of the "enclosure of the commons" - read up on it).

Hmm. I am not going to say the State didn't kick people out of their land, but many people chose to work in the cities as well.


That's only true if you're assuming that people had a choice between continuing to be farmers as before or going to the cities to become workers. This is false, because the choice to remain a farmer was usually not available. They didn't go work in factories because it was better than farming; they went to work in factories because farming was no longer an option.

People who were not kicked out of their land, but who chose to work in the cities could have remained farmers. So farming was an option for them, but they simply decided it would be better to work in the city.


On the contrary, I think it's very likely. Do you realize how easy it is to persuade people to buy "medicine" that does them no good whatsoever? There's an entire crackpot pseudoscience called Homeopathy dedicated to producing and selling drugs which have no effect (other than the placebo effect).

Lying about your product is fraud. But the market will weed out the good medicines from the bad ones. Medicines that people like will be mass produced, and medicines that people do not like won't be produced.



...which may not cover their particular illness. And of course, many of the poor can't even afford insurance.

If the medical insurance industry is privatized, the price will decrease drastically. Obviously there will be some people in the world who won't have insurance (some of whom won't even want it). But Universal Health care would be far worse. Its cost would be too great, meaning other sectors of the economy must suffer. People who don't want insurance are forced to pay for it. Innovation is reduced. There will be artificial scarcity, leading to people dying in waiting lines. I could just keep on listing potential problems.


IP laws reduce innovation, true. But you cannot assume that the industrial revolution will happen automatically if you just encourage innovation in an agricultural society. There is no guarantee that people will invent the right things to start an industrial revolution.

Again, the inventions that made the industrial revolution possible came out of colonialism. Maybe they would have been invented without colonialism, but you don't know that.

Most of the inventions that made the industrial revolution possible existed long before the industrial revolution even began. But these inventions could not be exploited by everyone due to IP laws. So, the industrial revolution was postponed.

There is no guarantee an agricultural society will innovate and become an industrial society. I think it is likely to happen eventually, but otherwise I agree with you.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hmm. I am not going to say the State didn't kick people out of their land, but many people chose to work in the cities as well.

People who were not kicked out of their land, but who chose to work in the cities could have remained farmers. So farming was an option for them, but they simply decided it would be better to work in the city.
There were also other factors, besides the intervention of the state, which put people in a position where farming was no longer an option. Rapid population growth, for example. The youngest children in a family would often not inherit any of the family land.


Lying about your product is fraud.
Homeopathy has an entire bogus theory about how their medicine supposedly works. The basic idea is that you can dissolve a substance in water, then dillute it with so much water that you don't have more than a few molecules of the original substance left, and yet the almost-pure water will somehow "remember" the substance it used to contain and have the same medical effect as that substance.

Basically, it's about selling plain water and pretending it's medicine. The medical profession says it's bullshit and fraud, but homeopaths say it isn't. If you're a judge in a fraud case, who do you listen to? Each side has their own version of the truth.


But the market will weed out the good medicines from the bad ones. Medicines that people like will be mass produced, and medicines that people do not like won't be produced.
That's true. The problem is that the medicines that people like are not necessarily the medicines that work best.


If the medical insurance industry is privatized, the price will decrease drastically.
And if the medical insurance industry is nationalized, the price is zero (at the point of sale). Of course, there will be an opportunity cost. We will have to give up some other things in order to provide people with free health care. But it is worth it.


Its cost would be too great, meaning other sectors of the economy must suffer.
So what? It's worth the cost. Health care is the second most important human activity (after the production of food), and should be given priority over everything else (other than the production of food).


There will be artificial scarcity, leading to people dying in waiting lines.
You've just contradicted yourself. First, you said that other sectors of the economy will suffer, meaning that socialized health care will consume more resources than market health care (at the expense of the rest of the economy). Now you're saying there will be artificial scarcity, meaning that socialized health care will consume less resources than market health care (and thus provide less services to people). So which is it? Make up your mind.


Most of the inventions that made the industrial revolution possible existed long before the industrial revolution even began. But these inventions could not be exploited by everyone due to IP laws. So, the industrial revolution was postponed.
I'm not aware of any such inventions. Which ones do you mean, exactly?

Of course there were IP laws that granted some companies a monopoly over various things, but I do not know any cases of such monopolies slowing down the industrial revolution. Also, it's always possible to make the argument that the inventions you're talking about would not have existed in the first place without IP laws (that is the typical defence of IP laws).


There is no guarantee an agricultural society will innovate and become an industrial society. I think it is likely to happen eventually, but otherwise I agree with you.
I also agree that it's likely to happen eventually. But, if we changed a major part of human history (like getting rid of the state), there is absolutely no way to tell if the industrial revolution would have happened sooner or later than it did. You said it would have happened sooner, and I am saying it would have happened later, because the conditions for it would not have existed in the 18th and 19th centuries without state intervention.

And there is a possibility (I think it's a small possibility, but I could be wrong) that the industrial revolution would not have happened at all, ever. There is reason to believe that farmers and peasants generally don't want to become factory workers unless they are forced by the state or by serious economic hardship (lack of land, environmental changes that make the land less fertile, etc).

[Skooma Addict]

Basically, it's about selling plain water and pretending it's medicine. The medical profession says it's bullshit and fraud, but homeopaths say it isn't. If you're a judge in a fraud case, who do you listen to? Each side has their own version of the truth.

If the company did not lie about what is actually in the product, then there is no fraud.


That's true. The problem is that the medicines that people like are not necessarily the medicines that work best.


I guess it is not a necessary self evident truth. I guess there are some people who prefer to go to a witch doctor to have their cancer treated, and they are free do do so. But for the most part I think it is safe to assume most people will prefer medicines that actually work.


And if the medical insurance industry is nationalized, the price is zero (at the point of sale). Of course, there will be an opportunity cost. We will have to give up some other things in order to provide people with free health care. But it is worth it.

Sure, the price is zero at the point of sale, but there are still costs that must be accounted for, such as the time and resources that go into the production of medical goods. But since the price is zero at the point of sale, then you cannot measure losses and gains. In other words, you encounter the calculation problem expounded by Mises and Hayek.


You've just contradicted yourself. First, you said that other sectors of the economy will suffer, meaning that socialized health care will consume more resources than market health care (at the expense of the rest of the economy). Now you're saying there will be artificial scarcity, meaning that socialized health care will consume less resources than market health care (and thus provide less services to people). So which is it? Make up your mind.

Socialized health care will consume more resources, but it will not be as efficient as private health care for reasons pointed out above. So there will be scarcity because inefficient universal health care needs to give almost unlimited coverage to everyone. It will use more resources, but it will not rationally allocate these resources.

Then there is the standard critisism of universal health care. There are a limited supply of doctors, yet free access to these doctors...we have a problem.



I'm not aware of any such inventions. Which ones do you mean, exactly?

The biggest one was probably the steam engine. The industrial revolution didn't start to take off until 1785...The year Watt's patent for the steam engine expired.


Of course there were IP laws that granted some companies a monopoly over various things, but I do not know any cases of such monopolies slowing down the industrial revolution. Also, it's always possible to make the argument that the inventions you're talking about would not have existed in the first place without IP laws (that is the typical defence of IP laws).

Many times, IP laws have hindered technological progress. Just look at Henry Ford and the Wright brothers.

You also cited the typical defense of IP laws. But I don't think it is a very strong one. IP laws, in addition to imposing billions of dollars of cost on society, actually impedes innovation.[/URL] If you ask an advocate of IP how it is that they know there is a net gain, you get silence in response. I have not seen a study explaining how IP will increase innovation. But here are plenty of studies like this one.

[url]http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090701006334&newsLang=en (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090701006334&newsLang=en)


I also agree that it's likely to happen eventually. But, if we changed a major part of human history (like getting rid of the state), there is absolutely no way to tell if the industrial revolution would have happened sooner or later than it did. You said it would have happened sooner, and I am saying it would have happened later, because the conditions for it would not have existed in the 18th and 19th centuries without state intervention.

And there is a possibility (I think it's a small possibility, but I could be wrong) that the industrial revolution would not have happened at all, ever. There is reason to believe that farmers and peasants generally don't want to become factory workers unless they are forced by the state or by serious economic hardship (lack of land, environmental changes that make the land less fertile, etc).

I think it is extremely likely that an industrial revolution would have occurred much earlier. But all anyone can really do is speculate. However unlikely, nobody can rule out the possibility that an industrial revolution never would have occurred. But I cannot emphasize how unlikely such a scenario would be.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In theory capitalism can work without the State. Therefore, in practice capitalism can work without the State. Also, the free market I support can only exist when no state is present.Therefore? That just complete idealism!

In theory, it is possible to jump into a blackhole and pop out into another dimension or another time and space... unfortunately if you did you would also be crushed into the size of a single atom, so most scientists wouldn't recommend jumping into a blackhole.

Actually a better analogy would be to say in theory you could roll a ball on a plane and it will continue to roll forever - this is true in theory. In practice, there are all kinds of other opposing forces acting on the ball that return it to a state of rest.

You're "pure" market capitalism is that ball - it doesn't exist in the real world. In the real world all sorts of people have different interests based on their position in society, in order for one group to force its will on the rest, a compelling force, (a state) is necessary. Socialists want to abolish the state by democratizing production and resources and decision making so that all people can move forward together rather than a minority of people moving a head because they can extract wealth from the majority of people (as in capitalism or state-capitalism or feudalism or what have you).


How exactly does industrialization become a barrier to further economic development? When you cite examples of poor decisions made by the state, you are not giving arguments against my position.Since industrial capitalism can not exist without a state, any example I give you will have some connection to the state or since capitalism drives companies towards monopoly almost any example I can give you will be disqualified as monopoly capitalism.

Secondly, I'm sorry if I said industrialism becomes a barrier to development - I don't believe that to be the case. I believe capitalism (while initially progressive) becomes a barrier to progress. Take digital technology for example: really all the world's music and literature and information could be made available to anyone with an internet connection. One something is digital it really takes very little additional energy and resources to reproduce it - we could be sitting on an global electronic Library of Alexandria, but because this is not profitable, companies spend millions of dollars a year to prevent such a thing.

Without copyright laws, all scientists could build on eachother's discoveries collectively which would create huge leaps in technology and scientific discovery - oops, a new Renaissance is not profitable.

Without the profit motive would could use our resources with an eye on the long term - agriculture could be grown in high-rises right now (while purifying waste water and producing oxygen) according to the geeky pop-sci magazines I like to read, but it would take about 10 years for such revolutionizing structures to turn a profit and so no one would invest in such a thing.

Slave societies and Feudalism were all progressive steps forward from what came before, but eventually the flaws in these systems actually began to retard progress because the people in power would rather keep the source of their power (slaves or the peasantry or land) then let the new revolutionary production techniques take over. So the middle classes and merchants and so on had a series of revolutions in order to get rid of the feudal world so they could replace power by land and birth with power by capital and industrial production. Thanks to industry and capitalism, we have surplus and the capacity to produce more than what is needed by the producers - this means we can create a society without compulsory labor and without inequality and hunger - but that's a threat to profits and so a revolution will be necessary to make the next step in human progress.


Do you know how much these countries spend on health care? But maybe Americans are just unhealthy, and that is why they have lower life expectancies. Maybe it has nothing to do with health care. But anyways, the health care system is semi-socialized.Are you comparing how much the government pays or how much the sum total of all patients? Health care is very expensive in the US for patients.

US:
Life expectancy - 77.8 years
Infant mortality rate - 6.9
doctors per 1000 people - 2.4
Per capita expendature on health - 7,290

France:
Life expectancy - 80.9 years
Infant mortality rate - 4.0
doctors per 1000 people - 3.4
Per capita expendature on health - 3,449


More is spent on health care in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) on a per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28P PP%29_per_capita) basis than in any other nation in the world.

[Skooma Addict]

Therefore? That just complete idealism!

In theory, it is possible to jump into a blackhole and pop out into another dimension or another time and space... unfortunately if you did you would also be crushed into the size of a single atom, so most scientists wouldn't recommend jumping into a blackhole.

Actually a better analogy would be to say in theory you could roll a ball on a plane and it will continue to roll forever - this is true in theory. In practice, there are all kinds of other opposing forces acting on the ball that return it to a state of rest.


Your analogies don't even make sense. Take your ball on a plane theory for example. You say that in theory, a ball will roll on a plane forever. Yet in practice, the ball will come to a halt due to external forces. But the theory assumed there were no external forces, in which case the theory was correct. If the theory assumed external forces were present, then the theory would maintain that the ball would come to a stop. Regardles, I just don't see how your analogies relate to what I said.


Since industrial capitalism can not exist without a state, any example I give you will have some connection to the state or since capitalism drives companies towards monopoly almost any example I can give you will be disqualified as monopoly capitalism.

Capitalism can exist without the state. You keep claiming it can't, but your wrong. No aspect of free market capitalism requires a central government. The free market is just the result of voluntary interaction between individuals. Also, Capitalism does not lead to monopoly.


Secondly, I'm sorry if I said industrialism becomes a barrier to development - I don't believe that to be the case. I believe capitalism (while initially progressive) becomes a barrier to progress. Take digital technology for example: really all the world's music and literature and information could be made available to anyone with an internet connection. One something is digital it really takes very little additional energy and resources to reproduce it - we could be sitting on an global electronic Library of Alexandria, but because this is not profitable, companies spend millions of dollars a year to prevent such a thing.

Blame it on IP laws. Laws that are, by the way, anti-free market.



Without copyright laws, all scientists could build on eachother's discoveries collectively which would create huge leaps in technology and scientific discovery - oops, a new Renaissance is not profitable.

I oppose copyright laws.



Without the profit motive would could use our resources with an eye on the long term - agriculture could be grown in high-rises right now (while purifying waste water and producing oxygen) according to the geeky pop-sci magazines I like to read, but it would take about 10 years for such revolutionizing structures to turn a profit and so no one would invest in such a thing.

In the free market economy, owners of resources must take into account their capital value. An owner of a forset will not cut down all the trees and sell the wood. They need to take into account the capital value of the land. So the profit motive actually encourages people keep on aye on the long term.



Are you comparing how much the government pays or how much the sum total of all patients? Health care is very expensive in the US for patients

What do you expect? It is semi socialized.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jesus, did you woke up on the wrong side of bed or something? What the hell is wrong with you? Where have i spelled ANY anarcho-capitalist jargon?Yes, I was grumpy and misunderstood your political stance.


You still fail to see the difference between mutualist/market anarchism/ free market anti-capitalism and "anarcho"-capitalism...
Yes, I apologize - I did not know what your political outlook was/is. I assumed that you were an anarchocapitalist.


Read up on it before making statements out of your ass. I even have a thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html) explaining it in very detail. Please check it out.True, assumptions make an ass out of you and me or however that goes. Again, I didn't know where you were coming from.


The point I was making is that one does not need a centralized management system like today - a government/State. People can take care of this things locally (http://www.revleft.com/vb/statists-mutual-aid-t115665/index.html?t=115665&highlight=mutual+works) (in their communities), for example. To me, centralization is a tool - democracy is still centralized but it is a bottom up centralization rather than a top down centralization like in capitalism and state-capitalism. In a society without capitalism and with workers power, I think things like health will still need some centralization in order to make sure that resources and equipment are able to be distributed efficiently.


I don't get it sometimes, some communists criticize Capitalism (justly, If i may add so) because of its affinity for creating monopolies, but then suggest an even bigger monopoly to take care of the problem.
The problem with monopolies is not their centralization - in fact this can be quite efficient - rather than people all over recreating the wheel, innovation can be spread and problems can be collectively solved. The problem with monopolies is that they are unaccountable to democratic or popular will and are only accountable to profit.


No, insurance is not competitive. The employees are free to compete, and so are the business owners to a certain extent, but between the employees and the business owners there is no competition, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the employees cannot make alternative competing systems, like cooperatives and workeer-owned institutions. Within capitalism worker-owned collectives can show how decisions can be made cooperatively and democratically without the normal capitalist hierarchy and management, but just like Stalinism, because they are within a larger capitalist structure, they still have to play by the rules of caitalism no matter what their intentions. So when profits are up, profits can be divided and reinvested - when profits are down, the cooperative workers have to decide to exploit themselves more to make up for the shortfall or kick people out or whatever.

Cooperatives can exist within a market the same way private enterprise can exist in feudalism... but both are also limited and harmed within these other systems and just as industrialism would have been impossible if the feudal system had remained fully intact, real cooperative economic and social democracy is not possible as long as the market exists.


Yes, they were created by the ruling class. No one is questioning that. What i'm saying is that the ruling class has allied themselves with the other ruling class (the government) in order to more easily exploit, and to prevent alternatives which i've already mentioned above.The modern (capitalist) state, in the words of Marx is nothing but a collective decision making body for the collective interests of the capitalists. Just as Feudal regions were a collective body for various big landowners and Stalinist states are for the collective decision making of the party burocracy of state-capitalist countries. The state is not a seperate from the rest of society - it is not a "ruling class" in of itself. FDR made reforms to the state but it was in the interest of capitalism in the long run - Obama is doing the same thing even though he is opposed by some sectors of capitalism (while supported by others - Wal-Mart wants the "public option").

Trying to seperate capitalism from the capitalist state is like trying to seperate a shark's teeth (the state) from the shark (capitalism). The teeth alone are useless and not the source of the problem but, at the same time, the shark can not function without the teeth.

This is why parlementary roads to socialism (keep the capitalist state but try to get rid of capitalism) fail and also why the market without the capitalist state also would never work.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Your analogies don't even make sense. Take your ball on a plane theory for example. You say that in theory, a ball will roll on a plane forever. Yet in practice, the ball will come to a halt due to external forces. But the theory assumed there were no external forces, in which case the theory was correct. If the theory assumed external forces were present, then the theory would maintain that the ball would come to a stop. Regardles, I just don't see how your analogies relate to what I said.
My point is that your idea of capitalism devoid of the actual history of capitalism, the actually everyday experience of capitalism, and the social forces at work and in conflict in capitalism is like expecting to push a ball on your desk and expecting it to roll forever.

Capitalists want and need the state - it's not as though the capitalist class has never had revolutions or created their own governmnets! There are numerous examples where they have done just that and one of their first moves is to centralize the governmnet and centralize trade laws and court systems and promote a common currency and creating tariffs for other nations and removing tariffs within the home nation.

The rise of the nation-state is the result of the rise of the capitalist class as well as a precondition to their expansion! Germany and Italy unified in order to allow their industries to compete with those of GB and France. The US ruling class went from the loose articles of confederation to the more centralized Constitution; after the French Revolutions, Paris got rid of regionalism and created a stronger central state power.


Capitalism can exist without the state. You keep claiming it can't, but your wrong. No aspect of free market capitalism requires a central government. The free market is just the result of voluntary interaction between individuals. Also, Capitalism does not lead to monopoly. Why because you or some book you read says so? History says otherwise - experience says otherwise! How would you implement your system? You would need to execute most of the capitalist class in order to accomplish this, because they woudl oppose you with the full force of their power if you even came close to implementing your goals!


I oppose copyright laws.Capitalists don't! They spend millions creating these laws and hire armies of corporate lawyers to protect and expand these laws!


In the free market economy, owners of resources must take into account their capital value. An owner of a forset will not cut down all the trees and sell the wood. They need to take into account the capital value of the land. So the profit motive actually encourages people keep on aye on the long term.That's why the economy is so strong right now!

Chop doen the forrest and you can sell the land to housing developments. Use the profits of the chopped down trees to buy another forrest! Capitalists do this all the time.

With the worldwide economic crisis, capitalists just metephorically cut down the forrest of their own economies for short-term gain!

The profit motive has all the forseight of a ravonous goldfish - yumyumyumyumyum... oops ate too much and now I'm dead. Strike that, that's too cute, it's more like a shark that eats itself to death and takes half the ocean with him.

[Skooma Addict]

My point is that your idea of capitalism devoid of the actual history of capitalism, the actually everyday experience of capitalism, and the social forces at work and in conflict in capitalism is like expecting to push a ball on your desk and expecting it to roll forever.

Capitalists want and need the state - it's not as though the capitalist class has never had revolutions or created their own governmnets! There are numerous examples where they have done just that and one of their first moves is to centralize the governmnet and centralize trade laws and court systems and promote a common currency and creating tariffs for other nations and removing tariffs within the home nation.

The rise of the nation-state is the result of the rise of the capitalist class as well as a precondition to their expansion! Germany and Italy unified in order to allow their industries to compete with those of GB and France. The US ruling class went from the loose articles of confederation to the more centralized Constitution; after the French Revolutions, Paris got rid of regionalism and created a stronger central state power.

OK. Capitalism does not NEED the state in order to exist. One can support capitalism, while rejecting the state. But I think I am done commenting on this part of our discussion.


Why because you or some book you read says so? History says otherwise - experience says otherwise! How would you implement your system? You would need to execute most of the capitalist class in order to accomplish this, because they woudl oppose you with the full force of their power if you even came close to implementing your goals!

How could a history book say otherwise? History can't tell us what is and is not possible.



Capitalists don't! They spend millions creating these laws and hire armies of corporate lawyers to protect and expand these laws!

Many workers don't oppose IP laws as well. But I think this is mainly because people do not have a proper understanding of the issue. Also, IP wouldn't exist without a central government.



That's why the economy is so strong right now!

Chop doen the forrest and you can sell the land to housing developments. Use the profits of the chopped down trees to buy another forrest! Capitalists do this all the time.

It is just more complicated than that.


The profit motive has all the forseight of a ravonous goldfish - yumyumyumyumyum... oops ate too much and now I'm dead. Strike that, that's too cute, it's more like a shark that eats itself to death and takes half the ocean with him.

Another absolutely terrible analogy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Olaf, that's it?


How could a history book say otherwise? History can't tell us what is and is not possible. My point exactly - history tells us that capitalism and the nation-state developed together and are inseparable... it's like a wheel and an axel!

How can capitalism exist without a state when merchants and the middle class had all the opportunities to do so? Why did capitalists "impose" this state on themselves?

How could you get rid of - say the US state - and have your stateless free market if France and China and England and India all have states and capitalism? Wouldn't their subsided beef and corn be cheaper than your anarcho-beef n' corn? If you had a hot-dog stand wouldn't it be in your capitalist self-interests to buy the cheep subsidized beef? Then if you were a cattle farmer wouldn't you demand subsidies in order to compete with subsidized beef?

You keep saying that capitalism doesn't need a state - where's your historical and empirical proof? I have lots of history to cite and lots of other examples...









The profit motive has all the forseight of a ravonous goldfish - yumyumyumyumyum... oops ate too much and now I'm dead. Strike that, that's too cute, it's more like a shark that eats itself to death and takes half the ocean with him. Another absolutely terrible analogy. Really? I thought it was pretty hilarious.

[Skooma Addict]

Olaf, that's it?

If you want to read more on anarcho-capitalism. The best place to start is with Murray Rothbard. Even though I do not agree with Rothbard on many issues, he is still the best place to start.



My point exactly - history tells us that capitalism and the nation-state developed together and are inseparable... it's like a wheel and an axel!

I need to remember never to use the word capitalism again. From now on, I will only claim I support the free market. There are just too many different definitions of capitalism. But anyways, history shows us that capitalism occasionally developed with the nation State. History definitely does not tell us that capitalism and the nation state are inseparable. History can only tell us what happened, not what is possible.


How can capitalism exist without a state when merchants and the middle class had all the opportunities to do so? Why did capitalists "impose" this state on themselves?


The vast majority of the population supports some kind of State. Many capitalists supported the state because they genuinely viewed it as necessary. Others used the state to their advantage, while still others were harmed by the State.


How could you get rid of - say the US state - and have your stateless free market if France and China and England and India all have states and capitalism? Wouldn't their subsided beef and corn be cheaper than your anarcho-beef n' corn? If you had a hot-dog stand wouldn't it be in your capitalist self-interests to buy the cheep subsidized beef? Then if you were a cattle farmer wouldn't you demand subsidies in order to compete with subsidized beef?

If the beef is cheaper in other countries, then yes, people would buy beef from those countries. Its not like people living in an anarcho-capitalist society would never trade with people from other countries.


You keep saying that capitalism doesn't need a state - where's your historical and empirical proof? I have lots of history to cite and lots of other examples...

I do not need historical and empirical proof to explain why the free market can exist without a central government. In fact, by its very definition, there can be no government in a truly free market.



Really? I thought it was pretty hilarious.

well, I did laugh when I read the analogies. Especially the part about the shark eating himself and taking half the ocean with him.

[Havet]

Yes, I was grumpy and misunderstood your political stance.

Yes, I apologize - I did not know what your political outlook was/is. I assumed that you were an anarchocapitalist.

True, assumptions make an ass out of you and me or however that goes. Again, I didn't know where you were coming from.

No prob.


To me, centralization is a tool - democracy is still centralized but it is a bottom up centralization rather than a top down centralization like in capitalism and state-capitalism. In a society without capitalism and with workers power, I think things like health will still need some centralization in order to make sure that resources and equipment are able to be distributed efficiently.

Well yes, there are advantages on centralizing, but it would be imprudent to think the same thing cannot be acheived through cooperation from smaller management.

The problem with centralization it that it condenses power, and at some point, as it has happened throughout history, people begin aspiring for the power directly instead of caring what its for.


The problem with monopolies is not their centralization - in fact this can be quite efficient - rather than people all over recreating the wheel, innovation can be spread and problems can be collectively solved. The problem with monopolies is that they are unaccountable to democratic or popular will and are only accountable to profit.

It is hard to believe a monopoly will ever become accountable to democratic or popular will. It is simply too much power concentrated for the powermongers to ignore.


Within capitalism worker-owned collectives can show how decisions can be made cooperatively and democratically without the normal capitalist hierarchy and management, but just like Stalinism, because they are within a larger capitalist structure, they still have to play by the rules of caitalism no matter what their intentions. So when profits are up, profits can be divided and reinvested - when profits are down, the cooperative workers have to decide to exploit themselves more to make up for the shortfall or kick people out or whatever.

Let's not forget that capitalism has a barrier to entry to these kinds of institutions: government grants tax reliefs to corporations due to their hierarchical structures, and maintains a higher tax to other institutions.


Cooperatives can exist within a market the same way private enterprise can exist in feudalism... but both are also limited and harmed within these other systems and just as industrialism would have been impossible if the feudal system had remained fully intact, real cooperative economic and social democracy is not possible as long as the market exists.

What market are you talking abut? Of course they cannot be possible in the current market: it has too much advantage to the old players and none to the new. It rewards cartelization and corporatism instead of decentralization and syndicates, unions, cooperatives, communes, small businessses, etc.


The modern (capitalist) state, in the words of Marx is nothing but a collective decision making body for the collective interests of the capitalists. Just as Feudal regions were a collective body for various big landowners and Stalinist states are for the collective decision making of the party burocracy of state-capitalist countries. The state is not a seperate from the rest of society - it is not a "ruling class" in of itself. FDR made reforms to the state but it was in the interest of capitalism in the long run - Obama is doing the same thing even though he is opposed by some sectors of capitalism (while supported by others - Wal-Mart wants the "public option").

The State is seperate from the rest of society. It is indeed THE ruling class, which serves as a starting point from others to join that class (the capitalists), through corporatist alliances.


Trying to seperate capitalism from the capitalist state is like trying to seperate a shark's teeth (the state) from the shark (capitalism). The teeth alone are useless and not the source of the problem but, at the same time, the shark can not function without the teeth.

The thing is, massive capitalist entreprises would not survive one day without tax-payer money, which is collected by the State, nor survive without special Statist actions, like IP laws for example, so taking away the State would make them disappear (although some might need expropriation) for the most part.


This is why parlementary roads to socialism (keep the capitalist state but try to get rid of capitalism) fail and also why the market without the capitalist state also would never work.

The market without the capitalist state would work, but it cannot be achieved through reformism, as always, because now the so-called market reformists (in washington, for example) use the free-market rethoric to justify changes of governmental monopoly to private monopoly, more intervention and the increase of corporations.

Naomi Klein explains this reformist nightmare very well: http://www.revleft.com/vb/naomi-klein-shock-t117114/index.html