Yeah, Obama's healthcare works like this: you have to buy insurance. If you can't the gov't will subsidize it for you or something.. Either way it means insurance companies get tons of cash because lol gov't will pay it anyway.
Results 41 to 60 of 84
question
Hi
May be we are not good informed in Germany referring Obamas health insurance. How should this work? In Germany we have state controlled health insurances but private insurances too. In case you are jobless the government pays the contribution. It works according to social principles. The more the wage the more you pay.
I watched recently the documentary by Michael Moore "sicko". This is really recommandable to watch.
Kind regards
[FONT=Arial Black]truth is a process[/FONT]thanks to Basti
Yeah, Obama's healthcare works like this: you have to buy insurance. If you can't the gov't will subsidize it for you or something.. Either way it means insurance companies get tons of cash because lol gov't will pay it anyway.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
uh, you have any evidence for this? Randolph was a supporter of the Socialist Party for years. I doubt he joined the Communist Party. Of course the Socialist Party was originally Marxist also.
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
Yeah, I'm sorry, he ran for state office in New York in the early 1920's on the Socialist Party ticket. At that time, I think, the Socialist Party(or a large part of it) was very Marxist as it was highly supportive of the Russian Revolution. The Communist Party was in its infancy at that point.
I am a Democratic Socialist
Democratic Socialism has some good ideas.
Last edited by tradeunionsupporter; 6th April 2010 at 05:20.
The reason none of them are democratic socialists is b/c that is an oxymoron. In order for capitalism to be destroyed and their false egalitarianism to be enforced they must have a totalitarian state which can not exist beside democracy.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.-Étienne de La Boétie
What does this "false egalitarianism" entail under socialism, CA?
And how does capitalism jive w/ democracy when capitalism entails people being forced to work in degrading or dehumanizing jobs or jobs with extremely long hours and torturous work-weeks, because they will starve if they don't? Making someone do stuff by threatening them w/ poverty sounds an awful lot like coercion.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
What kind of fucking libertarian crackpot are you? You're supposed to be rambling about how democracy is the tyranny of the majority and the same as socialism and the opposite of liberty and to have real liberty we need to have an individualistic society run on market transactions etc etc.
Shit man get it together
Wait ... So you DO believe in Democracy?
I do that all the time and started a thread about how i hate it and how i advocate for self governance. What i am saying is that people need to give up democracy for self governance not have it taken from them by a totalitarian regime.
No
False egalitarianism is what every socialist country has. They all say we have equality of the classes but all they do is create new classes. Look in russia where the on top was a leader followed by party leaders who were privileged out the ass. It is the same in every socialist country, the ruling class reaps the benefits by using the state to oppress the workers while lying to them.
Capitalism doesn't work with democracy b/c especially in republics state capitalists will use the state to regulate and destroy competition, which as i said before is why people need to rule their own lives. Autarchy of the individual.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.-Étienne de La Boétie
This is exactly what capitalism is so why is this bad
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Within a free market people can move up and better themselves and have self fulfillment. While in the totalitarian states there is no chance of bettering oneself and you stay enslaved to the state's whims.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.-Étienne de La Boétie
No one here is arguing against self governance, but that does'nt really come into play when desicions need to be made that affect many people, or desicions that involve many people, THATS when democracy comes in to play.
In an anarchist/free market world the there are no decisions that effect everybody. People interact in the free market and society moves forward based on these interactions. So in a world where there the market is free there is no democracy needed unless you think that everyone acting and dictating the direction of the market as a somewhat democratic procedure.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.-Étienne de La Boétie
If oil companies make pollution it affects everybody, when food companies raise prices it affects everybody, when landowners loose their property and thus renters are kicked out if effects the renters, under ANY system desicions effect many many poeple, there is no system where no decision effects anyone else.
BTW the market is in no way democratic, because the rich control the market, its an ologarchy.
That is why there must be a free market. If people see that an oil company is in fact polluting than the people can go to the free market and shop the competitor or switch to a different type of energy. Why would companies raise prices, if they are in competition with someone than raising prices would kill them in the market. If a landowner were to somehow lose their property then the renters would lose out to, i understand that but they are technically only staying there for a price, they have no rights over that property except to live there if they pay.
The market can not be controlled. The rich have no say over any part of the market whatsoever. Everybody has a say in the market by what products and services they buy, thus directing society. The idea that a few men control it all it ridiculous b/c it can not be controlled. It is invisible and yes people who are wealthy can have more say in the market b/c they are spending more in it but there is no way of actually controlling it except through government regulations or control.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.-Étienne de La Boétie
Nobody here is arguing for a totalitarian society, first of all.
And second of all, social democracies have the highest rate of social mobility and best quality of life in the world, which seems to fly in the face of everything any anarcho-capitalist has ever said.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
THey would'nt shop at competitors, because its competition, they can't be spending more money than they need to when they know no one else will, polluting companies can also just lie about the polution (they do it now), that is UNLESS, the oil companies were put under democratic control, where people would'nt have to be in competition and could decide based on long term needs.
As far as companies raising prices? Once they kill competition or go in leugue with them they would, why would'nt they?
As far as renters, and your solution which is ... suck it up .... well, just goes to show, the free market has nothing to offer those without market power.
No you don't get it, the free market is hell on earth, it ruins society, unless its TOTAL free market, you don't understand the logic? Maybe your just not smart enough.
Democratic Socialism sounds like a great idea (in paper) but history has only shown democratic socialist parties in many nations degenerating into social democratic ones (using that term in the modern sense which is "capitalism with a smiley face") and later into neo-liberal spawns like New Labour and such.
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay
"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
"Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie
"The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus
It depends, I think that the Bolivarian parties in South America are Genuinely Democratic Socialists, because they are actually in a sense revolutionizing the economic order.Democratic Socialism sounds like a great idea (in paper) but history has only shown democratic socialist parties in many nations degenerating into social democratic ones (using that term in the modern sense which is "capitalism with a smiley face
As far as social-democratic ones, they suffer from the problem of not wanting to be too agressive against the Capitalists, the problem with that, is the Capitalists WILL be 100% agressive no matter how soft the social-democrats are, its unilateral disarmement. I believe democratic socialism is possible, but the leaders need to be extremely aggressive, however I believe you MUST start at the base economic level.
In my opinion, the number one goal of any democratic socialist party must be to take the money directly out of politics (campain fincance reform, or whatever), in must then be to give direct and implicit support to democratic unions and remove it from capitalists. As far as nationalization you have to be very very careful so as to avoid a scorched earth policy that the Capitalists might take, but the primary thing you should be nationalizing is the banking system first, then the public resources, you then need to encourage more democratic practices in the workplace, giving suppot to coops and the such.
You know as much as I can critisize Hugo Chavez's clownish behavior on the international stage and rediculous antics, what he's doing domestically, for his own country, is definately on the right track, more local autonomy, supporting collectives, careful nationalization, supporting worker control, more direct democracy in local issues.
As far as the united states is concerned, the progressives (the closest thing we have to social-democrats in the US), need to focus on the democratic nature of things like a public option and regulation and the non-democratic nature of corporations, they are going the wrong way as far as the media war. I don't know why the left in America always capitulates to right wing talking points and assumptions, but its embarrasing.
