Socialism in the US
Many seem to argue against Universal Healthcare or regulation on businesses is socialism and should not be done.
I've always been confused by this mindset as we have many commonly accepted socialistic ideals already in place in the United States.
Public School Systems
Military
Police Force
Fire Stations
It's odd to me that many who argue against anything they perceive as socialism will bring the decline of our society. What would our society look like without the above socialist organizations? Do you use the services of any of the above mentioned organizations? Should we not have services freely available as available through our tax system? Why is it such a far leap from supporting these organizations to supporting it's equivalent in healthcare?
I've always been confused by this mindset as we have many commonly accepted socialistic ideals already in place in the United States.
Public School Systems
Military
Police Force
Fire Stations
It's odd to me that many who argue against anything they perceive as socialism will bring the decline of our society. What would our society look like without the above socialist organizations? Do you use the services of any of the above mentioned organizations? Should we not have services freely available as available through our tax system? Why is it such a far leap from supporting these organizations to supporting it's equivalent in healthcare?
Tags: education, firemen, healthcare, military, police, socialism, us
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Munson on -
I don't think you understand what socialism is.
Princeton defines it as, "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry ... an economic system based on state ownership of capital."
Merriam Webster dictionary defines socialism as follows:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 (a) : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property (b) : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Your 4 examples are not socialist ... they are examples of institutions established by government for education, defense, law enforcement and community services.
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on -
The question I would pose then, is how healthcare would not be considered community services? Especially as the state is not going to own any of the services, but merely administer and regulate? Likewise Wall Street regulation.
Which is to say, are the cries of socialism, merely hyperbole and rhetoric? How would the current healthcare reform bill qualify as socialism, or indeed ANYTHING thus proposed by the current administration?
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Munson on
-
As cited in the definition above, in the Marxist blueprint for the change of a society to communism, socialism is the intermediate phase between capitalism and communism. The so called Health Care Reform bill is a red flag in that department because it removes a large segment of the health care industry from the free market system presently run by free market insurance companies and transfers it to the exclusive ownership of the state. Admittedly, the long term effects would not happen over night but, ultimately, as the provisions of this bill are implemented and, no doubt, others added ... all health care could become the exclusive ownership of the state including complete control of physicians and all other health care workers as well as state ownership of all health care property and facilities. And that would be a huge step towards socialism.
-
Permalink Reply by Deanna McGuire on -
If we had not implemented state run schools and police forces these would have to fall into the free enterprise realm too. Everyone would have to pay for the services we receive from the police or to get even a minimal education. Instead, the government instituted these and pay for them through taxation as it is seen as a right of all to education and protection... but a right to reasonable access to healthcare is just socialistic?
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on
-
the second part of that "transition stage" in your definition provided states: distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
How is that at work here?
A large segment of the health care industry? We are still only talking about 46 million people. Less than 10% of the whole industry - many of whom are currently not served by it except in emergency room treatment and written off as uninsured.
The long term effects are also widely disputed. We do not know what the long term effects will be. Parts of the law will certainly be rewritten, I am confident that as many provisions will be added, others will be removed. Health care *could* become the exclusive ownership of the state (as in England, Canada, and most elsewhere) - it aslo *could* settle into something else entirely. We don't know. What we DO know, is that where it currently is, is untenable in the long term, both from the standpoint of government's duty to its citizenry, and from a cost standpoint.
Also - currently, there is a massive disparity between larger employer provided insurance plans and cost and those that private individuals (and small businesses) can purchase. There are already huge discrepancies in state to state regulations that allow companies to set unreasonable limits in wisconsin, and someone across the border in illinois gets a fairer shake. Wrapping all those under a federal umbrella would save insurance companies money if only in simplifying the regulatory hurdles they need to navigate now. The insurance company stocks have gone UP since this bill got more fleshed out. I don't think they are worried about this hurting them unduly.
-
Permalink Reply by Deanna McGuire on
-
Wikipedia definition...
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
Maybe I should have worded it differently. It's not that those things mentioned are proof that we are a socialist nation but that we have socialist aspects.
they are examples of institutions established by government
Yes they are but they are also governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, owned and controlled by the state, equal access to resources for all individuals.
They aren't free enterprise. They are instituted by government (which is a representation of the people), owned by government, funded by government and run by government.
Influences of socialism on American society today
The effects of socialism in America can still be felt today. According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program. For example, publicly owned airports, sports arenas or government-funded universities would be considered socialist operations by that definition.
The Social Security Act of 1935, one of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal creations, is seen by many as a socialist program because it is a government-organized and -regulated system. Social Security was designed to provide retirement benefits to citizens through mandatory donations to the program during one's employment years.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Munson on
-
I beg to differ with you, many fire-stations are privately own as are schools.
-
Permalink Reply by Deanna McGuire on
-
Yes, there are some that are privately owned. However, the majority of citizens do not use them.
What's your point? There are private insurance companies in the UK as well and they have universal healthcare. Establishing a standard of right to healthcare through government control is not denying the rights of an individual insurance company to exist.
Just because there are some privately owned examples of these institutions do not negate the fact that the largest majority of them are established by, administered by, and paid for by the government through taxation.
-
Permalink Reply by Deanna McGuire on
-
Ultimately, it's not an argument about what is or is not socialist. I'm fine if you want to call it community services because it sounds better to you that way. The bottom line is simple, we have military and police and fire for protection services, we have publics schools for education, we have the social security administration to help the elderly, why is it such a far stretch to extend the rights to healthcare in a reasonable and affordable manner. It wouldn't be free, we'd pay for it through taxes of some form just as we pay for all the above services through taxes of some form.
I don't know how old you are, Herb. However, from the age of your children that you've stated you have grandchildren..etc.... I conclude you either are or are quickly approaching the age where you'd begin to receive "SOCIAL" security and medicare. Based on a purely capitalistic and free enterprise point of view neither of these would be available to you. Your grandchildren would have to pay to get an education. Why is it such a stretch to have a right to public education and not a right to basic public healthcare?
-
Permalink Reply by Drew Garrison on -
Our healthcare that we currently have was born and raised by the free enterprise. Not to say it doesn't need some tweaking. Real bi-partisan tweaking which I think we can all agree it desperately needs which technically no matter how you look at it would be government regulation whether its the dems ideas or the repubs or a combo. What people are so afraid of is the two extreme cases that either side likes to tote around as our destiny if one side of the isle wins as opposed to the other. The two cases are: Dems case- "Some boy from somewhere USA was denied treatment because of no health insurance." Which rarely if never, happens. And you have the far right's case-"Someone in some socialist country X was never treated because the proper care was not administered because of what the sub standard Commie Doctor did or did not do." Which rarely if never, happens.
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on
-
Unfortunately, I think those who cry socialism, really don't understand how that would have to work, and why it would be extremely improbable a step for any US politician.
Socialism requires both state control and ownership. Nothing currently proposed includes even the vestiges of either, from what I can tell. And even if controlled - we are talking about one competitor in insurance, not the healthcare itself, or even the insurance marketplace as a whole. It would provide base level support, like the US postal service. Those who want more, and can afford it go down to the FedEx.
Regulation of business is necessary for businesses to uphold their part of the social contract. The US government and populace provides a safe market for the business to ply their trade. In return the business should be expected not to screw over the government and the populace - if they start to, then the government should step in. That's what a government does - maintain balance in the social contract that all citizens must adhere to or else forfeit their safe place in society (and go to jail).
One more thought. I don't think this country is so weak that any one president, or legislature, or issue can destroy the "fabric of america." Even an ongoing trend, like 30 years of financial market driven economics can do little more than create a recession (a depression at worst). This country is stronger than that. Those who say otherwise really need to read their history.
-
Permalink Reply by Drew Garrison on
-
Here here! Thats the stance I always take when certain Socialism/Capitalism debates spiral out of control. I believe in the American fabric and spirit too much to think that We The People would ever really let our country fail. It's in our genes to thrive and prosper. That is what makes us truly different than the rest of the world. Even if we employed the most psychotic socialist or far right idea known to man we would eventually bounce back and recover and not just hang our heads in despair like some think we would. To add to your comment even more Liam, The Collective American Will is too smart to let out country fail. We ARE unique.
Subscribe to the Art of Manliness Blog
AoM T-shirts
© 2010 Created by Brett McKay
