Political spinoff from Church Unification

[Edric O]

Ace:

Education in a Communist state would never be anything more than information manipulation. If I want to run a class on, say, basic computing, and the state deems that it is not worthy of funding, does that mean I can't do it? I should be allowed to venture the class myself if I want to. Why should I have to answer to a far-away beaurocracy for dispensing information?

What bureaucracy? And where did you get the idea that the government will impose restrictions on what you can teach? Nothing could be further from the truth! In a communist society, education would be funded by the government, not controlled by it. There will be MANY different education packages available, according to the wishes of the population.

And no one will stop you from teaching anyone anything you like, as long as you don't make them pay for it.

As for health care, a two-tier system would be preferable as long as both tiers are complete and affordable. My country is one of three places in the world where it is illegal to pay for your health care. You know what the other two are? Cuba and North Korea. As long as the systems are managed well, the private, faster system will take a load off of the failing public system.

A functional two-tier system is fantasy. Once you allow private hospitals and health clinics, they will always keep wages just a little higher than in the public system, so as to attract the best doctors. Soon, public hospitals would be left with only the worst personnel, because all the good doctors will go over to the private system. So everyone who doesn't have enough money to go to a private hospital will end up receiving second-rate treatments from incompetent doctors. Once again, capitalism screws the poor...

You should be happy that Canada has laws to prevent something like that from happening! Unless you're filthy rich (which you're not, if I remember well), the fact that it's illegal to force people to pay for their health care has already helped you a lot, every time you were sick or injured.

Caid:

How easy to blame someone all problems of the world... Do you know what is most fascinating? That you blame someTHING, some philosophical view, which doesn't exist as usual, but was only created by same person, which made a system against it. Paradox, isn't it?

Every time I blame something for some of the problems of the world, you immediately shout and complain that "Edric blames X for ALL the problems of the world!". I suppose you still haven't noticed that I blame many different things for the problems of the world, because many different things are responsible for those problems!

Capitalism does NOT cause all of the world's problems, and I never said it did. But it DOES cause many of them, especially some of the larger and most horrible ones (such as mass poverty and hunger).

Oh, and saying that capitalism "doesn't exist as usual" makes me think you've been living under a rock for far too long...

EdricO, say me, do you want to refute all those problems you've written and add some to clean the mess, or will you spare me from that boring work, which other rational democrats must do every day?

Ha ha ha ha! Very funny, Caid...

Of course, many of the things I listed are debatable, because they were caused by MANY factors, and capitalism is just one of them.

But other things are NOT debatable. For example, the 14 hour working day and the 7 day working week. Those were the wonderful ways in which capitalist employers treated their workers in the 19th century...

[Caid Ivik]

Well, maybe you haven't said capitalism created hell, but why do you use such populistic, uncertain and lying quotes like that? It won't help communistic reputation: they will still be considered as unserious, unable of constructive thinking. Setting some unchangable doctrine for everything isn't best way for politics. Ultimacy can be found in mathematics, but not here. That's why I don't call this system a "capitalism". This system is...our nature. People lust for many things, some for power, others for justice, for some is enough a material wealth. This leads the politics, you may call it "lustism".

[Edric O]

That quote was just something that I saw earlier and I was reminded of it when I read your post. I still don't know why you make such a big deal out of it... Probably because you want to hide the fact that you could not refute any of my other arguments.

Now can we please get over it?

Neither me nor any other communists that I know of ever considered their doctrine to be rigid and unchangable. On the contrary, all communism does is to offer a working framework, in which A LOT of variation is possible. Why do you think we have so many types of communists? You should come to a communist forum and see all the debate going on!

You can call the current global system any way you like. That won't change the facts. But what I really find funny (in a sad sort of way) is how you first accuse me of being rigid, and then make statements like "this system is... our nature", implying that capitalism is some sort of ultimate, perfect system that is inherently better than anything else and will never change... Heh, if that's not being rigid, then I don't know what is!

[Caid Ivik]

You've asked for it:

Colonialism - colonies, or called settlements where made over whole history, if one tribe or nation made more than other, it is because of their hard work, not some "evil capitalist thoughts";

the 14 hour day - to be sure, day has 24 hours, Earth rolls in 23 hours and 55 minutes ;)

class priviledge - social stratification has its spiritual core in hinduism, we can see such behaviour even between animals as well;

the 7 day working week - not every country feasts the Lord's day, most possibly because they haven't met Him yet;

children in coalmines - from the commie view: if you don't work, don't eat!

the opium wars - nationalistic fights have nothing with capitalism, and this was about domination of British over Chinans;

the massacre of the Paris Commune - it is natural to fight against revolts, but ok, if they would stay and wait until they will make other Council for common good as in 1793, it would be bloodless...until then;

slavery - this is derived from stratified society, so I don't have to describe the problem again;

the spanish-american war - same as "Opium Wars" statement;

the boer war - same as "Opium Wars" statement;

starvation - earth isn't always as fruitful, but good businessman can find a way to store crop from fertile years, commies call such man a "kulak";

apartheid - racism, nothing about economy;

anti-union laws - some unioners hide their political targets behind the common good, we can see it in Slovakia very easily;

the First World War - this is goal, Germany felt they have a weak economy, so they started a war?

trench warfare - si vis pacem, para bellum (Vegitus)

mustard gas - lol, that was good one! ;D

firebombings - ...but not as funny as this! ;D

the invasion of the Soviet Union - first Russians invaded Poland, so it was a counterstrike, but of course, we can call it intervence to their privacy...

the Armenian Genocide - Armens were genocided twice: by Stalin, then by Azerbaidjan, again more nationalistic thing;

Chemical Weapons - pointing again isn't funny;

Fascism - Mussolini was originally a socialist...

the Great Depression - if ment the bancrot of 1929, then it is like all victims of car crashes are murdered by their car producer;

Hunger Marches - again pointed twice, see "starvation";

Nazism - Nazional Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeits Partei, party for all, nationalists and still some socialists and workers;

the Spanish Civil War - see "Paris Commune";

Militarism - well, I would like to hear how it is possible that largest weapon arsenals had Russia, China and North Korea, or let's look to even more ancient times, don't you think Golden Horde is capitalistic too?

Asbestosis - our body is limited, however, we are not gods;

Radiation Death - see "Asbestosis";

the Massacre of Nanking - japanese busido warfare was at core also a nationalistic theory;

the Second World War - war was started by common operation of nazists and Stalin, so this is just another nonsense statement;

Belsen - if it's some bombarded city, then I will wait for Dresden;

Dresden - italian bombardement doctrine wasn't as succesful as brutal, when taken as true by Allies, but capitalists would leave the wealth, don't you think?

Hiroshima - see "Dresden";

Nagasaki - see "Dresden";

Racism - well, when I consider a dog as something with lower importance than me, is it capitalistic?

the Mafia - see "the Great Depression";

Nuclear Weapons - it is much more economically beneficial to build thousand tanks than one doomsday machine;

the Korean War - North Korea, led by communistic dictator Kim Ir-Sen, attacked their south neighbours, and they dare to defend themselves!

DDT - science sometimes makes a mistake, look at Darwin;

McCarthyism - McCarthy may be considered as a puny demagogue, but see "Paris Commune" if you want so;

blacklists - when I would destroy a work of someone, I can't expect he will work with me further, that't logic;

thalidomide - see "DDT";

the Rape of the Third World - who created this word, Idi Amin or Sukarno?

poverty - how unjust, but it is unchangable fact, that without work there is no wealth;

the arms race - another thing repeated to make the article longer, see "Trench warfare";

the electric chair - someone forgot also the guillotine, hanging loop, gas chamber, executioner sword, dread picket, spanish boot, iron maiden, maybe also that stick, with which Kain killed Abel;

environmental degradation - look at Austria and then cross the borders to east, then you'll see what is worse;

the Vietnam War - see "Korean War";

the military suppression of:

Greece - see "Spanish Civil War";

India - India is democratic state, before that it was a ghandistic anarchy and british colony, if you point British, then I would say there weren't much revolts;

Malaya - Malaysia, truly Asia...attacked by Indonesia, anyway;

Indonesia - both Sukarno and Suharto were communists, totalitarians and oppressors;

Chile - same as Indonesia, just Pinochet was more apolitical like Franco, maybe just more oppressive;

El Salvador - roamed by guevaristic revolutionaries;

Nicaragua - roamed by guevaristic revolutionaries;

Panama - USA grandiously solved this problem, also caused by guevaristic revolutionaries;

Turkey - well, we know origins of this nation...

the Gulf War - see "Korean War";

trade in human body parts - see "the Great Depression";

malnutrition - I eat what I like, you won't ban me meat because you think it is oppressive to animals;

organized crime - again repeated, see "the Great Depression";

the heroin and cocain trade - people like many things, mostly those forbidden;

the destruction of the Ozone Layer - natural thing caused by burst of population;

exploitation of labour and the deaths of millions of communists and trade unionists in this century alone - well, see "Paris Commune";

Now, you have a place to apologize for 200 million victims of communistic plague. Considering Marx' (to be sure, Engels') Capital as a new Bible has never led, doesn't lead and will never lead to nothing good. Any type of political doctrine, which suspects becoming a law in time of replace some existing, natural form, will bring only suffering of population. Commies never debated, only attacked. Without compromises, that's for heretical social democracy. Now we have a time for debate. Then, we won't. All will be already debated - by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao.

[nemafakei]

Um, Caid, for one thing, capitalism has not apologised for a thing in your post. Hence Edric can simply do what you've done, and say "Leninism/Maoism/Stalinism" is not communism. No difference.

Otherwise...

[Caid Ivik]

When the magic flows will apologize for bad astrological constellation, then will your statement have a sense, Fakei. Apology is demanded from author of that quote, used by EdricO, not EdricO himself. I don't believe he is such uncertain populist too.

By the way, I see you do good work as moderator ;D

[nemafakei]

Why should he apologise, though if the apology you demand is not one which communism can answer to - Stalin etc should answer, perhaps, but why communism?

[Caid Ivik]

Can someone apologize for capitalism? See beginning of my previous post.

[Edric O]

And just when I thought that Caid's arguments couldn't possibly get any worse (and/or downright immoral)...

Everything he said can be summed up as follows:

- When you can't find an excuse for something, ignore it (such as with the 14 hour working day and 7 day working week), or try to change its meaning (as with colonialism, which in fact means "building colonial empires").

- Capitalists are perfectly justified to slaughter all the communists they like, no matter if the communists were completely peaceful, or if they are fighting for national liberation and the capitalists are fighting to enforce colonial oppression.

- Not only is social stratification "natural", but SLAVERY itself is "natural"! Or they have their "spiritual core in hinduism" or something. Whatever, just think of some excuse, no matter how stupid.

- All dictators, no matter how right-wing, are to be called "communists".

- If all else fails, just lie.

- End with an emotional rant about how communism is "evil" and cannot possibly work because... well, because you say so.

Well, I think we can call that the "Caid Ivik debating strategy". And I also think that it's a good sign that Caid has completely run out of any serious arguments and just wants to rant on and on.

I'm sorry it has to end like this. It was a really good discussion before it degenerated... Ah well...

[Caid Ivik]

- Well, some things weren't always considered as problems. People worked on fields 14 hours in summer as well, but not because they had bad chiefs, they just wanted enough fruit. Also, sunday was always considered as feast in our civilisation, also Marx was talking about it too, so why did that guy use of some eastern weirdness? With "playing with words", how would YOU describe colonialism?

- Fully misunderstood. Nationalism has nothing with capitalism. That's why I consider most of those points as irrelevant. Author should find out, that not every conflict of that dark 20th century was based on economics.

- Naturality of stratification isn't excusing. But we've progressed very much, western world is now full of equal people, free of slavery. Only marxists don't want to accept this fact. Fortunately, we were always free of hinduism, so we aren't bound in it.

- You aren't true with dictators. About some it is undoubtable, but with centroamerican states I called them contras - enemies of revolution, spread by cuban agents. It is distracting halftruth, to blame capitalism for it.

- No lies. Maybe errors. If I made one, then say where. We are here to discuss and learn from each other, not for insulting.

- Rather emotional ending was a response for your quote, but well, I don't say it is evil, evil is only the way of its presentage. If you were social democrat, you would understand me better.

I would call your last reply "Classic EdricO wavering". Well, I have here a good debate, I don't know why you feel it's so disgusting. I've made a serious reply on your opinion, altough you've presented quote of someone other. I will be glad, if you'll do so as well, not "summaries".

[Edric O]

My better judgement tells me to walk out of this pointless argument now, or else we'll be at it until morning. But I won't listen to my better judgement...

1. Which part of "in the 19th century, capitalist factory owners forced their workers to work 14 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, for a tiny wage which was barely enough for them to buy scraps of food" don't you understand? Or do you simply deny history?

As for colonialism, it is the practice of building colonial empires, which resulted in the enslavement of nearly all the peoples of Africa, Asia and Soth America.

2. This is not about nationalism. This is about the Paris Commune, the young Soviet Union, Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey. All these were brutally suppressed (some were actually invaded) by western capitalist powers, in the name of "stopping the spread of communism". The actual wishes of the people of those countries were never considered. The interests of the capitalists were all that mattered.

And your excuse is that, somehow, killing communists for no other reason than the fact that they are communists is perfectly okay!

3. LOL, equal people? Are you telling me that the son of a billionnaire and the son of a poor homeless woman have equal chances in life?

4. What? So now the Cuban secret service is better than the CIA? And they use it to put their own enemies in power? Yeah, this makes a lot of sense... ::)

5. The Armenian Genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century; you lied (or "were mistaken", if you will) about the reasons behind anti-union laws; you simply denied the fact that the Great Depression was a direct result of capitalism (hey, by the same logic, the Great Ukrainean Famine or the present-day situation in North Korea aren't results of stalinism either!); you lied about the Vietnam War (most of the fighting was between American forces and a SOUTH Vietnamese resistance movement, known as the Vietcong, who was fighting for the freedom of their country); you call every capitalist you don't like a "communist"; etc.

6. Again I have to ask you: Why are you making such a big deal of that damn quote??" We had a MUCH better discussion going before you became obsessed by it! Do you really have to resort to nitpicking when you run out of arguments?

[Caid Ivik]

Brilliant decision, but sleeping is allowed ;)

1. People left good life on fields and in peaceful nature, lusting for quick wealth of cities. It was usual to work hard, you know, they come out of feudalism. USA were colonized as well, you forgot. Indians here weren't enslaved, altough their doom isn't bright point of history as well. Enslavement of africans was started in ancient roman times, in 20th century it was dismissed. Capitalists found that free people are more productive...

2. Paris Commune started to be a militant organisation. If Hindenburg would destroy SA, it would solve much as well. Soviet Union attacked foreign soldiers, Czechoslovak Legion, which helped Russians against Germany in WW1. Then came no help, but when Lenin aimed at Warszaw, it couldn't leave world silent. Don't forget that in same time were communist revolts as well in whole central Europe. Italians and Germans defended us from Bela Kun's invaders. Is it sinful to defend myself from something what I disagree?

3. Equal, but not same. Law and God see no difference. Anyway, why shouldn't be legacy of parents gaven to their children?

4. Have you ever heard about Che Guevarra? Whole his life was one thing: spreading civil wars. It isn't important who won, but who led the war.

5. Armens were one of the most powerful part of Ottoman army, so I am surprised here. Stalin tried to "replace" this nation, as many others, war with Azerbaidjan for Karabach was raging recently. Antiunion laws I see from my perspective as a Slovak. When I see how our unioners "work for common good" I can't be silent. About Great Depression, itr showed just what will come out if we try to find holes in legislative. About Vietnam, don't you think that Vietcong, armed with newest russian weapons, had to have some foreign support? Lie would be only if I negate any connection to Hanoi, if not Peking and Moscow...

6. You've hastened me. You know I take everything seriously...

[Edric O]

Why is it that you seem to have so much more free time than I do? :(

1. It was "usual" to work like a slave only because capitalist factory owners made it that way. The point is that capitalism caused untold suffering in Europe and America during the 19th century and even well into the 20th (these days most of the suffering has moved to Africa and Asia), and that history must not be forgotten. We must not allow the capitalist oligarchy to drag us back to those days.

2. Yeah, sure, the Paris Commune was a "militant" organization... then why exactly did it get massacred without oposing any meaningful resistance? Oh, I forgot, capitalists have the "right" to kill all the communists they want... ::)

As for your story about Soviet aggression, I honestly never heard about any such thing. And I don't understand how Lenin could have possibly been "aiming for Warsaw" when he didn't even control all of Russia yet...

As for Bela Kun, he was the one getting invaded, not the other way around. I know this for a fact, because the invaders were the Romanian army. We invaded Hungary and assaulted Budapest for no other reason than because the government was communist. And after that, the fascist general Horty formed the new government, and imposed his ruthless dictatorship on Hungary. Horty would later become one of Hitler's loyal allies...

3. The point is that their chances in life are vastly unequal. Capitalism does NOT give every person an equal start in life. And the problem is not that children inherit their parents' possesions, but that they can use those possesions to gain an unfair advantage over others.

4. Heard about him? I ADMIRE the man! He dedicated his life to the fight against imperialism and colonial oppression. He was one of the great freedom fighters of the world.

And the fact that "he spread civil wars" is a pathetic argument. Is it wrong to start wars of liberation? By this logic, the Allies should have never fought against the nazis in WW2! ::)

Oh, and by the way, Che Guevara was assasinated by the CIA in Bolivia...

5. I'm not sure if it was the Ottoman Empire or Turkey. I'll have to check. In any case, they did a splendid job of covering it up, which was later taken by Hitler as a model of how to cover up genocide.

The anti-union laws that the quote is talking about existed in the 19th and early 20th century, and were specifically made to silence workers.

The Great Depression shows what unchecked capitalism can do...

And the Vietcong got a lot of HELP from the North (which in turn got help from China), yes, but the soldiers themselves were South Vietnamese, and most of their new recruits came from the South. It was the South Vietnamese's fight for freedom against a regime that was installed and kept up by a foreign power (the Americans).

6. Well, so do I, but I don't nitpick like that...

[Egeides]

Caid, you believe that the actual system (or a variant from it) is actually a meritocracy. But there are many ways to act, not only by creating (which brings merit) but also by destroying another (which has nothing to do with merit: you don't produce, you shouldn't get).

Do you believe the colonial system only built? Do you think like me that it was also (and generally) stealing and that the other countries would have build more and better without colonialism, even if it took some time to adapt?

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I don't know if it's more, but I can find a productive use ;D

1. We won't be, because I wouldn't work for low wage. No one would. Maybe only immigrants, but their children will see everything as we as well. Uneducated immigration was same in those times. Just they were from villages, not abroad. Wages cannot be low, because then who would buy your products?

2. Commune resisted for nearly a half-year. Don't tell me it is possible - EVEN IN FRANCE - with bare hands. Lenin did not accepted Poland as a new state, led by Pilsudski, who was considered only as another "white contrarevolutionary". Russians attacked, but were pushed back, deep to Ukraine. Russians finally found enough power for counterstrike and reached Wisla river, where they lost a battle, so status quo was reached. Romania was our fellow ally, so it is honorable to help invaded friend. Soviet Slovak Republic existed, and it did much work to repel hungarian commies back. Romanians attacked suddenly after this conflict. Admiral Horthy was a monarchist, regent for Habsburg-Lothringen dynasty. He is considered as fascist only because he worked with Hitler - who replaced him as well, when Russians were closing. But I know, from far left it is hard to see difference...

3. Our constitutions do so, but also they accept natural right for private property. State cannot steal something from you just because you have more than someone else.

4. Oh my God... ;D And now, who is pacifist here? Well, if you would stay with Tito, Mao or your native partisans, than ok, they defended themselves, but Guevarra? Doesn't even his name mean "war"?

5. Ottoman Empire is Turkey, to be sure. But it was before Ataturk's revolt. About anti-union laws, I wouldn't condemn them without seeing what those angered workers were doing. Well, if union tells to destroy machines, because they take work from us, then it isn't for good. Unchecked communism had even worse results. In Depression we lost money, in communism lives. You know, world isn't battlefield between "left" and "right", but between order and chaos.

Everything made some good and some bad things, Egeides. Colonialism united most of the world, and altough it brought somewhere pain too, at least they were confronted with democratical thoughts from Europe. Important is only that, what we'll take from past.

[Edric O]

I wonder if we're ever going to reach some sort of end with this conversation... ah well...

1. And what if your only choice is to work like a slave for a tiny wage or to starve to death? That is the "choice" presented by your beloved capitalism to hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

2. Oh, so the people of the Commune commited the "crime" of staying alive? ::)

As for the events of 1917-1920, things are much more complicated than you make them seem, Caid. For example, Pilsudski was a socialist. Also, the Red Army fought only in self-defence. The Soviets recognized the independence of many nations that used to be under the iron heel of the Tsarist Empire. Among them were Finland, Armenia, Basarabia (a Romanian province), etc. They also withdrew their troops from Persia and made peace with Germany. What Lenin wanted most of all at the time was peace. Too bad he never got it... The western powers invaded Russia.

As for Horthy, let's say your right. He wasn't a fascist, he was just an extreme right-winger and a good friend of Hitler. I fail to see how that makes him any better...

3. The problem is not that you have more than someone else, the problem is the way in which you got to have all that. And the capitalist method of becoming rich is exploiting your workers.

4. First of all, the Spanish word for "war" is "guerra". I have no idea what "Guevara" means (probably nothing at all). And in any case, I fail to see what a person's name has to do with anything.

Second, what's wrong with fighting for freedom? Oh, I get it, fighting for freedom is good only when the oppressors aren't western capitalists, isn't it? ::)

5. "Unchecked communism"? Errr, WHAT communism? No communist countries ever existed. In fact, no countries ever even claimed to be communist. The Soviet Union and other stalinist dictatorships only claimed to be socialist.

As for losing lives as opposed to losing money... well, seeing how in capitalism we lose 24,000 lives every day due to hunger, I'd say that the Great Depression was just a minor sting compared to the usual effects of capitalism.

[nemafakei]

"We won't be, because I wouldn't work for low wage"

But in capitalism, you may have little option if it's the only job you can get!

Surely a system whereby good pay is guaranteed, rather than left to some chaotic chance, depending where you live, and the generosity of your employer, is more... moral!

[SurlyPIG]

What bureaucracy? And where did you get the idea that the government will impose restrictions on what you can teach? Nothing could be further from the truth! In a communist society, education would be funded by the government, not controlled by it. There will be MANY different education packages available, according to the wishes of the population.

And no one will stop you from teaching anyone anything you like, as long as you don't make them pay for it.

But what if I need access to expensive equipment to teach the class and the people who want the class don't have the voting weight to sway enough money towards the cause? And what if the class was extremely valuable? Like, say, a class to teach surgeons how to operate miraculous new equipment that could save thosands of lives annually.

A functional two-tier system is fantasy. Once you allow private hospitals and health clinics, they will always keep wages just a little higher than in the public system, so as to attract the best doctors. Soon, public hospitals would be left with only the worst personnel, because all the good doctors will go over to the private system. So everyone who doesn't have enough money to go to a private hospital will end up receiving second-rate treatments from incompetent doctors. Once again, capitalism screws the poor...

Then why have well-managed two-tier systems in Europe outperformed the extremes in Canada and the US with ease? Besides, there's already a huge drain of Canadian doctors to countries that offer better pay. If wage difference becomes a problem, an easy fix would be to make a mandatory service requirement for licensed professionals that work in the medical field to work X number of years or X% of their carrers in the public system. I think a couple countries in Europe did this. Lots of doctors in two-tier systems do this anyway. They go through medical school, build up a huge-assed debt, work it off in a few years of working in the private sector, build a nice base to their retirement, then work the rest of their careers in the public sector where the actions is.

You should be happy that Canada has laws to prevent something like that from happening! Unless you're filthy rich (which you're not, if I remember well), the fact that it's illegal to force people to pay for their health care has already helped you a lot, every time you were sick or injured.

Oh there's nothing to be happy about. It's failing, and it's doomed to keep going that way. A one-tier system is either cut, cut, cut, or debt, debt, debt. My mother works in the system, she's seen the degredation herself. She works as a physical therapist in nursing homes for the elderly. Well, she used to. Until the most recent string of cutbacks. Many people who can't support their parents take them there thinking that they'll have 24hr/day care. Fat chance. Government butdget allows for 3.2 hours of total care from all kinds of nurses and therapists. RNs, LNs, OTs, PTs, and all of their aids, if that means anything to you. 3.2 hours per day. It's just plain not working. It never really has. When it was, we were rolling up huge debt, it had to crash sometime and reality had to kick in. It's done. It's dying. It's time to try somehting new. Something better.

[Caid Ivik]

Lack of vigor is a thing for IM discussion ::)

1. I can work also for myself. Democratic capitalism doesn't accept existence of slavery, and free person can work anywhere he want. And if something will try to crush me, than I have Antimonopolar Bureau...

2. Staying alive not, but staying with weapons isn't koser. Pilsudski was a military commander, his political thoughts were irrelevant. To be sure, even Kerenskij was a socialist (socdem, mensevik). We can call it preventional attack, ok, I support Iraqi Freedom too. About freedom of Finns, Armenians and Moldavians I can't say they had best experience with their "freers". As I see it, he wanted a freedom by destroying any possible opposition inside Russia. Kerenskij could make a compromise, Lenin preferred civil war.

3. Well, if my deeds are lawful, than it is no question. By manipulating with firm actions you can make a big wealth, altough it doesn't look like a very hard work, but it is legal.

4. Guerra, Guevarra, one syllable difference... ;D But that's not important. You say Guevarra fought for a freedom. Do you think Castro's regime is free?

5. The USSR was created by Lenin, who you accept as communist. However, spiritual father of Marx, Hegel, wasn't true with his thoughts about unchangable flow of acts to utopy. But maybe you are true. As I don't compare starving Etiopia with rich Switzerland (altough both have free markets!), maybe I shouldn't compare USSR with ...with...I'm confused now...

[Edric O]

Ace:

But what if I need access to expensive equipment to teach the class and the people who want the class don't have the voting weight to sway enough money towards the cause? And what if the class was extremely valuable? Like, say, a class to teach surgeons how to operate miraculous new equipment that could save thosands of lives annually.

If the class is extremely valuable, then it WILL get the funding it needs. You think it would be hard to convince people to vote in support of a program that would save thousands of lives annually? You would easily get votes from all segments of the population, not just from the surgeons themselves.

Then why have well-managed two-tier systems in Europe outperformed the extremes in Canada and the US with ease?

I keep hearing all sorts of contradictory information regarding the success of various types of healthcare systems. This is just another one of them. Usually the rich praise the private system (because they can buy themselves better healthcare) and the poor praise the public system (because without it they would be left to die in misery of easily preventable diseases). People in the middle, such as yourself, usually support a combination of the two.

Besides, there's already a huge drain of Canadian doctors to countries that offer better pay. If wage difference becomes a problem, an easy fix would be to make a mandatory service requirement for licensed professionals that work in the medical field to work X number of years or X% of their carrers in the public system. I think a couple countries in Europe did this. Lots of doctors in two-tier systems do this anyway. They go through medical school, build up a huge-assed debt, work it off in a few years of working in the private sector, build a nice base to their retirement, then work the rest of their careers in the public sector where the actions is.

Hmmm, sounds good. As long as they are required by law to work at least X number of years or X% of their careers in the public system, that means that the poor get on the average the same quality of healthcare as the rich, but without abolishing the private system.

But then again, the private system could raise wages artificially, in order to get doctors to protest against the government and have this law repelled. Then we're back where we started...

Oh there's nothing to be happy about. It's failing, and it's doomed to keep going that way. A one-tier system is either cut, cut, cut, or debt, debt, debt. My mother works in the system, she's seen the degredation herself. She works as a physical therapist in nursing homes for the elderly. Well, she used to. Until the most recent string of cutbacks. Many people who can't support their parents take them there thinking that they'll have 24hr/day care. Fat chance. Government butdget allows for 3.2 hours of total care from all kinds of nurses and therapists. RNs, LNs, OTs, PTs, and all of their aids, if that means anything to you. 3.2 hours per day. It's just plain not working. It never really has. When it was, we were rolling up huge debt, it had to crash sometime and reality had to kick in. It's done. It's dying. It's time to try somehting new. Something better.

I don't understand how this has anything to do with the fact that healthcare is public. How would a private system make things any better?

What you really need to do is to get people to realize that putting the elderly in nursing homes is not a solution...

Also, you need to get a working national retirement plan so that the elderly can be independent of their children.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. Yes, that's what your *theory* says. But if you're poor and all the employers in your area refuse to pay you as much as you deserve, what choice do you have except to work for the meager wage that they offer? You can't move somewhere else, because you don't have the money. And you also can't "work for yourself", because in order to do that you'd need to BUY tools and equipment from someone. Even if you just want a patch of land to grow your own food, you need to BUY the land first.

2. The Commune was under siege. How exactly were they supposed to stay alive without weapons? ::)

As for "preventional attack" (the proper word is "pre-emptive", by the way), it's interesting to see that you share the same philosophy as Hitler...

But in any case, if you think that it was perfectly okay to invade Russia just because they were communists, then why is it NOT okay for communists to invade a capitalist country just because it is capitalist?

And by the way, I'd like to point out that one of Lenin's first acts was to grant independence to ALL the various nations that had previously been conquered by the Tsarist Empire. It wasn't until 5 years later (when Lenin was no longer in power) that the Soviet Union was formed.

3. Heh, judging capitalist exploitation by capitalist law is like judging nazi war criminals by nazi law...

4. Castro's regime is a hell of a lot more free than the one before it, which he and Che Guevara fought to overthrow. In fact, since the Patriot Act was adopted in the US, I doubt that America is any more free than Cuba... Of course, America is A LOT richer (and seeing how Cuba has been under embargo for 40 years, I don't think that's too surprising), but being rich and being free are two very different things.

5. The Russia of Lenin was very different from the Russia of Stalin...

And if you're asking for a real communist system to compare the stalinist USSR with, I think you should compare it first of all with the systems created by Marx and Lenin, both of whom insisted on the importance of democracy. Then you should compare it with practical examples such as the Paris Commune, Russia and the Soviet Union before Stalin, and to a lesser extent even Cuba (unfortunetaly, Cuba received certain stalinist influences during the Cold War, and its economy is crippled by the long embargo).

[Caid Ivik]

1. Some money you have always, at least from state. You can always make your own firm, just seek which area isn't fully covered. As I look on west, there aren't much people dependent on it.

2. Well, siege came as an answer to their weapons... Hitler made no preventional attack: Poland was attacked as a base for attack on Russia, das grosse lebensraum, France because of revanschism. That myth of preventional attack on Russia was made only by neonazists. I am negativelly surprised you share this description with them... Lenin founded USSR as union of many nations, maybe he called "freedom" the fact, that they will have their national councils, but will obey Party as well.

3. War crimes are defined by international treaties. They aren't comparable to market laws. They have some holes, of course, but communism had some as well, tough living standard was at least higher in "capitalist" countries.

4. First act of Castro's regime was imprisoning of whole pro-batistic army command. Act of freedom, of course. One czech MP went there last year with a notebook to present some art (abstract pictures), when secret police saw it, they took him and some weeks no one knew where he could be. No matter he had diplomatic immunity, just he came from capitalistic country with capitalistic product. How evil! Lynch such imperialists!

5. Cuba had embargo only from capitalist countries. They were brilliantly linked with Moscow system. Blaming US embargo for their misery is a goal to own net.

[SurlyPIG]

If the class is extremely valuable, then it WILL get the funding it needs. You think it would be hard to convince people to vote in support of a program that would save thousands of lives annually? You would easily get votes from all segments of the population, not just from the surgeons themselves.

No offense, but that was laughable. You are often one to say that people will take advantage of others whenever possible - it's one of your primary arguments against capitalism. What if the class for surgeons will only help them save people with rare conditions? What if the public decides that it's too rare for them to want to spend their money there. What if the people vote to build a new rec center or a swimming pool instead? Yes I think that everyone should be entitled to the basics, but you absolutely, positively have to be allowed to take the basics into your own hands!Though I think these things should be provided (with appropreate limitations) to anyone who needs them, people have the right to take these things into your own hands. First it's education (mind control) then health care (life line manipulaion), but where does it end in a communist system? Soon farmers are being forbidden to eat the very food they grow, forced to hand over everything they grow to the government only to have it redistributed to them rotten, in lesser amounts and mixed quality. Anything less than control over these things is slavery to the government, and

I keep hearing all sorts of contradictory information regarding the success of various types of healthcare systems. This is just another one of them. Usually the rich praise the private system (because they can buy themselves better healthcare) and the poor praise the public system (because without it they would be left to die in misery of easily preventable diseases). People in the middle, such as yourself, usually support a combination of the two.

A well managed combonation of the two. Though I think these things should be provided (with appropreate limitations) to anyone who needs them, people have the right to take these things into your own hands. First it's education (mind control) then health care (your life line is now the property of The Machine), but where does it end in a communist system? Soon farmers are being forbidden to eat the very food they grow, forced to hand over everything they grow to the government only to have it redistributed to them rotten, in lesser amounts and mixed quality. Anything less than control over these things is a form of slavery to the government.

Hmmm, sounds good. As long as they are required by law to work at least X number of years or X% of their careers in the public system, that means that the poor get on the average the same quality of healthcare as the rich, but without abolishing the private system.

But then again, the private system could raise wages artificially, in order to get doctors to protest against the government and have this law repelled. Then we're back where we started...

As to the former, absolutely! Achieve a balance. It's all about the balance. As to the latter, you could NOT have it repelled instead. Write it into the constitution, make it a civil right or something. Actually, IMO, it should be.

I don't understand how this has anything to do with the fact that healthcare is public. How would a private system make things any better?

1. By taking a load of service off of the public system.

2. By creating opportunities for people who would otherwise not have them. Right now in the public system, there's more workers than there are jobs. The young, mediocre recruits, say, the bottom 10% have difficulty getting jobs in their respective fields. More opportunities = more workers.

3. By allowing new ideas and new methods to be innovated in the private system, and if they work, carried over into the private system.

What you really need to do is to get people to realize that putting the elderly in nursing homes is not a solution...

Also, you need to get a working national retirement plan so that the elderly can be independent of their children.

It's not like it's widespread. It's inevitable sometimes. Canada actually has a pension plan for people in retirement that everyone can take advantage of. Then there's sponsored Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) that reward people for planning for their future with great interest. But sometimes people lose their mobility, lose their mind (or both) and they require much more care, and home care is extremely expensive, extremely inefficient and not worth government funding, and a nursing home is the only option...

Again, the keyword is balance. It is all about the balance. I don't like stuff in extremes. When well managed, I think two-tier service systems are the best possible solution.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. Ah, so now you're introducing socialist elements (like social welfare) into your system! I thought we were talking about pure capitalism here...

As for the idea that "you can always make your own firm, just seek which area isn't fully covered", that's laughable. We don't have an infinity of such economic areas! Sooner or later, they're ALL covered. And besides, what you're saying is that somehow it would be possible for everyone to be an employer and no one to be an employee... you have some really great logic there, Caid... ::)

2. Caid, the Paris Commune was formed when the siege was already under way...

As for pre-emptive attacks, it seems that you've just given arguments against yourself. You are the one supporting this concept, not me. My opinion is that "pre-emptive attacks" are just a cover-up for imperialist ambitions, such as Hitler's.

3. The exact object of that comparison is not important. I was only saying that if you want to judge a system, it's ridiculous to judge it by its own laws.

And by the way, there are several dozen capitalist African countries who blatantly contradict your statement about standards of living... And I'm not even mentioning Asia and South America.

4. Yes, and the Allies also imprisoned the whole pro-nazi German army command. Batista was a ruthless fascist dictator, so I don't see your point.

5. Actually, the Cuban economy was doing very well in the Cold War, precisely because it could trade with Russia and other countries of the soviet bloc. It was after the fall of the Soviet Union that the real economic problems began.

[Edric O]

No offense, but that was laughable. You are often one to say that people will take advantage of others whenever possible - it's one of your primary arguments against capitalism. What if the class for surgeons will only help them save people with rare conditions?

Then it ISN'T a procedure which could "save the lives of thousands of people annually", is it?

You're not making a coherent argument.

What if the public decides that it's too rare for them to want to spend their money there. What if the people vote to build a new rec center or a swimming pool instead? Yes I think that everyone should be entitled to the basics, but you absolutely, positively have to be allowed to take the basics into your own hands!

And what if the private company that funds these courses in your capitalist economy decides that they are not profitable, and shuts them down? The risks are the same.

And you forget one thing: We are assuming that these courses are expensive for some reason, so that they need outside funding. But if that's NOT the case, there's no reason why you would need to have anything to do with the government in order to teach them. In communism, as long as you're not charging people money for it, you can teach anything you want! The same goes for providing healthcare.

Though I think these things should be provided (with appropreate limitations) to anyone who needs them, people have the right to take these things into your own hands. First it's education (mind control) then health care (your life line is now the property of The Machine), but where does it end in a communist system? Soon farmers are being forbidden to eat the very food they grow, forced to hand over everything they grow to the government only to have it redistributed to them rotten, in lesser amounts and mixed quality. Anything less than control over these things is a form of slavery to the government.

Yes, you DO have the right to take things into your own hands, and communism always respects that right. As I have said, the only thing for which you need community approval (the term "government" isn't really appropriate) is the spending of public money or resources. But there are NO restrictions on what you can teach, or what kind of healthcare you can provide and who you can provide it to. Free public education and public healthcare is available to all, but no one says that you can't provide more of these services on top of what the "government" offers.

As for that comment about farmers, I think you are just letting your emotions get the best of you. Snap out of the paranoid "Nineteen Eighty-Four" atmosphere and realize that I'm a Libertarian Communist. (as the vast majority of communists are today)

No one will force anyone to hand over everything they have to "the government". Communists fight against ALL forms of exploitation, whether by massive private corporations or by the government.

As to the former, absolutely! Achieve a balance. It's all about the balance. As to the latter, you could NOT have it repelled instead. Write it into the constitution, make it a civil right or something. Actually, IMO, it should be.

Excellent! In that case, I don't have any more objections to it whatsoever. This is probably the very best kind of healthcare system that can be achieved under capitalism.

So I guess that about wraps it up... :)

1. By taking a load of service off of the public system.

2. By creating opportunities for people who would otherwise not have them. Right now in the public system, there's more workers than there are jobs. The young, mediocre recruits, say, the bottom 10% have difficulty getting jobs in their respective fields. More opportunities = more workers.

3. By allowing new ideas and new methods to be innovated in the private system, and if they work, carried over into the public system.

1. How? People won't be willing to go to a private hospital where they have to pay for the same services that they would otherwise receive for free in a public hospital. On the other hand, if you make services better in the private hospital, that means that you're making proper healthcare only available to the rich, effectively putting a price on human life.

I can't see any solution for this dilemma, except maybe giving priority to the poor in public hospitals, and keeping service standards the same in both systems. But then you'll get immense pressure from the rich...

2. If there aren't enough jobs for them in the public sector, why would there be jobs for them in the private one? It's not like there will suddenly be more patients or something...

3. What's so special about innovation in the private sector? The only advantage that I can see is that private hospitals can take greater risks and try more experimental treatments on their patients. But is that really a good thing?

Again, the keyword is balance. It is all about the balance. I don't like stuff in extremes. When well managed, I think two-tier service systems are the best possible solution.

In some things, I agree with you. Balance is often the best solution. But not always. It's dangerous to generalise. Sometimes a certain "extreme" is far better than any "balance".

And there's also the fact that balance itself is relative. For example, capitalists call me a left-wing extremist. But my communist comrades call me a well-balanced moderate. One system's extreme can be another system's center.