• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When has socialism ever succeeded? One time?

Firstly, if the government takes over healthcare...not what I am suggesting, we will not see everyone going to the doctor for every ailment. Even people who have good medical coverage don't do that, now. There is, often an avoidance of going to the doctor that is less about money.

The evidence of such programs suggests otherwise; when care becomes universal regardless of pre-existing conditions and costs, there will be a huge surge.

People don’t do it now because they pay 15% and have a deductible. Take all that away and there is no incentive to NOT go; other than the lack of services and waiting lists that will become common place.

No, I am suggesting stronger regulations than what we have now. This is the kind of thing that needs to be stopped, and since the industry will not regulate itself...greed, the government needs to.

How is stronger regulation ever going to address the costs?

You claim that the Insurance companies are greedy by referring your friend to a cheaper, albeit not as effective, alternative and yet the Government will do the exact same thing; then what will you call it; incompetence?

I don’t think you have fully thought out the ramifications of MORE Government involvement and the failure of Government regulations to do anything other than increase costs and provide a vehicle for ambulance chasing lawyers to file even more specious lawsuits.
 
The evidence of such programs suggests otherwise; when care becomes universal regardless of pre-existing conditions and costs, there will be a huge surge.

Firstly, I am not talking about something entirely universal. And when someone moves from one insurance to another by their company, pre-existing conditions are not considered, and their is not a huge surge. There certainly should be a fee for service. This lends credibility and validity to the service provided.

People don’t do it now because they pay 15% and have a deductible. Take all that away and there is no incentive to NOT go; other than the lack of services and waiting lists that will become common place.

I am not opposed to healthcare being more acceptable, especially on a preventative basis. In my world, regular preventative checkups would have an impact on how much you might spend, out of pocket, for illnesses. Kind of an incentive to remain healthy.

And again, I agree that there needs to be a fee for service. People find more value in services they are paying for.



How is stronger regulation ever going to address the costs?

You claim that the Insurance companies are greedy by referring your friend to a cheaper, albeit not as effective, alternative and yet the Government will do the exact same thing; then what will you call it; incompetence?

You are, again, making the supposition that I am proposing Government healthcare. I am not. I am suggesting that the government enact regulations to prevent things like what happened to my friend. Here's an example. In my state, insurance companies have gotten away with denying mental health care to subscribers, or significantly reducing these benefits compared to medical benefits. Since mental health issues can be every bit as costly and severe as medical issues, and this point was shown, with evidence to the legistlature, a law was enacted creating parity for mental health with medical. Insurance companies must offer similar benefits. Did rates go up? Perhaps normal cost of living, but nothing noticable. This regulation took the decision of treatment out of the insurance company's hands and back into the hands of the provider. This is the type of regulation that needs to be more widespread.

I don’t think you have fully thought out the ramifications of MORE Government involvement and the failure of Government regulations to do anything other than increase costs and provide a vehicle for ambulance chasing lawyers to file even more specious lawsuits.

I've given a lot of thought to it. I work as a health care provider and see this stuff every day. I have seen the excesses of insurance companies and how government regulations have helped. I neither want complete government control, nor am I against tort reform. Government regulations have not been the cause of healthcare costs. Insurance company excesses, denials, manipulations, etc... have.
 
Firstly, I am not talking about something entirely universal.

You are, again, making the supposition that I am proposing Government healthcare. I am not.

I've given a lot of thought to it. I work as a health care provider and see this stuff every day. I have seen the excesses of insurance companies and how government regulations have helped. I neither want complete government control, nor am I against tort reform. Government regulations have not been the cause of healthcare costs. Insurance company excesses, denials, manipulations, etc... have.

I understand what you are saying and am not addressing your point of view but the point that we are all going to have Government managed healthcare crammed down our throats whether we like it or not.

BUT, I have to keep reminding myself that this is what a majority of American's and lost several bets thinking Americans would not be quick to put ONE party in charge too soon.
 
I understand what you are saying and am not addressing your point of view but the point that we are all going to have Government managed healthcare crammed down our throats whether we like it or not.

BUT, I have to keep reminding myself that this is what a majority of American's and lost several bets thinking Americans would not be quick to put ONE party in charge too soon.

In truth, TD, I don't think we will see government managed healthcare. I think it will be one issue that will bring two opposing lobby groups together: insurance companies and the medical profession. I think...at least I hope...some sort of compromise solution is reached, something more like what I am saying. Keep it in the private sector, but regulate it so that the excesses, the manipulations, and the problems are minimized.
 
In truth, TD, I don't think we will see government managed healthcare. I think it will be one issue that will bring two opposing lobby groups together: insurance companies and the medical profession. I think...at least I hope...some sort of compromise solution is reached, something more like what I am saying. Keep it in the private sector, but regulate it so that the excesses, the manipulations, and the problems are minimized.

I think that'll be how it's done in the end as well.
 
In truth, TD, I don't think we will see government managed healthcare. I think it will be one issue that will bring two opposing lobby groups together: insurance companies and the medical profession. I think...at least I hope...some sort of compromise solution is reached, something more like what I am saying. Keep it in the private sector, but regulate it so that the excesses, the manipulations, and the problems are minimized.

Yes, the above. The model worked for vanilla banking, and any number of other segments of the u.s. economy. No reason why it won't work again.

What people need to keep an eye out for is where all the poachers move to once their fertile poaching ground is taken from them. That will be the next place to invest in short term, and to get out of before they burst another bubble. Which will happen. Hopefully we can get healthcare under control before it bursts. I mean, not getting a loan is bad...imagine not getting health care. Sounds fun.
 
This is a fallacy however; these Socialist systems do not provide you with more services, but rather less. The worst part is that these systems attempt to force everyone into the same mediocrity without a lot of choices unless you opt OUT by paying even MORE above and beyond the confiscatory taxes it takes.

The additional fallacy is the notion that there will ever be enough taxes to pay for this "better" idea. Is it any wonder that countries all over Europe are struggling to solve their budget dilemma that costs keep going up and they can't possibly tax their citizens even more?

Once the Government takes over, the costs will explode exponentially because everyone will now be heading to the doctor to get every possible ailment looked after. It will overwhelm the system and bury us in deeper budget deficits.

The COST of such programs is hardly better managed nor are the cheaper. In reality they cost much more and put a burden on the productivity of the nation by forcing Governments to take even greater amounts of your paychecks.

Impressively wrong that is is almost funny.

First off lets talk government budget deficits. Many of the most "socailist" countries have still or until the credit crisis hit, had budget surpluses..... As for the "big" countries. Yes many did have deficits, but frankly compared to the US, they were very minor, especially when we look at %.

Secondly tax rates. Yes we do pay taxes in Europe, and even VAT on almost everything. However our tax rates on income are not that much higher than the US. From what I understand, in the US at worst you will be paying 45% or so (both federal and state taxes), but correct me if I am wrong. That is about the same as many countries in Europe... heck even more than a few of them. And if you add on top of the US taxes the cost of a similar healthcare coverage, then I would wager that the burden might actually be very different than what you would expect.

Cost of our system. Considering our budget deficits are in some cases actually surpluses and when in deficit it is no where near the insane amounts as in the US, then I must say we get a lot for our money. We have universal healthcare, that provides coverage for everyone even visiting American's. We have on average more doctors, nurses and hospital beds. We have longer live expectancy and we have less infant mortality. And if you look at the statistics on cost.. the worst offender (last I looked) on healthcare costs in Europe was Switzerland with their private system but still a UHC system.. at 13% of GDP. The US had 15.5% last I looked and it was going up too. Most European countries are 11% or under. We also have free education for everyone and many have free education up to and including university level. There are also in many countries government funded or subsidised childcare.

While I will never claim our system is the best in the world, because it aint and we do not have problems, now and in the future, because we do have problems, now and in the future... what your claim and are saying about Europe and socialism is just not shown in the real world. Sure 30 years ago you would have been more right than wrong, but not today.

Also I will never claim that "socialism" is better than capitalism because it aint. But then again "true socialism" died with the USSR, and what we have to day is a mix match of capitalism free market principles with certain aspects of socialism that have been adapted to fit in, because the people found that these aspects were a benefit to the country. We tried having a non UHC system in Europe, and it failed. It only benefited the rich and the few.

So no socialism has not succeeded, but aspects of it has. Just as capitalism has not succeeded either, but aspects have.
 
In truth, TD, I don't think we will see government managed healthcare. I think it will be one issue that will bring two opposing lobby groups together: insurance companies and the medical profession. I think...at least I hope...some sort of compromise solution is reached, something more like what I am saying. Keep it in the private sector, but regulate it so that the excesses, the manipulations, and the problems are minimized.

.

This is a very interesting discussion.

Personally I think people make far too much of this private Vs public debate. As far as I can see there is little difference between a massive, bureaucratized healthcare corporate and a massive, bureaucratized health department. They're both run far away from the ground floor of hospitals, clinics and local communities with very large structures which mean that raw information from the top or bottom is ineviatably twisted in the chain and run by officials who are all ambitious and looking to move up in the world and make themselves look good.

In the end the goal should really be to make the healthcare system more responsive to those who are actually doing the halthcare and getting and that of the local communities where this takes place. Public or private is just peripheral.
 
Last edited:
I think that'll be how it's done in the end as well.

Both you and Captain are in denial I think; the position was made painfully clear and if it is up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, a foregone conclusion. The ONLY thing that will prevent this march to Socialism will be Democrats who finally decide they cannot pretend to ignore this out of control agenda.
 
Both you and Captain are in denial I think; the position was made painfully clear and if it is up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, a foregone conclusion. The ONLY thing that will prevent this march to Socialism will be Democrats who finally decide they cannot pretend to ignore this out of control agenda.

We'll just have to wait and see for now.
 
Both you and Captain are in denial I think; the position was made painfully clear and if it is up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, a foregone conclusion. The ONLY thing that will prevent this march to Socialism will be Democrats who finally decide they cannot pretend to ignore this out of control agenda.

Not in the least. I work in the industry and I see what it needs. You are not listening to what is being said.
 
Truth Detector said:
The evidence of such programs suggests otherwise; when care becomes universal regardless of pre-existing conditions and costs, there will be a huge surge.

People don’t do it now because they pay 15% and have a deductible. Take all that away and there is no incentive to NOT go; other than the lack of services and waiting lists that will become common place.
Where is all this surge going to come from?

Since we don't have a specific plan to discuss, I'll just use Medicare as an example of 'government run insurance'.

How Medicare Plans Work
Original Medicare

The Original Medicare Plan is a fee-for-service plan managed by the Federal Government. In general, with the Original Medicare Plan:

* You use your red, white, and blue Medicare card when you get health care.
* You can go to any doctor or supplier that accepts Medicare and is accepting new Medicare patients, or to any hospital or other facility.
* You pay a set amount for your health care (a deductible) before Medicare pays its part. Then, Medicare pays its share, and you pay your share (your coinsurance or copayment) for covered services and supplies (unless you have a Medigap policy or other supplemental insurance that may pay for these costs.)
* You may have a Medigap policy or other supplemental coverage that may pay deductibles, coinsurance, or other costs that aren’t covered by the Original Medicare Plan.
Maybe you should take President Obama's advice...

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done"

LOL...:lol:



edit: I meant to address this and forgot

...there is no incentive to NOT go...

That is one big problem I have..

Why in the world should there ever be any incentive to NOT go to a doctor?
 
Last edited:
This is a very interesting discussion.

Personally I think people make far too much of this private Vs public debate. As far as I can see there is little difference between a massive, bureaucratized healthcare corporate and a massive, bureaucratized health department. They're both run far away from the ground floor of hospitals, clinics and local communities with very large structures which mean that raw information from the top or bottom is ineviatably twisted in the chain and run by officials who are all ambitious and looking to move up in the world and make themselves look good.

In the end the goal should really be to make the healthcare system more responsive to those who are actually doing the halthcare and getting and that of the local communities where this takes place. Public or private is just peripheral.

I missed this post. I can agree with you, here.
 
Would just like to point out that the Canadian medical system is in a state of decay because the government keeps allocating money away from it, and the Conservatives continue to introduce legislation which allows for a two-tier, privatized system to be implemented. So it's decaying not because it's socialist, but because it's becoming more capitalist.

Also, the government in Canada has never had a monopoly on health care. We also have private health insurance companies here that cover additional procedures and therapeutic care (i.e. private rooms vs. shared rooms in hospitals)... but they are far less corrupt than the companies down South since the public system prevents them from monopolizing health care.

The Kanickistani Care was challenged in Quebec.
The court ruled a government waiting list does not constitute care.

.
 
Socialism succeeded one time in the Late Cretaceous period. It was instituted by a group of Pterosaurs and was actually wildly successful for about 6 hours. Unfortunately, a giant friggin' asteroid hit the Earth at the end of those six hours and wiped out all evidence of this.
 
Where is all this surge going to come from?

Are you trying to suggest that if suddenly all Americans can go see a doctor or dentist with little or no cost there will not be an overwhelming surge?

Since we don't have a specific plan to discuss, I'll just use Medicare as an example of 'government run insurance'.

Quote:
How Medicare Plans Work
Original Medicare

The Original Medicare Plan is a fee-for-service plan managed by the Federal Government. In general, with the Original Medicare Plan:

* You use your red, white, and blue Medicare card when you get health care.
* You can go to any doctor or supplier that accepts Medicare and is accepting new Medicare patients, or to any hospital or other facility.
* You pay a set amount for your health care (a deductible) before Medicare pays its part. Then, Medicare pays its share, and you pay your share (your coinsurance or copayment) for covered services and supplies (unless you have a Medigap policy or other supplemental insurance that may pay for these costs.)
* You may have a Medigap policy or other supplemental coverage that may pay deductibles, coinsurance, or other costs that aren’t covered by the Original Medicare Plan.

You’re going to use Medicare as your example? A program rife with abuse, scams, fraud and corruption? A plan that is headed for bankruptcy as we speak and will lack sufficient funding in the next ten years unless every tax payer’s taxes are significantly increased beyond what we ALL pay into it now?

Do you know ANYTHING about the Medicare program?

Surely you jest? And then you insult me by suggesting I am an uninformed Rush listener? How ironic don’t you think? The notion that the people who qualify for Medicare pay for it as they go is laughable; do you even know what co-Pay means and the amount that the co-pay represents of the cost of care?

Here are some facts so that you may be more informed and not make such obtuse arguments:

Co-Pay for California Medicare payments and co-payments which are a pittance of the actual costs of any hospitalized care:
http://www.cahealthadvocates.org/_pdf/facts/A-005-CHAFactSheet.pdf

Can Congress Contain Explosive Medicare Costs?
These are the unfunded obligations of the big entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. With these items included, the real debt is $42 trillion—including a brand new unfunded liability of $8 trillion for the Medicare drug benefit alone. This total obligation, says Walker, is roughly 18 times the current federal budget, or three-and-one-half the size of the current Gross Domestic Product. This obligation amounts to over $140,000 for every person in America.

Can Congress Contain Explosive Medicare Costs?

Did you know?
44.1 million: Number of seniors and disabled citizens covered by Medicare
$432 billion: Amount spent in 2007 on Medicare
2019: The current estimate of the year that Medicare is expected to run out of funds
Issues Facing America: Medicare

Medicare fraud continues to drain billions from federal coffers, though the volume of CMS overpayments and errors has fallen over the past two years, according to CMS's top official.

Medicare mistakes such as overpayments are dropping, with errors likely to hit 4.3 percent this year, compared with 5.2 percent in 2005.

Medicare fraud costs CMS billions - FierceHealthcare


Maybe you should take President Obama's advice...

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done"

LOL...:lol:

Another trite insult which makes the HUGE assumption that Liberals typically do that for anyone to disagree with their positions, one must get all their information from a talk show host. Are you really that transparent and petty?

Why in the world should there ever be any incentive to NOT go to a doctor?

It is not about an incentive to NOT see the doctor; the incentive is to abuse the privilege when one has no money in the game and nothing to risk. We call this frivolous and a waste of resources dealing with people who are otherwise healthy but abuse the system.

Do you think people do not attempt to scam systems to their benefit? Do you think people will not abuse the system because they have no risk in it?

In closing, I find it remarkable when people who consider themselves relatively educated and intelligent can argue that Government is an efficient manager of ANYTHING and it’s oversight as effective. Yet there is NO evidence of this historically or otherwise unless you manufacture your own version of the facts.
 
Personally I think people make far too much of this private Vs public debate. As far as I can see there is little difference between a massive, bureaucratized healthcare corporate and a massive, bureaucratized health department. They're both run far away from the ground floor of hospitals, clinics and local communities with very large structures which mean that raw information from the top or bottom is ineviatably twisted in the chain and run by officials who are all ambitious and looking to move up in the world and make themselves look good.

In the end the goal should really be to make the healthcare system more responsive to those who are actually doing the halthcare and getting and that of the local communities where this takes place. Public or private is just peripheral.

The debate is warranted because there are VAST differences between a Government managed healthcare system and a private one.

Government systems are rife with mismanagement, incompetence, corruption, fraud and abuse and answer to NO one and cannot be "sued". They lack the incentives to seek efficiencies, technological advances making them more profitable and the disincentive that if they do not manage costs, operate in a competent manner and provide reasonable care at a good price they will be run out of business by the competition that private enterprises have to deal with.

There is no incentive for Government programs to be innovative, cost effective or responsive to the citizens. The ONLY incentive Government has is finding ways to cut services to manage costs and increase the tax burden on their citizens without increasing the quality of care.

Look at ANY Canadian or European healthcare system and you will find the above examples in effect; in order to control costs, they cut services innovation and specialization, their costs are out of control and the tax burden has reached a stage where continued increases are not feasible, they typically have long waiting lists for even some of the most mundane health care issues (a friend in Canada complained to me that he had to wait a MONTH to see a doctor about his acid reflux) and allow the wealthiest citizens to opt OUT of the program to receive the care they feel they cannot receive under the “Government” program.

If this is your example of a GOOD system, we have significant differences in what is “good.”

Why would we in America want what everyone else has when most in the world come here for the best care in and most innovative care in the world? There are far better alternatives than allowing the Government to control even more of our lives and working more than half the year for Uncle Sam with the burden continuing to increase into oblivion until the yoke of Government largess and inefficiency overwhelms the citizenry and they revolt.
 
I've had some recent experience with the US health care system. In most cases, tests and treatment were available within days, or immediately if it was an emergency. I was very satisfied with the quality and promptness of care.

I have friends in the UK and Canada who complain about waiting weeks or months for important tests or proceedures.

The only thing that gets me is the costs. I have insurance, and the bills were astronomical; my deductible and co-pay are high (the only way I can afford health insurance), and I'll be years getting it all paid off. I asked my doctor friend why costs had gone up so drastically over the last 20 years. I was told that since I had insurance, they were basically recouping losses to non-paying illegals, and fixed-cost social-security/medicare/medicaid patients off my insurance company and me.

The problem with the private medical system isn't that it IS private, but rather that it ISN'T. Too much gov't intervention. If I were paying for my own care and nobody elses', it would cost far less. I'm not rolling in money, and I have a problem with paying for people who are, in many cases, not much worse off financially than I am.
 
I've had some recent experience with the US health care system. In most cases, tests and treatment were available within days, or immediately if it was an emergency. I was very satisfied with the quality and promptness of care.

I have friends in the UK and Canada who complain about waiting weeks or months for important tests or proceedures.

The only thing that gets me is the costs. I have insurance, and the bills were astronomical; my deductible and co-pay are high (the only way I can afford health insurance), and I'll be years getting it all paid off. I asked my doctor friend why costs had gone up so drastically over the last 20 years. I was told that since I had insurance, they were basically recouping losses to non-paying illegals, and fixed-cost social-security/medicare/medicaid patients off my insurance company and me.

The problem with the private medical system isn't that it IS private, but rather that it ISN'T. Too much gov't intervention. If I were paying for my own care and nobody elses', it would cost far less. I'm not rolling in money, and I have a problem with paying for people who are, in many cases, not much worse off financially than I am.

Excellent testimony; I would just add that even though the costs to you "appeared" to be high, it is only because you were involved in the process and had to pay part of it as opposed to having much of it deducted from your pay in advance.

What I am trying to say is that if you lived in a European model, your pay would have been greatly reduced by the many taxes that are not as apparent as when you have a choice in your own plans and pay as you go.

There are ways to reduce your out of pocket costs in our system; that would be to increase the monthly amount you are willing to pay. The good part is that everyone has a CHOICE of how much they wish to insure and a CHOICE as to where they receive their care.

I forgot to mention, and you reminded me, that in OUR system you still have CHOICES and pay lower taxes on EVERYTHING from gas to groceries. In Government systems, choice becomes a casualty just as quality and efficiency will and to me that is a HUGE difference between private systems and Government systems; the FREEDOM of CHOICE.
 
Last edited:
I've had some recent experience with the US health care system. In most cases, tests and treatment were available within days, or immediately if it was an emergency. I was very satisfied with the quality and promptness of care.

I have friends in the UK and Canada who complain about waiting weeks or months for important tests or proceedures.

The only thing that gets me is the costs. I have insurance, and the bills were astronomical; my deductible and co-pay are high (the only way I can afford health insurance), and I'll be years getting it all paid off. I asked my doctor friend why costs had gone up so drastically over the last 20 years. I was told that since I had insurance, they were basically recouping losses to non-paying illegals, and fixed-cost social-security/medicare/medicaid patients off my insurance company and me.

The problem with the private medical system isn't that it IS private, but rather that it ISN'T. Too much gov't intervention. If I were paying for my own care and nobody elses', it would cost far less. I'm not rolling in money, and I have a problem with paying for people who are, in many cases, not much worse off financially than I am.

Added to that, in Germany the Doctors are escaping.
German Brain Drain: Sick of Bad Pay, Doctors Flee Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

They are slaves of the state.
Who would want to be a Doctor in such environments?
Long, intense schooling, huge responsibilities, a government dictating your petty wage. No thanks.

Kanuckistan would be the first casualty of US going with the EU/Kanuckstan model. The US is their medical safety net.

.
 
Added to that, in Germany the Doctors are escaping.
German Brain Drain: Sick of Bad Pay, Doctors Flee Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

They are slaves of the state.
Who would want to be a Doctor in such environments?
Long, intense schooling, huge responsibilities, a government dictating your petty wage. No thanks.

Kanuckistan would be the first casualty of US going with the EU/Kanuckstan model. The US is their medical safety net.

.

This is the reason for long waiting lists for specialized care and the reason the RICH in those countries OPT OUT of their Socialized programs. Isn't it sad and a reality that in such Socialist systems the ONLY one who have CHOICE are the rich. The "havenots" get what they always get, the shaft.

The sad part is the ones who are not so well off have actually been fooled into thinking they are getting a "good" deal and not paying for it all through the nose.

There are several TRUTHS that will always be relevant when citizens allow their Governments to make them "wards" of the State; the costs will exceed the perceived benefits, the State eventually becomes bankrupt and choice will be the main casualty.

The only thing I find fascinating is how some who fancy themselves as intellectually above the rest of us want to rush to create such a failed system for all Americans.
 
The most critical and widespread implementation of socialism occurred in the anarchist Spanish Revolution that occurred during the civil war period, in which anarchist participants attempted to establish "libertarian communism," successfully establishing what broadly amounted to anarcho-collectivism in most cases.

YouTube-Anarchists in the 1936 Spanish Civil War

During the Spanish Revolution, numerous reforms of a libertarian socialist (specifically anarchist) nature occurred by way of the wide influence of the CNT-FAI. As I've noted previously, it is most illustrative to turn to George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, an account of his service in the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification during the Spanish Civil War, specifically his experience in libertarian socialist Aragon. From this source, we can begin to understand the libertarian social nature of the anarcho-socialist urban collectives and rural communes in Spain.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

Since I've always noted that socialism produces efficiency gainst, it is necessary to note that productivity rates in Aragon increased by an estimated 20 percent. To honor the anti-socialists' exclusive reliance on Wikipedia, their article on the Spanish Revolution deserves to be quoted from. :2razz:

Spanish Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Spanish Revolution of 1936 began during the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War. Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Stalinist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivised and run as libertarian communes. It has been estimated by Sam Dolgoff, author of The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, that over 10 million people participated directly or at least indirectly in the Spanish Revolution. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers...The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers; however, in practice these "vouchers" performed and functioned as money themselves. Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes).

Historian Antony Beevor makes similar observations regarding the extent of collectivization in anarchist Spain.

The total for the whole of Republican territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises. . . Services such as water, gas and electricity were working under new management within hours of the storming of the Atarazanas barracks . . .a conversion of appropriate factories to war production meant that metallurgical concerns had started to produce armed cars by 22 July . . . The industrial workers of Catalonia were the most skilled in Spain . . . One of the most impressive feats of those early days was the resurrection of the public transport system at a time when the streets were still littered and barricaded.

As does author Jose Peirats, who additionally notes the impressive social effects of collectivization.

Preoccupation with cultural and pedagogical innovations was an event without precedent in rural Spain. The Amposta collectivists organised classes for semi-literates, kindergartens, and even a school of arts and professions. The Seros schools were free to all neighbours, collectivists or not. Grau installed a school named after its most illustrious citizen, Joaquin Costa. The Calanda collective (pop. only 4,500) schooled 1,233 children. The best students were sent to the Lyceum in Caspe, with all expenses paid by the collective. The Alcoriza (pop. 4,000) school was attended by 600 children. Many of the schools were installed in abandoned convents. In Granadella (pop. 2,000), classes were conducted in the abandoned barracks of the Civil Guards. Graus organised a print library and a school of arts and professions, attended by 60 pupils. The same building housed a school of fine arts and high grade museum. In some villages a cinema was installed for the first time. The Penalba cinema was installed in a church. Viladecana built an experimental agricultural laboratory.

The collectives voluntarily contributed enormous stocks of provisions and other supplies to the fighting troops. Utiel sent 1,490 litres of oil and 300 bushels of potatoes to the Madrid front (in addition to huge stocks of beans, rice, buckwheat, etc.). Porales de Tujana sent great quantities of bread, oil, flour, and potatoes to the front, and eggs, meat, and milk to the military hospital.

The efforts of the collectives take on added significance when we take into account that their youngest and most vigorous workers were fighting in the trenches. 200 members of the little collective of Vilaboi were at the front; from Viledecans, 60; Amposta, 300; and Calande, 500.

It is estimated that eight to ten million people were directly or indirectly affected by the Spanish anarchist collectives. Author Leval has estimated 1,700 agrarian collectives, with 400 for Aragon, (although other estimates have been above 500), 900 for Levant, 300 for Castile , 30 for Estremadura, 40 for Catalonia, and an unknown number for Andalusia. He estimates that all industries and transportation were collectivized in the urban areas of Catalonia, (and indeed, 75% of all of Catalonia was estimated to have been collectivized in some way), 70% of all industries in Levant, and an unknown percentage in Castile.

The victories and social and economic benefits promoted in the Spanish Revolution through the implementation of libertarian socialist ideals, such as the establishment of syndicalism, voluntary association, and workers self-management strongly suggests that anarchist and libertarian socialist theories and practices are of a practical nature.

Other broadly successful examples of libertarian socialism include the Paris Commune, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Zapatista municipalities of Chiapas, the Israeli kibbutzim (which I saw ignored earlier in this thread), etc. Successes of democratic socialism may be found in the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela, as well as through microeconomic analysis into the superior efficiency of worker-owned enterprises.

There are other examples that can be referred to, such as Cuba and Titoist Yugoslavia, though I'm personally not of the opinion that they exemplify the libertarian social values that ought to be a critical component of any socialist revolution and political and economic order.

Regardless, it is undeniable that socialism has been been implemented successfully in the past, and empirical evidence has borne out the superior efficiency of participatory, collective management. Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, has never been successfully implemented, and the shoddy forms of capitalism that exist cannot claim the same efficiency record as socialism, to say nothing of their deleterious social consequences.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom