Communists on DP

[truthatallcost]

i doubt that the British people would swap systems with us. if there's a British poster who thinks that he or she would like to, that should be a fun story time. even in that case, most of them wouldn't.

Boris Johnson brought his American pharmaceutical pals into the Prime Minister office with him, and prescriptions for high powered opiates and tranquilizers are being written like never before in the UK. Watch for drug deaths to skyrocket in the UK. Capitalist vampires like Johnson are no better than the Dem Socialists who act as his opposition, so don't think I'm trying to play that game here. I'm all for people having healthcare as well, but it's not realistic in a nation of 330 million, where half of that population doesn't work. Nearly half of the country doesn't pay taxes, and the ones who should like Bezos, Gates, and Buffet pay a pittance.

 

[Helix]

Boris Johnson brought his American pharmaceutical pals into the Prime Minister office with him, and prescriptions for high powered opiates and tranquilizers are being written like never before in the UK. Watch for drug deaths to skyrocket in the UK. Capitalist vampires like Johnson are no better than the Dem Socialists who act as his opposition, so don't think I'm trying to play that game here. I'm all for people having healthcare as well, but it's not realistic in a nation of 330 million, where half of that population doesn't work. Nearly half of the country doesn't pay taxes, and the ones who should like Bezos, Gates, and Buffet pay a pittance.

The rest of the first world has a better health care distribution system than we do. It's past time to fix that.

 

[Chagos]

The grass is always greener on the other side. Healthcare in the UK shares a few similarities with the US; socioeconomic status determines the quality of care people receive.

Boy slept on hospital floor due to lack of beds - BBC News

Doctor can return to work after causing decapitation of baby in mother's womb, tribunal rules | The Independent

Where do Americans get their rosy opinion of British healthcare? Certainly not from firsthand experience.

Where one can safely assume that you don't ever get your opinions on countries alien to you from first hand experience, socieconomic-based disparity in the UK is a lot less pronounced than in the US, when it comes to health care.

 

[Schism]

The rest of the first world has a better health care distribution system than we do. It's past time to fix that.

I can agree with this.

I go into a car dealership expecting to get it in the butt. That's not how I want to deal with healthcare.

There has got to be a way to do single payer while keeping high end private care for those who want it.

ACA was never anything more than cheap alternative insurance. It really never addressed the price gouging.

 

[Helix]

I can agree with this.

I go into a car dealership expecting to get it in the butt. That's not how I want to deal with healthcare.

There has got to be a way to do single payer while keeping high end private care for those who want it.

ACA was never anything more than cheap alternative insurance. It really never addressed the price gouging.

i'm not really for a two tiered system, but other countries with single payer have that, so it seems somewhat unavoidable.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Holy ****, I didn't realize how conformist of a lean "Independent" was, if I'd known that I'd have stuck with Libertarian-Leftist. Lmao

 

[bongsaway]

If Democrats love the Constitution so much then why do they want to keep on changing it?

I think it's an outdated document. Some things worth saving and others need changing. I don't love the constitution the way republicans say they do, like the military and then trash people like col. vindman and gold star families. You guys are all talk but you don't walk the walk.

 

[aociswundumho]

It's a piss poor distribution system for care that is generally overpriced but good.

Generally overpriced? I nominate this sentence for understatement of the year.

 

[it's just me]

With new zealand health service a woman giving birth is provided full hospital coverage and does not pay any money personally for medical treatment or hospital stay. Most of that cost is absorbed through taxes. In america,



There will always be funding problems and staff shortages to contend with in a public system But on something as basic as bringing a new person into the world this should be available to every woman.

This has always baffled me: to you and everybody else who thinks $4500 is too much to ask for medical care for your baby but would probably spend four times that for a car, just how much is your baby worth?

 

[Helix]

Generally overpriced? I nominate this sentence for understatement of the year.

i was trying to be more diplomatic than hyperbolic, but yeah.

 

[Chagos]

Boris Johnson brought his American pharmaceutical pals into the Prime Minister office with him, and prescriptions for high powered opiates and tranquilizers are being written like never before in the UK. Watch for drug deaths to skyrocket in the UK...................~

as already stated, your ignorance on countries alien to you is once more confirmed.

A review conducted by the NHS shows that the disturbing practice of over-prescribing painkillers and tranquilizers already found some reduction in the period of 2017-2018. Which shows the problem's existence was recognized way before Johnson and Co. moved into No.10.

So, as practically always, you just throw out some frenzied and totally un-evidenced claim to try and bolster your position and, also as practically always, fail.

Unless you can actually provide some evidence for over-prescription having risen since July 2019, but nobody is holding their breath on that one.

 

[soylentgreen]

A well known Jewish writer of the day who refused the temptations of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Communists wrote very clearly about life in tsarist Russia. His name was Isaac Babel, and he's not celebrated much these days, but I've read nearly all of his works. Babel much preferred life in tsarist Russia, so much so that he refused to support the communists once they came to power. Babel described tsarist Russia as a much more open society than the USSR was, where cities were multi-ethnic, and the art world flourished. Once the communists took over, they were especially brutal on Ukraine, where they killed several million people through famines. Babel was killed himself, after refusing to become a propaganda writer for the communists, as so many Russian writers had done to save their necks. If there's a man who should be celebrated from that time and place, its Babel, not Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, or Ilya Ehrenburg the Russian Goebbels.

In other words he was one of those who lived a life of pleasure and could not care less that it came at the expense of the poverty and misery of the working class and the non russian population under czarist influence. The czarist russia was not above committing there own part in genocide and mass murder.

I am not making any claim that the leninists did any better. It was simply replacing one brutal dictatorship with another.

 

[soylentgreen]

This has always baffled me: to you and everybody else who thinks $4500 is too much to ask for medical care for your baby but would probably spend four times that for a car, just how much is your baby worth?

That is fairly disgusting. You value the life of a child in a dollar amount and compare parenting to your liking for a car. One can only hope you are not a parent yourself.

I imagine it baffles you because you see a child as expendable as a car. A mere possession to do with as you please.

There are already many expenses that occur with a child that adding on another as needlessly as a tax for having a child is ridiculous. Your method is nothing more than a nasty bit of greed that is there for the only purpose of ensuring that the poor remain the poor.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I believe in the Marx/Engels philosophy. Having it implemented successfully anywhere in the world seems to be the drawback. Everyone being equally impoverished does remove greed, but it also removes happiness for the most part.

To make it simple it is a choice between democracy and dictatorship. That socialist that have chosen democracy have failed to abolish capitalism. While at the same been able to create more equal welfare states that are also economical successful and rank high than it come to democracy and social mobility. Also that you in those countries have a strong civilian society with for example independent unions and also consumers' cooperatives. While socialist who have chosen dictatorship have been able to abolish capitalism but failed economical and also brutal oppressed the people.

It is also about choice that western countries have had the ability to choose the democratic route. While many developing countries had during the cold war the choice between pro-Western and pro-Western corporations capitalist dictatorship and pro-Soviet communist dictatorship.

 

[d0gbreath]

To make it simple it is a choice between democracy and dictatorship. That socialist that have chosen democracy have failed to abolish capitalism. While at the same been able to create more equal welfare states that are also economical successful and rank high than it come to democracy and social mobility. Also that you in those countries have a strong civilian society with for example independent unions and also consumers' cooperatives. While socialist who have chosen dictatorship have been able to abolish capitalism but failed economical and also brutal oppressed the people.

It is also about choice that western countries have had the ability to choose the democratic route. While many developing countries had during the cold war the choice between pro-Western and pro-Western corporations capitalist dictatorship and pro-Soviet communist dictatorship.

What you want is a quiet dictator that doesn't bellow at love me rallies. No such person has ever existed. The quiet dictator would oversee a governing parliament.

Say you start with a wealthy nation. One that could pay every citizen an upper middle class income. The work still needs to be done and the people need to be educated for their job skills. The USSR tried it by pretty much telling you what you would do as an adult the day you were born. That did make occupation education to a degree at a high level. We used to complain that their Olympian athletes had a head start.

Sewers need to be cleaned and brains need to be operated on. Since it's going to be equal pay. Some brain surgeons might feel that they got stuck with the hard job. Thus, communism is not applicable in the real world.

 

[Chagos]

To return to the topic, if the question in the OP had been phrased as "are you a communist"; I'd have to answer with no.

Having seen communism at work at close quarters, I'd never wish to become one either. I also suspect that Marx and Engels, had they ever seen what people made of their concept, would have decided in the same manner.

 

[RAMOSS]

You say that about everyone. It's so pathetic.

I am told that one propaganda technique is to accuse others of what you are guilty of yourself.

 

[smallvoice]

Generally overpriced? I nominate this sentence for understatement of the year.

It’s not like Helix to say something smart. or correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jredbaron96]

If Democrats love the Constitution so much then why do they want to keep on changing it?

You mean like how Jefferson wanted the Constitution rewritten every 19 years?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

What you want is a quiet dictator that doesn't bellow at love me rallies. No such person has ever existed. The quiet dictator would oversee a governing parliament.

Say you start with a wealthy nation. One that could pay every citizen an upper middle class income. The work still needs to be done and the people need to be educated for their job skills. The USSR tried it by pretty much telling you what you would do as an adult the day you were born. That did make occupation education to a degree at a high level. We used to complain that their Olympian athletes had a head start.

Sewers need to be cleaned and brains need to be operated on. Since it's going to be equal pay. Some brain surgeons might feel that they got stuck with the hard job. Thus, communism is not applicable in the real world.

The most important difference is not between socialists that want to abolish capitalist and socialist that wants to create a mix economy with more “socialistic elements”. Just as the most important difference is not between socialists that want to create a completely economical equal society and socialist that wants to create a more equal society.

That you had Marxist among Social democrats in the beginning of the 20:th century that wanted to abolish capitalism and create an completely equal society. While those social democrats chose democratic parliamentary system and reformism to reach their goal. There that lead to that they failed to accomplish their ultimate goal. But helped to create successful and a lot of more equal democratic societies.

While Soviet Russia showed the horrors of not chosen democracy. While as I said people in many countries during during 20:th century did not have the same luxury as people in western countries, that the choice was instead between capitalist dictatorship and communist dictatorship.

There are also lot of possible socialistic societies. There salaries is just one factor but if you have for example a society there the income difference is a lot less between a brain surgeon and a sewer worker. There the brain surgeon can still have many reason for choosing that career in that society. For example the the joy of making a difference and saving lives. Also the prestige and respect to have such hard and respected job. Also that university studies is free and you also get money for studying. Also that the person have a interest and passion for medicine. Also that he/she can work in a clean and nice environment instead of in the sewers. Also that he/she get a good work environment with enough support staff and colleagues.

 

[d0gbreath]

The most important difference is not between socialists that want to abolish capitalist and socialist that wants to create a mix economy with more “socialistic elements”. Just as the most important difference is not between socialists that want to create a completely economical equal society and socialist that wants to create a more equal society.

That you had Marxist among Social democrats in the beginning of the 20:th century that wanted to abolish capitalism and create an completely equal society. While those social democrats chose democratic parliamentary system and reformism to reach their goal. There that lead to that they failed to accomplish their ultimate goal. But helped to create successful and a lot of more equal democratic societies.

While Soviet Russia showed the horrors of not chosen democracy. While as I said people in many countries during during 20:th century did not have the same luxury as people in western countries, that the choice was instead between capitalist dictatorship and communist dictatorship.

There are also lot of possible socialistic societies. There salaries is just one factor but if you have for example a society there the income difference is a lot less between a brain surgeon and a sewer worker. There the brain surgeon can still have many reason for choosing that career in that society. For example the the joy of making a difference and saving lives. Also the prestige and respect to have such hard and respected job. Also that university studies is free and you also get money for studying. Also that the person have a interest and passion for medicine. Also that he/she can work in a clean and nice environment instead of in the sewers. Also that he/she get a good work environment with enough support staff and colleagues.

The Marxists among the social democrats in the early 20th century were anarcho-communists. It's never mentioned in school history books, but 1919 had us as close as we've ever been to undermining the US government in all forms. The Hippie communes in the 1960s were based upon that idea. They didn't have leaders.

Social democracy didn't really exist before FDR was President, except in church communities. Pure communism and pure capitalism have never been successful in our world. Democratic socialism has the best chance of succeeding. We have that today, but people will fight tooth and nail to keep the prospective brain surgeon from achieving his/her goal unless they were born into a wealthy family.

 

[ecofarm]

I am told that one propaganda technique is to accuse others of what you are guilty of yourself.

X always hides behind "they hate me because I'm different".

We know X is hated because he's scum.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The Marxists among the social democrats in the early 20th century were anarcho-communists. It's never mentioned in school history books, but 1919 had us as close as we've ever been to undermining the US government in all forms. The Hippie communes in the 1960s were based upon that idea. They didn't have leaders.

Social democracy didn't really exist before FDR was President, except in church communities. Pure communism and pure capitalism have never been successful in our world. Democratic socialism has the best chance of succeeding. We have that today, but people will fight tooth and nail to keep the prospective brain surgeon from achieving his/her goal unless they were born into a wealthy family.

In Europe you had Marxist among Social Democrats and they helped to create successful welfare state. There also socialist movement that supported reform and democracy over revolution and dictatorship have been successful in countries their democratic change is possible. That socialist revolution and dictatorship have almost all of the time happen in undemocratic, unstable and/or poor countries.

In USA you also had much more violent opposition from government in the beginning of the 20:th century think for example of the Ludlow Massacre.

Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia.

More unequal societies can also lead to reduction in both upwards and downwards mobility. That in USA that is a more unequal country you for example have more private schools for the kids of wealthy parents. While also public schools can also be a lot better in middle class neighborhoods compared to low income neighborhoods.

Also, that wealthy parents can get their kids into the best universities thanks to high tuition feeds, contacts, and donations. While kids to middle class parents that can save money to tuition and board can have also have an upper hand compared to kids to low income parents.

Also, in a more unequal country low income jobs can not only have low salaries but there are also less social safety nets and more things like health care you must pay for yourself. That at the same time low income jobs can have a lower status and also worse working condition in more unequal countries. So downward mobility is seen a lot more negative. So especially middle class and high-income parents put more pressure on their kids to college.

There all this leads to that more kids with middle class and high-income parent that are best suited for non-college jobs ends up with jobs that require college degree that they are less suited for, and the opposite for kids from low income families.