Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Failure of Socialism in America |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 2345> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||
gcle2003 
King 
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Failure of Socialism in AmericaPosted: 04-Nov-2008 at 11:50 |
|||
The sensible argument would therefore be to decentralise its management. Yes it's easier for small countries (I quoted Denmark vs the UK, and Luxembourg is another good example) to run anything centrally than for large countries. However it is perfectly possible to fund something from central sources without having a top-heavy administrative bureaucracy.
Surely HMOs manage hospitals and employ doctors don't they? That makes them like nationalised systems, not socialised ones. The ideal of socialised systems is that maximum responsibility is vested with the medical professionals, as individuals or in partnership practices.
NO, not at all. The important difference is whether the medical treatments and procedures and prescriptions are at the discretion of the doctors or at the discretion of managers. Doesn't matter (for this distinction) whether the managers work for the government or for a private company.
It is of course better if funds aren't wasted on generating profits.
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Location: Eurasia Online Status: Offline Posts: 5221 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Nov-2008 at 18:22 |
|||
true, now i figure what you mean.
lol, also true  Edited by Temujin - 04-Nov-2008 at 18:23 |
||||
|
||||
|
winningstad
Immortal Guard 
Joined: 20-Nov-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 23:25 |
|||
|
According to my college textbook, socialism failed in the US because of (comparatively) high social mobility. This, I believe, was attributed to a constant influx of immigrants taking up low-income jobs.I have never investigated the argument, however, and cannot vouch for it.
I do think americans often overestimate the scope of socialism in Europe. Take my country: Norway. We are often put forward as the ultimate socialist country. But our socialist (many Americans even call it communist) state have a well developed, free, market economy. For instance, it charges less tax on business revenue than the US government. If you are good at what you do it´s very easy to make a whole lot of money. The "socialist" services provided by the government is not about creating equality of output, but rather a decent minimum service. I, personally, think there´s a big difference. Also, after new public managment has been gaining ground, the old argument about inefficient government isn´t as valid as it used to be (although it still clearly has got some merit). Take the state funded universities: How much money they are granted depend on the quality of their research, and students graduation. Hence, there´s a rigid competition for the best students and researchers. |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan 
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 00:13 |
|||
|
I'm not really sure how accurate this could be. The US was no less socialist than any of the Western European states until relatively recently; it has quite a long history of socialism itself, in fact, the US is one of the birthplaces of socialism. That's where the Owenites set up the New Moral World colony. You've also got Eugene Debbs, the IWW, the New Deal, Emma Goldman, and so on. The US was at one point a haven for international socialists and other revolutionaries: that's why the Forty-Eighters fled there after their rebellions were crushed in Europe (and exerted no small amount of influence in government and society once they arrived). Bakunin himself fled to the US, viewing it as something of a haven, beyond the reach of European authorities. Semi-socialist views were also quite popular at one time in the US. William Jennings Bryan capitalized on popular resentment of banks, railroads, big trusts, and so on, catapulting himself to power thereby. These sentiments were not short-lived; Huey Long capitalized on them decades later. |
||||
|
||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 11:50 |
|||
|
Yes. One of the contradictory things about the US is that public education (including public library provisions) took off there at least as early, maybe earlier, than elsewhere, whereas public medical provision didn't.
However, the influx of low-income, exploitable, immigrants was probably one of the factors that contributed to the decline of socialism in the US.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 13:39 |
|||
That sounds plausible, but on the other hand there are also examples of immigrant countries where socialism was much stronger. Argentina would be an example. One of the biggest receivers of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century, but also a country where syndicalism and the labor movement has traditionally been very strong. |
||||
|
||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 15:02 |
|||
|
Agreed. Moreover the most advanced social provisions in the US as of c. 1929 were in immigrant-heavy states of the North-West.
Maybe it depends where the immigrants came from?
|
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 15:54 |
|||
|
I think in terms of national health care systems, the US wasn't necessarily less socialist at the time - elsewhere, these were set up in the wake of WW2, while the New Deal was still underway in the US. I think it's just that the US population at that time was much more scattered across a much larger area than, say, Britain or France. This made delivery far more problematic. Providing good ambulance and hospital coverage to the whole of the US population would have been a far more ambitious and expensive project than providing it to all of the UK. Canada had similar difficulties, and didn't adopt universal health care until the late 60s. And, even so, its system is entirely different than that of the NHS: the NHS actually employs doctors and runs medical services, while Canada simply provides health insurance and all the services are delivered by private entities. |
||||
|
||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 16:11 |
|||
|
Most universal health care systems are not like the NHS. Canada, from what you say, would have been copying European countries like France, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium....
I think earlier in the thread I alread pointed out that an NHS-style system works well enough in a small country like Denmark, but is on the whole a failure in a large one like the UK (though the UK has separate systems for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The US was certainly less socialist than the major European countries in the wake of WW2. This was when Britain, for instance, was nationalising pretty well every major industry, and the government was committed
And most of the rest of Western Europe wasn't far behind. It seems a bit of a stretch to say the US "wasn't necessarily less socialist than that".
Even in the 'sixties, with LBJ trying to get the Great Society off the ground, Britain was introducing national planning organised by the government.
Geographic dispersal may have made a system more expensive in the US than it would have been in France and Britain (though I don't really see why), but it would still, certainly on the French model, have been much cheaper and effective than the one the country still has now.
|
||||
|
||||
|
winningstad
Immortal Guard
Joined: 20-Nov-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 18:00 |
|||
Are you sure this should be explained by country size and not some other variables? In larger countries it would make sense for the government to delegate responsibilities. Take Norway, for instance, where hospitals are run primarily by the different regions - that are funded by the central government. And Norway, btw, is physically very big - but scarcely populated. Edit: Just read your earlier posts that states the same. Edited by winningstad - 17-Dec-2008 at 18:03 |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 18:06 |
|||
|
You may have a point there, but there's a spectrum (even in Western Europe) and the US certainly wasn't the least socialist of all (what about Spain, for instance?)
I'm sure that's true nowadays. But back then - was it even possible to guarantee equal access to everyone? One of the fundamental political requirements of a public health care system is that it has to be able to deliver roughly equivalent services to every region.
I'm not sure we were copying anyone ... it just sort of happened. The roots of our health care system lie in a shortage of doctors in the Western provinces, the provincial governments there came up with a variety of schemes to attract them through subsidies and things just kind of progressed from there. Edited by edgewaters - 17-Dec-2008 at 18:11 |
||||
|
||||
|
Bandeirante
Knight 
Joined: 24-Jan-2008 Location: Brazil-Brasil Online Status: Offline Posts: 60 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 20:09 |
|||
|
Well Cuba is the only socialist country in America and it seems that capitalism is not working very well nowadays in the United States with people like Madoff, Lehman Brothers and Bush ! I would pick the third way !
|
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 21:59 |
|||
|
Capitalism works just fine, provided its not too absolute - neoliberalism / market fundamentalism is almost as bad as communism. |
||||
|
||||
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar 
Joined: 22-Jan-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4221 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 00:48 |
|||
|
"neoliberalism / market fundamentalism is almost as bad as communism."
Please explain. As capitalism, in it's purest form, seems to me to be the most perfect model of mercantilist political economy (a la 16th to 18th century), how does this neoliberal market fundamentalism idea translate into some equivalent of communism?
"Market fundamentalism" benefits those with access to, and control of, capital. Any fallout from, or incidental benefit because of associated connection to, access to capital is incidental, although beneficial.
The benefit is indirect, and not theoretically intended for the advantage of any specific social group, such as the Proletariat. The advantage will usually be disproportionately in favor of social groups that have more access to capital, such as those with political connections or those that have more disposable incomes.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 18-Dec-2008 at 00:57 |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 01:16 |
|||
Laissez-faire capitalism is very different from mercantilism. Mercantilism is a protectionist doctrine that is opposed to free markets, and features a system of heavy duties and tarriffs intended to prevent foreign competition. The state takes an active role in the economy, for the benefit of domestic producers. Laissez-faire capitalism, as proposed by Adam Smith, proposes free markets where international capital is actually encouraged to be mobile, and demands minimal state intervention in the economy, no tarriffs and duties to protect domestic producers, and so on.
I didn't say that it was equivalent or that it operated in any similar manner.
Well, any sort of capitalism features positive externalities. And negative externalities, too.
|
||||
|
||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 15:12 |
|||
|
The US in the 19th century (and most of the 20th) was more mercantilist than laissez-faire capitalist. I'm not sure that 'capitalist' as a single word isn't now so debased that it isn't much use any more as a technical term (rather like 'democracy'). |
||||
|
||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 15:18 |
|||
That raises a different question. Spain was fascist (well falangist), so the US was closer to social democracy than Spain, but there's no reason why a dictatorship cannot have progressive social welfare programs. Cuba would be a case in point.
I don't know enough about Spain at the time to judge, frankly.
Incidentally as an example of US socialism from way back, the nationalised Post Office is an example I overlooked.
I agree with pretty well everythîng else.
|
||||
|
||||
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4221 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 15:23 |
|||
|
edgewaters,
My misinterpretation of your meaning I suppose. As a model of capitalism, I would argue for mercantile political economy because of it's need for private capital resources, at least far into the 17th century, and it's organizational nature as characterized by exclusionary monopoly.
Once political economy became muddied by the mobilization of resources that could be funded from public accounts (later 17th century), the character of capitalism became more complex. Laissez-faire capitalsim was such a short lived phenomenon, that I discount it pretty thoroughly. It only really existed for a relatively short time in the theories of Industrial Revolution Britain because that was the only place and time it ever had any validity.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 18-Dec-2008 at 15:24 |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 22:34 |
|||
|
You've got a point I can't deny! Neoliberals do sometimes espouse or appeal to laissez-faire ideals but it does seem to be more of a rhetorical device than anything else.
Or 'socialism'. We're using it to talk about a command economy run by the state, but many of the early socialists wanted to abolish the state altogether. Edited by edgewaters - 18-Dec-2008 at 22:44 |
||||
|
||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Dec-2008 at 12:07 |
|||
|
True.
And mercantilism is generally also associated with command economies, even in the Anglo-Saxon world, and therefore 'socialist' just to confuse the picture a little more.
 wikipedia is nicely confused and confusing on the issue: "Domestically, this led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over the economy, and it was during this period that much of the modern capitalist system was established."
"modern capitalism" = "significant government intervention and control" ?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 2345> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
