Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble. Moore's schtick is to take things to extremes to prove a point (a style which I enjoy myself).

If socialism is such a bad word these days, maybe collectivism should be launched as the non-commie alternative.

For me, now living over here in socialist western Europe, watching all shit media shitshow over socialist this, and fascist that (whether it's US or Canadian political asshats on display), I find it quite laughable.

The opposing arguments to the healthcare issues in the US are so shamelessly selfish it's disgusting.

If that country didn't rack up a gazillion dollars in war debt, paying for healthcare wouldn't have been a big deal if they were ok with borrowing a similar sum of money to cover it.

If countries like Japan, the Nordics, France, Germany etc can get along just fine with managed healthcare, why can't Canada and the US?

Healthcare over here isn't free. You need to pay for insurance. The difference is that the whole thing is regulated to avoid the end user being bent over and ripped off for crap services. hell, in the US, even if you pay your insurance, they still have the right to deny you coverage without much to back that up!

Until people set aside their selfishness and accept that they need to pay higher taxes to support the stupid money being spent by their government (speaking mostly about the US here), the system will continue to be useless, and the status quo will continue until the whole house of cards falls down.

___________________
Paul

Agreed...

I think that the US taking capitalism to an extreme turns it into a bad thing...

Just like socialism to an extreme doesn't work either...

And yes Moore takes his views to an extreme as well but I thInk he does it for the sake of making his films controversial in order to sell more tickets....

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon chinamon is INCH MOAN. LOL so fitting.

And I didn't know that Hitler was a socialist....

Or Kim Jong Il...

I thought they were just nuts...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon chinamon is INCH MOAN. LOL so fitting.

quote:

Originally posted by VDub And I didn't know that Hitler was a socialist.... Or Kim Jong Il... I thought they were just nuts...

yeah, I woulda thought that masking fascism with the word socialism doesn't make them socialists.

___________________
Not Everyone Understands House Music, It's a Spiritual Thing, a Body Thing, a Soul Thing

Comparing socialism to dictatorship is stupid because there are socialist countries in Northern Europe which work just fine (no genocide, high quality of life, etc). Hearing such a comparison by none other than Jayx1 is not surprising at all, though.

Michael Moore's point is equally stupid. Capitalism isn't evil per se; unregulated capitalism is. The problem with the US isn't just capitalism, but rather that they allowed capitalism to control the government and not vice versa.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 According to Michael Moore it is. I guess socialism isnt evil. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jung Il, Mao etc and they will give you a big thumbs up for socialism! Moore is a douche

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble.

And your position is that the U.S. takes "capitalism" to an extreme, is it? You'd think they'd have a slightly smaller government if that were the case.

quote:

If socialism is such a bad word these days, maybe collectivism should be launched as the non-commie alternative.

Believe me, there is nothing we right-wing nuts would love more than for you to start labeling it for what it really is.

quote:

The opposing arguments to the healthcare issues in the US are so shamelessly selfish it's disgusting.

Oh? Such as? I can't wait to hear this.

quote:

If countries like Japan, the Nordics, France, Germany etc can get along just fine with managed healthcare, why can't Canada and the US?

None of those countries prohibit individuals from seeking private care, or practitioners from offering it. In fact, only Canada has this policy today, and only the ex-Soviet Union had it in the past.

And if you don't believe that the U.S. health care system is already managed/regulated then you need to take your head out of your ass and actually visit a hospital there sometime.

quote:

Until people set aside their selfishness and accept that they need to pay higher taxes to support the stupid money being spent by their government (speaking mostly about the US here), the system will continue to be useless, and the status quo will continue until the whole house of cards falls down.

Or the government could spend less money. But that's just crazy, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy yeah, I woulda thought that masking fascism with the word socialism doesn't make them socialists.

The Nazis were socialists. It wasn't just a name. Didn't you learn this shit in grade school?

And the Soviets... well, if you're going to argue that they weren't socialist, you're as nuts as they were.

Mao, communist, through and through.

Kim Jong-Il, debatable, I'd call his regime more of a "kleptocracy." For all of communism's flaws, I think the government has to actually give something back in order for it to retain that label.

I've heard this "it's just a label" argument hundreds of times before... never with a shred of evidence to back it up.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

This is so stupid, I'm sick of people lumping together socialism with communism, fascism, dictatorships, or totalitarianism. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro all had their different brands of ideology which can't be lumped into "socialism." It's too easy these days to equate big government with communism, but unless someone is advocating for the elimination of private property, they aren't really communist are they?

Also, for those people who are so against government spending, what do they really expect? Sometimes you need government for services, and if one government spends more than another that doesn't automatically make it socialist.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble.

jism!?

quote:

Originally posted by Anton This is so stupid, I'm sick of people lumping together socialism with communism, fascism, dictatorships, or totalitarianism. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro all had their different brands of ideology which can't be lumped into "socialism." It's too easy these days to equate big government with communism, but unless someone is advocating for the elimination of private property, they aren't really communist are they?

Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were all documented socialists. Just because you're sick of hearing it doesn't make it any less true. And socialism is in fact a synonym for communism; that is where the term came from.

You are right in one respect, which is that big government is not necessarily socialist. However, many advocates of big government either have the ultimate (perhaps unspoken) goal of elimination of private property, or say they oppose that principle but either don't realize or don't care that their other ideals (blind hatred of "profits" and the "rich", for one thing) ultimately converge on said goal.

quote:

Also, for those people who are so against government spending, what do they really expect? Sometimes you need government for services, and if one government spends more than another that doesn't automatically make it socialist.

"Need" is the operative word here. The only service we "need" the government to perform is law enforcement and national defense (and many would argue that we shouldn't depend on the government for either of those things). Every other service can be performed by private enterprise, and every other service has been demonstrated to be higher quality when performed by private enterprise.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were all documented socialists. Just because you're sick of hearing it doesn't make it any less true. And socialism is in fact a synonym for communism; that is where the term came from.

I wouldn't say they were documented socialists - and documented by who? You could maybe argue that they had socialist policies. But that doesn't make socialism inherently evil.

quote:

You are right in one respect, which is that big government is not necessarily socialist. However, many advocates of big government either have the ultimate (perhaps unspoken) goal of elimination of private property, or say they oppose that principle but either don't realize or don't care that their other ideals (blind hatred of "profits" and the "rich", for one thing) ultimately converge on said goal.

I have never heard of any politician argue for the abolishment of private property, that is just a utopian dream.

Personally, I don't hate profits or the rich. However, it depends how those profits are made and how that person becomes rich in the first place. I know there are a lot of honest rich people around, but I also know that some make money simply by exploitation and underhandedness. I would say that Micheal Moore and other "socialists" offer a critique of capitalism, and do not argue for the total elimination of it. Rather, they argue more for reform. The problem is that every time someone critiques capitalism they automatically get labeled a socialist, communist, or fascist.

quote:

"Need" is the operative word here. The only service we "need" the government to perform is law enforcement and national defense (and many would argue that we shouldn't depend on the government for either of those things). Every other service can be performed by private enterprise, and every other service has been demonstrated to be higher quality when performed by private enterprise.

Even the smallest of small governments would need more than just national defense and law enforcement. There are legitimate reasons for having something privately run, however, in the United States I think this is taken too far.

Something like health care should not be exclusively run as a for-profit venture. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be ANY privately run health care institutions at all, but there should be an option available to all - in order to at least get some kind of basic care. Granted, there are those who would argue that government programs are wasteful etc, but I would rather have the government waste some tax dollars than see millions of people without health care.

As far as the debate over the efficacy of government run programs, studies have been published which support both opponents and proponents of such programs. "Quality" is very subjective and different methodologies or ideological leanings tend to produce different results. That aside, I do believe in private enterprise but it's just hard to imagine something like health care exclusively in the hands of corporations and insurance companies.