Need help on socialism...

[Stuckinthebush]

I am debating a conservative via e-mail regarding school funding in Alabama. Since the lovely NO vote yesterday, we will continue to have a massive disparity in education throughout the state. I was presenting this point as one that makes the NO vote so distasteful.

His reply was that equal distribution of funds across schools is called socialism and history shows it hasn't worked well.

I call bulls**t on this, but I need some references. This is the old cry of Communism by right wingers. When in fact, many western countries with social democracies have socialized medicine, education, etc. I'd love some examples of the countries that have shown these socialized programs are working well.

Thanks.

[ikojo]

1. Sweden and many of the Nordic

countries have a standard of living above that of the US.

People who oppose national health care like to say it would ration health care. Don't HMOs already ration health care? One cannot see a specialist or have other services performed without first obtaining a referral and then getting services pre approved by the insurance company. Of course if you are wealthy you can pay the doctor outright.

[TheYellowDog]

HMO's do

but not all people have HMO's. Some people have PPO's, which are much better, imo.

[TheYellowDog]

3. It would be wise to look

at your signuture line, and then apply it to your post.

[Blue_Chill]

2. You need to let go of the term socialism

Socialism is goverment controlled production and distribution of goods. That is not at all what equal funding for schools is.

Equal funding for schools is called the goverment doing it's damn job. It's supposed to represent it's people equally not based on the size bank account.

[Stuckinthebush]

6. Excellent point

Thanks

[TheYellowDog]

4. I think the people of Alabama

said pretty clearly that they don't want new taxes. Of course, if this increase had been proposed in Massachusetts, and the people voted against it, then the legislature there would simply do whatever it wanted. Of course, that's not the case in the Alabama legislature, and that's a good thing. That was the biggest tax increase proposed in the entire history of the state of Alabama.

[Stuckinthebush]

8. Yes it was

and we needed it to pass.

Now, we get to fund our debts through regressive means.

[TheYellowDog]

13. Sorry,

but I think everyone who pays taxes should have to pay something. If lower income people are receiving benefits, or even if not they should have to pay some taxes too. The burden of government is supposed to be shared by all.

[Wwagsthedog]

5. This link might help

http://www.wsws.org/

[Postman]

7. My 2 cents

What is the relationship between "capitalism" and making sure our kids have an equal education?

Funding public schools through property tax is inherently UNEQUAL. Depending on how wealthy a school district is, is the determining factor on the quality of the education your child receives. Is that fair to a child who lives in an impoverished area?

The Supreme Court has ruled that every child has a RIGHT to an EQUAL education.

Requiring that school districts recieve an equal amount of funding is a step in the right direction towards leveling the playingfield.

Newsflash to rightwing morans: Privatization isn't the answer to everything. There is a reason why its called "the government"

[xray s]

9. Help me here

I always thought the basic premise of socialism was the state owned the means of production.

How the hell can the public financing of education be socialism?

Education has nothing at all to do with producing a good or service. It is something the community at large funds for the common good of the community. Like parks or roads, only much more important, because we are raising the next generation.

I hope some day some Democrat will have the guts to stand up to these 1950's paranoid scare tactics by the right and expose it for what it is, nonsense!

[Stuckinthebush]

11. Very true

The communist card is often used as a scare tactic by the right.

[lancemurdoch]

10. Workers in social democratic countries more productive

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/01/un.us.labor.ap

Workers in France, Norway and Belgium have more productivity per hour than American workers. The only method Americans have of being more productive is to work more hours than the (currently) superior French workers. I've been reading a lot about economics lately and EVERYTHING boils down to productivity (including productivity growth as well). That a French workers sitting in front of a piece of capital can produce more wealth per hour than an American worker can is a clear sign that if France's social democratic system is not superior, it is at least not inferior.

It's interesting that French workers, who from the French Revolution, to the 1848 uprisings, to the Paris Commune, to the Leon Blum government, to the 1968 general strike, to recent general strikes, who have been among the most intractable workers within an industrialized country, are also the most productive workers. It really says something about not rushing for the lowest common denominator, which seems to be the reigning philosophy in US economic thought.

[xray s]

12. But France, Norway and Belgium are not socialist economies

They use public funding for some non-production related services, like health care, but in general most of their industrial base is privately owned.

We have to stop falling into the rights trap on this!

[cprise]

17. They are social-democracies

...and they employ a large measure of socialist inspired programs *and* some production (power generation is an example) as well as large-scale investment in production (Volkswagen, Nokia, etc). They would not exist without the advocacy of socialism.

PS- It is a trap ONLY so long as the American left is not willing to stand up for socialism's contribution to society. Borrowing from socialism does NOT mean you're a communist, any more than governing with elements of capital implies one is economically fascist.

[xray s]

20. Huh?

Volkswagen and Nokia wouldn't exist without the advocacy of socialism? I don't think so. Last time I checked, they were traded on the NYSE and Nasdaq. Not exactly what Karl Marx had in mind, no? I think they are successful because they make good products. I think they could shed whatever investments Germany and Finland have in them and probably still do quite well.

I think the involvement of the goverment in things that promote the public good, like schools and health insurance (and I'll add public utilities like water, sewer and electricity) is a good thing. That involvement has nothing to do with socialism. Letting the right incorrectly label it "socialism" evokes a knee jerk reaction in the US that has stymied progress in these areas for decades. It has to stop.

[TreasonousBastard]

Actually, history shows that it has worked well.

Forget arguing over socialism with this person-- he or she apparently only knows the buzzwords and is thoroughly confused over just what socialism is.

Universal education, however, has only been possible through the public school system, and this is now true in every developed country.

Education is as necessary a government function as highways and defense are. The question is not why we have public schools, but how to improve them.


Here's a few potentially interesting links:


http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist3/schools.html

http://www.arc.org/erase/history.html

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/aperturesbps/history.html

[MrPrax]

14. History Proves Socialism Doesn't Work?

This must be on some libertarian site these folks are reading...
I had a similarly 'thoughtful intelligent economic' conversation with one of these dunderheads and they always end up saying the same thing when cornered or asked to 'put up' something on the table...

Jeez--on edit "History clearly shows supply-side economics doesn't work"

or conversely,
Since monarchies, theocracies and dictatorships have ruled societies for thousands of years, they must be successful and so we are living in failures?

Folks like Reagan, Churchill, Blair and Bush like have history on their side--they probably read 1984 and took it the wrong way

[Stuckinthebush]

15. HA!

they probably read 1984 and took it the wrong way

I think 1984 was Bush's playbook.

[cprise]

16. Why he is wrong

1. Providing a consistently high level of education gives us common ground on a variety of subjects.

2. No matter how you may feel about the wage-earners (parents), the children all deserve a good education no matter WHO they are.

3. Let us point to the US's mounting failures and shrinking influence as proof that "capitalism doesn't work". Or actually, it does work as long as you don't cling to three-word pronouncements like some sort of economic religion, and are willing to mix the best of capitalism with the best of socialism. Avoid being an extremist.

4. Extreme socialism tries to make everyone equal. Social-democracy tries to provide equal opportunities.

Look to the European continent (and Canada) for the best examples of socialized medicine. The UK is not so great. Europe is also a good example for academic and scientific achievement (although it is not as predisposed to turning all that research into a means of consumption). One of the better places to informally research the comparative achievements of social democracy would be the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk They are very conscious of the issue there, and you should at least find some good articles that will point you in the right direction.

Unfortunately, in the USA we do not have thinktanks that justify socialism as a general principle or even go near the subject (at least, not in language most of us can relate to); the closest we get are interest groups to plug one specific social program or another. There isn't a politician in Washington who could bring themselves to say: "The public sector has a lot to offer and is an indispensible counterweight and complement to the power of the dollar".

They would have a brain hemmorage first.

[chadm]

18. Here's the response

History has showed education hasn't worked well? Quite the opposite, history has shown that the more if it the better.

[uptohere]

19. wrong on the example

Socialism is state control over the means of production. But even if you take it to their application to schools, its not a good comparison as they tended to have less disparity to begin with.

But to wit, it would likely be a big problem with the localities as this means that they (meaning the citizens) lose control over their kid's schools, that they (meaning the local schools) lose control over their school systems. Most localaties dislike the state's dictates as it is.

The rural schools wind up with a minor upgrade (the butter only spreads so far) and suburbia takes a big hit causing a screamfest over vouchers as suburbanites evacuate their public schools.