Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Ive just heard the first sound of spring a cuckoo.It claims its ground by making a silly cuckoo sound, over and over again..
A little destitute country in Africa with no natural resources, begging is a growth industry and dying of hunger a national sport..My o my they read a new contract between china and the usa will bring them wealth and stability, how? a few ask why? is the mumble of its weakest.
OOO i have just read that economic cooperation will lead to world peace and prosperity for allll.... Cuckoo cuckooo...

Okay, fair enough.
What I mean is that all actions help and hurt others. And whether we call actions greedy is a completely arbitrary distinction which largely depends on how much understanding we have of the actions consequences.
Whether an action is considered greedy, self-interested or even altruistic is thus merely a matter of how good we judge it's consequences to be and how noble we judge the perpetrators intentions to be. I.e. whether he is harming others to benefit himself, or harming himself to benefit others.
I think our comprehension of what actions have what consequences are awfully warped. For example, we consider the actions of environmentalists altruistic, despite having the consequences of killing millions and pushing hundreds of millions into poverty. And their intentions being the most selfish of all, the ability to self-congratulate. By that definition their actions are greedy.
So the distinction between greed and altruism is not functional, it does not tell us anything about the world, but just about our own prejudge.

the problem with what capitalism is, is the very basis that economics bring war. War is the seed of of several things and the basic harbinger of this is i state in pursuit of a stable economy and natural reasources.

My self interests believe me to understand that helping others helps me. A social interest, is like an insurance against hard times, any of us may find ourselves requiring. Health Insurance where the profit motive is largely removed benefits me and the general public. If we all contribute we all benefit.. You must make certain laws that stop the individual abusing this system but all systems have their abuses. It works well in the main but economic situations can stretch its ability but my self interest maintains its the best we can hope for.

Yes, but what I mean is, are you open to the suggestion that you might be mistaken about the effects of good-intentioned policies. I.e. that collective health care is not the most beneficial for the poor.
You stated earlier that you could never be convinced to turn your back on those less fortunate. But what if trying to help them is what hurts them? Are you open to that possibility?

I am open to persuasion but you have not up till now even started to convince me. Its not just about the poor, as if they were destined to be so. Its about you and me and life's horrific accidents. Life boats are not just for the first class passengers or for the motley crew. I am a pragmatist and self motivated socialist. I'm a capitalist with a social conscious. Stop being so determined make bogey men out of realists.

I understand, but let's just talk about the poor, a system that takes care of them will take care of wealthier people as well.
By just talking about the poor, we dispose of the argument that free market enterprise might be better for society in general, but forgets the poor.
Right now it is not even important how we define "the poor" (are we talking about 2% of society or 60%?) or whether they are destined to be so, let's just take "the poor" as an abstract.

Thus the question at hand it what system is better to provide health care to the poor, free markets or a state system. Ok?

My first argument is that socialized health care is central planning applied to health care. Economically, that's what it is. Right? I'm not making a bogey man about the soviet union here. Even fricking Reagan established price controls in 1979. Central planning exists in many forms in all nations. Just in general, the point is that health care is central planning. And central planning has never worked, and never will. And it will always provide very low standard of living for the poor.
So that's how my first argument stands:

(1) Government health care is central planning.
(2) Central planning doesn't work.
Thus government health care doesn't work.

I am not trying to make bogey men out of 'realists' (well, last time when I was comparing it to the Soviet Union I was). I'm saying that free market enterprise is simply what works, that's realism.

Am I right in believing you are contemplating anarchy?

But you fail to realise it does work..our system does work. It keeps the unemployed or the unemployable on minimal subsistence income. That in itself drives those able to, to seek meaningful employment. It does not take care of the wealthiest, its a cushion that we all may need, its insurance.

A national health system does work, we have proved it does. It may not be perfect but its three times better than yours.

Am I right in believing you are contemplating anarchy?

Capitalism has surely reduced the real tensions between nations. The economy is now a world economy, every link in the chain effects the other, but this has not reduced warfare or violence, and as I see it, capitalism will inevitably perpetuate violence as long as it exists. There are two things to consider here.

1. The industrialized nations have largely exported their manufacturing labor to the third world, where union laws and labor standards are lax if even existent. Multinational corporations rely on the manufacture of raw materials in these poorer regions to make a profit.

But in the industrialized nations, such as the US, the working class is largely involved in service work. According to typical capitalist standards of social class, "working class" means only blue collar workers. But I prefer to define working class as "anyone who must sell their labor in the form of a salary or a wage." This means that about 84% of the population of all industrialized nations are working class, or proletarians. This has created a great division amongst the world proletariat that makes the prospect of the creation of a worker's government harder (largely due to the rise of the 'labor aristocracy') But the big lie that I believe is sold to us by the ruling capitalist class is that we are all "middle class," trying to make it seem like we live in an essentially classless society.

We don't, and we are far from it. First, living standards for all but the top 2% (Capitalist class) have dropped 10% since the 1990's, and the cost of living continues to rise. The median family income of industrialized nations is, if applied to the typical American family 'skimming the surface.' In the word's of John Lennon "you think you're so clever, classless and free. But you're still f**ck*ng peasants as far as I can see."

The relatively "toned down" class struggle in the industrialized nations is a result of imperialism, the rise of the labor aristocracy, but probably most importantly, by the victories of the combined efforts of the working class and their movements against the violations made by the capitalist class. The working class remains the vanguard of progressive social change under capitalism, and because of this capitalism must maintain a State, ie, an organized system of violence to protect the institutions of the ruling class against the rising (and in this case majority) servile and exploited class.

Also, the existence of private property can only be sustained so long as their is a capitalist state to uphold it. There can be no peace as long as there is a state, and capitalism entails a state.
2. As I said before, capitalism is now in a period of imperialism (or "globalization" depending upon your semantics) has made it so that now entire nations are exploited by other nations under world capitalism.

This means that there is a conflict between the international bourgeoisie (which characterises the bourgeoisie of the industrialized nations, think multinational-corporations) and the national bourgeoisie of the exploited nations (the bourgeoisie of these nations have capitalist interests, but they are in conflict with the dominant international bourgeoisie, a good example is the struggle between the Iranian Bourgeoisie and the International Bourgeoisie.) This is why capitalism cannot acheive any sort of world peace.

The state, as I see it, is rooted in the irreconcilable struggle between classes, in this case working class vs. capitalist class. Currently, the capitalist state is predominantly in power throughout the nations of the world. I believe that a worker's state needs to be established as a first phase toward stateless and classless societies, because class division won't disappear overnight. The worker's state, in which the majority working class will be the ruling class, will set the basis for the economic withering away of the capitalist class and the transformation of all members of society into free-laborers, thus eliminating the class division over time. Only then will a stateless society be able to exist, I believe. This is the fundamental difference between Marxist socialism and anarchism.

There is no class struggle, we already live in a classless society. There is no such thing as a worker. Labor is part of the means of production. Take a computer genius, who's programming ability creates 99% of the value of a software. Does he not own the means of producing that software?

Soviet Union, and Cuba, and China, and North Korea...

Nero, Im saying that our system works, is that a problem for you. It was initiated by a socialist government. All systems have their problems and our system has a certain developing problem. Its not because of the ability of the system, its because medical treatments are becoming more and more expensive. Centralised bureaucracies have their problems, thats why a certain independence has been given to the various health authorities. Each region is autonomous in its administration and certain private treatment is called for. Stop being so dogmatic, be a little more pragmatic and appreciate there is more than one way to skin a cat.

By the way Nero you did not answer my original question, you changed it.

We are a net contributor to the EU so no one subsidises our health service.not even Germany and the US definitely dont.

Lets be honest now , would you change your mind if I could prove our system is cheaper and better than yours? Is it about semantics or facts, you tell me? You have gone from your inability to recognise reality to questioning known facts.

The question you posed yourself but kept making excuses why you never did but then claimed you had...remember?

No, he/she does not own the means of production at all. They are most likely paid a salary, a form of wage labor, which means that some portion of the value of their labor goes to profit somebody, and therefore the computer programmer is denied the full value of their labor. Those who own the means of production don't really work them, thats what the workers do.

And I also fail to see how supply and demand, not collective action, has brought the working class relative prosperity in the past century. If supply and demand were the determining factor, than the Industrial Revolution, before the days of organized labor (1830-1870) would have been a lot nicer to the working class. There are plenty of people who do little and are paid a lot, and plenty who do a lot and are paid little.

It's not directly subsidized. Keep in mind that the US health care industry is the equivalent of the entire economy of France or Britain. Things are a little easier if you're a small country. It's really no fair comparison. Just by having the sheer magnitude of the US' (semi) free-market health care economy on the same globe, the British are subsidized. After all, what is the problem with socialism? That it doesn't incentivize innovation. If you have a big brother who delivers you innovations at his expense, you can run a state health care system for a while, and on paper it looks like it's 'cheaper'. That's the economic reality of it, maybe you think state health care is fair, but you have to be honest about the economic reality. There's the "helping the less fortunate" argument and there's the "it's cheaper" argument, but you are saying it's both. If it was that perfect, it gives stuff to the underclass and it saves two thirds, why is there even an argument? Seems a little unrealistic, eh?



Heck yeah, it should be about facts. But there's nothing you have to prove to me. I believe you that the British pay less for their health care than Americans.
The question is whether your health care is cheaper because it's better / more efficient, or whether you stick the tab to somebody else. See above.



I don't know. This might be from a month ago... I don't know?? Can you find the question?

I challenge that claim. The western powers no longer play power politics against one another - because one of the western powers (Britain + U.S.) has triumphed and become the hegemon which directs the energies of all the western nations for its own purposes - but the west as a whole, led from New York/London definately plays power politics in competition with non-western powers: e.g. Russia and China.



I agree absolutely with your rejection of Fukuyama's bold thesis. History is far from over. However, one might say that western history was concluded when the last non-english great power was broken and sublimated into the anglo-american world order in 1945. Since then, history has consisted of the western power block consolidating its power in the former colonial regions: Africa, S. America, Asia, etc. Russia was gradually bled out through two world wars and a long war, and is now a shadow of its former self. China is rising in importance, but has yet to shake itself free of dependence on western economies. Either those last bastions of non-western power will succumb to anglo-american soft power, or fate has in store for humanity another world war.

I think the West is virtually assured of victory over these rivals, unless 1) China manages, in cooperation with Russia, to create overland energy corridors to the M.E. that eliminate dependence on imports by sea, or 2) China manages to create a blue water navy that would be able to challenge Anglo-American naval supremacy and ensure the continued flow of those same resources by sea, even in the event of general war.

As Niel Ferguson has astutely pointed out, these tensions very much resemble those which held between Germany and Britain in the early 20th century. It became neccessary for rapidly industrializing Germany to find for itself a secure source of oil that couldn't be affected by British naval supremacy (the Berlin-Baghdad railway) in the event of war, or to build a blue water navy that could challenge that supremacy.

The series of wars in the Balkans that preceeded the Great War were arguabley instigated by Britain to prevent Germany from completing that stretch of the rail line. The epic failure of Galipoli and the massive diversion of resources (over 1 million men) to fight the relatively weak and insignificant Ottoman Empire were largely motivated by a desire to seize the rail line and ensure that it would never rise again; the post-war division of the middle east into British and French protectorates ensured exclusive access for the Anglo-American powers to that newly important region of the world, which privilage has been maintained up to this day.

Zbigniew Brzezinksi - in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives - labelled Transcaucasia/C. Asia the 'global balkans,' a region of unparalelled strategic importance, which could well serve as the source of the next global war, as the European Balkans did with the Great War. What has occured since 1997? The U.S. has conquered and installed puppet regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, while moving toward much closer and/or more formal alliance with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzebekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikstan, and Kyrgyzstan. The U.S. and its allies are building several energy corridors through those newly conquered or pacified territories, while simulteineously building military alliances with the former soviet states of Europe (Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Romania, Ukraine, etc.) and arming Taiwan. Iran is the great remaining obstacle to western energy security, while also the linchpin for Chinese energy security.

The health service has been running for over sixty years not exactly a short period to judge its worth. Its paid for by the British people in insurance contributions, through wages. It is not subsidized, can you tell me why and by who,you think it is? Everyone benefits not just the underprivileged. Is there a problem for you in the fact it is cheaper for all and it also helps those who could not afford health care. is that your objection , do you find that in some way objectionable?

The question posed was by you, find it, its not difficult.

I agree absolutely with your rejection of Fukuyama's bold thesis. History is far from over.

Yes, I can tell how you are being subsidized. I tried to make an analogy with bread in the other thread. But you didn't like it.
First, through medical advances. I.e. new technology, drugs, techniques, and so fourth. Most medical advances in the last 50 years originated in the US, because people invent them with a profit motive. I'm not saying there are no new technologies from Europe, but largely they come from the US. That's a fact, and I can prove it if you want me to. The whole point with health care, as you people so often say, is eliminating the profit motive. Which eliminates the reason to come up with new stuff to compete for customers. Government bureaucrats are not interested in coming up with new advances, to them they are more of an annoyance.
The inventors of those new technologies are paid by the American health care consumer. But once these technologies exist, once their development is paid for, your nation can also get them, you still have to pay for the MRI machine itself, but not for the full cost of developing it. It's like cell phones, when they are new they are expensive, then they become cheaper.
In Europe there is no such profit motive in health care, these technologies would not exist without the American health care consumer paying for them.

The other way you are being subsidized is by other nations swallowing the negative effects of your price controls. As you know, price controls create shortages. Things cost less, but you can't buy them anywhere. That's why stores in eastern Europe had empty shelves before of the fall of the Berlin wall.
Much of government health care being 'cheaper' amounts to price controls. Even compensating for the higher cost of government bureaucracy and people using health care more because they don't have to pay for it personally, and more people getting health care all adds cost, that has to come from somewhere. It comes from paying doctors less, nurses or even janitors and cleaning ladies. When you pay these people less than they should get by supply and demand, you create shortages. I.e. nobody wants to be a doctor or a nurse any more, or a janitor in a hospital. Doctors become plummers instead, nurses become taxi drivers, and janitors and cleaning ladies work in the private sector, where their wages are not controlled by government. So you would not have a functioning health care system, because there are not enough doctors, nurses and janitors. And the same applies to drugs and equipment as well, because investors would stop putting their money into producing medicine and MRI machines if there is more profit in, say, producing cars. So you'd be short of staff and medicine, the system wouldn't work. The only thing you can do to relieve that is rationing care. Or have people wait forever in waiting rooms and essentially make it such an unpleasant experience that they don't want to go to the doctor, i.e. you ration health care by making it a pain in the ass instead of rationing it by willingness pay for services received. What rational society would do that? Imagine the cost to the economy of all those educated people sitting around idly waiting for the doctor. Wouldn't it be better to just let people decide how much care they want to pay for instead of how much care they want to wait for? So some of the cost of your medical care comes in the form of people sitting around in waiting rooms instead of being able to produce. That cost does not show up in any statistic, you pay for it nonetheless.
But here's how you're being subsidized. Partly your education system is paying for it, by delivering doctors at taxpayer expense, so some of the cost of health care is paid through education.
Africa is subsidizing your health care through free nurses and doctors, that they educate. Currently are draining Africa dry of their nurses, that you import, as they wander off to Europe, where wages are better than in Africa, because there are such shortages of nurses. Of course leaving Africa with considerable problems. So part of your health care cost is found in foreign aid.
And lastly you are provided with drugs and medical advances by the USA, where investors can make money by investing in these companies, which they could not with your price controls. After all, that's what the profit motive does, it makes people produce stuff.
These are just a few ways in which you are being subsidized, I suppose there are more that I can't think of the moment.
You can say your system works and that it's cheaper, but it's just cheaper for you, it comes at the expense of others. And you pay for it in other ways, just not as health care expense, so saying health care is cheaper is in part an accounting trick. If everybody did what you did, we wouldn't all have cheaper health care, then it all wouldn't work. Health care would be like the empty shelves in the eastern block; it's really cheap but you can't get any.



I would be happy to answer. But I seriously don't know which question you mean. Just repeat it please. Or don't keep asking me to answer, because I don't know what you are referring to.