[SSDR]

@Victoribus Spolia, Society has not completely, 100 percent gained real consciousness, yet. But there is some real consciousness that does exist so far. All of the socialist states that existed, from the Soviet Union, to China and the DDR, all gained some real consciousness. Elements of western society has gained real consciousness as well. Examples of movements that gained real consciousness is feminism and womens' rights, fight against child abuse, fight against domestic abuse, or atheism as a huge movement, since prior to the secular age, most atheists were not understood that well.

Here is an example of false consciousness that existed in Spain under Francisco Franco (This explanation that I will say is in a real conscious viewpoint): Domestic abuse was not to be heard of, meaning no complaints were taken under any consideration. It was shameful to complain about domestic abuse. Women were to marry from a young age, and have as much children as "God would give her." Complaining about this was at risk for homelessness (AND THERE WAS NO PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOR RUNAWAYS IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS). So how were the people expected to cope with this? By worshiping the Roman Catholic Church. People were expected to use the Roman Catholic Church to cope with this awful way of life, and ANYONE who said that this is awful, and that people used the Church to cope with this was labeled a "Communist" and was to get into a lot of trouble.

Here is an example of false consciousness that existed in Spain under Francisco Franco (This explanation that I will say is in a FALSE conscious viewpoint): Your family raised you as a gift from god. You are to dedicate your life to your family and your nation. Francisco Franco saved us from atheism, satanism, social chaos, and "communism." If you are a woman, you must be obedient to your father who sacrificed for you, and you must be obedient to your husband. If you get raped, it is your fault, and it is a punishment from god. It is shameful to run away. It is selfish to run away from the nation and the family, and it is selfish to want to contribute to the satanic ways of life. Anyone who wants to run away from this glory that Franco saves us for is a Satanist. If you get abused by those above you, Blame YOURSELF and forgive. Forgive...

Here is an example of real consciousness that existed in Spain AFTER Francisco Franco (This explanation that I will say is in a real conscious viewpoint): Women can be free and independent, without worrying about being labeled as "crazy." The Roman Catholic Church does not have a significant role over the lives of almost everyone in Spain today. Masturbation is allowed. There still is more steps to be done, but it is farther now. If you can't fly yet, then walk. The socialists of the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 have put the foundations of us to walk on, since they had to crawl under the conservationism and the extreme Catholicism that existed in the dawn of the 20th century.

NO! Societies that are more egalitarian, more anti family, more feminist, and more secular have HIGHER life rates, better health care, better technology and education, and put more of their energy into productivity, rather than family drama and religious control.



According to the online electronic English Wikipedia, quote "The GDP of countries generally correlates negatively with their religiosity, i.e. the wealthier a population is the more secular it is.[2]."

Why do you feel that children being exposed to sexuality is wrong? Sex is fun, natural, healthy, and medicine! Cussing is a social construct, and you have NO proof that cuss words such as "fuck" or "shit" is a threat to the survival of humanity. Religion teaches society that those words are wrong, and that when people hear those words and when they were taught by religion that those words are "bad," then they ACTUALLY feel that those words are "bad" even though they are not. And alcohol is fun as well!

Women are not supposed to full fill their desires by raising children and enslaving herself to a man of whom is above her. Religion teaches that women must feel that way in order to truly be "happy."

Most corporate billionaires and western statists are center leftists because their economics that they're exposed to offer lots of economic safety net, and that their economics are not family oriented. Also, many people who work for non family oriented corporations like Volkswagen or Aldi and people who are on state assistance tend to be progressive, so the corporate billionaires and the statists don't want to be turned over.

Humans should own PERSONAL property. I want to have my own personal life and have my own toothbrush, home, car, etc. But that is different that PRIVATE property. Private property relates to the economic modes of production that can potentially enforce the family institution, slavery, wage slavery, workers' abuse, or human trafficking. Personal property relates to the materials that people use to survive and/or for personal desires and pleasures.

[Unthinking Majority]

Looking at US lifespans as a measure of their healthcare system may or may not be fair. Why may it not be fair? Well Americans also eats horribly and sits on their asses like potatoes, more than people in Nordic countries do thats for sure. Americans also shoot each other to death at rates far above any other western country, which will affect avg life expectancy stats.

Income inequality in that country may also be a factor, beyond just paying for healthcare, for things like incomes, education, quality of food the poor can afford, exercise programs the poor can put their kids in etc. There's a ton of poor people in the US, ie: low income black urban folks and latin american immigrants, and a lack of social programs to help them compared to countries like Norway, Denmark, Canada etc.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't know what you are doing @SSDR, but your user mention is not working because I am not being notified of your posts. I can't respond to things you say if you do not do it properly. It was just by chance that I checked into this thread to take a gander and saw your post.

Please consult the moderation team if you do not know how to use the proper format.

Regarding collective consciousness, I am glad we agree that such has not come into existence; further, I don't know why I should care about Fascist regimes in Spain.

NO! Societies that are more egalitarian, more anti family, more feminist, and more secular have HIGHER life rates, better health care, better technology and education, and put more of their energy into productivity, rather than family drama and religious control.

You still have to prove to me why a higher life expectancy is morally superior, I likewise reject the advancement of technology as particularly good and I am suprised that you do since its preempting the possibility of a proletarian revolution.

According to the online electronic English Wikipedia, quote "The GDP of countries generally correlates negatively with their religiosity, i.e. the wealthier a population is the more secular it is.[2]."

So there is a greater concentration of a strong bourgeois class, how odd for your to be supporting this.

Why do you feel that children being exposed to sexuality is wrong?

I don't, I said the opposite.

Sex is fun, natural, healthy, and medicine!

Agreed, I never said otherwise.

ussing is a social construct, and you have NO proof that cuss words such as "fuck" or "shit" is a threat to the survival of humanity.

I also said that I have no problem with cussing.

What post did you read?

It certainly wasn't mine.

And alcohol is fun as well!

I drink and smoke cannabis, I also have zero problem with either of these even as a conservative Christian and I said this in my prior posts to you.

Once again, go read what I wrote to you or even my profile; I am very open about enjoying heterosexual sex, getting blowjobs, smoking pot, drinking, et al.

Religion teaches that women must feel that way in order to truly be "happy."

Correct, religion teaches this which is also why the true faith is correct.

Most corporate billionaires and western statists are center leftists because their economics that they're exposed to offer lots of economic safety net, and that their economics are not family oriented. Also, many people who work for non family oriented corporations like Volkswagen or Aldi and people who are on state assistance tend to be progressive, so the corporate billionaires and the statists don't want to be turned over.

Well, I am glad we agree that your position is the position of the elites. Anti-family secularism is the belief of elitist oppressors. In reality, the upper classes have typically been more progressive than the general populace in most nations in most times.

Humans should own PERSONAL property. I want to have my own personal life and have my own toothbrush, home, car, etc. But that is different that PRIVATE property. Private property relates to the economic modes of production that can potentially enforce the family institution, slavery, wage slavery, workers' abuse, or human trafficking. Personal property relates to the materials that people use to survive and/or for personal desires and pleasures.

Yes, you said this already and I already presented my counter-position.

So......when are you going to address my deductive arguments?

[Pants-of-dog]

Looking at US lifespans as a measure of their healthcare system may or may not be fair. Why may it not be fair? Well Americans also eats horribly and sits on their asses like potatoes, more than people in Nordic countries do thats for sure. Americans also shoot each other to death at rates far above any other western country, which will affect avg life expectancy stats.

This is a valid criticism, so what some people do (when doing international comparisons of health care) is to look at mortality amenable to health care.

That means those life threatening injuries and illnesses that can be treated.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... 4-and-2014

Income inequality in that country may also be a factor, beyond just paying for healthcare, for things like incomes, education, quality of food the poor can afford, exercise programs the poor can put their kids in etc. There's a ton of poor people in the US, ie: low income black urban folks and latin american immigrants, and a lack of social programs to help them compared to countries like Norway, Denmark, Canada etc.

I do not how to account for that in international comparisons.

[Drlee]

I don't want to visit Cuba. I don't trust socialists. But I would be happy if you would move there to get your socialized healthcare and stop bugging us in the U.S.A

I have the ultimate in socialized medicine. I pay next to nothing. I have Medicare and Tricare for Life as I am a retired soldier. The government pays all of my healthcare bills without any catastrophic cap. These payments are made entirely from tax money. I get to choose my doctor from the largest pool available in the US. (All doctors who accept medicare which in my state is about 90%.) I do not have to seek a referral to see a specialist. There are no waiting lists. I do not have to file any paperwork.

In other words Hindsite, my (or should I say our) socialized medicine is with no doubt whatsoever, the best insurance money can't buy in the US. But socialized it is. (By your mistaken definition of socialized.) Do the doctors like it? Consider:

Overall, 87 percent of family medicine physicians are taking new Medicare patients, a bit lower than the 91 percent average among all docs. But among specialists, 99 percent of general surgeons and 98 percent of orthopedic surgeons take new Medicare patients...

Who would have thought that all I had to do to get single-payer taxpayer funded lifetime unlimited health care with drug coverage, was to spend a measly 20 years in the Army. I wish everyone could have what I have. It would cost the government a pittance of what people are spending now and cover everyone.

But I understand how a Christian like you would think that people should not have health care. After all. Jesus was just kidding when he told us to care for each other when we are ill.

[Godstud]

Universal healthcare may be considered Socialism by some people who are uneducated, or ignorant, but unlike the USA system, it's not for-profit.

America's healthcare is mostly for-profit, and as such, isn't there to cater to the patient, but to the industry.

[annatar1914]

But I understand how a Christian like you would think that people should not have health care. After all. Jesus was just kidding when he told us to care for each other when we are ill.

Having spent most of my life working in the health care field, I can safely say that I believe in universal healthcare, and yes, I am an unapologetic socialist too. But our friend Hindsite is no doubt influenced by the more modern ''health and wealth prosperity gospel'' folks out there, who have made a meld of God and Adam Smith's ''Invisible Hand of the Marketplace'', and curse the Poor as being sinners.

[Hindsite]

I already receive socialised health care, right here in Canada.

Great. Then stop bugging us here in the U.S.A. about it. Most of us don't want socialized medicine. We want the option to go to any hospital or doctor we choose for our healthcare. Let the marketplace of ideas and services decide.

[Pants-of-dog]

Great. Then stop bugging us here in the U.S.A. about it. Most of us don't want socialized medicine. We want the option to go to any hospital or doctor we choose for our healthcare. Let the marketplace of ideas and services decide.

Actually, as a recipient of socialised health care in Canada, I can go into any hospital or see any doctor and the socialised system will pay for it.

I have more options and more flexibility than anyone constrained by an insurance plan or HMO or other private plan.

Thanks for bringing up yet another way in which socialised health care is better than private health care even according to capitalist critieria.

[Godstud]

We go to the hospital or doctor we want to with Universal Healthcare, as well, @Hindsite. Your argument is stupid.

The difference is that our medical system is not set up to prey on people for the sake of money, but to help them. Care vs Profit. You're simply not smart enough to realize this, I guess.

[Hindsite]

Actually, as a recipient of socialised health care in Canada, I can go into any hospital or see any doctor and the socialised system will pay for it.

I have more options and more flexibility than anyone constrained by an insurance plan or HMO or other private plan.

Thanks for bringing up yet another way in which socialised health care is better than private health care even according to capitalist critieria.

There must be a gimmick. I don't trust it. I still think it must require giving up our freedoms since that is what socialism is all about.

[SolarCross]

Actually, as a recipient of socialised health care in Canada, I can go into any hospital or see any doctor and the socialised system will pay for it.

I have more options and more flexibility than anyone constrained by an insurance plan or HMO or other private plan.

Thanks for bringing up yet another way in which socialised health care is better than private health care even according to capitalist critieria.

Canada doesn't have socialised medicine it has national health insurance. It isn't even that different from the US except that the US medicaid is means tested while Canadian National Health Insurance is open to all comers. You can call the former prudent or mean spirited and the latter extravagant or generous but neither are socialism. Nobody got expropriated and the private sector is unmolested in either case.

[Pants-of-dog]

There must be a gimmick. I don't trust it. I still think it must require giving up our freedoms since that is what socialism is all about.

Yes, many critics of Marxism prefer to trust their feelings over facts.

Canada doesn't have socialised medicine it has national health insurance. It isn't even that different from the US except that the US medicaid is means tested while Canadian National Health Insurance is open to all comers. You can call the former prudent or mean spirited and the latter extravagant or generous but neither are socialism. Nobody got expropriated and the private sector is unmolested in either case.

That would depend on your defintion of socialism.

You seem to have a defintion of socialism as “an evil and Satanic wave of bloodthirsty killers and rapists out to destroy all that is good and decent” or something.

[Hindsite]

Yes, many critics of Marxism prefer to trust their feelings over facts.

20/20 John Stossel Exposes Canada Care and Socialized Medicine

[annatar1914]

Yes, many critics of Marxism prefer to trust their feelings over facts.



That would depend on your defintion of socialism.

You seem to have a defintion of socialism as “an evil and Satanic wave of bloodthirsty killers and rapists out to destroy all that is good and decent” or something.

What they don't understand, or don't want to understand, is that Socialism IS Economic freedom, where those who work in society are given the benefits of their common striving for a better life for all, for the common good instead of individual private wealth, hoarding, and greed for power. It requires the same sort of public virtue that motivated the American Founding Fathers, but some have an interest in remaining ignorant, or in seeing others ignorant.

[SolarCross]

That would depend on your defintion of socialism.

You seem to have a defintion of socialism as “an evil and Satanic wave of bloodthirsty killers and rapists out to destroy all that is good and decent” or something.

How about this definition?

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You will note that, just as I said, Canada's National Health Insurance fits none of them.

[Pants-of-dog]

20/20 John Stossel Exposes Canada Care and Socialized Medicine

Does that video have some sort of argument?

——————————

What they don't understand, or don't want to understand, is that Socialism IS Economic freedom, where those who work in society are given the benefits of their common striving for a better life for all, for the common good instead of individual private wealth, hoarding, and greed for power. It requires the same sort of public virtue that motivated the American Founding Fathers, but some have an interest in remaining ignorant, or in seeing others ignorant.

I find that the critics of Marxism are actually quite diverse and it is difficult to make general criticisms of them.

——————————

How about this definition?

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Which of these are you using?

Is this the one you are using for the purposes of this discussion?

I am asking because it is not the usual definition you use.

[Hindsite]

A Canadian Speaks Out About Health Care In Canada

Canadian healthcare is pretty good if you don't need it.

[SolarCross]

Which of these are you using?

Is this the one you are using for the purposes of this discussion?

I am asking because it is not the usual definition you use.

Since none of them are descriptive of the Canadian national health insurance it hardly matters. The three definitions are related anyway, the first is socialism as a theory, the second is socialism as a practice and the third is a marxian prophecy for socialism. They are in accordance with my everyday understanding of what the word "socialism" means. It seems you are the one using the word incorrectly as you seem to think it is synonym for nationalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would argue that the provincial governments have “ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” in terms of necessary medical treatments and the associated administrative services.

It is decidedly not free market.