For starters, we should probably distinguish Communism and communism, and designate one as Marx's ideas and one as the Bolshevist implementation of 'communism.' Most people attack the latter because it's easy, and they haven't read Marx anyway. But if you look to Israeli or Spanish models of syndicalism, you can see some quite successful collectives.
As to allocation of resources, I might agree for things that are perfectly elastic in demand, but the market tends toward monopoly when left alone, and also generates inefficiencies of its own. Example -- pharmaceutical companies like to tout their R&D costs, spend huge sums on advertising, which of course wouldn't be necessary in a different kind of society. More things than people know, including drugs, were developed with public money, but corporations were given permission to sell them, therefore they get the credit.
We see plenty of societies that guarantee health care (like, you know, every single civilized western democracy), and there's no indication that on average ours is better, although undoubtedly it is for the rich. By your logic, the most capitalist country in the world (Hong Kong, last I checked) should have the best health care, education, shelter, food and jobs, because the market is best able to work there. I wonder if this has ever been the case?
We see plenty of societies that guarantee health care (like, you know, every single civilized western democracy), and there's no indication that on average ours is better, although undoubtedly it is for the rich.
Is this your way of saying that (A) the U.S. is uncivilized, and (B) that it'd be better for everyone to have awful health care than for those who are willing to spend money on it to have good health care?
A) No. I'm saying that in this area we lose to other civilized countries.
B) No. My position is that it is better to have awful health care than no health care. I'm not suggesting that people who can pay for health care should be forced to use government health care, but that the government should recognize it as a basic human right, and guarantee it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 07:18 pm (UTC)As to allocation of resources, I might agree for things that are perfectly elastic in demand, but the market tends toward monopoly when left alone, and also generates inefficiencies of its own. Example -- pharmaceutical companies like to tout their R&D costs, spend huge sums on advertising, which of course wouldn't be necessary in a different kind of society. More things than people know, including drugs, were developed with public money, but corporations were given permission to sell them, therefore they get the credit.
We see plenty of societies that guarantee health care (like, you know, every single civilized western democracy), and there's no indication that on average ours is better, although undoubtedly it is for the rich. By your logic, the most capitalist country in the world (Hong Kong, last I checked) should have the best health care, education, shelter, food and jobs, because the market is best able to work there. I wonder if this has ever been the case?
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 08:10 pm (UTC)Is this your way of saying that (A) the U.S. is uncivilized, and (B) that it'd be better for everyone to have awful health care than for those who are willing to spend money on it to have good health care?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 02:37 am (UTC)B) No. My position is that it is better to have awful health care than no health care. I'm not suggesting that people who can pay for health care should be forced to use government health care, but that the government should recognize it as a basic human right, and guarantee it.