I got much interesting feedback on my last article, largely in an effort to save my soul for capitalist Jesus. Amazingly, this even included Derek, who cited a very long and thorough series of papers. Derek alluded to these papers supporting his contention that America’s health system was actually the best in the world, despite the fact that we have a nationwide infant mortality rate well above Cuba’s, and despite the fact that half a million people file bankruptcy every year, after being totally destroyed just because they needed to go see a doctor.
While I finally read Derek’s citation, I didn’t find any support for his thesis in it. I suspected this to be the case when Derek made his blanket statements. It’s actually a very interesting body of work, and it suggests that the problems endemic to the failed American healthcare system are more complex than most critics (myself included) usually realize.
One of the guys who backs me up on this is Roosh V., who has released a videocast talking about a number of different things, including the story of a young couple he knows personally. The wife began to exhibit the symptoms of the coronavirus, and her husband finally took her to the hospital. Despite having health insurance, the wife was billed over five thousand dollars for a hospital visit, only to be told that she had influenza.
The only way this story could possibly be worse would be the addendum that the wife picked up coronavirus when she went into the hospital for care, and had subsequently expired. (Thankfully, this wasn’t part of the report.) If you have some spare time, feel free to watch Roosh break it down…
I was able to read Derek’s citation, and I was able to watch Roosh pontificate, because I have nothing but free time. I was furloughed from my job for at least six weeks. Despite the fact that the value of all my investments have collapsed, and despite the fact that I have zero income, I am able to live without worrying, and I have even begun supporting a couple of younger family members. Such are the benefits of being a bachelor. I am living well because I do not have a naggy wife, who has spent every dime I have earned in my adult life on frivolous consumer goods.
Apparently, a stimulus package was recently passed, and the free dough will be based on our 2018 tax returns. Given that I made a middle class income that year, I will be getting free money, on top of max unemployment. What a guy like me will do with his TrumpBux is to buy up a bunch of cut-rate stock in blue chip companies. This will not help the economy one iota, though many of us will benefit in the long term. The men benefitting the most will be the 1%, who will see the values of their shares rise with the subsequent investment.
The stimulus is rigged just like the American healthcare racket. It benefits a few people at the top. Funny how every government action seems to end in that mood, no?
The young brothers just starting out, and the serious brothers (looking at you, Jason) who spent 2018 volunteering and trying to clean up the streets, will likely not get a dime. These are the people who would have spent that money, and actually done some good for the American economy.
Donald Trump had an amazing opportunity to become the right wing FDR. Instead he bailed out huge corporations and hung the people who voted for him out to dry. If he were running against anyone other than a senile moron like Joe Biden, I’d predict his demise in November. All the same, I have faith that Trump will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as he has done throughout his presidency.
And now it’s time for me to eat my words.
Last October, I predicted that Roosh V. was not abandoning his game scam, as he claimed, but was pivoting into a new scam. I figured that he would follow men like Tucker Max, who exhausted his population of chumps, and immediately pivoted into male feminism, so that he could exploit an entirely new group of suckers.
Picking up Roosh’s monologue at 2:16, we hear him opine:
The manosphere is mostly about getting girls outside of marriage. Men are still doing that, but from my observation the manosphere is dying out. The return on investment from game is so low… Game is dead and the manosphere is dead, too.
I really don’t agree with this. With coronavirus panic, I have so many women wanting the distraction of fucking me that my phone is buzzing 24h per day. Be that as it may, Roosh continues:
The guys in the manosphere continue to attack me, daily. They are watching my content, reading my articles, on top of my tweets. They are obsessed with me and want me to fail. They do this because they want the message of Jesus Christ to fail.
Is Roosh talking about us? I don’t think he had us in mind specifically. I have never considered myself a manosphere type, though this is a men’s blog. I don’t think Roosh pays much attention to a small-time playa, though I might be wrong. Either way, it’s important to own up to bad predictions that might have cast an innocent man in a bad light, and this is a good opportunity.
It might seem, based on my previous article, that I wanted Roosh to fail. I certainly don’t want him to fail. I did condemn Roosh for wasting his life chasing cunt, at the expense of a thousand other parts of a healthy lifestyle. Roosh affirms the truth of this in the second hour of his monologue. The assertion that Roosh was planning to exploit Christian men appears to be wholly unfounded, and I retract them completely. Say what you want about his transformation, he certainly seems sincere in his faith and in his desire to atone for the unproductive advice he gave to us in the past.
It’s a
SCAM.. errrrr .. new business venture .. full of suckers ripe for the taking.I never read his stuff in the first place. I didn’t know he made a transformation until you mentioned it.
Ok .. back to my rat killin’.
Roosh is an interesting guy, and a very talented essayist. It’s sort of a shame that he had to burn the library after he wandered from game-ville, but such as it was.
Eh, I’m not a fan of either socialism or capitalism, though the latter is miles better on the whole than the former, especially in the context of health care. I also think Republicans are relatively better than Democrats, but don’t support either. I’m no missionary for capitalism.
I made a bunch of claims, none of which remotely add up to that claim. For example:
Despite all the time you have, you’ve obviously missed the point I was making.
The citation clearly backs my previous conclusion that…
I don’t know who has the best or worse system. There is likely no simple answer..different places are better at different things due to a variety of complex variables unrelated to what we were discussing. Nevertheless, if America’s health care system really is that bad, it isn’t because it isn’t socialist enough. Socialist policies inevitably reduce per capita income, thus they invariably reduce health care consumption. Capitalism uniquely increases health care consumption, though capitalism alone is not sufficient to improve health care.
In the face of this, along with many other possible alternate explanations, it just isn’t plausible that the economic system is directly responsible for the issues you’ve noted (% with health insurance, % with doctors, % with huge bills, etc.). Sure, they are not unimportant issues, but they are irrelevant to the original discussion. To wit:
This is exactly right (and better you come to this conclusion than agree with my thesis). I chastised you in the last thread for throwing simplistic criticisms at me. Continuing to share anecdotes and statistics without first establishing their relevance is not a convincing strategy.
Dear Derek:
I generally don’t have eternal back-and-forths when I know I’ll never agree with my ideological opponent. That said, let’s finally finish this up…
That’s an incredibly simplistic non-solution that you’re extrapolating out of a lot of very complicated points made by the original author. Moreover, it’s inherently feminine. Back when the manosphere was still alive, I could go to Dalrock and instantly find men who were told something similar by their wives:
Well I wouldn’t have divorced you if you had only made more money!!
Wimminz think men can simply produce money through force of will. So, apparently, does Se?or Ramsey.
Disagree. I find it both relevant and inescapable. The reality is that we are all getting more-or-less screwed by structural inequalities which funnel the fruits of our labors into the pockets of a few super-rich people. The guys on the bottom are getting screwed far worse than you and I are. The work of the men in the long-haul trucks and the grocery stores is valuable, despite being unappreciated. (Surely, at this particular time in history, we aren’t in any position to deny this.)
These workers deserve a basic, decent, standard of living, in return for keeping our civilization afloat. Of course I kid around about Maoist utopias, but I’m really just paraphrasing 1950s republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon when I make such obvious statements.
Of course it’s not a solution. It is more of a yard stick. It is a minimal standard. If someone proposes to increase access to health care for the poor and the proposal does not increase their wealth, then we can expect that it won’t increase their access to health care. Thus, at minimum, we should reject all such proposals.
Access to health care can be manipulated in specific individual scenarios and contexts, but overall health care consumption is linked to wealth. This is simplistic only in the sense that decades of data from all over the world have shown this to be the case. We must either accept this to be true or devise a way to break the relationship between healthcare consumption and wealth. Since you and I are not smart enough to do the latter and no one else has identified a way either, we should embrace the former.
As you noted, my claim is simple. I’m not explaining how to make health care better, nor am I proposing any actual solutions. I’m explaining what won’t work (relatively easy), not what will work (really hard). So, rather than debate, let’s agree on this…
…and discuss: How would you go about solving this problem?
On second thought, let’s not discuss. It’s too political of a conversation for my taste. I’d rather spend my time discussing other topics.
I don’t want roosh to fail, I want him to stop failing, and succeed.
I think Roosh’s historical mistakes mirror mine, so in my case, it was easy for me to mock him. (Insert Carl Jung, talking about how the things that annoy us in others are always repressed examples of our own inadequacies.)
I’m sure lots of people look at him, with his long beard, and his longer diatribes about his relationship with Jesus, and consider him a kook. Really, though, is he any worse off than a few years ago, when he was scrounging around in Thailand looking for new skanks to fuck?
If you’re going to be obsessed about something, then obsessively working on your own spiritual and psychological health is much better, objectively speaking, than obsessively chasing the whims of skank-ho wimminz.
My family had to work out a payment plan for my older brother after he was born in 1966. My father was a Union carpenter. Had excellent healthcare. They would not cover my brothers expenses because he was supposed to die. Born without an esophagus. Three holes in his heart and a collapsed lung on top of his Downs Syndrome.
My parents signed away their lives until 1991 pretty much when that hospital bill was paid off. If a payment was even a day later. The billing department of that hospital was calling. Total cost for the first six months of care of my brothers life??? 87k when he was allowed to come home in March 1967. Oh…by the way….87K in 2020 dollars is 546k
My parents paid it all off and back.
My parents had a strong marriage and didnt complain about it…but it made them more “republican” so to speak….you know, a single mom has kids with several men and the state and county is bending over backwards to help them. My parents never asked and they found out in the 1990’s that my brother qualified for SSI from birth. No doctor. No specialist. No advocate. No benefits person ever told them. Why? Because they were people who didnt talk about or demand what was owed.
Healthcare costs RUIN people in the USA. Lots of them. You are working class or lower middle class your insurance is usually useless if your have something more than broken bone or doctors visit….and NO ONE will fight for you. Not Bernie. Not Trump.
People telling me how great it is usually are upper tied folks who never did have to worry about coverage.
Topics covered:
American healthcare
Derek
Roosh
Manosphere
Derek
Regressive stimulus package
Trump
Roosh
You covered a lot of ground there, Boxer. And I kind of followed it.
I don’t think the Manosphere is dead. The old leaders battled hard to slow the advance of Feminism, but failed to move us forward on the offensive, but it is time for new leaders with truer ideas.
The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers. ~M. Scott Peck
As long as there are men, and a forum for free speech, a Manosphere will still exist in some form. And the “new” ideas needed are in my opinion actually very old ideas that have long been forgotten. To get back to a healthy patriarchy we need everybody to have the mindset that once supported the thriving patriarchy. While the Manosphere has helped to battle back some of the rampant female-supremacism of today’s Feminazis, most of the leaders of the Manosphere still believe women to be superior to the inferior creatures that they actually are. Most would say that they want men and women to once again be equal, with men delegated the task of leadership. But that isn’t how it was when patriarchy was unquestioned. The reason patriarchy was unquestioned was because anybody with half a wit was taught and knew that men were clearly superior and it was unquestionably best for everybody involved, that men were in complete control of their families. The Bible only teaches us that men were created in God’s image, for God, and that women were instead created for men, subject to men, and to serve men. An ancient observer of nature, Aristotle, wrote: The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled. Aristotle taught that women were naturally inferior to men, physically, spiritually, and intellectually. He believed that women lacked self-control and jurisdiction over their minds and emotions.
Our churchian culture is a cunt-worshipping culture. We have to restore women to their proper shamefaced meekness and men to the glorious image of God. What we need has been inverted by the forces of evil. We men need to internalize our superior rank and glory and the sacred duty that goes with it, and teach it to our sons. While women need to be repressed, humbled, and brought completely back under subjection, to the glory of God, and for the peace and benefit of everyone.
If someone proposes to increase access to health care for the poor and the proposal does not increase their wealth, then we can expect that it won.t increase their access to health care.
I see the dispute as being, do we either:
1) force everyone to contribute to a big pile of cash, through taxation, that is then used to provide healthcare for free to the masses, or
2) seek to empower all individual men to make their own choices, earn their own money; those men can then choose to spend their own resources as they see fit, including on larger amounts for healthcare
I see three primary problems.
1) The human consequences of “free”.
The reason why I think it a problem to give free healthcare is that this directly encourages irresponsible decisions and irresponsibility — single mothers. If the only way to get resources was to stay married to a man, then women would (largely) do this. Would this solve all problems? No. But it would be massively better than what we have now.
Free schooling, free/subsidized university, free healthcare, free housing, alimony and child support after divorce — these all encourage harlots to have children without fathers. She can sleep around, toss out her husband, and others will pay for the costs of her bastards. Would a woman contemplating divorce make a different decision if she knew the government would do nothing to pay her costs? If she knew the government would do nothing to pay to pay the costs her bastard children?
The consequences of fatherless children are larger than the consequences of some people dying earlier than they otherwise would have, had they benefited from expensive operations/healthcare.
2) The idea that healthcare is a right, that we should expect it without having to earn it, is a second problem. If a person can work to improve his own life, great. Why would I criticize him for doing so?
But demanding that my 100 closest neighbours have their wealth confiscated, so that my wonderful wife can have a life-saving operation, is not reasonable. It is absolutely understandable. And emotional. And greedy and selfish. Yes, it is greedy and selfish to demand that I benefit from your labour, whatever my reason. If I ask you to contribute, that is another situation. But forced theft through taxation is not a voluntary contribution.
I do understand the parent who wants free resources to benefit his dying child. But I do not agree it is an intelligent way to run an economy.
3) A third problem is that neither solution will result in “sufficient” healthcare for everyone. So it is kind of a deceitful argument. (Unintentionally of course.)
Countries with social healthcare have waiting lists, because the big brother government has to pay for everything, but does not have unlimited resources. Plus, every time you run money through a bureaucrat’s hands, some money is wasted (salary, his benefits, typical government inefficiently, etc.), so LESS money is available OVERALL than would be with option 2.
So this option does not in fact provide enough to satisfy everyone.
And with option 2, there will obviously be families where the man failed in some career, so has little money available for his family. Or maybe the operation is so expensive that it is unreasonable to expect a typical family to be able to afford it. Or maybe he chooses to not pay, and allows one child to die. Or maybe he chose to not pay for health insurance even though he could have.
So this option also does not provide enough to satisfy everyone.
Since I view the destruction of society as a larger problem than the problem of some people dying sooner, this largely makes up my mind re which is the better choice. But I will not claim that either option would satisfy the healthcare demands of everyone; neither will.
And Derek is correct; this is definitely a political conversation.
Either way, it.s important to own up to bad predictions
Your humility and honest are absolutely worthy of respect. I commend you for choosing to bring this past mistake up, and correct it.
I’ll see your anecdote and raise you another.
Our family met a Canadian couple whose daughter was nearly killed when her surgery was botched by her assigned Canadian doctor. She required subsequent spinal surgery (w/ >50% chance of death or paralysis) and the Canadian medical system denied their request to switch away from the doctor who botched the original surgery.
They mortgaged their house, ceased operating their business, and asked family, friends, and strangers to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars. They came to Florida to the same practice that we take our daughter to. There, one country’s most renowned pediatric orthopedic surgeons operated on her. Even so, she nearly died on the operating table, but she made it out alive. Then she nearly bled out in her room. She was in ICU for months. Her bills were in the many millions, but her life was saved and her condition restored. In Canada, she probably would have died.
The anecdotal fallacy cuts both ways.
Dear Derek:
For a while now, I’ve suspected you didn’t know the definition of the word ‘anecdote,’ and my suspicions have been confirmed. For example, after Jason said:
You replied:
That’s not an anecdote. The truth of Jason’s proposition is easily verifiable:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, today’s prices in 2020 are 674.49% higher than average prices since 1967. The U.S. dollar experienced an average inflation rate of 3.94% per year during this period, meaning the real value of a dollar decreased.
$87,000 in 1967 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $673,801.98 in 2020, a difference of $586,801.98 over 53 years.
If anything, Jason was being overly conservative.
Then you go on to provide an actual anecdote:
Because non-Canadian physicians in our capitalist utopia never fuck up…
A former doctor at an Arkansas Veterans Affairs hospital who was accused of being intoxicated at work was indicted on multiple charges, including involuntary manslaughter after three patients who he misdiagnosed died of cancer.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/doctor-accused-being-drunk-work-indicted-deaths-three-patients-n1044911
The irony is that I live in the U.S. by choice, and have regularly lampooned the ridiculous constellation of states-of-affairs extant in my originary confederation… but we can’t really criticize any other country on earth, on this topic, because our health-care delivery system is the most corrupt, inefficient, and ridiculous in the whole course of human history.
You mean they weren’t welcomed to our country — the wealthiest and most powerful country in the history of humanity — so that their kid could get the care and medicine she needed for a basic level of normal subsistence? I feel sorry for that family, which saw their entire life’s produce wiped out simply because their child needed to see an American doctor. I feel equally sorry for the millions of other families in their situation, which is why I criticize this nonsense.
The U.S.A. is superior to Canada in nearly every respect. I think the U.S.A. could easily beat Canada by this metric, too. I mean, ‘being better than Canada’ isn’t a very high bar.
Yes, that is correct. Every alternative has trade-offs and there are no simple solutions, but it is easy to make things worse.
There are problems in the U.S. system (shown by Jason and Boxer), but these are irrelevant to satisfying the healthcare demands of everyone. Like wealth, it is easy to redistribute who can get health care and easy to limit overall access, but in practice doing the former causes the latter. Alternatives that lower per capita wealth (e.g. socialist universal health care) are counterproductive. It is difficult to increase overall access, so someone has to lose.
Waiting lists are common in the U.S. My premiums have doubled since the ACA and my children are routinely on wait lists varying from months to years. One child has been waiting for a surgery for over a year due to scheduling and denied coverage (see below).
One child gets denied almost every time an MRI or blood work is needed, forcing an appeal every time. Another needs daily shots with a 2 week supply and the insurance kept denying the prescription, forcing hours on the phone every couple of weeks because they can’t remember that it was just approved previously. We have even had to seek the help of our local state representative to ensure coverage. Insurance is not even remotely close to a solution (as my anecdote showed), let alone a magic pill.
…and it is personal.
I’d estimate that our family has incurred $750,000 to $1,000,000 in medical expenses over the last few years, mostly so my kids can walk. The first time I received a bill listing $250,000 in expenses, I almost panicked. We are lucky to have health insurance, so the majority of that was covered, but I’d have gone into debt over and over again if I had to. We have received a lot of charity by friends, family, strangers, and organizations dedicated to bridging insurance gaps, because America really is a great place to live.
If I lived in socialist Canada, my daughter would have had her legs amputated to save the State money. In communist China, my kids would have been prostitutes, sex slaves, beggars, or dead.
The more socialist the U.S. health care system becomes (e.g. ACA) the worse it gets. The comments by Boxer and Jason seem to imply that I should feel bad for not wanting to exchange even more money and health care or the ability of my children to walk, so that some stranger can benefit. I object to that on moral, ethical, economic, and political grounds.
Canada is not a socialist country.
Bullshit. ^^^
LOL! I wasn’t arguing that Jason got inflation numbers incorrect!
Jason’s anecdote was his whole comment (which I didn’t bother to quote) leading to the conclusion that they got screwed with a large >$500k bill (which is true). I countered with another anecdote showing the same thing, except that it made Canada the villain instead of the U.S.
The point of this little exercise is to point out that these kinds of stories are not persuasive or demonstrative of much of value. In your earlier post, you raised other socialist systems as somehow superior to the U.S. Perhaps this is just an epic troll, but you got a lot of people trying convert you to “Capitalist Jesus” in response….
I cited the American Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook on infant mortality, and I cited an ABA reviewed study on bankruptcies, half-a-millon a year of which are caused by the insane costs of medical care in the United States.
The fact that the U.S.A. (the wealthiest and most advanced nation in the history of human self-organization) is worse on keeping babies alive than a communist shithole like Cuba is indicative of very serious structural problems. I don’t know why you’d deny this, but anyway…
This is an absolute travesty. A few trillionaires stole the bulk of that money. That is money which ought to have gone to build a business or buy a home for your eldest daughter and her husband when she gets married. How is it that you’re blind to this? I am honestly curious.
You have no idea what you are talking about (see here.
We see the doctor who invented the procedures. The only ones that save limbs over amputation are the ones he has trained. Very few doctors even know about the restoration option, let alone have the skills or experience. The vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of these procedures are performed by two doctors: Dr. Paley and Dr. Standard, both American.
Here in America every doctor we visited wanted to amputate. Every. Single. One. We had to do our own research to find Dr. Paley. Once we decided to go that route, it was a small nightmare trying to get insurance to cover the procedure.
I just don’t see how “great” our healthcare is when 30 million are without insurance (and the law says they are supposed to have insurance) and if you do get it…..good luck trying to find a doctor who will take your plan. I had a checkup a year ago, my first one in two decades. Everything is fine….doctor told me to quit smoking, and I still got a co-pay bill of $50.00 for him telling me this, and it took four months to get an appointment. I evidently belong to one of the better health providers in California (Kaiser) I would hate to have an operation, or actually need tests or a procedure done. I might wait a year.
The American medical system says they have a crisis of licensed nurses (the lack of) even before this virus, and yet most nursing students in the USA cannot pass state board exams hence why we have to import them from India and the Philippines.
We also have a problem with people who run to the emergency room for anything, tying up the system further. When I did not have medical care, in 2007….my appendix was about to rupture. I went to an ER in San Francisco. I waited 11 hours back breaking PAIN and when they FINALLY did see me, my appendix had already ruptured, thus me having to spend an additional three days in the hospital. My out of pocket cost was 18,500.00 and it was cheaper because I qualified for a program in the hospital “trust fund” that covered 70% of the cost. I was grateful, and I shut-up and arranged monthly payments on the bill. That bill was just cleared up last year.
I don’t think socialized medicine is the full solution. Nor do I think the Republican solution of “medical savings accounts” (that expire in a year, sure….I’m gonna put $2000.00 away a year, and if don’t use it…POOF…..gone, sorry, too bad, no you can’t use it, you should go out and get a better job with better healthcare) and who has plenty of extra cash floating around in the working class to even do this?
If we are going to go the route of Europe and Canada……..lets’ do what they do. Malpractice is capped. hell, a doctor makes an honest mistake and hospitals are sued into closure. Look what happened to rural American with its hospital systems. Malpractice and lawsuits sank, and killed them. In my hometown, we had a nearby hospital in Saranac Lake, NY. Closed. Sued out of existence. Now, a guy has a stroke in my hometown and has to take a 30 minute plus ambulance ride to Plattsburgh. You just lost most of your brain function even if you do live.
As for the manosphere being dead? Entertaining as it is……what needs to be said, has been said a gazillion times: feminism bad, read Roosh, learn Game, worship Rollo, read this, read that, looks don’t matter, they do…but only a little, be funny, be a boss, do this, do that………
and then the final cherry
“there are no good women left”
and even if there are 10% left, 90% of the men who strive to the impossible standards of all the help, and advice still won’t find one.
If you want to know why the man-o-sphere is dead read the comments in MGTOW, and any man-o-sphere advice page. Hardly inspiring and on the christian side of things……maybe twenty are going to heaven the rest are sinners, chumps, betas, losers, mouth-breathers, cucks and zero hope for them
Canada is not a socialist country.
??? Maybe it’s been awhile since you visited… Getting a tax bill of 20k CAD combined for municipal/provincial/federal makes me think something is up.
Free K-12 schooling. This is socialist/communist, not capitalist. (Whether you think free schooling is good or not is another matter, but it is socialist/communist.)
Free healthcare.
Free money each month, regardless of any taxes paid, just because you are old. (OAS)
Subsidized university if you are normal, free university if you were previously on Employment Insurance.
Admittedly, you know your terms far better than I do, so if you want to argue that these examples of taxpayers-pay-and-everyone-gets-free are not “socialism” but rather “XXXism”, fine. But they certainly are not examples of capitalism.
Given that the USA has at least some of the above, I would argue the USA is at least partly communist as well. Again, whether that is good or not is a separate question.
Dear JPF:
You’ve asked a really great question. This is not at all meant to be eristic or inflammatory, because you’re making some assumptions that are so common as to be universal among people in North America. Having social programs to dissipate revolutionary tendencies in a capitalist society doesn’t make that society a socialist or communist one.
Socialism and socialists are well-defined terms, and it’s important that we use them correctly. If we do otherwise, we don’t really make sense when we communicate. Canada is not a socialist country, and the best way for me to illustrate as much is to give you a little thought experiment. Let’s suppose that the revolution consolidated yesterday, and that Comrade Boxer is now the Party’s general secretary. Here is what I’d do to bring Socialist Canada up to speed…
A socialist state nationalizes the means of production. What this means, in plain language, is that huge Canada-centric* corporations like Imperial, RBC and Shaw would be broken up into regional cooperatives, which will be owned and controlled by their workers, and governed by an elected council.
This shouldn’t seem too foreign, because this is exactly the way American utility companies were founded during the new deal.
Another aspect of nationalizing the means of production concerns real property. I’m guessing you pay a mortgage, rent or taxes, in return for the privilege of living in your pad. That all stops immediately. Every Canadian has 7 calendar days to go down to his local housing office, and obtain title deed to his primary residence. Your title to the property allows you some familiar privileges. For example, you can will it to one of your kids when you die. It does not give you the right to sell the property, and it doesn’t allow for the property to be rented out at a profit. The land of Canada is the collective property of all Canadians, and it’s reasonable for individual Canadians to use the land to live and work on.
This cuts both ways, because if you have investment property that you’re ripping some tenants off for, that ends too. Sorry about that. It’s just the new order of things. All those foreign interventionists from China who have bought up waterfront condos in Vancouver as investments lose those, and the empty properties will be redistributed to Canadian families.
Derek’s got things backwards. Hospitals and clinics (which are private in Canada) will be nationalized, and insurance schemes like OHIP and ICBC will serve zero purpose in our new socialist economy, since there will be area doctors and regional hospitals, paid for by the state, whose job it is to care for people without any supplemental payment. All those parasitic middlemen (and they exist in Canada too, even if the system isn’t as obscene as the one in the U.S.A.) will be expected to be good socialists and quit riding the coattails of the sick and the elderly. They can report for productive work immediately.
This is a very brief, and incomplete picture of how actual socialist economies operate. I hope it illustrates the difference between social programs in a capitalist economy (which merely serve to dissipate revolutionary tendencies) and the authentic workings of a socialist state.
For more details, you can check this out:
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch28.htm
*I call these monstrous corporations “Canada-centric” because while they’re headquartered in Canada, and while they largely exploit Canadians, they have zero loyalty to the nation or people. They’re trans-national corporations, and they treat people where they’re headquartered just like natives in some conquered province.
Would you say that China is communist?
As a casual lurker and someone who in occasion read Roosh’s old ROK sure, sometimes I think he’s full of it. At least and just by looking at him and by having a friend of mine read his works, I do believe that Tucker Max was a poon slayer. Roosh? Meh, not so much. He definitely doesn’t strike me as a very confident man. He does strike me as a wannabe Quagmire that tried too hard to pick women up. In shirt, he sounds like he made a lot of his exploits up. And now he wants to be a missionary for Christ. Of course.
Id say China is dictatorship with somw “theororhetical” trappings of Marxism it once strived for and failed at. All movements in China since 1949 have all come from the top levels. That includes “the great leap forward” and “the cultural revolution” and even the so called pro democracy movement that climaxed in June 1989. I was almost 19 when that happened.
The party pushes, tests, pulls back and extends and then changes the narrative and in Orwellian fashion denies ever making past statements or taking certain stances. The CCP of today is a far, far cry from the Marxism of Mao in 1966. Yet, one thing that Mao would applaud and approve of: the party exists only of and for itself. It doesnt matter to the modern CCP if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. China today is probably best summed up as a small letter “c” communist country; but still can change rhe narrative and would have zero problem letting millions of its own citizens or comrades die in the name of “the party” still being in charge.
The cultural revolution was a huge success according to the CCP desoite setting the nation back almost ten years and pretty much having a small scale internal civil war on its hands from 1966 thru 1969. It didnt matter. It was directed from the top. The goal was to destroy the vestments of the ancient culture of manners and courtly practice and its customs to mindless “me first” and cold society to its fellow comrades by only having “the party” as the sole giver of what is moral or right or needed “right now”
China plays very long game. Its people may suffer but its only for the sake if “the party” no matter how far or close it swings to and from marxism
Dear Fellas:
Great questions. Please see inside text…
Derek writes:
Marxist-Leninist philosophy holds that communism is presently impossible. Marx assumed that the historical dialectic would posit communism at some future time. You’ll note that in the heady days of the 1930s USSR, they always talked about “building Communism” rather than having established a communist state.
What I think Derek really meant to ask was whether contemporary China was a socialist state, which was on its way to opening up the possibility of communism. My opinion is that it is not.
Jason answers:
This is an astute comment for a number of reasons, mostly because it echoes Leon Trotsky in The Revolution Betrayed.
In Chapter 5 of this book, Uncle Leo makes the same comments about the USSR that Jason makes about China. Under Lenin, property was collectivized and redistributed, the civil war was won, and real political power was in the process of being ceded to municipalities. The Red Army was in the process of being liquidated, and the New Economic Plan (which allowed sole proprietors to open their own businesses) was being implemented. Suddenly, Lenin croaks, and in the process of fighting over the successorship, a bunch of bureaucrats realize that they’re at the wheel.
So, when the bureaucrats realize that they are in the position to take political power, they tend to do it, and they tend to run their politics to benefit themselves. Originally, the bureaucrats swore that they were appointed to a temporary, provisional role in the dictatorship of the proletariat. But when they get the chance, they make their roles permanent, and their office becomes the dictatorship of the bureaucrats.
What this has the effect of doing is just instituting a new ruling class, which is cleverly disguised as “the communist party,” and with their symbols and slogans they get to dissipate revolutionary sentiment even as they begin riding the coattails of actual working people who are creating all the wealth in the society. It’s a simulation, in the Baudrillard sense, and it’s a dreadful situation.
So Trotsky talked about the process in 1930s Russia, and Jason talked about the process in 1960s China, and they both told identical stories, because the historical process is essentially the same. That’s why the answer to “Is China a socialist nation” is ‘no.’ It has many of the trappings of a socialist state, but it’s what Trotsky called a “degenerated worker’s state,” and what Friedrich Engels called “state monopoly capitalism.”
@Boxer
First, thanks for the primer Boxer. I won’t pretend to be an expert on everything, so I appreciate swiping knowledge from you.
nationalizes the means of production
Based on your comments and the linked article, I think a (crude) summarization of your views is that “socialism” would be: The state has taken ownership of all means of production. This would include all companies. It would likely also include all farms, regardless of how small, since they produce food. The state distributes the wealth from the companies they own, as the state sees fit.
Whereas “socialist programs in a non-socialist country” would be: You can own all the property you want. The government will tax your ass and redistribute the wealth you earned to the people* as the state sees fit. But this is not socialism, because the government does not own the companies.
I do not mean this as a snide comment, but rather simply to be more honest/complete: I think the above definition should be amended to “…redistribute the wealth you earned to all people, regardless of how lazy or ineffective each person is, as the state sees fit”. Whether we think socialism is assessed to be “good” or not, I think it is important point to admit the weaknesses in any system. And rewarding those who do not work is certainly a weakness.
I should also point out that I do not advocate pure capitalism either. I’ll give a summary of my opinion later; don’t have time now.
if you have investment property that you.re ripping some tenants off for, that ends too.
A friend said this is exactly what happened in Venezuela. If you had two or more houses, you now had only one. The others were given to the state, without compensation.
Just as there is no nation that is perfectly “capitalist”, I am sure the argument could be made that Venezuela is not perfectly “socialist”, but at least on this point the Venezuelan government matches your description of socialism.
And, despite having huge oil wealth, that socialism country has massive poverty; my friend’s family fled from there, going to Mexico.
Hospitals and clinics (which are private in Canada) will be nationalized
You lost me here. Some clinics are privately owned, yes. But all the hospitals I have visited are owned/run/funded by the provincial government. Maybe things are different in B.C.?
Or maybe you meant that only clinics are private, which matches my experience.
The following are excerpts from the USSR article you linked. I know you did not write the article, so my responses are not meant to be attacks on you. In addition, I am still reading this article with my (current) understanding, which may be a bit different than yours.
(1) … In the capitalist economic system the means of production are the private property of the capitalists and landowners and consequently the products of labour also belong to the capitalists and landowners.
This is a very skewed view of capitalism. At a capitalist company with 100 workers, there is not one capitalist. There are 101 — the company owner, plus the 100 workers.
A worker is, in himself, a means of production. When an artist works for one month, he creates a painting.
Every worker at the company is producing services. And the company owner has to pay that capitalist for his work. If the capitalist worker decides the company owner is not paying enough, the capitalist worker leaves and goes elsewhere.
Granted, since the worker has only himself, and not some expensive equipment/land, it could be argued he has no “capital”. But at least here, we talk about having “human capital”, such as your skills, training, work-ethic, etc.
(2) The socialist system of national economy means that the exploitation of man by man has been abolished
This article was written by the USSR, so it will have their bias. But still… who honestly believes that the workers are not exploited in a socialist country? I don’t mind a person having other opinions, but at least be honest.
My grandmother-in-law, from the USSR, recounted that the Soviet soldiers came to her family farm and stole all the food they had grown. “Either stand by and do not interfere while I take your food, or I’ll kill you.” Now, I admit, this is perfectly acceptable behaviour, according to the socialist model. The government owns the means of production, including your farm, so why the hell does the farmer think she should be permitted to eat the food that her family worked to produce?
Oh, and her family went hungry after that, not having enough to eat. At least they did not die.
But regardless of whether this taking of her food was good according to the socialist model, any idiot can see that this worker was exploited. “You work, but I’ll take the product.”
(3) Socialist production develops in a planned way and without interruption. The steady rise in the living standards
Case study 1: Russia, despite enslaving and mooching off 15 other countries, still went bankrupt.
Case study 2: Venezuela
Case study 3: Cuba
Case study 4: Any and every other socialist or semi-socialist country that has existed in history.
(4) In socialist society each worker receives material wealth according to the quantity and quality of his labour
For this one, I am puzzled. In your comment, you mentioned that a person who had two houses and rented one out could no longer do so.
But this point #4 suggests that a man could work hard, accumulate wealth, and then accumulate (additional) real property with that wealth.
The article seems to explain this apparent contradiction, by explaining that a person can own a small amount of property, but not a big company:
small-scale private property of the peasants, artisans and handicraftsmen which is based on their personal labour. In the course of the socialist revolution large-scale capitalist property is expropriated and passes into the hands of the socialist State. Hence there arises State (public) socialist property. At the same time the programme of scientific communism rejects the expropriation of the peasants, artisans, and handicraftsmen as a hostile and criminal method.
So you can get ahead in life, but only a small amount.
Thanks for the ideas and input Boxer. And for the article.
Dear JPF:
Thanks for a very interesting rebuttal. Please see inside text…
What we have to define here is what we mean by ‘the state’. In a socialist society, most political power defers to local soviets and individual families. A central government would be necessary for things like monetary policy and organizing interstate highways, but that’s about it.
So if that’s our definition, what’s the problem with ‘the state’ seizing the means of production? That means that you’d be part owner in the factory you work at, and you’d be an owner of your own home and your stuff. ‘The state’ controls that stuff, because ‘the state’ is you and your neighbors.
The second part of your statement is basically true, with the caveat that ‘ownership’ in a capitalist society is always illusory. What if you quit paying your local property taxes? In B.C. they get a writ and suddenly you can’t sell the property… and eventually you get thrown out into the streets.
Certainly, workers were exploited in the U.S.S.R., and if you read Trotsky’s book, you’ll get the finer details. This tendency toward bureaucracy is the first great weakness of a socialist society. I’ll tell you the second in just a little bit.
This is a really astute bit of analysis on your part. There’s a lot of work done by people like John and Barbara Ehrenreich, that explores how workers have transformed themselves into a sort of managerial class. The frankfurt school guys and Gramsci and Luk?cs and all sorts of other people hint in this direction, too.
In the U.S.S.R., many families were encouraged to take extra property and build little lake cottages and things on them. This was a cheap and fun way to get people out of town for a couple of weeks, and it also had the benefit of bringing labor and money into underdeveloped regions. I think the hope would be that over the course of generations, there would be a de-urbanization (big cities are seen as inherently unhealthy and degenerate in Marxist-Leninist praxis) as people willed these little houses out to kids, who would then move permanently.
However, people were absolutely not allowed to rent these second homes out for profit, or to run hotels, or anything similar. The property was expected to sit vacant most of the year, unless you wanted to give it away to your daughter as a wedding gift.
Anyway, since we’re talking about the inherent structural problems of socialist societies, I’ll tell you the biggest one. It’s what caused the unprecedented invasion of the U.S.S.R. by Germany in the 1930s. The de-evolution of political power to local groups leaves individuals and families very vulnerable to militarized neighbors. If ‘the army’ has been redefined as you, and your immediate countrymen, who maybe have a single piece of artillery and an AK-47 in the garage, then you’re easy prey for the big professional army just over the border.
Anyway, I hope this is helpful.
Boxer
Boxer you are referring to the vacation cottage. The one thing it did do…..it ended up producing over 60% of the Soviet Unions’ fresh vegetables. Something the communes could not do.
Communism to me was like the two hands with no thumbs. Sure…could get that sewer system built. It could get that hydro project done and bring water and electricty but couldnt make the light bulbs and toasters.
Whereas .socialist programs in a non-socialist country. would be: You can own all the property you want. The government will tax your ass and redistribute the wealth you earned to the people* as the state sees fit. But this is not socialism, because the government does not own the companies.
You’ve just described Fascism. The means of production are (ostensibly) privately owned, but are heavily regulated by the State, often to the point where private ownership is effectively meaningless because the nominal owner has no actual say over the distribution of fruits of production.
A friend said this is exactly what happened in Venezuela. If you had two or more houses, you now had only one. The others were given to the state, without compensation.
Just as there is no nation that is perfectly .capitalist., I am sure the argument could be made that Venezuela is not perfectly .socialist., but at least on this point the Venezuelan government matches your description of socialism.
And, despite having huge oil wealth, that socialism country has massive poverty; my friend.s family fled from there, going to Mexico.
Venezuela is simply in a state of collapse, the government being without the means to effectively or consistently enforce its ideology on any level.
I can tell you from personal experience that ownership of multiple properties is still not only possible, but very commonplace. My wife and I own two properties ourselves down there, one a condominium that my oldest stepson lives in, the other a brand new luxury townhouse that my wife and I will one day retire to when sanity is restored down there. The key to owing multiple properties in Venezuela is to ensure that they’re inhabited by either family members or paying renters who are in a position to consistently pay their bills (there actually still are such people still in the country, although they’re becoming a dying breed as conditions grow more desperate). It’s when your property is unoccupied for any length of time that it falls prey to squatters who have the sanction and blessing of the regime to “claim ownership of” excess property. The reiging Chavistas have bloviated endlessly for years about fully nationalizing all property, but it hasn’t happened and probably never will, because right now they’re spending all their energy just trying to stay in power. Nicolas Maduro is without doubt THE most clueless, incompetent, and inept person ever to run a Latin American nation, even by that region’s below-the-bottom-of-the-barrel standards. The moment Vladimir Putin and Xi Jin Ping’s patience and wallets are finally exhausted, they’ll withdraw their support (these ain’t the old days where ideology is supreme and money is no object in spreading world revolution). Once that happens, Chavism, a bastardized socialism that would be hilarious if were not for the horrific destruction it has caused, will be history, along with the buffoons who are still trying to force it on the country.
But getting back to the point of nationalized property, it’s not happening anywhere in Venezuela on a consistent scale. For example, my mother-in-law is about to sell the house in Maracay that my late FiL built 50 years ago when my wife was born, a house located in a not-very-nice city with high crime rates even by Venezuelan standards, BUT a house that she already has three generous offers for. What’s preventing her from selling it isn’t any government laws against private property sales, but the fact that she needs to present a copy of my late FiL’s national ID card in order to transfer the deed to the bew buyer. It’s a document that she apparently can’t locate, so the sale ou s stymied by bureaucracy, as would be the case in any other country in any other part of the world. There’s still a functioning real estate market in Venezuela, although one with few participants given current conditions.
So, to sum up the point of my long-winded anecdote, Venezuela TALKS Socialism, but doesn’t really DO Socialism, simply because it long ago ran out of “other people’s money”. I’ll spare you all any more detailed examples for now, which would begin with personal horror stories involving the wreckage of the country’s once-first-rate national health care system.
Thank you Boxer, for a discussion that has been both very informative and interesting.
Damn… this was far longer than I intended. Anyway…
In a socialist society, most political power defers to local soviets and individual families. A central government would be necessary for things like monetary policy and organizing interstate highways, but that.s about it.
Never thought that I would see similarities between socialists and libertarians. .. Freedom for each family unit would be very positive in my view.
I’ve mentioned elsewhere my (somewhat uneducated) opinion that the national government should constrain itself to items of national importance, such as national defense, national safety and perhaps national infrastructure projects to enable economic activity.
The national defense one would deal with your point about the inherent structural problem of a bunch of independent, small militias.
Although one major difference is that I disapprove of all forms of social programs that are free to all and forcibly paid for by some. Also all forms of handouts/tax breaks for privately-owned companies (corporate welfare).
[family-unit…] So if that.s our definition, what.s the problem with .the state. seizing the means of production?
One problem relates to the question of what are we seizing.
If you are seizing a factory with equipment… well, who built and paid for it? Someone had to have the resources, vision, drive, skill and luck to build up that means of production. (Assuming we are not discussing just a family farm.)
a) eventually the asset/company will wear out or become obsolete due to changing economy or technology
b) *if* you have a growing population, which admittedly may not apply, then you will need more companies tomorrow than you have today, due to need for more jobs
Due to both of the above, we can assume a need for more companies / means of production to be created in the future.
But by seizing the fruits of his labours yesterday, you (almost) guarantee that the visionary who built the last asset/company will not build a new one tomorrow. And his buddies will likely be unwilling to put in the effort/investment either
Granted, the state (whether that be a national state or a family-unit state) can build one tomorrow.
But a family-unit state may not have the talent necessary to build/run a company. Not every man is fit to manage, assess risks, project customer demands/etc.
I should refrain from making judgements on the efficacy of USSR-nationally-planned/built companies, since I did not live there. Although the whole going-bankrupt thing, which ended the cold war does, I think, give a valid basis for judgement. (Sure, there was an arms race, but the US was paying the same costs and has continued to survive.)
Similarly, the horrid finances of the US and Canadian national governments give a valid basis for judgements of how they choose to spend money. The fact we have not gone bankrupt yet does not prove we are doing well/wisely.
.ownership. in a capitalist society is always illusory
+1. I have to emphatically agree, at least for Canada. Trudeau Sr. removed the right to private property from the Constitution when he repatriated it decades ago.
And your point about not paying your property taxes will quickly prove your point, should anyone want to argue with you…
My in-laws are from a former slave-state of the USSR. (Is my bias showing?) They report that they do not pay any property taxes. If they buy an apartment, there may be a monthly fee assessed to pay for the woman at the front door or something, but there are no municipal/state/national taxes. My wife had to tell me this about three times; not because I do not trust her, but because this situation is SO outside what seems “normal” to me that I felt the need to clarify or ensure I understood correctly.
In particular, I find it interesting that they pay 0 taxes for their farm and the house upon it — good luck finding that scenario in Canada/USA.
Off topic, but also interesting to me is that, if they stop using electricity and water, their utility costs go to 0. By contrast, in my Canadian city, there are minimum fees for the provision of gas, electricity, water and garbage pickup. The fact that you are gone for a year, and use nothing, is irrelevant to your need to pay those minimums. And again, if you fail to pay, your home will be confiscated and sold to pay the debt. Which reinforces your point about ownership…
big cities are seen as inherently unhealthy and degenerate in Marxist-Leninist praxis
+1
Some have the idea that a few large companies with thousands of workers is better than many small companies with few workers. This type of scenario could exist in either a socialist state or a capitalist state. A “degenerated socialist state” would like this for the easier control of workers and economy by the Party, and the latter would like this for the ability to have one (greedy) owner profiting off the labour of thousands.
A large city would be necessary for servicing the needs of large companies, such as regional power plants or large factories.
I think in either, but for sure at least in a capitalist society, it is better to have many small companies. Higher independence for each family/worker. More work opportunities — pissing off the manager at one company only excludes you from taking one of the 10 positions at that particular company, rather than the 10,000 positions at that particular (mammoth) company.
Higher ability to find a job that suits your particular personality / skills due to the larger variety of companies from which to choose.
Higher responsiveness, as small, local companies adapt to the peculiarities of their local populace.
This ignores potential extra profit from economies of scale or research that can be done by large companies or cooperatives… but if most of that extra profit goes to only a few, is the nation really better to pursue that?
Having social programs to dissipate revolutionary tendencies in a capitalist society doesn.t make that society a socialist or communist one.
I found this point from your comments highly interesting.
I’ll simplify and claim there are only two types of capitalist society. In the first, we have a capitalist class that (largely) cannot be dislodged or joined by the unwashed masses. If you were born to the wrong family, then tough luck for you; you have almost no chance of changing your fortune or that of your sons. Think of the ancient feudal societies in Europe, where one land owner owned the means of production — the farms — for miles around. The peasants did not work their own farm; they worked the lord’s farm. And the lord had the “right” to swipe a bunch of their produce, on the claim that he was providing services, such as the farm itself, defense, etc. Whether the peasants wanted or ever agreed to this exchange was irrelevant.
In this first type of society, I would personally have great sympathy with the revolutionary tendencies. One guy forcibly mooching off of others, despite their choices, seems difficult to justify.
Suppose we have a second type of capitalist society however. For honesty, I’ll admit I am swiping this from the Bible.
In this society, it is forbidden, by law, for any landowner to EVER, under ANY circumstances, to buy more farmland. Your family has your own farm, which was assigned to your ancestors in the original land distribution, and that is all you will ever own. (And technically it is owned by God, not you, but your family gets to work and benefit from the farm, so it is largely the same in effect.)
You can rent someone else’s farm, for a maximum of up to 50 years. Even if grandpa was a drunken fool, and “sold” the farm away, after 50 years the land reverted back to the family.
The best a rich capitalist could do, is to rent the farms from many individual families, then pay workers to work those rented farms and then take/sell the produce. He could never permanently claim that means of production.
So in this respect, we would have a classic family-unit level of socialist society. The family owns the means of production. I can NEVER expropriate your farm, buy it, or permanently put a lien on it for debts (50 year limit applies).
But… there is no national welfare. There are 2 forms of private welfare, listed below. If your grandfather sold the farm for a 49-year period, the father and son may be very poor. Too bad for them — no social safety net through forced taxation.
Welfare forms:
#1 – For all farms, whether rented or used by the proper family, it is forbidden to harvest to the edge of the field. It is also forbidden to go over the crop more than once, in an attempt to get every last grain of wheat/grape/whatever. The excess is to be left for the poor. Any poor person who wanted, could go into your field AFTER your own harvesters do the first pass, and harvest whatever they could find.
But… if the poor person is lazy, then he can starve. Don’t feel like walking to the field, harvesting wheat, grinding it, and making bread? You are welcome to go hungry. There is no national/regional program to give you free food, just because you exist.
#2 – Every third year, every person is to give 10% of their profit to the poor.
But… There was no national collection of these moneys, to be distributed by beaurucrats who do not know the people that show up, claiming to be poor and needing money.
Instead, each person gives that 10% away to the poor, as he sees fit. He’ll probably give it to people that he actually knows. Suppose a lazy person fools the giver today. The lazy person gets the free cash/wheat/whatever, and then is hungry again tomorrow. The giver will eventually figure out the difference between the lazy moocher, and the poor person who made a mistake but learns/improves. Or from the poor person who is in a bad situation but not by choice, such as due to being an orphan or sick.
Just as importantly, the giver will be able to recognize a person who is poor due to their own contiuning foolish choices. A person may work hard, but keep making stupid choices. Such a person will learn fear due to going hungry; this will hopefully change his future choices.
#3 – This is not welfare, but is massively helpful to the poor. No profiteering through loans/debts.
a) Any debt, except for a family farm, is limited to 7 years. Any remaining balance becomes a gift, permanently unrecoverable. As mentioned above, the family farm is free-and-clear owned by the family every 50 years.
b) Any debt to your countryman must be interest-free. Profiting from a foreigner is fine, but not from your neighbour.
So no class/group of people can mooch off others through forced taxation and social programs.
In this capitalist (?) scenario, I think the “revolutionary tendencies” you mention are a feature, not a problem. If I go hungry, whether due to laziness or foolish choices, I will be motivated to change my own behaviour. And even if I do not, only one person / family starves; we are not a continuing, large drain on the whole region.
My dissatisfaction with my lot in live should motivate change. Go work on your farm. Save some of today’s produce for the future; you never know when there will be a drought. Learn a new skill. Stop being stupid.
So in this scenario, I think it is great if a person has stress due to a poor financial situation. Work to make your own life better.
I should admit to one massive problem however…. There are no longer countries that live by the second model. In Canada for example, almost no one has a personal/family farm. And any resource I make can be taken from me, via expropriation or due to debt — we have no permanent protection as described above. We also have virtual slaves, who pay bankers 20% interest for years on consumer debt.
Normally, I would admit that if you cannot find any examples of your “perfect society”, it is likely because there is some substantial fault with it. Similar to dismissing socialism due to the failure rate of countries that try it.
In this case, I will “claim” that no countries live by this model, because the current billionaires/oligarchs/elites have the power to prevent it. But anyone could claim this, so take that for what little it is worth.
For completeness, I’ll mention that in this second scenario the king was supposed to tax the people and take their sons for use in national defense. He was forbidden to build bigger palaces for himself (with tax money or otherwise) or to have many wives (thus stealing potential wives from the other men).
Anyway, this second model is the one I advocate. It is arguable as to whether it is truly “capitalistic”, given the family-unit level of social ownership. But each individual family will work and thrive or fail and starve. No social programs through forced taxation.
If nothing else, Boxer has helped me see to (more?) correctly label the socialist elements in the government structure God assigned to the nation of Israel. (And which they are currently completely ignoring.)
feeriker,
I really like your comments, and I want you to start blogging. With Dalrock quitting, we certainly could use new input. I apologize if I got too pushy on my site with my countdown. But, I was and still am quite excited to read your blogging when you get started. I started my blog when I got a 5-day disciplinary suspension from my work. It gave me the time to get started. In the end I filed a grievance and ended up getting paid for all my wrongful suspension days. They were just retaliating against me for exposing too much fraud. Anyhow, I don’t know if your schedule has gotten any lighter due to all this Wu-Flu panicking, but I’d like to encourage you to start your blog if it has. I’m anxious to link to it. Boxer here was the person who encouraged me to start blogging. And I put it off for quite a while, because I sometimes have perfectionist tendencies. I didn’t want to do it poorly. Anyhow, I’m blogging now, often poorly, but hopefully learning and getting a bit better. I’m also getting bits of truth out! I think I’m at my best when I feel led to blog about a topic, and at my worst when I just throw something together,because I haven’t posted in a couple of weeks. Based upon my traffic, many people check my blog every day, probably hoping for a new post. And since I’m really busy, and don’t post as often, I’m sure they’d also be excited to read new posts by yourself. And if you don’t want to spend the time to set up and post on your own site, I’d be happy to post your stuff, as boxer probably would also. Again I didn’t mean to offend you, if I did. I just think you should blog for my enjoyment, and because it would be a good thing to do!
Thanks @feeriker
It.s when your property is unoccupied for any length of time that it falls prey to squatters who have the sanction and blessing of the regime to .claim ownership of. excess property.
I’ll ask my friend next time I visit if they above situation applied in their case.
Always interesting when two “eye-witnesses” give massively conflicting accounts. I was going to suggest a timing issue, but your comments about your family indicate you and they have decades of history with that country.
Who the f*ck farms today??? Setting up a capitalust society and rules for farms???? Less than 1% of this country farms fir a living. The last huge drop was back in the early sixties when most of the remaining family farms went bust.
In this society we’re all going to herd goats? Live on a farm? I know country music makes it sound as if 50% of the country “works on a farm” but the reality is most dont.
I grew up in the country and we had a large garden. Some goats. Chickens. Good luck teaching your wife to can fruits and veggies today.
My dad grew up on a working farm and it was a ton of work…sunup ti sundown. Little time to go have a beer with the boys or learn Game to find a wife. Even in the golden age of capitalism in the USA in the later gilded / victorian era farmers were getting properly screwed.
City folk and suburbanites still think all the fresh veggus at whole foods come from the little farm an hour drive away. No. Most of tge veggies come from my area. Fresno. Harvested by immigrants from Mexico who get little or nothing. That is partly why family farms went bust in the USA. Farming of course will be a good job for the unwashed masses and unintelligent. Farmers were once some if the more intelligent around. The elect again changed that
Sharkly:
I might very soon have beaucoup time to get the blog finished and rolling, as the contract position I’ve been working for the last nine months is SUPPOSED to end at the end of next month and I don’t currently have new work lined up (then again, the contract was supposed to end after three months, but they’ve extended me TWICE, so who knows what’ll happen next).
But hey, no sweat about the “pressure” over on your blog. I certainly didn’t take any offense to it. The only reason I haven’t been regularly commenting, at your place or anywhere else lately, is just because of the sheer insanity that has bern my life for the last year (I know that you, of all people, can relate). Between trying to get wifey extracted from Venezuela, to the job situation, to dealing with moving an ailing and aging mother to an assisted living arrangement from a thousand miles away, to the current Coronapanic, life hasn’t been dull or idle. I do, however, need to “defecate or get off the commode” with the blog, as I do have thoughts I’m eager to share that pertain to many aspects of life in our collapsing society. Rather than monopolize space on my red pill brethren’s blogs like I’m doing right now (sorry, Boxer!), I need to get my own rolling.
Anyway, I’ll definitely let everyone know as soon as the blog’s fully functional. I’ll need y’all’s help in tempering what will certainly be some of my more “unrestrained” commentary!
@feeriker
Wow! That’s a lot of tough stuff to do. Maybe you need to hire some contract help yourself! LOL
I’ll say a prayer for you.
@Jason
Thank you Jason, you pointed out something I meant to add but forgot…
The idea seemed to be that the family’s means of production was protected. It might (?) be a reasonable extension to give that protection to any other family-sized means of production you have built up. So your carpentry shop would be protected from being (permanently) seized, but if you own a mega mall that is a different story.
Although, merchants, black smiths and traders would have existed back then, and God did not choose to extend protection to the tools / properties for those trades. So maybe I should not be quick to try to “fix” God’s rules. Just protecting farms did protect a large portion of the populace at that time though; I assume the vast majority. But I did not do a census, so cannot promise.
Good luck teaching your wife to can fruits and veggies today.
No need. She already knows; she was raised on a farm. (After marriage) we lived together on her farm for a summer. I know there is a great deal of work to do. In the hot sun. Getting up at dawn so you can get a reasonable amount of work done without having to be outside during the heat of the day.
Although, the part that spoiled JPF disliked the most was the outhouse. Not so bad in the summer, but getting up in the middle of the night, in the winter, to walk out to the outhouse was enough to give me thoughts of home… hah hah
But if you were assuming I had a typical, spoiled, lazy Canadian/American wife, then your comment is largely fair I think.
Sharkly:
I.ll say a prayer for you.
Thanks, brother, and I’ll do the same for you (and everyone else in these “interesting times” we’re iiving through, times that are about to get even more interesting). Hope you’re holding up after all you’ve recently been through!
My father grew up on a farm. Even he wanted nothing to do with “full time farming” after he married. Sure, a garden. We had a pasture we let the neighboring farmer a few miles away cut, rake and bail hay from. A few goats we used as pets…..some chickens. A dog that was a good dog. A few barn cats, and only one of them was allowed in the house.
Most people cannot can food……and if not done right it can make you very sick. Most women…..even the most holy and set apart don’t know how to can food, or even cook today. It’s a skill.
I backpack and camp frequently. I am hardly Rambo, or some “survivalist” but I could handle thirty days in the deep forest with few supplies……beyond that, I would be in some trouble. If it was fall maybe fifteen days. If winter, try a few days tops. On my last long trek, the problem was keeping a fire going solo when its a downpour of rain, trying to dry clothing I had hiked in, and keep myself warm enough despite it being summer. The mosquitoes were also bad. It was days at times it rained thick and mean.
On the days of good weather I would reflect “how did we do it?” to myself as I hiked though the vlys and past streams, remote ponds. Over ancient mountains. I came to the conclusion that “that man” doesn’t exist anymore. We’re too tied to the culture and depend on the modern world. My hike was over two weeks in the wilds, but I knew it would “end” and I would return to modern society. What I pondered was…..what if there was no “society” to return to? I had lots of time to think about this. My conclusion was, despite my experience and abilities in the woods, and wilds……I would probably be able to hold out a bit longer than many folks….but even I would not be able to endure a winter, keep a fire going, hunt, dress game…fight off predators that would come to “eat” my game nor live without sleep protecting my camp in the woods. The ammo would run out…….the clothing would wear out. What if I broke my leg? Then what? My skills are solid, but even back in the homespun era……Grizzly Adams had to trade for ammo, molasses, nails, or rope……..he couldn’t even live “out there’ forever.
Survival skills seem to mean only ammo, guns, and tough talking in any prepper group. The real skills are a community of sorts. Not every man can do everything. Our society lacks trust, and could not survive too long if we as a society had to drop back to 1820, or earlier.
The man-o-sphere cannot even get along online. They cannot even agree on what “game” is or what the bible really means…but we’re all suddenly going to be able to switch back to 1765 on a dime because we think we can? We would kill each other first or starve debating about who should do the work and who should be the “leader” (because everyone of these clowns is some sort of great leader….which means they don’t do the work)
Farming would kill most of us…..living off the grid out the the Sierras, the Adirondacks or deep in the White Mountains of New Hampshire would not be long for most…..myself included.
I am glad your wife can do canned goods. I guess you’ll outlive us all.
What I pondered was…what if there was no .society. to return to?
Your comments show some intense self-reflection. That’s great.
And no… from what you describe, I think you would outlast me. My idea of “food-gathering” is going to the store. Stores are not dependable.
Even canning requires that you have the goods to start with. Either bought from the store, or grown over many months on the land.
As I said, insurance covers most of the expenses we incur. It takes a lot of effort (phone calls, letter writing, etc.) and stress to get it taken care of, but we have managed to find solutions so far. For example, insurance only covers a single set of prosthetics per year, but some children grow so much that they need 2 or 3. These normally cost many thousands of dollars, but we have been fortunate to get them mostly paid for by third-parties. There was one situation with the insurance company that reached the final stage of appeal, and we just barely avoided a large bill. My daughter is well known in the town we live in, and she’s been subject to a fair bit of community fund raising. All told, our family is stable financially: we have not had to go into debt. Sure, we live frugally, but it’s a comfortable life. It works for us.
It is really very, very complicated to answer your question.
My wife and I had two biological sons. We could have stopped then and lived the typical American life. We could have put the boys through college and purchased their first houses. But we didn’t do that. My wife is trained and works in the field of special needs and I have an excellent job with top-notch insurance. We live in an area with many high quality hospitals. So, we adopted three kids, all with special needs, knowing full well what the cost would be. We knew that doing so might mean sacrificing the idyllic American life (although, ironically, in doing so I think we found what matters most).
On one hand, I will extract more from governments, billionaires, and everyday taxpayers than I will ever put in. I already get way more than I deserve. In a way, I am entitled to your money because the government says so, but I don’t claim to deserve it. I want to work hard to earn and get what I need to survive. I don’t want you or anyone else to have to pay for it. I’m ashamed to take people’s charity. On the other hand, I’ll fight tooth-and-nail to provide for my family. I’ll take every cent that I am eligible to get from insurance and social and educational services. I’ll choke down my pride and take the charity that others offer out of love: not for me, but for my children.
When Trump was elected, I breathed a sigh of relief because I knew that there would be 4 more years of predictable health insurance. I knew Trump wouldn’t get us back to better pre-ACA days, but I also knew he wouldn’t make things worse. And he didn’t. But if another Obama-like president (or worse) were elected, I could see my medical coverage affected. If that were to occur, I could be potentially financially devastated. Sure, I’m saving up money in case that happens, but if it did that would be their inheritance. It is mostly out of my hands. I do, however, sincerely hope that Trump is elected for another 4 years, so that my children can be raised without that risk. I don’t like him, but he’s best for my family.
Does this make me selfish or a hypocrite? I don’t know. Maybe. Does this answer your question? I don’t know that either. I think I’m right in the arguments that I’ve made, but ultimately this is personal and I can’t lay claim to full rational objectivity.
Don’t worry…Trump is gonna fix everything! (lol) and many in the ‘sphere are saying this virus is going to “reset” gender relations, and women are going to start to appreciate men. Where have I heard this before?
*I was told this would be the case after 9/11. Men that ran up the Twin Towers to their death to rescue who they could. They died heroes. Women were going to “respect” men and their would be a good time of gender relations.
Nothing of the sort happened. At this time I was also told that that the Millennial Generation was going to be “conservative” too (Rush Limbaugh). He said this on many occasions. The man is wrong, deluded and senile…..hence why Trump gave him that medal. Actual heroes have died and still have the VA sending bills to families of the deceased
*I was told this during Gulf War I (1991) that the brave men defending my freedom (cough) I mean “the national interests” was going to usher in a new age of male / female relations, and it was going to heal and help because of all the great work the military was doing.
Nothing of the sort happened
*I was told in high school by the media, and even my parents that the AIDS crisis was going finally “end” the sexual revolution and lower divorce, open real discussion and help our horrible state of marriage. This was the mid 1980’s.
Nothing of the sort happened.
What will fix this? A total, world as we know it reset. This virus isn’t it. From day one when the US began to assemble the task force, the bean counters were out…upset that not enough women, young people, ethnic minorities were on the task force.
Even as people die, there are reports about how “racist” we still are because “minority populations” will be hit harder. Reports speaking about how sexist we are because not enough money is going for womens health.
If Trump is indeed the Alpha you all claim him to be, he would shut them up and speak facts. He’s more concerned about getting businesses back open at this moment. He’s still more concerned about digs at the opposition, and
The new normal will be after this:
The Man-O-Sphere will continue peddling most of its useless information. We will still all be told how to find some great woman, with a low N count, with no children, who can cook, clean, and ‘know her role’ and then be told “they don’t exist”
Practical advice to men on trying to navigate finances (an area that really needs to be taught), finding work after this mess, and how to get out of debt and survive the money crisis that we all will be in much sooner than later (the crash from which the recovery will be almost zero)