I do wonder if any government in charge for the bulk of the Covid pandemic has been reelected - but I haven’t checked.
There's a powerful anti incumbency effect at the moment (although it seems to be related to the period of inflation post Covid rather than Covid itself).
Yes, I am aware of that. As I stated, I am aware of their anger at Biden. But to think that Trump would be an improvement such that they are now complaining seems a bit rich.
Alternatively, given that transactional thinking seems to be the limit of Trump's understanding why wouldn't they make a transactional appeal.
Yes, I am aware of that. As I stated, I am aware of their anger at Biden. But to think that Trump would be an improvement such that they are now complaining seems a bit rich.
Alternatively, given that transactional thinking seems to be the limit of Trump's understanding why wouldn't they make a transactional appeal.
Because they're in a weak position and could have predicted that they would be stiffed!
I do wonder if any government in charge for the bulk of the Covid pandemic has been reelected - but I haven’t checked.
There's a powerful anti incumbency effect at the moment (although it seems to be related to the period of inflation post Covid rather than Covid itself).
Yes, I am aware of that. As I stated, I am aware of their anger at Biden. But to think that Trump would be an improvement such that they are now complaining seems a bit rich.
Alternatively, given that transactional thinking seems to be the limit of Trump's understanding why wouldn't they make a transactional appeal.
Because they're in a weak position and could have predicted that they would be stiffed!
They were in a weak position anyway and were already being stiffed.
I do wonder if any government in charge for the bulk of the Covid pandemic has been reelected - but I haven’t checked.
There's a powerful anti incumbency effect at the moment (although it seems to be related to the period of inflation post Covid rather than Covid itself).
But massive global natural disaster was always going to mean things were going to be pretty shit for years - surely this should be obvious ?
To an extent - but in many cases the perception was that governments had also handled things badly and/or used covid as an excuse to implement austerity in the aftermath.
Stephen Moore, a strong supporter of Trump, speaking from Mar-a-Largo and presumably echoing his master's voice, has advised the UK to distance itself from the EU, which he says has 'socialist leanings'. I well remember, at the time of accession to the EEC, that left-wingers were strongly opposed on the grounds that the Common Market was a prop for the capitallst system. A demonstration of the width of the Pond, or an example of the changes wrought by time?
Stephen Moore, a strong supporter of Trump, speaking from Mar-a-Largo and presumably echoing his master's voice, has advised the UK to distance itself from the EU, which he says has 'socialist leanings'. I well remember, at the time of accession to the EEC, that left-wingers were strongly opposed on the grounds that the Common Market was a prop for the capitallst system. A demonstration of the width of the Pond, or an example of the changes wrought by time?
The left still considers the EU a "capitalist club" but the vast majority are aware that (a) the US is worse and (b) a lot would have to change in the UK for the EU to be the biggest impediment to socialism
I well remember, at the time of accession to the EEC, that left-wingers were strongly opposed on the grounds that the Common Market was a prop for the capitallst system. A demonstration of the width of the Pond, or an example of the changes wrought by time?
I think it's as much that the right has moved much further away from internationalism and the left has embraced internationalism more.
Stephen Moore, a strong supporter of Trump, speaking from Mar-a-Largo and presumably echoing his master's voice, has advised the UK to distance itself from the EU, which he says has 'socialist leanings'.
Large parts of the American Right considers the Democratic Party 'socialist', I don't think Moore is using a definition that would be recognised in much of the rest of the world.
Stephen Moore, a strong supporter of Trump, speaking from Mar-a-Largo and presumably echoing his master's voice, has advised the UK to distance itself from the EU, which he says has 'socialist leanings'. I well remember, at the time of accession to the EEC, that left-wingers were strongly opposed on the grounds that the Common Market was a prop for the capitallst system. A demonstration of the width of the Pond, or an example of the changes wrought by time?
The former. The EU is only socialist in the "not hanging on the coat-tails of Ayn Rand" sense. It assumes capitalism as the basis of its economy, it runs on that capitalism and shows no sign of moving away from it.
Stephen Moore, a strong supporter of Trump, speaking from Mar-a-Largo and presumably echoing his master's voice, has advised the UK to distance itself from the EU, which he says has 'socialist leanings'. I well remember, at the time of accession to the EEC, that left-wingers were strongly opposed on the grounds that the Common Market was a prop for the capitallst system. A demonstration of the width of the Pond, or an example of the changes wrought by time?
The former. The EU is only socialist in the "not hanging on the coat-tails of Ayn Rand" sense. It assumes capitalism as the basis of its economy, it runs on that capitalism and shows no sign of moving away from it.
It helps to understand that if someone advocates for socialism it must automatically be the worst version of Stalinist/Maoist communism and therefore socialism is always a disaster, and no countries other than these are socialist. If you suggest adopting policies from one of the countries that a moment ago was emphatically not socialist, suddenly it turns out that what you're advocating is, in fact, socialism (and therefore tantamount to Stalinism/Maoism etc).
Strange, too, to warn the Labour government against 'socialism'.
I think we don’t need to get into this UK government and socialism. It has been covered a lot.
What I do agree with is that recently the rightest of the rights have been calling anything that doesn’t agree with them Socialism. Witness Rishi Sunak being called socialist. The President elect seams to have no real understanding of socialism or if he has he hides it well.
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
Is it though. If the police and fire services are paid through tax why should health be any different. Would people call the police and fire services socialist? Would you say the BBC is socialist? Publicly funded is not the same as socialist.
Just because people wouldn't say the police and fire services are socialist doesn't mean they're not socialist.
I suppose there's an ambiguity in the idea of socialism.
Take an abstract provider of goods or services. There are people working for it, and there are people who benefit from it, to whom it provides goods and services. Now if it's a capitalist entity, it is run by neither of those groups, but by investors who extract profit from it.
Socialism technically says that it should be run by the people who work for it; in practice socialists think enterprises should be run by the people who benefit from the goods and services through the auspices of a democratically elected and accountable government. Although socialists would also say that the distinction between people working for the service and people benefitting from the service is largely abstract.
(I accept correction from people who know more about socialist thought than I do.)
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
Is it though. If the police and fire services are paid through tax why should health be any different. Would people call the police and fire services socialist? Would you say the BBC is socialist? Publicly funded is not the same as socialist.
The BBC is funded by a flat fee, so not "from each according to their means".
I think public fire services are socialist. Police is more difficult because it depends on whether you see them as providing a public service or acting as the enforcement arm of the state.
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
Is it though. If the police and fire services are paid through tax why should health be any different. Would people call the police and fire services socialist? Would you say the BBC is socialist? Publicly funded is not the same as socialist.
The BBC is funded by a flat fee, so not "from each according to their means".
I think public fire services are socialist. Police is more difficult because it depends on whether you see them as providing a public service or acting as the enforcement arm of the state.
And yet none socialists are happy or don’t say they are unhappy with the situation.
Even though bus serves are all given to companies now, if they were not supplemented by the government some routes would just not exist. The same with some rail routes. Important services are all supported or run by the government, certainly in the UK.
Well, I can look at the countries that test high on the overall happiness scale and they seem to be all socialist systems.
There are many programs in the United States that are based on socialist assumptions. Fire, FCC, Post Office, etc. What Trump is proposing is to privatize these systems. I think he criticizes other countries for their socialist systems as a way to tear down what we do have.
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
How are Health Maintenance Organisations considered by left or right leaning politicians in the USA?
I've heard that some HMOs would like to make further inroads into the NHS?
Just because people wouldn't say the police and fire services are socialist doesn't mean they're not socialist.
I suppose there's an ambiguity in the idea of socialism.
I think most socialists would define socialism as an economic system rather than simply a case of the government running bits of the state or providing services out of general taxation
I'm not going to blame desperate people for rolling the dice.
Well, to a lot pop people, the dice were phony, with only one dot on each side. Still they were rolled, and same eyes was the result. "Tell Palestinian Americans what they've won, Bob!"
Bob: "Ambassador Mike Huckabee!!!"
In general, Americans have a very poor understanding about how their own government works, let alone how an entirely different system (albeit in the abstract) works. Right-wing American talking points about socialism have certainly been worn out on these boards, but if you hear a MAGA using the word "socialism," they almost certainly mean "godless" Soviet Stalinism.
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
How are Health Maintenance Organisations considered by left or right leaning politicians in the USA?
I've heard that some HMOs would like to make further inroads into the NHS?
Nixon, who was considerably to the left of where the GOP was from Reagan until Trump (who is a bit of an ideological chameleon when it comes to issues like healthcare that he really doesn’t care about), was still enough of a conservative to not want single payer healthcare and supported the creation of HMOs instead which were supposed to be an innovative way to fix the problems in the US healthcare system. By the 90s and early 2000s HMOs here were committing all kinds of abuses to deny approval and coverage of just about any person or any treatment they wanted, and became a bit of a news story. Even before Obamacare, the share of private and Medicare insurance plans that were HMOs had started to decline (yes Medicare has them too, through optional (and often cheaper than traditional Medicare) privately run but publicly funded Medicare Advantage plans). What has emerged to replace them for people who can’t afford to pay much for health insurance are high deductible plans that don’t pay for anything until you have paid for a lot out of pocket. Obamacare has helped to regulate a lot for he worst abuses in the system but, especially if the expanded form of Obamacare that passed under Biden expires and Trump and Republicans let it die (and otherwise try to weaken what is left of Obamacare), then middle class people who don’t get insurance through their employer will still have a hard time affording plans that aren’t crappy.
Someone with a better knowledge of the workings of the US healthcare system can probably explain it better, and correct me if I’m wrong.
Up to the Reagan era most health insurances were not for profit. Without that profit, insurance was relatively low. Many hospitals were also not for profit community and religious establishments. Reagan argued by making them for profit they would be able to pair-down waste and allow for the economy of scale. Did not work that way anywhere. Our health care is through the roof and we are much less health than most countries with socialized medicine.
The United States has long helped poor countries in family planning. Up until the last Trump administration if other countries wanted to present the abortion option, the US would have no objection. Through and executive order, Trump said any family planning services supported by US Aid could not discuss abortion. Biden had rescinded that order. Now it is going to be reimposed with even more restrictions, no doubt--contraceptives of any kind or no IUDs, I think.
I'm not going to blame desperate people for rolling the dice.
Well, to a lot pop people, the dice were phony, with only one dot on each side. Still they were rolled, and same eyes was the result.
Even if the various Muslim-American and Arab-American fractions had turned out for Harris she would have still lost (and Palestinian Americans are a minority of a minority at around 150K).
There's no evidence they all voted for Trump either, and if the minority who chose to do so want to make a instrumental argument, that's still no evidence of their naivety.
"Tell Palestinian Americans what they've won, Bob!"
This is dangerously close to those social media posts where angry liberals fantasize about the fate of the people who they think didn't listen to them.
I'm not going to blame desperate people for rolling the dice.
Well, to a lot pop people, the dice were phony, with only one dot on each side. Still they were rolled, and same eyes was the result.
Even if the various Muslim-American and Arab-American fractions had turned out for Harris she would have still lost (and Palestinian Americans are a minority of a minority at around 150K).
There's no evidence they all voted for Trump either, and if the minority who chose to do so want to make a instrumental argument, that's still no evidence of their naivety.
"Tell Palestinian Americans what they've won, Bob!"
This is dangerously close to those social media posts where angry liberals fantasize about the fate of the people who they think didn't listen to them.
As Spok would say, your logic does not compute. You begin by talking about Arab Americans and then you narrow it down to Palestinian Americans. There are 3.5 million Arabs in the United States. That is a large enough group to move the needle in select areas. Take, for instance, Michigan. It was considered a swing state leaning blue. But the Arab vote from the Dearborn area was just enough to snatch the state away from Harris. Ser this story.
Regarding the Palestinian vote, by the way, about 1/3 of all Palestinians are Christian. I would not lump them with the Arab vote.
I'm not going to blame desperate people for rolling the dice.
Well, to a lot pop people, the dice were phony, with only one dot on each side. Still they were rolled, and same eyes was the result.
Even if the various Muslim-American and Arab-American fractions had turned out for Harris she would have still lost (and Palestinian Americans are a minority of a minority at around 150K).
There's no evidence they all voted for Trump either, and if the minority who chose to do so want to make a instrumental argument, that's still no evidence of their naivety.
"Tell Palestinian Americans what they've won, Bob!"
This is dangerously close to those social media posts where angry liberals fantasize about the fate of the people who they think didn't listen to them.
As Spok would say, your logic does not compute. You begin by talking about Arab Americans and then you narrow it down to Palestinian Americans. There are 3.5 million Arabs in the United States. That is a large enough group to move the needle in select areas.
Given the way voting went outside those select areas, still not enough for a Harris win.
Regarding the Palestinian vote, by the way, about 1/3 of all Palestinians are Christian. I would not lump them with the Arab vote.
Palestinian Christians by and large identify as Arabs. An Arab, especially in Palestine, is someone whose native language is Arabic. It has nothing to do with being Muslim.
In the State of Israel, Bedouins (who are predominantly Muslim) and Druze have distinct identities and have been allowed to assimilate a little more than other Israeli Arabs into Israeli society but many of them also identify as Arabs.
Do most Christians from Lebanon identify as Arab? I certainly know young ones that do.
Copts from Egypt sometimes prefer to be called Egyptian rather than Arab.
I'm not going to blame desperate people for rolling the dice.
Well, to a lot pop people, the dice were phony, with only one dot on each side. Still they were rolled, and same eyes was the result.
Even if the various Muslim-American and Arab-American fractions had turned out for Harris she would have still lost (and Palestinian Americans are a minority of a minority at around 150K).
There's no evidence they all voted for Trump either, and if the minority who chose to do so want to make a instrumental argument, that's still no evidence of their naivety.
"Tell Palestinian Americans what they've won, Bob!"
This is dangerously close to those social media posts where angry liberals fantasize about the fate of the people who they think didn't listen to them.
I'm not aware of such posts, having largely unplugged from the socials. I did download Blusky to my phone, but haven't done anything with it yet.
All I've meant to say is that the further Right one goes in American politics, the more rabid the pro-Israel, pro-Zionist "let's help bring about Armageddon" things get. An end to the military violence is one thing. Attaining that end with anything like reasonable terms for Palestinians (not Hamas) is quite another. Those of us who've been paying attention to the "Huckabee" wing of MAGA take them at their word. Huckabee's appointment was testament to it. I don't wish ill on any Muslim-American voter. I just don't understand the ones who voted MAGA.
I'm not going to blame desperate people for rolling the dice.
Well, to a lot pop people, the dice were phony, with only one dot on each side. Still they were rolled, and same eyes was the result.
Even if the various Muslim-American and Arab-American fractions had turned out for Harris she would have still lost (and Palestinian Americans are a minority of a minority at around 150K).
There's no evidence they all voted for Trump either, and if the minority who chose to do so want to make a instrumental argument, that's still no evidence of their naivety.
"Tell Palestinian Americans what they've won, Bob!"
This is dangerously close to those social media posts where angry liberals fantasize about the fate of the people who they think didn't listen to them.
I'm not aware of such posts, having largely unplugged from the socials. I did download Blusky to my phone, but haven't done anything with it yet.
All I've meant to say is that the further Right one goes in American politics, the more rabid the pro-Israel, pro-Zionist "let's help bring about Armageddon" things get.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
My son spent a year in Palestine serving a Lutheran community. There had been a large Lutheran presence in Ramallah. Other Arab nations that have had Christian groups are: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait, Yemen. About the only Arab country without a Christian presence is Saudi Arabia. Now, there are strong restrictions in place like no evangelism and a religious tax but these groups have existed since the beginnings of the Muslim empire. (See Wikipedia) In more recent times the Christian populations have decreased mainly because of the Western support of the nation of Israel. But, the point is, they are in Arab countries.
I had one Islamic professor explain Muslims consider Christianity to be a religion of the Word as is Judaism. As such, Christianity and Judaism are acceptable.
I once worked for the Lutheran Hour. We had a radio station in Ethiopia that beamed Arab language programing into the Arab countries. We did a survey to see if people were listening. While no one admitted to listening to the station at first, they did admit to hearing some of the personalities that were on the station.
As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, yes Christianity was suppressed, but it was not eliminated. Once the Communist government collapsed, Christianity bounced back. Same with China, it is being suppressed, but it cannot be eliminated. We had a Chinese preacher who often travelled into China himself. The government there does place strong restrictions on religion, but most religious groups there have learned to adapt.
As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, yes Christianity was suppressed, but it was not eliminated. Once the Communist government collapsed, Christianity bounced back. Same with China, it is being suppressed, but it cannot be eliminated. We had a Chinese preacher who often travelled into China himself. The government there does place strong restrictions on religion, but most religious groups there have learned to adapt.
What China seems to feel threatened by these days is independent religious authority: much like mediæval European monarchs they want to be able to decide who the bishops are and to rid themselves of any priests they deem turbulent.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
You've jumped from equating faith with ethnicity to equating it with identity.
To the OP, with no intent of 'derailment', Trump must mean the end of NATO. Unless Europe pays for the US presence. And even then. Which means a lot more than 2%. And if he pulls out anyway, because, hey, what the f*ck, we got oceans, Europe will have to go it alone and it has Orban running Hungary. Serbia. Germany looking weak. France looking... French. Meloni plays the game well. With her mate Starmer... Iron and clay... Can Europe go it alone against Russia? Beyond Ukraine's fate.
To the OP, with no intent of 'derailment', Trump must mean the end of NATO. Unless Europe pays for the US presence. And even then. Which means a lot more than 2%. And if he pulls out anyway, because, hey, what the f*ck, we got oceans, Europe will have to go it alone and it has Orban running Hungary. Serbia. Germany looking weak. France looking... French. Meloni plays the game well. With her mate Starmer... Iron and clay... Can Europe go it alone against Russia? Beyond Ukraine's fate.
Trump cannot pull out of NATO. We have a law on the books that says 2/3rds of both Congressional Houses (Senate and Representatives) would have to approve of the withdrawal. That law was written by Marco Rubio, BTW. In spite of Trump's animosity to NATO, most congresspeople are still in favor of the alliance.
To the OP, with no intent of 'derailment', Trump must mean the end of NATO. Unless Europe pays for the US presence. And even then. Which means a lot more than 2%. And if he pulls out anyway, because, hey, what the f*ck, we got oceans, Europe will have to go it alone and it has Orban running Hungary. Serbia. Germany looking weak. France looking... French. Meloni plays the game well. With her mate Starmer... Iron and clay... Can Europe go it alone against Russia? Beyond Ukraine's fate.
Trump cannot pull out of NATO. We have a law on the books that says 2/3rds of both Congressional Houses (Senate and Representatives) would have to approve of the withdrawal.
No, the law says that the president may not withdraw from NATO without either 2/3 approval of the Senate or authorization by an act of Congress (meaning a simple majority in each house). The rub may well be that the Constitution says that foreign policy decisions belong to the president. I wouldn’t be willing to bet that if the question were to make its way to SCOTUS, Congress would win.
To the OP, with no intent of 'derailment', Trump must mean the end of NATO. Unless Europe pays for the US presence. And even then. Which means a lot more than 2%. And if he pulls out anyway, because, hey, what the f*ck, we got oceans, Europe will have to go it alone and it has Orban running Hungary. Serbia. Germany looking weak. France looking... French. Meloni plays the game well. With her mate Starmer... Iron and clay... Can Europe go it alone against Russia? Beyond Ukraine's fate.
Trump cannot pull out of NATO. We have a law on the books that says 2/3rds of both Congressional Houses (Senate and Representatives) would have to approve of the withdrawal.
No, the law says that the president may not withdraw from NATO without either 2/3 approval of the Senate or authorization by an act of Congress (meaning a simple majority in each house). The rub may well be that the Constitution says that foreign policy decisions belong to the president. I wouldn’t be willing to bet that if the question were to make its way to SCOTUS, Congress would win.
I wonder if it was brought up in the Senate would it be subject to the filibuster rule. None the less, there is very strong support for NATO in both houses.
"From each according to their means and to each according to their needs" would seem to me a basic principle.
In that case, what distinguishes socialism from communism? I think this describes communism more than socialism.
Both socialism and communism (and some other political and social systems) would consider the purpose of work as being to benefit the worker and wider society, not primarily the owner(s) of the business. Fundamentally more of an economic system, political expressions are only necessary to bring about the social changes.
Socialism emphasises ownership by workers, so business* models such as workers cooperatives and family owned and run firms - basically anything where the business owners are present in the work place, clearly putting in a hard days work along side everyone else. Profits from the business are shared by the workers who have created that profit. Businesses that benefit society but can't make a profit are supported by profitable businesses through taxation (that includes schools, health services, public transport etc). Government exists to support social businesses, and to provide (or, at least fund/subsidise) necessary support businesses.
Communism emphasises community ownership, which can include the socialist models but also includes state ownership which can become more like state capitalism where the government puts up the money and owns businesses but are as distant as private capitalist owners. Government exists to own all business, to pay wages, and to direct the direction of the national economy by directing profits from business into the areas of priority they see.
The failing of big Communist nations has been that fundamentally as far as workers experience things ownership by distant government that takes their profits leaving them working hard for barely enough to get by isn't any different from ownership by wealthy shareholders or individuals taking their profits. Also, and I don't know if this is directly connected, these large Communist states aren't usually democratic, so the workers have no more control over who is in charge of their business than they would have with private ownership - it may be connected because I can see how regularly changing government could impact the ability of government to plan business investment etc. Communism works much better with smaller nations, where the political leadership is known by the workers, where the sizes of government owned and managed businesses are small enough for the politicians who are in charge to be present, to even get their hands dirty along with everyone else.
* I'm using 'business' here in a very broad sense because I can't think of a better word at this time on a Sunday morning
Comments
There's a powerful anti incumbency effect at the moment (although it seems to be related to the period of inflation post Covid rather than Covid itself).
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1854485866548195735
Alternatively, given that transactional thinking seems to be the limit of Trump's understanding why wouldn't they make a transactional appeal.
Because they're in a weak position and could have predicted that they would be stiffed!
But massive global natural disaster was always going to mean things were going to be pretty shit for years - surely this should be obvious ?
They were in a weak position anyway and were already being stiffed.
It's a case of dealing with current realities.
To an extent - but in many cases the perception was that governments had also handled things badly and/or used covid as an excuse to implement austerity in the aftermath.
The left still considers the EU a "capitalist club" but the vast majority are aware that (a) the US is worse and (b) a lot would have to change in the UK for the EU to be the biggest impediment to socialism
Large parts of the American Right considers the Democratic Party 'socialist', I don't think Moore is using a definition that would be recognised in much of the rest of the world.
The former. The EU is only socialist in the "not hanging on the coat-tails of Ayn Rand" sense. It assumes capitalism as the basis of its economy, it runs on that capitalism and shows no sign of moving away from it.
It helps to understand that if someone advocates for socialism it must automatically be the worst version of Stalinist/Maoist communism and therefore socialism is always a disaster, and no countries other than these are socialist. If you suggest adopting policies from one of the countries that a moment ago was emphatically not socialist, suddenly it turns out that what you're advocating is, in fact, socialism (and therefore tantamount to Stalinism/Maoism etc).
I think we don’t need to get into this UK government and socialism. It has been covered a lot.
What I do agree with is that recently the rightest of the rights have been calling anything that doesn’t agree with them Socialism. Witness Rishi Sunak being called socialist. The President elect seams to have no real understanding of socialism or if he has he hides it well.
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
"From each according to their means and to each according to their needs" would seem to me a basic principle.
Unfortunately it isn't.
Is it though. If the police and fire services are paid through tax why should health be any different. Would people call the police and fire services socialist? Would you say the BBC is socialist? Publicly funded is not the same as socialist.
I suppose there's an ambiguity in the idea of socialism.
Take an abstract provider of goods or services. There are people working for it, and there are people who benefit from it, to whom it provides goods and services. Now if it's a capitalist entity, it is run by neither of those groups, but by investors who extract profit from it.
Socialism technically says that it should be run by the people who work for it; in practice socialists think enterprises should be run by the people who benefit from the goods and services through the auspices of a democratically elected and accountable government. Although socialists would also say that the distinction between people working for the service and people benefitting from the service is largely abstract.
(I accept correction from people who know more about socialist thought than I do.)
The BBC is funded by a flat fee, so not "from each according to their means".
I think public fire services are socialist. Police is more difficult because it depends on whether you see them as providing a public service or acting as the enforcement arm of the state.
And yet none socialists are happy or don’t say they are unhappy with the situation.
Even though bus serves are all given to companies now, if they were not supplemented by the government some routes would just not exist. The same with some rail routes. Important services are all supported or run by the government, certainly in the UK.
There are many programs in the United States that are based on socialist assumptions. Fire, FCC, Post Office, etc. What Trump is proposing is to privatize these systems. I think he criticizes other countries for their socialist systems as a way to tear down what we do have.
How are Health Maintenance Organisations considered by left or right leaning politicians in the USA?
I've heard that some HMOs would like to make further inroads into the NHS?
I think most socialists would define socialism as an economic system rather than simply a case of the government running bits of the state or providing services out of general taxation
Bob: "Ambassador Mike Huckabee!!!"
In general, Americans have a very poor understanding about how their own government works, let alone how an entirely different system (albeit in the abstract) works. Right-wing American talking points about socialism have certainly been worn out on these boards, but if you hear a MAGA using the word "socialism," they almost certainly mean "godless" Soviet Stalinism.
Nixon, who was considerably to the left of where the GOP was from Reagan until Trump (who is a bit of an ideological chameleon when it comes to issues like healthcare that he really doesn’t care about), was still enough of a conservative to not want single payer healthcare and supported the creation of HMOs instead which were supposed to be an innovative way to fix the problems in the US healthcare system. By the 90s and early 2000s HMOs here were committing all kinds of abuses to deny approval and coverage of just about any person or any treatment they wanted, and became a bit of a news story. Even before Obamacare, the share of private and Medicare insurance plans that were HMOs had started to decline (yes Medicare has them too, through optional (and often cheaper than traditional Medicare) privately run but publicly funded Medicare Advantage plans). What has emerged to replace them for people who can’t afford to pay much for health insurance are high deductible plans that don’t pay for anything until you have paid for a lot out of pocket. Obamacare has helped to regulate a lot for he worst abuses in the system but, especially if the expanded form of Obamacare that passed under Biden expires and Trump and Republicans let it die (and otherwise try to weaken what is left of Obamacare), then middle class people who don’t get insurance through their employer will still have a hard time affording plans that aren’t crappy.
Someone with a better knowledge of the workings of the US healthcare system can probably explain it better, and correct me if I’m wrong.
The United States has long helped poor countries in family planning. Up until the last Trump administration if other countries wanted to present the abortion option, the US would have no objection. Through and executive order, Trump said any family planning services supported by US Aid could not discuss abortion. Biden had rescinded that order. Now it is going to be reimposed with even more restrictions, no doubt--contraceptives of any kind or no IUDs, I think.
Even if the various Muslim-American and Arab-American fractions had turned out for Harris she would have still lost (and Palestinian Americans are a minority of a minority at around 150K).
There's no evidence they all voted for Trump either, and if the minority who chose to do so want to make a instrumental argument, that's still no evidence of their naivety.
Yes President Joe Biden was such a prize, wasn't he?
This is dangerously close to those social media posts where angry liberals fantasize about the fate of the people who they think didn't listen to them.
As Spok would say, your logic does not compute. You begin by talking about Arab Americans and then you narrow it down to Palestinian Americans. There are 3.5 million Arabs in the United States. That is a large enough group to move the needle in select areas. Take, for instance, Michigan. It was considered a swing state leaning blue. But the Arab vote from the Dearborn area was just enough to snatch the state away from Harris. Ser this story.
Regarding the Palestinian vote, by the way, about 1/3 of all Palestinians are Christian. I would not lump them with the Arab vote.
Given the way voting went outside those select areas, still not enough for a Harris win.
Palestinian Christians by and large identify as Arabs. An Arab, especially in Palestine, is someone whose native language is Arabic. It has nothing to do with being Muslim.
In the State of Israel, Bedouins (who are predominantly Muslim) and Druze have distinct identities and have been allowed to assimilate a little more than other Israeli Arabs into Israeli society but many of them also identify as Arabs.
Do most Christians from Lebanon identify as Arab? I certainly know young ones that do.
Copts from Egypt sometimes prefer to be called Egyptian rather than Arab.
I'm not aware of such posts, having largely unplugged from the socials. I did download Blusky to my phone, but haven't done anything with it yet.
All I've meant to say is that the further Right one goes in American politics, the more rabid the pro-Israel, pro-Zionist "let's help bring about Armageddon" things get. An end to the military violence is one thing. Attaining that end with anything like reasonable terms for Palestinians (not Hamas) is quite another. Those of us who've been paying attention to the "Huckabee" wing of MAGA take them at their word. Huckabee's appointment was testament to it. I don't wish ill on any Muslim-American voter. I just don't understand the ones who voted MAGA.
Of course the ironic thing is that in the era Biden was making those remarks, Reagan was actually willing to use his leverage: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-to-attacks-in-a-blunt-telephone-call-to-begin.html
The Arab vote actually caused three states, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia to go red. https://magazine.scu.edu/magazines/fall-2024/the-american-muslim-vote-and-the-2024-presidential-election/
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
My son spent a year in Palestine serving a Lutheran community. There had been a large Lutheran presence in Ramallah. Other Arab nations that have had Christian groups are: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait, Yemen. About the only Arab country without a Christian presence is Saudi Arabia. Now, there are strong restrictions in place like no evangelism and a religious tax but these groups have existed since the beginnings of the Muslim empire. (See Wikipedia) In more recent times the Christian populations have decreased mainly because of the Western support of the nation of Israel. But, the point is, they are in Arab countries.
I had one Islamic professor explain Muslims consider Christianity to be a religion of the Word as is Judaism. As such, Christianity and Judaism are acceptable.
I once worked for the Lutheran Hour. We had a radio station in Ethiopia that beamed Arab language programing into the Arab countries. We did a survey to see if people were listening. While no one admitted to listening to the station at first, they did admit to hearing some of the personalities that were on the station.
As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, yes Christianity was suppressed, but it was not eliminated. Once the Communist government collapsed, Christianity bounced back. Same with China, it is being suppressed, but it cannot be eliminated. We had a Chinese preacher who often travelled into China himself. The government there does place strong restrictions on religion, but most religious groups there have learned to adapt.
What China seems to feel threatened by these days is independent religious authority: much like mediæval European monarchs they want to be able to decide who the bishops are and to rid themselves of any priests they deem turbulent.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
You've jumped from equating faith with ethnicity to equating it with identity.
Trump cannot pull out of NATO. We have a law on the books that says 2/3rds of both Congressional Houses (Senate and Representatives) would have to approve of the withdrawal. That law was written by Marco Rubio, BTW. In spite of Trump's animosity to NATO, most congresspeople are still in favor of the alliance.
I wonder if it was brought up in the Senate would it be subject to the filibuster rule. None the less, there is very strong support for NATO in both houses.
In that case, what distinguishes socialism from communism? I think this describes communism more than socialism.
It describes the first and best Christian society.
Socialism emphasises ownership by workers, so business* models such as workers cooperatives and family owned and run firms - basically anything where the business owners are present in the work place, clearly putting in a hard days work along side everyone else. Profits from the business are shared by the workers who have created that profit. Businesses that benefit society but can't make a profit are supported by profitable businesses through taxation (that includes schools, health services, public transport etc). Government exists to support social businesses, and to provide (or, at least fund/subsidise) necessary support businesses.
Communism emphasises community ownership, which can include the socialist models but also includes state ownership which can become more like state capitalism where the government puts up the money and owns businesses but are as distant as private capitalist owners. Government exists to own all business, to pay wages, and to direct the direction of the national economy by directing profits from business into the areas of priority they see.
The failing of big Communist nations has been that fundamentally as far as workers experience things ownership by distant government that takes their profits leaving them working hard for barely enough to get by isn't any different from ownership by wealthy shareholders or individuals taking their profits. Also, and I don't know if this is directly connected, these large Communist states aren't usually democratic, so the workers have no more control over who is in charge of their business than they would have with private ownership - it may be connected because I can see how regularly changing government could impact the ability of government to plan business investment etc. Communism works much better with smaller nations, where the political leadership is known by the workers, where the sizes of government owned and managed businesses are small enough for the politicians who are in charge to be present, to even get their hands dirty along with everyone else.
* I'm using 'business' here in a very broad sense because I can't think of a better word at this time on a Sunday morning