Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

4

mftrhu wrote

What the actual fuck. I get wanting people to take better care of themselves but maybe, just maybe, adding the stress of indefinite surgery wait for what a lot of people use to deal with stress is exactly the completely wrong way to go about it.

4

Defasher wrote

This article is good for proving state socialism would fail.

2

NeoliberalismKills wrote

This happens in the US but that's because it's all about the money and unhealthy patients make for bad numbers (recovery time, deaths, success rates, etc.) This is a absurd.

2

sudo wrote

This goes in /f/News, not /f/Socialism. Also, what the fuck, NHS.

1

theblackcat wrote

Socialised medical care qualifies as socialism.

5

sudo wrote

No, socialism is where workers own the means of production. If you only changed the medical system, then you'd have a slightly less hostile version of capitalism.

1

mofongo wrote

No, socialism is the abolishment of capitalism, private property and the state. There can still be capitalism with worker ownership.

2

sudo wrote

Agreed. I thought of saying, "Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, a planned economy, free basic human needs, and a whole bunch of other things," but I thought, "Nah, no need to give the full definition. I'm sure people here will understand what I'm trying to say, and won't be pedantic about it."

I guess not...

1

mofongo wrote

The thing is that even this definition is not revolutionary at all, they are things you can get on any social democracy. I know it's annoying being pointed out this whenever it comes up, I'm tired of pointing it out too, but I think it is important to do so whenever it comes up to maintain the site radical instead of slowly devolving to liberalism.

0

_ziq_ wrote (edited )

This forum can encompass a lot more than just the end game of communism. If people only posted about owning the means of production here, there would be 4 posts a year.

2

sudo wrote

I think posts about the progress of certain revolutions, or news about something a socialist country is doing related to workers, or its economy, would fit in here. This post is about something a capitalist country is doing, and it's not even related to workers, so it doesn't belong in this forum.

1

ziq_postcivver wrote

If you're going to only allow 100% pure communism in here, then forget about 'countries', there's no such thing. Communism and statism aren't compatible.

2

sudo wrote

I said socialism, not communism. Socialism is the transition phase from capitalism to communism. Under socialism, a state still exists, but it is controlled by the proletariat. So, socialist state is not a contradiction, but communist state is.

Also, I don't know if late communism implies a world government. There might still be individual countries without states, or there might be one giant country without a state.

1

ziq_postcivver wrote (edited )

You also said socialism only means 'the workers own the means of production', my point is that isn't all socialism is. Socialism can still exist even in a post-worker world. Socialist people can still exist even if they're forced to live in a capitalist state.

Being puritan about it and excluding labour unions, welfare, antiwar, anti-imperialism, queer / womens rights and such from a socialist forum is ridiculous.

Communism doesn't imply a world government at all. It implies a stateless, moneyless world.

2

sudo wrote

You also said socialism only means 'the workers own the means of production', my point is that isn't all socialism is.

No, I didn't say that's only what it means. I said, "socialism is where workers own the means of production." There's no "only" in there. To give a complete definition of socialism would take a long time, so I decided to give the simple definition, and hoped that people wouldn't be pedantic about it. Looks like my hopes were wrong.

Socialism can still exist even in a post-worker world.

Do you mean a world where virtually all production is automated, and scarcity no longer exists? If so, that's late communism, not really socialism. I suppose the workers would still "own" the means of production, but not in the same way as in socialism, because in late communism, the means of production would work all by themselves. But if that's not what you meant by a post-worker world, then please elaborate.

Socialist people can still exist even if they're forced to live in a capitalist state.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with our current discussion?

Being puritan about it and excluding labour unions, welfare, antiwar, anti-imperialism, queer / womens rights and such from a socialist forum is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous when we already have forums for those particular things. Yes, those are all related to socialism, in that they are all struggles imposed on us by capitalism, but they're each a specific subset of the broad struggle against capitalism. So, how broad of a focus is too broad? It's hard to define explicitly, but I'd say including this article (the one about the NHS) is too broad, because it's only tangentially related to socialism. /f/news is a good fit for this, but /f/socialism isn't.