Capitalism Produces Rich Bankers, but Socialism Produces Happiness

Capitalism Produces Rich Bankers, but Socialism Produces Happiness

By Phillip Bannowsky

May 25, 2009 "News Journal" -- Socialism is better than capitalism. So say 20 percent of Americans, and another 27 percent say they can't say which is better, according to an April 9 Rasmussen poll.

There's hope.

When you consider that virtually no newspaper, broadcaster, well-funded think tank, teacher, or anybody's boss or commander ever said something nice about socialism, it's remarkable that only 53 percent of us still favor rule by the moneyed class. Perhaps folks are learning how capitalism sacrifices happiness for individual gain.

<snip>

No less a "capitalist tool" than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. High per-capita GDP certainly plays a role in their felicity, but even social democratic New Zealand, with per-capita GDP only 64 percent of the United States', ranks with the 10 democracies above us in the happiness index. They pay high taxes in these pinkotopias, but folks enjoy entitlements like free college, extensive elder care, and 52-week paid maternity leave.

The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. Forbes suggests that such happiness derives from family, social and community networks, and a decent work-life balance, noting that the average workweek in Scandinavia is 37 hours.

Nice dream, but how do we get there? Most of these countries dumped capitalist exploitation long ago and instituted mixed economies with socialist ideals. More contemporary models are the 11 Latin America countries pursuing "Socialism in the 21st Century." They too reject top-down Leninism for a system based on participatory democracy and solidarity.

<more>

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22702.htm
*
Author: Phillip Bannowsky is a member of The News Journal Community Advisory Board and is a retired autoworker. His novel, "The Mother Earth Inn," recounts the early stirrings of Ecuador's current transformation.

I would like to believe you but what countries have been protected from this recession by socialism?

And even the Soviet Union was hit hard by the 1929 Depression

....make no mistake. It's just not being reported (whatta surprise! Don't want to *alarm* the proles in the 'states', ya know.....)

Anyone know?

no direction to go but up.They have been at rock bottom for years.
I hope things get better for the people there since travel restrictions have been lifted, They could become a great vacation and party spot.

Rush Limbaugh could vacation there.

Maybe Ghouliani could be ambassador (Da Capo).

You went from the merits of socialism to child molestation. I think It is time to end this discussion.

Not so obvious to some, I guess.

... they have better health care than we do?

How come they have higher rates of literacy (99.8 percent), lower rates of infant mortality (6 per 1000), and live just as long as people from the world's only superpower?

Isn't the goal of accruing all this wealth through capitalism to improve the quality of life? It's not about "stuff." It's about health and happiness.

Care was better Ted kennedy would have gone there for treatment. He could go anywhere for health care. Our health care is still of the highest quality. The problem lie's in how do we pay for it?

What could be more absurd than high-quality health care that the vast majority of Americans can't afford?
That's worse than useless. It's a cruel joke.

ever been turned away from an emergency room?

--to go to the emergency room.

How someone can look at our current setup and not see that something is horribly wrong is beyond me.

But then, I didn't look at the number of your posts before now. I would guess that you have an important purpose for being here. Perhaps you'll have better luck with someone else.

Being middle class, with no insurance, will put a major dent in your finances, if it doesn't bankrupt you.

but i have refused to go for serious injuries because i can't afford the bill. in terms of health and care, what effectively is the difference?

Its the general populace thats better protected.

Europe's economy is in worse shape than ours, but laid off workers in most countries there not only get a higher % of lost wages from unemployment, but their benefits dont expire in 6 months like here.

Plus they retain their state health care, and women looking for work get childcare provided.

of it.

Of course, there are countries that have been protected from this recession. It's, of course, a matter of degree. Show a little common sense, there's a good chap.

The least-protected country's in Europe are the UK, Iceland and Latvia (which latter swallowed the glories of rampant, de-regulated capitalism, whole) - though I believe Iceland may have been shored up a little since its wholesale economic ruin. But its a tiny country.

Even some notoriously capitalist countries, such as Switzerland, have not suffered as direly as "some", because of a property-market collapse, since they exercised a characteristic measure of prudence (UBS, notwithstanding). Incidentally, doubtless due to their appreciably democratic government, foreigners are prevented from buying property there; or limited in their scope to do so.

In Austria, right of der Fuhrer in some regards, people are not allowed to buy second homes, driving poorer folk out of their ancestral villages and towns. We could use that legislation in the UK.

Every single European country (bar perhaps Latvia now - though perhaps it too), yes, even the UK, would have an immeasurably better welfare safety-net to protect its people. All paid for by taxes; since the days of despotic rulers, one of mankind's principal blessings.

Are you a Democrat? Even a democrat? If Republicanism does not necessarily imply a total absence of democracy, the Democratic Party by very definition implies a measure of socialism.

I just don't think everything boils down to a simple, black and white, tidy dichotomy. Sometimes there are different systems that can satisfy different people, different systems that can satisfy the same people, a combination of systems that can appease but a few people, and some people that are satisfied by no system at all.

Excellent OP, these issues should be squarely on the table these days. Unregulated, or "free market", capitalism has shown its truly hideous face. We have good models in other countries of democratic socialism that is serving its people well, which, after all, is the one and only function of a government, to serve its people, and of course for the nation to be a good planetary citizen.

For most of the problems we face today, the social democracies have good solutions, well tested and documented, solutions that are entirely kept from public discussion by the corporate media and political establishment.

We'd be well-served by a strong and vibrant social democratic party. Let the repubs have their rapture, let the dems have the corporations, and let the people have the social democrats.

where does that leave the speculative investor?

I remember a few years back reading a story about the last big cooperative department store chain that NATO demanded be privatized. That didn't sound like fighting ethnic cleansing or anything of the sort to me; that sounded like economic warfare.