Rave

Without Capitalism, Women Would...

Posted 28 months ago|10 comments|341 views

TAGS

capitalism , socialism , america , standard of living , communism

Written by

redstateguy

It is suggested that if our country had been a socialist nation, things would be a bit different.

Except for capitalism, practically ALL women would be:

1. Preparing three scratch meals per day
2. Cooking in the fireplace or over an open fire
3. Washing in a homemade tub with a homemade washboard
4. No refrigeration unless a running spring was near by
5. Cooking up their own soap
6. Spinning their own thread on a homemade spinning wheel to make cloth
7. Carrying to and emptying chamber pots in the privy
8. Using corn cobs instead of toilet paper
9. Lighting with candles
10. Treating the ill with herbs-- no medicines
11. Absent a private school available in a short distance, home schooling the children
12. Obtaining news by word of mouth, and
13. Dying earlier than men.

(Wake up everybody. Wake up soon. Please.)

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST

To:

From:

COMMENTS

10 comments|ADD A COMMENT|JUMP TO MOST RECENT

HeyNoniNoni

28 months ago: I think I've finally figured out why it's so hard to get through to you, redstateguy. I can't help but admire the tenacity with which you cling to a particular notion.

No, I'm not talking about your notion that socialism is evil. I'm talking about your notion that the world is made up of absolutes. Things are absolutely good, or absolutely evil. In your mind, there's never a situation in which something in the "good" category could become evil, and something in the "evil" category could become good. Once you've categorized it, it's set in stone for you.

Take socialism. You've put the word in your "evil" box, and as long as it, or anything that resembles it, or anything you can be convinced resembles it, is promoted by anyone, your understandable reaction is negative, because it is inherently evil in your mind. The people of the UK, of Sweden, of France, of Canada must, to you, be suffering and miserable because they struggle under the yoke of dreadful evil in the form of socialized medicine. Nothing anyone from those countries tells you could possibly dissuade you. The preconception that socialism is inherently evil in all forms colors everything.

Continued...

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

28 months ago: I think I'm really beginning to see the fundamental difference in the way people you call "liberals" and people I call "conservatives" think, because this absolutism isn't yours alone. I see it in other conservatives, in their knee-jerk reactions to anything Obama does - Obama is also in the "evil" box" - even if it's something innocuous and common to recent Presidents, like nick-naming advisors with otherwise long titles "czars."

Liberals, on the other hand, are what you've always feared us to be: Moral relativists. Ask us if socialism is evil, and you'll get a dozen different answers, most along the lines of "it depends on what you're socializing." We see the police, for instance, as a socialized service, and that's for the best; no one wants a private security force full of mercenaries keeping the peace. For most things, we prefer capitalism with healthy amounts of regulation to prevent monopolies or abusive practices.

You, on the other hand, cannot conceive of a situation wherein socialism is applied narrowly, and you cannot even think of the police as socialized, because they are in your "good" box. In your mind, socializing anything means socializing everything.

What can I say to convince you I don't want to socialize everything?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

redstateguy

28 months ago: heynnnnn.

Out of respect, I try earnestly to understand your positions. I repeatedly try.

I never once try to convince you how to view things my way, because I perceive that as impossible.

I notice you are missing the main point.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It's in our declaration of independence. It goes on.

It has nothing to do with being "against socialism". I'm against anything that tramples my and my childrens' liberty.

Period.

It is that simple.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

redstateguy

28 months ago: and

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

When is the last time you read the declaration of independence?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

redstateguy

28 months ago: heynnn.

Do you see anything inaccurate about this post?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

28 months ago: I love the Declaration of Independence as much as anyone else, but I don't see how a move to provide a health insurance pool for everyone - in other words, to provide for the general welfare - can possibly be construed to be counter to the Declaration, unless you're viewing things through the lenses I described above.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

28 months ago: In my opinion all the liberals are trying to do is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. 45,000 people die each year because they have no health care. What about their unalienable rights to life. liberty and their pursuit of happiness? Are the poor not equal to the rich?
We also love this country, but instead of creeping socialism destroying this democracy I see rampant corporatism having destroyed our democracy already.
Our "representatives" do not represent the people, they represent the corporations. Why else would Sen. Baucus deny the 3/4ths of the public who favor a public option their rights? Could it have something to do with the $4 million dollars the corporations have bribed him with?
We will not have a real democracy until we get all campaign contributions (bribes) out of government and rescind the corporations "personhood".

As for the point of the post. It wasn't capitalism, but technology and plain old progress that advanced women and men to their current state. We would have made the same technological advances, and probably faster and better, if our economic system was socially regulated than if it relied solely on the vagaries of the free market.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

redstateguy

28 months ago: Al.

Absolute nonsense. Obama and the socialist "look at me", "look at me" politicians are not trying to cover the 45,000 uninsured idiots. That's a flat out lie.

And to say they die is a flat out lie.

As far as your last paragraph, you go on believing that. I just hope you stay there in Or.

Unbelievable.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

28 months ago: Gregoire, you're sounding like an end-of-times cultist. No, the world isn't coming to an end, any more than it was during the millennial fever of 2000, or 1899, or 1000, or every other year various prophets declared the end to be upon us.

FLAG THIS COMMENT