I used to belong to a health care website group. However, the site seemed to lose focus. Much time was wasted debating the merits of various political candidates, trying to figure out the lesser evil legislation regarding universal single-payer health care, and various other non-inspiring activities with no real strategy. I posted three times the premiere showing of !Salud!, the magnificent new documentary about Cuban’s international health care system. Only one person from the group showed. I should not have been surprised that only one person from this health care group showed, as that is the way activists in the US are. They waste so much time trying to figure out where we have gone wrong with health care (or other issues), but are so afraid to look at solutions, especially if the solutions originated from a socialist country. At one point, one of the participants who had studied Marxism and socialism as a doctoral candidate in political science got caught-up with the very dogmatic way of interpreting socialism. He complicated the concept of what socialism is and what socialist medicine is and is not. The following was my response to the academic and overcomplicated explanation given by the “expert.”
Let’s simplify this thing called “socialism.” Very basically, capitalism is a way of thinking based on individualism, while socialism is a way of thinking based on society/community. Economics is always present in any system of government. It is the distribution of the money and the profits that significantly differs. The implementation of both capitalism and socialism changes based on various conditions of the times. When socialism’s basic foundation falls to capitalism, its social programs are weakened and/or collapse. When socialism merely adjusts its programs, as Cuba has done, it can not only survive but thrive. When capitalism advances to its highest degree, which is imperialism, it begins its own destruction. It turns into a monster that gobbles up the dignity of human beings by turning them into machines that might make a lot of noise but produce no human rights. Social programs become an undesirable expenditure. The focus is profit. And, it is more profitable to purchase a new healthy human being (perceived as a part of machinery) than it is to support a human being who has been worn down to the bone.
In capitalist thinking society, there is the erroneous belief that all people have equal opportunity (a level playing field) to succeed, and success is mostly based on obtaining money/owning property. Obviously, there is NOT a level playing field when some children grow up in poverty and are not afforded equal and free education, nor nutritious food to keep them healthy, nor housing to make them feel safe and protect them from predators, nor decent medical care. These children are not afforded the social benefits that give them an equal chance to “compete” for “success” as they become adults. Of course, there are some poor who are so bright or so driven or so athletic that they are able to overcome the economic and social obstacles. But, these are few and far between. And, of course, no matter what “class” to which a group of people belong, some are simply not academically inclined; and, cannot compete for the “master” jobs that yield “success” in terms of financial wealth. This does not mean that they are lower creatures nor does it mean that they cannot be useful to society. It simply means that there is not a level playing field in terms of ability to earn money to become a consumer of even basic human rights, such as health care. Last, throughout history race (color) has played a significant role in determining the economic possibilities of the masses of minorities in capitalist-driven countries. (Again, there are always individual exceptions.)
In a socialist thinking society, the goal is equal opportunity for all. That goal, arguably, has never been fully reached by any society. But, some societies are close; and, the important thing is that these societies strive to obtain and maintain the egalitarian objective, while adjusting to various economic circumstances. Cuba is the best example, as it is the ONLY Latin American country that has survived for over 45 years the attacks of imperialism’s economic and military terrorism. William Blum’s Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since WW II discusses US imperialism. Each chapter is a country. Blum discusses about 50 counties in which the US has “intervened” with military, economic, media and other very non-democratic forms of terrorism. The US moneyed interest government hates Cuba because of the example it has set for the rest of Latin America, and now for the world. Blum’s chapter on Cuba is titled “The Unforgivable Revolution.”
Both Fidel and Chavez have stated that each country will develop its own form of socialism, and the method each country chooses will be significantly based on the current economic situation of each country. The important thing is to move away from imperialism (which is the highest degree of capitalism). Neither Cuba nor Venezuela nor other socialist-inclined countries demand that the US implement their way of societal-political organization, but they do demand that the US allow them to continue their way of thinking, acting, and serving humanity. It is the supreme irony that the US, a master of human rights (HR) violations here and around the world, has the audacity to condemn other countries (almost always countries that refuse to be puppets to the US) of HR violations. This irony is deepened even further when the US, UK and other EU countries (puppet countries) do most of the funding for the HR organizations. Following the money is normally the best method to use to explain why people and organizations act as they do.
I agree that the label “socialism” and “socialist medicine” is used as a scare tactic. The question is WHY are the majority of US residents so afraid of this label? Why do the politicians and moneyed interests know that they can put fear into the hearts of the US public by just dropping the word “socialism” and/or “socialist medicine”? The answer is quite simple: The day we enter the corporate influenced “public” educational system our “way of thinking” is formed to think of “liberty,” “freedom” and “democracy” as being only possible in a society that allegedly allows one to seek “individual” success. Never is the concept of “dictatorship of the capitalist” discussed, though the fear term of “dictator” is always present. Eventually, the fear of not being able to “consume” is embedded in the way of thinking. The drive is for individual rights, while concern for human rights for all is driven out of the way of thinking. People think about THEIR individual right to afford health care, their individual right to survive, but seldom think it is just as important for the next person to have the same rights. They rationalize that if those “other” people worked as hard as they did, they would have the same ability to purchase their human rights. Of course, that way of thinking is not based on truth and reality.
Now that more and more of the “middle” class are not able to purchase health-care (and other human-social rights benefits), there is a more massive awareness of the negative effects of capitalism’s profit-seeking way of thinking. The public, however, has been so brainwashed with the fear-mongering word “socialism” that many people would almost rather die than consider a system other than the capitalist/consumerist system which has been embedded in their minds.
The writer of a message posted on a health-care list discussed England and Canada’s universal health care systems. He noted that in the Canadian system, “medical services are, in the main, delivered by private providers and entities” and that the Minnesota proposal is based on the Canadian model. I have no objections to that. However, I do find it interesting that Canadians are now going to Cuba for health care, as they do not have to wait as long for services in Cuba. Also, Canada and the UK are both “investing” so much money right now in the “war against terror” that they may soon find that they do not have the money to fund both the “war” and their form of universal health-care system (whether it be single-payer, “socialist”–with or without private providers). As long as the elite still have access to doctors, the concern for the government to provide universal single-payer care for all lessens and lessens.
Last, the fact that there seems to be so much concern about the US public having the human right of universal single-payer health care, while there is so little concern about those in other countries that the US and its appendages (IMF/WB/Military) have destroyed, reflects the capitalist way of thinking and is disturbing. Iraq, for example, had a very good universal health-care system before we bombed it in 1991. After much struggle, Iraq was just beginning to rebuild its universal health-care system. Then, in 2003, the new war against Iraq began and has totally decimated Iraq’s health-care. Essentially, Iraq has NO health-care system now. The US (and other Western countries–but mostly the US) controlled IMF has carried out its “structural adjustment plans” (SAPs) on dozens of countries. One of the first things to go is the support for health care services, then educational services, then living-wage jobs. Those needing social services increase, while the services decrease.
Yet, again, the US public that is now crying for universal single-payer health-care for themselves still shows so little concern for this human right for others–others whom they don’t see or know or touch. This comes back to the “way of thinking” on which our society is based. Now that we realize that the majority of people (including that “middle” class) are losing their health care, we seem to understand that we must have health-care for all–universal single-payer–if we are to receive this benefit for our individual selves. We are still a long way from understanding that we must be concerned about the human right of health care for all in those countries that the US has destroyed with its physical and its economic wars. And, therein, lies a huge difference between Cuba and the US and even those other countries that have universal single-payer health care. It is Cuba’s concern for the poor of the world that guides them to send 30,000 doctors and other medical professionals to poor countries, especially in times of natural disasters. (This is in addition to teaching millions around the world to read) It is Cuba’s socialist thinking that established the Latin American School of Medicine, where all medical school training is free (including food, dorms, textbooks) but with one moral commitment from the participants–that they return to their home country and serve the underserved. (Eight US students graduated from the LASM August of 2007.)
By “socialism or nothing,” I mean that unless we turn to socialist thinking in terms of social programs that provide basic human rights for ALL, there will be almost nothing left in this world. The capitalist countries with their consumer mentality (way of thinking) will continue to destroy the environment. Only youth who are wealthy will be able to afford the capitalist educational system (especially higher education) that serves to continue to create capitalist thinking individuals. Those in debt due to educational loans will have no other option than to serve the capitalists (which is similar to the 3rd world countries debt to the IMF and World Bank). Only the wealthy will be able to afford health care. More and more will be left homeless and hungry. The gross national product (GNP) might well remain high, but it will not be distributed to the People and thereby will render a very low and inhuman gross social product. As long as the moneyed interests influence who can and cannot be candidates for offices, the “thinking” of our government (the system) will not change. Those “elected” will kept their individual political survival as their focus. They will continue to throw the public breadcrumbs, similar to the breadcrumbs the middle-class has historically thrown to the poor with their “individual” charities. But, their “reform” breadcrumbs will never create a meal that has a universal single-payer health care sitting on the table, ready to be served and eaten.