I don’t think it’s a definition issue. The issue seems to be that you are talking in absolutes, while someone saying “more socialist” or “more capitalist” inherently can’t be. They must be talking in a spectrum.
Sure, as many holidays as you need and working as you are able is more socialist (and less capitalist) than getting some additional holidays and a shorter work week. But then, getting some additional holidays and a shorter work week is more socialist (and less capitalist) than a longer work week with fewer holidays.
So, yes, if you are pushing for “as many holidays as you want” and “working when able,” of course “shorter work week and some extra holidays” would come across as capitalism intruding on your socialism. But, if you come from the direction where work weeks are long and holidays sparse, then reducing the amount of work comes off as more socialist.
And no one is arguing that people should be able to earn more holidays than they currently get, or earn the right to work less. It’s being argued that we should care about the workers more, and reduce the capitalistic argument that your value is directly proportional to how much money you have. It is introducing more socialist ideas into a currently more capitalist system.
This is the garden path I was talking about, but okay, I can walk down it :).
There seem to be two different definitions of “cultural homogeneity” that are at work here:
When there’s not a strong difference between cultures relative to some other situation; and
When there’s no differences whatsoever between cultures.
When DA was talking about how cultural homogeneity led to fewer problems, I assumed he meant the former one, and responded by saying that you can only achieve that sort of cultural homogeneity (i.e., a significant diminishment of local cultural heterogeneity) through violence. “Murder” was a slight exaggeration, perhaps, given Kobal2’s example of how in France you could achieve it just through coercive and sometimes violent means. But the most sweeping efforts to diminish heterogeneity were enacted via genocide.
I think you’re using the second definition. That’s the one that’s a myth: you can’t get there.
I don’t think it’s so much that everyone thinks its the best system out there and that we can’t change it, but rather that it’s something that is a consequence of our Constitution. By that I mean that schooling falls under the Tenth Amendment, and since it’s not called out in the Constitution as a Federal thing, it’s something that is squarely the problem of the individual states. The Dept. of Education generally gets around this by doing various sorts of grants that come with various strings attached- none of it is mandated from on high- you can refuse that money from the Federal government if you can’t accept the strings that come with it.
And presumably a majority of people, as represented by their various legislators, prefer an even more local administration of school systems, otherwise we’d see more state-level unitary systems rather than the patchwork system of local and municipal school districts that most places have.
I mean, I admit that I wouldn’t be wild about the idea of all teachers and all the curricula and all that sort of thing being mandated from Austin, much less Washington DC. At least as it is, if I have a bone to pick with the school district, I can drive 3 miles up the road and let someone have it at a school board meeting. But if it’s with a few morons on the State Board of Education(those clowns pushing intelligent design and other idiocies), I’m kind of out of luck, as I can only vote for my own board member, and I’d have to drive 4 hours just to get to the meeting. Washington would be even worse.
Beyond that, short of randomly assigning students to schools and busing nearly everyone, you’re always going to have the problem of kids going to school close to home, with in many cases, kids just like them who also live nearby.
As a first generation immigrant to the US and as a person of color, I’ve been reading this thread with mixed feelings.
First of all, racism and bigotry is not unique to whites, it’s prevalent everywhere in the world. But the impact this has on humanity is certainly greater with white bigotry because white people have the most economic power.
If I were to choose between Europe and US, I would certainly choose the US many times over. I have been to Europe on business and vacation and their attitudes are far worse compared to US. The one biggest difference is openness : Europeans are extremely good at hiding their dirty laundry while Americans discuss everything out in the open.
Take for instance Florence (Firenze) in Italy. Right in the heart of the city, there are miles and miles of Chinese sweatshops. These are warehouses where a family of Chinese immigrants are given maybe a 10ftx10ft area and they live with children crawling around and produce leather goods (yeah those nice made in Italy leather handbags and shoes and jackets).
I have seen similar situations in France, Germany and Poland. You see very few immigrants or people of color in professional or leadership roles. It’s always germans or French or …
I don’t know much about the Scandinavian countries but I just checked the leadership at top 10 Norwegian companies and as I suspected they are all white Norwegians. In contrast many American companies have diverse leadership.
Sure America can improve but the Europeans need to learn from America and not the other way around. That is while Europe still has time, China is slowly buying Europe from the inside.
And America - thank you for the liberties and opportunities afforded to immigrants. I for one, am very grateful.
FWIW I’m a second generation person of color who grew up in the UK and I feel the exact opposite way.
We don’t have need to have protests about unarmed blacks being frequently shot by police on the street / in a car / in their own home. Protests which get ridiculously misconstrued as being generally against the idea of a police force or something.
I was also shocked last time I was in the US at how otherwise good people would talk about native Americans as somehow subhuman and not deserving of any compassion. It freaked me out.
If you ask me if you can borrow my shirt, and I say no point, I’m a Small and you’re XXL, I’m not making a value judgement about short being better than tall, or visa versa. I’m just saying that my shirt won’t fit you.
The arguments about homogeneity, at least the ones I’ve seen in the wild, basically come down to: the US can’t borrow Scandinavia’s shirt. The health care system in Norway works in Norway because it was built around XYZ factors of life in Norway. America doesn’t necessarily have X, Y, and/or Z, so instead of copy-pasting How They Do Things In Norway, we’re going to have to come up with something new, based on How Things Are In America.
I hate to be mean about the US for two posts in a row, but “america is bigger than Norway” is a bullshit post hoc excuse.
If there’s a way the US is special it’s that some Americans think this excuse is valid. For other countries, if we see there are healthcare / infrastructure / legal changes that many other countries have implemented successfully, no one would tolerate the excuse “We’re different!” Everywhere has its own challenges.
It would have to be shown that being big is some fundamental block to implementing free healthcare, and Canada, Australia and heck, Russia, would beg to differ.
Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
Sure. But in this case, bump said “We are different sizes, also we have different skin tones and come from different cultures.”
Those other things were what prompted the accusations of racism.
Ok, as you can see by this post of yours, you sort of combine both definitions into one; that is the former one, the cultural homogeneity you say is only achievable thru violence and also describing that cultural homogeneity as a myth that is only ever semi-achievable thru violence. So its you that appears to me to be blurring the lines here.
My own unstructured view is that capitalism is competition between multiple actors, where failing actors get replaced. Socialism tends to involve fewer actors and less competition and replacement.
So I’d call the US setup less capitalist. It basically reduces and heavily disadvantages one set of actors in the labor market, the employee side. The employment/remuneration market appears heavily lopsided against the interests of the employees.
Norway having more vacation days are not a result of socialism in any way, it is a result of competition. The minimum mandated vacation days in Norway is 4 week, but hardly anyone offers less than 5 weeks vacation, and some offers more. There is no minimum wage, but few people would get out of bed for less than $ 20/hour, because there is competition for labor.