The thing is, it's not just about healthcare for all. The European model of capitalism is predicated on the same systemic oppression as American capitalism.

The European model isn't a success, the Eurozone problems are tremendous. It is for precisely this reason (read: the problems of capitalism) that Europe is home to some of the most robust anti-capitalist movements in the world.

EDIT: And, in light of the current discussion, European hospitals are predicated on the same suffering as American hospitals.

pretty much, because the bass-ackwards republicans have mindwashed people into thinking that it is.

The European model isn't a success, the Eurozone problems are tremendous...Europe is home to some of the most robust anti-capitalist movements in the world.

A very good friend of mine is a green peace activist and was a mover and shaker in the newbury bypass campaign (google it) amongst other protests. She received housing benefit, income support and later disability benefits from very state she rallied against for years.

In other words european anarchism is supported by european capitalism/socialism. In this respect, the european model is a success.

European hospitals are predicated on the same suffering as American hospitals

Perhaps the emphasis should be on palliative care rather than curing every ailment that can afflict a person. To a degree I think we are incriminated by our own expectations.

I think SnozzleBerry's statement has to do with what he posted previously:

>> I think SnozzleBerry's statement has to do with what he posted previously:

thanks easyrider.

My reply was supposed to take that into account. I was suggesting that the more we expect from health care the more it can be expected to ravage the world's resources behind the scenes. Not expecting cures, but rather a pain free and dignified path to death might demand fewer resources.

Is this truly the reality, though? Or perhaps there are viable solutions just waiting to be found? And if these solutions are found, would you not agree that a new order of things would be called for to replace, by any means, this disorder of things?

I don't think you understand my position, but I might be misconstruing this given the flat text and the fact that I agree with your last comment to easyrider. Allow me to elaborate and tell me what you think?

There are few places in the world that industrial capitalism has not ensnared in its tentacles. As a result, most people's current living situations and material possessions are predicated on capitalism. Claiming that European capitalism (or socialism) is supporting anarchism is poor phrasing, imo, as it implies an active interest in such support on the part of capitalist/socialist enterprise, which afaik, is a completely unsupported claim to make. A more accurate phrasing, imo, would be to say that anarchists and anti-capitalists are able to make use of resources available at the margin of capitalism, or as a result of socialist infrastructure. There are numerous examples that illustrate the degree to which Europe is not interested in supporting alternatives to capitalism and, imo, we should not lose sight of that just because there is a greater body of social welfare projects than in the US. This is hardly something that should be considered a success.

State welfare programs are desirable in as much as they provide a tiny lifeboat for those who would otherwise be crushed by the machinery of industrial capitalism, but all of these programs are predicated on coercive and destructive processes/industries/relationships. Ultimately, state welfare provides a modicum of support within a catastrophic system and is an antagonistic contradiction that could be resolved through the dismantling of industrial capitalism.

Also, I'm familiar with the UK roads campaign (I've been active with EF!) and I'm aware of Greenpeace. Neither of those organizations are explicitly anarchist (despite EF!'s burgeoning anarchist influence) and Greenpeace is certainly not anti-capitalist, so the singular example is a tad non-seqiturial given the discussion at hand.


This I agree with wholeheartedly. I don't know that it's the only way, but it certainly appears to be one manner in which the uneven acquisition and distribution of resources (and the effects of acquiring them) would/could be mitigated. And ultimately, it's likely going to be a question we will have to face at some point, given the historical precedent set by all civilizations collapsing.

And I know it's a complex issue and there's a million things to cover, but this is my point:

When even the greatest good that industrial capitalism could be said to provide (modern medicine) presents a litany of social and environmental problems, many of which are largely indefensible, how can such a system not warrant examination and deconstruction in an attempt to build something better?

For me, that's the crux of the issue.