@JAYS21 Funny because the only one who has shown blatant ignorance here is you. I haven't heard anything from you that is not an anti soviet slogan that was stale 30 years ago.
Under the states which have employed socialism? None. Except perhaps Sweden, which is socialist; however, I've heard arguments that it's unsustainable or that . Even so. It exists, and it seems to be working pretty well, aside from [b]claimed[/b] funding issues.
But you likely already live under socialism. Socialism is an economic system which establishes the priority on humanity. Capitalism is an economic system which establishes the priority on profit and infinite consumption.
Let's start off by saying that it is [b]very clear[/b] which economic system has ultimately benefited humanity the most, to this point. Capitalism has brought us a great deal--however, it has also stolen it from many others.
Anyway, you already live under socialism. Most economies are "mixed economies", meaning they employ aspects of socialism and capitalism. For instance, medicare/caid, police, firefighters, public libraries, public parks, community colleges. These are socialist bills. They are government controlled and operated businesses which charge significantly less or nothing for public services which we all enjoy than the private sector.
U.S. healthcare is an example of what happens in unrestrained capitalism.
1 in 4 Americans will unwillingly miss meals. 1 in 5 children in the U.S. will unwillingly miss meals. And we are an exorbitantly wealthy country.
The goal of socialism is to make that impossible. If nothing else, to provide these safety nets which won't allow people to starve or live on the street. Or, in my case, be unable to fix potentially life threatening conditions without being rich, even though I'm a hard-ass worker and am in college studying Computer Science. i.e. A benefit to society.
My question to you is, why wouldn't anyone want to make sure the less fortunate do not starve and suffer? If you're simply very self-centered, then even within that context, you should want everyone to be as stable as possible, so your children don't get shot by a crazed lunatic who's desperate and beaten down.
@StrictSouthernHOH Lol. You are seriously making that argument? That is cute. You are not even aware that that argument actually goes against your ideology. Look up the facts genius. The vast majority of R&D for drugs around the world is funded mostly by public funds not private corporations. About the only part in the process corporations play is marketing. In fact certain drugs were buried in the US all because the big pharma corporations couldn't make money of the patents. Do any of you clowns actually read because throwing out own goal arguments like this?
@StrictSouthernHOH And in the US most of those people you speak of cross the border into Canada where we don't allow companies to extort our citizens for shareholder profits.
@JAYS21 Actually that is you guys. Reagan got one thing right that it is Voodoo economics. In other words capitalist economics in its current form is magical thinking and smoke and mirrors and myths and legends.
When we select a government, it's a mutual sta ding between the government and the people that it would come to the support of people via the taxes of people.
Now, there are 2 theories which lead to capitalism and socialism.
First get your basic necessities fulfilled and once they are, then you automatically would search for something new on yourself and you would be creative to the environment but not in a harmful way.
Second, don't give any help to anyone, just tell the people to vote and people will themselves fight against them for food, water and everything. It will bring a competetive atmosphere which will lead society to develop faster than usual.
Please note that the second method leads to selfishness which means more greed for becoming more rich and thus eventually using all the right, wrong ways to be rich, the best at the cost of environment or anything.
You want to build Skywalk from US to Europe connecting people and faster way for commuting, you would just think about profit because you are hungry for money.
On the other hand, for a socialist, he will consider the factors like how it is going to hurt the environment and all as he is not greedy because he knows even if the passage is built, he won't earn anything so he would give due respect to everything like the number of trees that need to be removed, if that is good for the people on mass scale.
On the other hand, a capitalist will only need one thing, how much is the inflow of the money
@TheOrionbeltseeker The simple fact is that an economic system that punishes success is destined to fail. It might take 20, 200 or 2000 years to crash and burn but it is inevitable.
Because they think an economic system that has failed everywhere it has been tried can succeed if someone can just figure out how to do it right. Never mind that doing it right would require the suspension of the basic human instinct to look out for ourselves first.
I suppose it’s a reaction to what people see as the effects of uncontrolled capitalism. Whilst it’s brought out millions of people out of poverty, within individual societies income inequality is growing more stark. I guess this turn towards socialism is plea for the government to step in and put the whole thing into equilibrium. Now whether it’s the right thing or not, I’m not sure.
@JAYS21 I suppose so. If you look throughout Asia and Latin America many countries have a socialist bent to them because it’s popular. Giving farm subsidies or fuel subsidies etc. I understand the necessities of it, especially if the recipients are living below, at or near the poverty line. But in places like Malaysia or India these subsidies then get turned into an election tool, which I argue is corruption.
A further point is that when a populace no longer needs a government hand out but continues to demand one, and then threatens the government with all sorts of drama if it doesn’t get them. Reminiscent of a spoiled child unable to let go of a toy it’s outgrown. Ok I don’t actually know where I’m going witg this particular point but I’n hoping you understand what I’m trying to say. Something like intimidation and a disruption of the democratic process. Because the people choose the leader for not just the popular policies but the unpopular but practical ones too.
Now if a socialist government over time due to all these socialist policies becomes the poster child for fiscal mismanagement, as is the case when all the programs balloon with mission creep, and refuses to resolve the issue and it starts to affect the populace such that they are no longer helping them but hurting them in a bid to deny mistakes and retain their power, I can see your point about a government giving and then taking. As you mentioned to VeeshalGreek, Venzuela and I think Brazil as well cuz there was that and just truly epic corruption as well.
all the isms of the world try to break one of the simplified laws of thermodynamics. capitalism, that you can win; socialism, that you can break even; spiritualism, that you can quit the game.
Gee I don't know. Putting people before profits, sharing and working towards making life better for the majority not renaming royalty and the aristocracy and calling it freedom.
1) that flat out flies in the face of historical facts that have been public domain since the 50s but I understand you have to believe only Americans can invent anything ever. I mean you guys think you invented democracy. lol
And in Canada and the US at least 1 million Chinese were killed just to build a railroad. Bad things happen during big changes in many countries. And I am curious where you got this 100 million from. Most anti communist shills suck at sources. You seem to leave out very conveniently that after collectivization famines that used to happen every few years became a thing of the past.
And apparently Cuba sucks because you don't like them.
Nice emotional tantrum.
I remember reading an article a few years ago that estimated that up to 200 million people might die from the global fallout of the 2008 banking theft. But hey under capitalism nobody is ever responsible you can just blame "market forces" and everyone goes back to doing it again.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow "You seem to leave out very conveniently that after collectivization famines that used to happen every few years became a thing of the past."
You really believe that? I seem to recall freighters full of grain headed out from American ports to the workers paradise.
[c=#008099] Socialism itself is a very effective way to live. After all, every functional family operates under a socialist system within the household, where the parents 'do' for the kids and the kids 'do' for the parents and everyone 'does' for the common good of the family as a functional unit. Most North American families are dysfunctional at best and therefore never experience the true value of socialism experienced within the household.
It is when a purely socialistic government system falls victim to corrupt intent that the concept of socialism is given a bad name. So far, all we ever keep seeing is corrupt versions of socialism in the world. But corruption in socialist Russia is really no different than corruption in a democracy such as the USA for example. It is the corrupt intent of those in charge of each respective government that gives socialism and democracy bad raps.[/c]
[c=#008099] Canada uses a system of socialistic Medical Care for all Canadian residents, although Canada is a democracy not much different than America. The Canadian government doesn't pay for the socialized medical plan, but in fact only partially funds the universal health care plan for all.
Who pays the remaining percentage owed for universal health care, are the tax-paying Canadian citizens themselves. The higher the tax bracket you are in, the more you pay in annual premiums, although you have no more medical benefit than someone at the lower end of the tax bracket.
A Canadian citizen paying taxes in the lowest income tax bracket due to low income, will pay about $200 annually for their share of the health plan.
A citizen who earns high income and is in the highest income tax bracket, will pay about $900 annually for their share of the socialized health plan.
What socialized 'universal health care for all' means however, is that a Canadian citizen can walk into a hospital and have any medical procedure done for basically free! What this means is, the citizen will never receive a medical bill in the mail which requires that they sell their house in order to pay their medical bill. Many American citizens on the other hand, must sell their house in order to pay off their hospital visit. Canadians don't ever experience that financial burden, rich or poor.
@StrictSouthernHOH Canadians wait weeks for procedures that are performed in the U.S. within days. [c=#008099] So what?! Who gives a shit?!
So called 'same-day' service in the United States costs you your house and all your savings, whereas in Canada, you just lay down your plastic health card, they scan it when you are admitted to hospital and that's the last time you hear from the hospital administrator.[/c]
@RogueLoner Actually you just proved my point. You might want to read at least an intro to politics book before you start making an ass of yourself insulting people who point out you have no idea what you are talking about.
