Socialism

As long as socialism doesn't turn into communism it's okay by me, kind of. Far to many spongers out there that the do-gooders refuse to see or accept are just milking the system. Dole hand-outs should never equate to the value of a full-time wage. Get them out working in order to lift this country out of recession.
 
America is a young country, the country is corrupt and as been for decades and is suffering badly from the recession, people call this country and Europe but I would rather live here than in the, if you think our immigration is bad you want to see what gets into the US. I still find it strange that such a young nation bangs on about immigration and freedom but the fact they slaughtered the native Americans to almost extinction.
 
Socialism is equivalent to massive fail, multiplied by facepalm. The reason being, not everyone is equal and nor will they be. Whilst there are differing IQ's ad morality, Socialism cannot work. The emotionally and mentally strong will ALWAYS take advantage of the weak - it is part of our species genetic pre-disposition. Until we can let things like that side, meritocracy is the way forward and the closest thing we have is Capitalism.
 
jidh007 said:
I don't know, the Stalinist regime was quite effective at transforming a pretty much feudal society and economy.
Click to expand...

Into what? His transformation model relied on indefinite expansion at all cost in order to support economy of central point. Russians were flying to space, Russians were working on nuclear power while everyone else was trading in tonage - as in tone of coal for tone of potateos and maintaining non existent export exchange rates for greater good of big brother. In the end the entire eastern block up until the end were working their arms off plowing into unimaginable debt trying to prevent that central puzzle piece of economy from falling and pulling everyone with it into deepest, darkest Cuban style recession.
 
Kitchster_uk said:
Socialism is equivalent to massive fail, multiplied by facepalm. The reason being, not everyone is equal and nor will they be. Whilst there are differing IQ's ad morality, Socialism cannot work. The emotionally and mentally strong will ALWAYS take advantage of the weak - it is part of our species genetic pre-disposition. Until we can let things like that side, meritocracy is the way forward and the closest thing we have is Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Socialism is not about everyone being equal.
 
socialism, capitalism, communism - any system that allows for the concentration of power or an elite is inherent to the same problems and corruption. Taking the side of any above as they stand today is taking the side of something that isn't really on your side.

99.99999% of people don't have any clue at all of what these systems really represent or create, and those who think capitalism is better because they have a flat screen tv and a disposable income, or those who think socialism is good because they are poor and think it would allow them the flat screen TV and a disposable income, **** me off.

Every one of the above systems can work, and work well, its corruption and highly concentrated power and wealth that screw it up for all of us, and until that is discussed, that is debated, that is tackled, it doesn't matter what system you believe in, it's not the one you're gonna get.
 
neologan said:
Every one of the above systems can work, and work well, its corruption and highly concentrated power and wealth that screw it up for all of us, and until that is discussed, that is debated, that is tackled, it doesn't matter what system you believe in, it's not the one you're gonna get.
Click to expand...

Tin foil hats on lads.
 
The most socialist countries in Europe are the Scandinavian ones, with high taxes to pay for decent public transport (vital for worker mobility) and a good welfare state (they have excellent child care laws so that mothers are enabled to return to the job market when they want to). Co-incidentally, Scandinavian countries have for years enjoyed the highest standards of living.
 
rypt said:
Been reading an American car forum; and I just find it funny how people always scream "omg socialism, it is evil, just look at Europe".

I fail to see how socialism (unless taken to the extreme) is evil, or how Western Europe is "deeply socialist" - now I agree we have plenty of welfare state - but that is hardly socialism.

It makes me laugh how some Americans seem to think that such basic things as petrol tax; state funded health system and so on are almost the work of the devil.
Click to expand...

The Yanks say this because they are ignorant barbarians who have been socially conditioned to see evil "socialism" everywhere they look, which allows the ruling administration to deny them services that we take for granted, under the guise of "protecting" them from the evils of the communist menace.

Their mentality is stuck in the Cold War era. You can blame decades of poor education and government propaganda.
 
Tefal said:
How can you run a massive healthcare system for free?:confused:
Click to expand...

You can't, But from my own exrpierance the nhs is a lot better than the hospital i visit in america.
The differance is the europeans and canadiaans believe on helping each other, whilst the yanks dont see why they should help the fellow man, so much for being a very christian nation...
My experiance of a american hospital was sitting in agrubby waiting room for 3 hours and the only words uttered to me by the staff were
"do you have insurance"

Then i had to suffer a further hour here the locals ask me if healthcare realy was free in the uk, as if it was some form of mythical being.

The yanks could have a universal healthcare system, only problem most of the senate is bought of by the drug and HMo companies (i swear that counts ascorruption) so it'lll never happen.
 
Liefrich said:
No a better question and what I orginally meant was:

Do you not believe healthcare should be free (taxes included) to the public?
Click to expand...

This question still makes no sense. What you actually means is 'Should people be forced to pay for state run healthcare', and my answer to that is no.

This does not mean I want a system like the USA, but a more liberal variation of that employed in France (France uses a mandated insurance based system and many hospitals and all doctors surgeries are run on a market basis independant of the state, the change I would make is that in France the insurance funds are still managed by the government (you can't choose your insurance provider), I would only have the government manage access, maximum basic care charges (insurers could charge less) and basic healthcare levels, but not get involved in the actual provision of insurance, which would help avoid some of the problems France experiences with the system).

It makes no difference whether I have to pay healthcare from my own pocket, or whether the government takes the money from my pocket for me. The end result is still that I'm paying for the service, fundamentally I want the best value for money (this is not the same as the cheapest) and massive, monolithic state run monopolies don't achieve that.
 
Last edited:
Evangelion said:
It's free at point of service, which makes all the difference.

We pay a lot less in tax than the Yanks pay for their insurance, and receive far superior service for our money.
Click to expand...

That's a very debatable point, the US healthcare system is superior to the NHS in quality of care and waiting time if you have good insurance cover. It's crap if you have poor cover or rely on medicare.

Ours is universally medicore, it depends which you decide is a preferable situation, treat everyone equally (but only averagely) or treat some better than others.
 
scorza said:
The most socialist countries in Europe are the Scandinavian ones, with high taxes to pay for decent public transport (vital for worker mobility) and a good welfare state (they have excellent child care laws so that mothers are enabled to return to the job market when they want to). Co-incidentally, Scandinavian countries have for years enjoyed the highest standards of living.
Click to expand...
There's also a lot less of them in a much bigger space.

When you've only got 9 million people (Sweden), anyone abusing the system, or any inefficiencies, are much easier to root out and fix.

Standards of living are higher due to more space, less people making a mess, and /possibly/ more job opportunity for those 9 million in general.

That's indeed debatable, but there must be a tipping point somewhere where we have employed as many people as possible doing all manner of jobs anyone could conceivably think of as being useful. For example, most cheaper restaurants (even small lunch time places) in the UK will be served by waiters and waitresses. In Sweden the trend might be self-service on trays, as the staff won't generally be available so the job is never created.
 
Dolph said:
That's a very debatable point, the US healthcare system is superior to the NHS in quality of care and waiting time if you have good insurance cover. It's crap if you have poor cover or rely on medicare.
Click to expand...

You're comparing the US private system with the UK public system... why? :confused:

Compare like with like, or don't make comparisons at all. The UK and US private systems are both excellent, but the US public system is next to useless while the UK public system is far superior.

Ours is universally medicore, it depends which you decide is a preferable situation, treat everyone equally (but only averagely) or treat some better than others.
Click to expand...

The NHS isn't as good as some European systems, but it offers terrific value for money and (generally) very good service. Like most western liberal democracies, the UK offers the best of both worlds: a brilliant private system for those who want it, and a great public system for those who can't afford private.

The Yanks pay more for healthcare and get less in return. Medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcies in the US (even amongst those with health insurance), whereas in places like the UK and Australia, this is almost unheard of.
 
Evangelion said:
You're comparing the US private system with the UK public system... why? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because whether the funding is voluntary or compulsory is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand? We are looking at healthcare provision in those countries, not public healthcare provision in those countries.

Compare like with like, or don't make comparisons at all. The UK and US private systems are both excellent, but the US public system is next to useless while the UK public system is far superior.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the costs between the US and UK private systems are dramatically different when you remember to include the taxpayer funding of the NHS as well (which is especially pertinant as you get taxed on private healthcare in this country if it's given as a benefit, you actually get taxed more for using the service less).

The NHS isn't as good as some European systems, but it offers terrific value for money and (generally) very good service. Like most western liberal democracies, the UK offers the best of both worlds: a brilliant private system for those who want it, and a great public system for those who can't afford private.
Click to expand...

YMMV, but I'd break it down, the NHS offers very good immediate and emergency care services, the rest of it is, at best, mediocre, and their chronic condition management is awful.

The Yanks pay more for healthcare and get less in return. Medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcies in the US (even amongst those with health insurance), whereas in places like the UK and Australia, this is almost unheard of.
Click to expand...

The american system is not functioning well, that is clear, and I've never said otherwise, but the only alternative to our current system is not an american style one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom