Socialism ?

[Kellfire]

Things wouldn’t cost as much in a truly socialist world because people wouldn’t be profiteering. So using the idea that we’d all be poor if wealth was distributed is total nonsense.

And if you’re quoting a hate filled moron like Thatcher to defend your stance, then you’re never really going to get it.

 

[Hobbit]

Things wouldn’t cost as much in a truly socialist world because people wouldn’t be profiteering. So using the idea that we’d all be poor if wealth was distributed is total nonsense.

And if you’re quoting a hate filled moron like Thatcher to defend your stance, then you’re never really going to get it.

In an ideal world, note world, yes. But without a profit who would invest in a business, and without profit where would the money come from for inward investment. Its obscene profits that are an issue. There will be middle ground, but who's interested in less profit?

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Can we have a counter thread on capitalism, corporate and personal greed as well?

I'm all right Jack.

 

[SocketRocket]

Prices, prices, prices. Typically one-dimensional view.

Do the same checklist for education, healthcare, pensions and other benefits. Oh, and salaries are pretty good too. The Danes have a much better balance than we do and are much happier with their society than us with ours.

The topic was to discuss the reality of a Socialist state, you seem to want to move it to discussing Denmark which is not a socialist state. So maybe you have some views on how a socialist state could be effective.

 

[SocketRocket]

Can we have a counter thread on capitalism, corporate and personal greed as well?

I'm all right Jack.

The world's your oyster old boy, go for it

 

[Ethan]

The topic was to discuss the reality of a Socialist state, you seem to want to move it to discussing Denmark which is not a socialist state. So maybe you have some views on how a socialist state could be effective.

OK, so where do you consider socialist states? The imaginary economist who never said what your original story cites and many US Republicans would consider state provided healthcare to be evil socialism.

 

[Kellfire]

In an ideal world, note world, yes. But without a profit who would invest in a business, and without profit where would the money come from for inward investment. Its obscene profits that are an issue. There will be middle ground, but who's interested in less profit?

I would be if it meant everyone was comfortable and looked after.

 

[Old Skier]

Is there really any such thing, where could you find any data to base anything on. Bit like communism, great in theory but all men/women/gender aren't equal.

 

[SocketRocket]

I would be if it meant everyone was comfortable and looked after.

Like in North Korea, China and Russia.

 

[Kellfire]

Like in North Korea, China and Russia.

Yea again, that’s not actually socialism in its true form. I don’t think you truly believe it is, either, it just suits your narrative.

 

[SocketRocket]

OK, so where do you consider socialist states? The imaginary economist who never said what your original story cites and many US Republicans would consider state provided healthcare to be evil socialism.

I think you are missing the point, human nature will always make them fail, the only way they can exist is by becoming a military/police state to suppress the aspirations of freedom and self motivation.

 

[SocketRocket]

Yea again, that’s not actually socialism in its true form. I don’t think you truly believe it is, either, it just suits your narrative.

Maybe you can give me an example of Socialism in its true form, you cant because it's impossible and look no further than my OP for the reason why.

 

[SocketRocket]

OK, so where do you consider socialist states? The imaginary economist who never said what your original story cites and many US Republicans would consider state provided healthcare to be evil socialism.

There are none and my OP explains why.

 

[Ethan]

I think you are missing the point, human nature will always make them fail, the only way they can exist is by becoming a military/police state to suppress the aspirations of freedom and self motivation.

You are thinking of fascist states. The trite tale told in the never happened story in the first post has no relevance to the real world. But it is the sort of garbage used by the right wing to oppose elements of state provision from healthcare to welfare. In the US, some right wingers call Obama a socialist. In the UK, Obama would be a centrist Tory.

Try to construct a version of the story for unbridled capitalism, with no state provision, trickle down economics and survival of the fittest and see how it reads.

 

[Foxholer]

Maybe you can give me an example of Socialism in its true form, you cant because it's impossible and look no further than my OP for the reason why.

So why are you so worried about it?!

Or are you actually more worried that your own cosy position might be being somewhat threatened?

 

[Captainron]

Socialism is not really compatible with the human psyche. Humans have major flaws which will never ever allow for a fully coherent society.

Doesn’t mean that people shouldn't try but there’s no chance.

The change needed to go in that direction with a population the size of the UK in the position it is in now makes it even less possible.

 

[SocketRocket]

So why are you so worried about it?!

Or are you actually more worried that your own cosy position might be being somewhat threatened?

I'm not worried about any 'of it' I don't open something for debate just because I'm worried about it. I quite like talking about golf but not because I'm worried about it

 

[SocketRocket]

You are thinking of fascist states. The trite tale told in the never happened story in the first post has no relevance to the real world. But it is the sort of garbage used by the right wing to oppose elements of state provision from healthcare to welfare. In the US, some right wingers call Obama a socialist. In the UK, Obama would be a centrist Tory.

Try to construct a version of the story for unbridled capitalism, with no state provision, trickle down economics and survival of the fittest and see how it reads.

You do like to go off on tangents and introduce red herrings into debates, especially if they ask questions on the validity of socialism.
The op story was not meant to be fact, rather an allegorical view on whether socialism is a realistic option for society while portraying how people need a reason for self motivation beyond the communal allocating of reward.

But 'hey hoe' , let's not hold off a chance to outpour your hatred of everything American

 

[Foxholer]

I'm not worried about any 'of it' I don't open something for debate just because I'm worried about it. I quite like talking about golf but not because I'm worried about it

Perhaps 'worried' wasn't quite the best word to use.

But you DO seem to be anti virtually any move 'towards the left politically', are generally very negative towards Labour and generally very positive towards the Conservatives.

This entire thread seems, to me, to be started with a complete load of horlicks propaganda, about something you have even stated doesn't/can't exist, simply to push a 'Right is better than Left' pov! Are you, perchance a Conservative Party member, or Office Holder?

 

[backwoodsman]

Why, it's not important and probably just a story to illustrate a point

So, its a totally made up story, with no evidential base, to supposedly illustrate a particular point of view. Why am I not surprised.