Socialists

[Poisoner]

Honestly, where do you get the crazy idea that it is the government's responsibility to feed/shelter/medicate the population? Seriously, does the government need to do everything for us?

[Mathius]

You have to remember that socialism was born in a 19th century European setting where class and wealth appeared to be fixed and immortal. There was no way for the poorest classes (particularly in places like Russia where an essentially feudal system still existed) to make good and haul themselves out of poverty (except possibly through the military). Socialism was born of a need to redistribute wealth, in all its forms, more equitably, and saw Government as the appropriate medium for this change to be brought about. Quite what it means in the 21st Century I have no idea, but I'm sure others will follow who didn't do genetics as a degree...

[wilpuri]

Seriously?

[The spartan]

Works in Norway. No.1 place to live, so sayith the UN. GO NORWAY!

[Atterdag]

Because we believe that the strong shall help the weak.

Works in Scandinavia which is one of the richest and best parts of the world to live in.

[wilpuri]

Because we believe that the strong shall help the weak.

Works in Scandinavia which is one of the richest and best parts of the world.

However, I don't believe the Scandinavian model is universally applicable. It requires a certain kind of society, I believe, in order to function effectively. Small, homogenous and industrious nations are ideal for it.

[Katrina]

Because we believe that the strong shall help the weak.

Everyone has the potential to help themselves in one way or another. It isn't up to those who have strength to work hard who should baby the ones who can't suck it up and make the best of their situation. Socialism is doomed for problems. Example, in Canada, you will find socialism. There is a doctor shortage there because of their health care system. Doctors don't get payed nearly as much, so those who spend half their life training intensively to become a doctor and put their life into their studies get jipped because their pay is so low. Therefore, who the heck wants to be a doctor anymore in Canada? That's a pretty important job.

Theres side effects to helping out those who are too weak to get off their butt. And those who work hard, don't get what they rightfully deserve.

[thebigbossnahhh]

Because we believe that the strong shall help the weak.

Works in Scandinavia which is one of the richest and best parts of the world to live in.

Has more Renewable Energy than anywhere else in the EU and the Fastest Internet Connection in the World, I think that's Norway, i'm not sure?

[Veni]

Works in Norway. No.1 place to live, so sayith the UN. GO NORWAY!

I'm Norwegian and those tests made by UN was not taken when the Socialists ruled. I can also tell you that Socialism is NOT the reason why it's good to live here. Yeah the Socialists won the last election but they didn't rule before that. They're also most likely losing the next election in 2009 cause they're terrible.

[Erik]

Seriously?

I think he's being cereal.

And I'm with the Scandinavia>capitalist countries argument.

However, I don't believe the Scandinavian model is universally applicable. It requires a certain kind of society, I believe, in order to function effectively. Small, homogenous and industrious nations are ideal for it.

I also agree to that.
Fortunately my own country is one of the places where Scandinavian style socialism should work.

[LoZz]

Honestly, where do you get the crazy idea that it is the government's responsibility to feed/shelter/medicate the population? Seriously, does the government need to do everything for us?

if i get hit by a bus, i know i will be treated and not have to worry about if i can afford it or not.

if i fall on hard times, i know someone will be their to help me back on my feet

whats so wrong with that?

[Lord Bohemond]

Interesting how the entire Western world is headed towards economic destruction, but they don't cut their unaffordable welfare and healthcare programs, because that would be "inhumane".

[Erik]

Interesting how the entire Western world is headed towards economic destruction, but they don't cut their unaffordable welfare and healthcare programs, because that would be "inhumane".

My country isn't heading towards economic destruction.
We can afford our welfare and healthcare programs just fine.....but still my government cuts them back just to lower taxes for the rich

Having beer at £8 a pint didnt help.

They should have done what we do in Amsterdam:
Sell 1/4 pints for "just" €3.

But even if countries like Britain can't emulate Scandinavia they can still find their own way of implementing socialism, if they wanted.

[Mathius]

But even if countries like Britain can't emulate Scandinavia they can still find their own way of implementing socialism, if they wanted.

Hmmm. We have had a "socialist" government for 10 years now during which time state spending has rocketed with minimal effect (no long debate on this please - there are lots of pros and cons but i genuinely feel bang does not = buck), the tax burden has soared, and we've got entangled in 21,356 separate global conflicts. Keep the red flag flying

[NaptownKnight]

Honestly, where do you get the crazy idea that it is the government's responsibility to feed/shelter/medicate the population? Seriously, does the government need to do everything for us?

There are many different ways to interpret what a socialist is. If you are saying it in the modern sense, a more moderate communist, then I would have to say they are half right. If you are using it in the orriginal sense of the word, as a communist, or a first stage communist government, then you are wrong because a true socialist in that sense wants the second stage communist government, or a true communist country, which is described by Karl Marx as a lack of government.

[Hadrian]

In the long term, Socialism is doomed to failure because of the fact that the incentive to work and produce eventually becomes none existant (other than out of the goodness of one's own heart). Also, people figure out that it is much easier to kick back and let someone else provide for them rather than be one of the working producers.
It's tough to stay motivated when you work hard and earn something only to have some or all of it taken away to be "redistributed" to non-producing others. I suppose simple forms of socialism can be introduced into a civilzed modern society as a safety net for the most unfortunate but even their prolonged tenure of relying on the benevolence of others begins to strain the fabric of a social welfare system, especially if that society is growing. Once the ones reliant on others equals the producers, it's all over.

[Atterdag]

In the long term, Socialism is doomed to failure because of the fact that the incentive to work and produce eventually becomes none existant (other than out of the goodness of one's own heart). Also, people figure out that it is much easier to kick back and let someone else provide for them rather than be one of the working producers.

So Scandinavia has been doomed to failure for some, hmm, 100 years?

[Erik]

In the long term, Socialism is doomed to failure because of the fact that the incentive to work and produce eventually becomes none existant

The incentive is still there as long as you get a much better life by working than by not working.
If this wasn't the case, why do people want to earn more than minimum wage?

Socialism IMO should only provide the most basic life necessities (food, clothes and shelter) and no luxuries whatsoever.
If you want a TV you'll have to work.
If you want a PC you'll have to work even more.

Since most people think life is more than lying on your bed staring at the ceiling all day long there is plenty of incentive to work, if only so you can have a nice cold beer at the end of the day.

[Atterdag]

Everyone has the potential to help themselves in one way or another. It isn't up to those who have strength to work hard who should baby the ones who can't suck it up and make the best of their situation. Socialism is doomed for problems.

So in the US if a poor man gets hit by a car he'll go to a lower class hospital (federal?), while a rich man can pay to go to a better and thus increases the chances of him surviving. Isn't that extremly unfair?
You see the Socilist idea that each person should work according the person's abbilities.

Example, in Canada, you will find socialism. There is a doctor shortage there because of their health care system. Doctors don't get payed nearly as much, so those who spend half their life training intensively to become a doctor and put their life into their studies get jipped because their pay is so low. Therefore, who the heck wants to be a doctor anymore in Canada? That's a pretty important job.

I have no idea what the doctor education situation in Canada is like.
I can tell you this though, here there is a difference in sallaries. It's not like we're communists.

Theres side effects to helping out those who are too weak to get off their butt. And those who work hard, don't get what they rightfully deserve

For your information, if a person in the Danish (Scandinavian) welfare state refuses activation that person will lose his welfare benefits.
It is an incredible, incredible tiny amount of people who live off the work made by others while not contributing to the society.

[skullman86]

So in the US if a poor man gets hit by a car he'll go to a lower class hospital (federal?), while a rich man can pay to go to a better and thus increases the chances of him surviving. Isn't that extremely unfair?
You see the Socialist idea that each person should work according the person's abilities.

The "rich" guy works for a living and earns his money so yes it's fair.....its his money and he can spend it how he pleases.If the US wasn't so busy helping every goddamn person who crossed the border (illegally mind you) I think the poor guy might get better medical attention.The reason the poor guy doesn't get "rich guy" medical is because he is working according to his abilities and he sucks at his job (or doesn't even have one) resulting in crappy pay or no pay at all.If there was a socialist take over he'd be in the line for execution because he wouldn't be of any use .I could see socialism working in small communities or small countries where there is a common goal and people aren't as spread out but in America, people are more focused on their own advancement and no one works for free; you can take someone from California and someone from New York and they will have completely different opinions and backrounds so how are they supposed to unite?Socialism is a good theory but you can't implement it in todays society because of peoples' standards and views; maybe you can implement portions of it but not 100%.Giving the poor guy the same stuff as everyone else isn't equality (the whole point of socialism) because the poor guy does little or no work while everyone else busts their ass to get the exact same thing....Isnt that extremely unfair?Working should have rewards, you work harder or do something more demanding than someone else then your payment should reflect that, how hard is that to grasp?If you work a menial job at McDonald's because you are too lazy to go to college then your gonna get crap pay, why should the welder who took classes and works 12 hour days support the guy who choses to work a lame ass job.It isn't impossible to get a job in this country and it isn't impossible to go to college either.There are plenty of programs that help pay for this stuff and if all else fails there is something called the military .

It isn't the government's fault that people get bad pay....the government actually enforces minimum wage laws but it is up to the employer whether or not the worker gets more than minimum wage and without employers, you now have no companies to compete for sales (competition=lower prices) and now you have no choices when buying stuff so now the government can gouge the prices and NOW you are stuck in the place of that poor guy along with the rest of the people in your country.THAT is what happens when a country implements socialism, you get a dictatorship that takes everything from the people.How are you going to control the flow of the money without someone in charge? Even without currency someone still has to lead or else you have a bunch of people with no currency or government doing whatever they please.The United States has been around for over 200 years and I don't understand why all of the sudden people think socialism is gonna save the day when the day doesn't need saving.When Marxism is implemented in most countries they end up with a dictatorship (not intentionally but it happens) so I'd say that communism and socialism's track records kinda blow .

How many people live in Scandinavia, is it anywhere near 300+ million?Try convincing that many people to work for a single cause for free then come back to me about how socialism is the teh best government evar!1!1!!!!