British Politics

[Phil71]

Public universities
Highways and roads
Public transportation
Public libraries
Public parks
Police
Fire department
Postal service
Military/Defense/National Security
Garbage collection
etc. etc. etc.

But hurr durr sOcIaLiSm BaD.

Okay, boomer.

Not sure what any of that has to do with socialism. Any civilised country should provide that.

Even Adolf Hitler provided all of those things in Nazi Germany.

[LMAO]

Public universities
Highways and roads
Public transportation
Public libraries
Public parks
Police
Fire department
Postal service
Military/Defense/National Security
Garbage collection
etc. etc. etc.

But hurr durr sOcIaLiSm BaD.

Okay, boomer.

Not sure what any of that has to do with socialism. Any civilised country should provide that.

Even Adolf Hitler provided all of those things in Nazi Germany.

Socialism definition from Merriam-Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

The items I listed are all socialist in nature. Even the NHS you Brits love so much is socialist.

A good rule of thumb is if something is paid for or maintained by taxes, then it's probably socialist.

But pure socialism or pure capitalism is shit. That's why mixed economies (a little bit of socialism and a little bit of capitalism) do best.

[EliteKiller]

Socialism is about control of production, the UK government produces bugger all .... control of "National Services" such as the NHS, military, police, and infrastructure is a function of nearly all types of government. The UK couldn't be much further away from a pure Socialist state. Pretty much all countries are Capitalist defined by free markets and taxation systems neither of which would exist under true Socialism.

Social Democracy which is a capitalist paid and taxed workforce providing the money for a social redistribution of wealth, is what most people consider to be Socialism, of course it isn't but then most people are too uneducated to know the difference.

People believe "paid for and maintained by taxes" is Socialism ... couldn't be more wrong .... Socialism is where all money is controlled by the state and everyone works for wealth that is in turn distributed to everyone. Taxes don't exist under true Socialism as the state controls all the money.

Very simplistic but probably some of you should read the basics ... https://www.thebalancesmb.com/the-characteristics-of-capitalism-and-socialism-393509

There isn't really a Socialist party in the UK, JC leads a Social Democratic party that supports practical reforms to Capitalism as an end in itself whereas a Democratic Socialist party ultimately want to go beyond mere Social Democratic reforms and advocate systematic transformation of the economy from Capitalism to Socialism.

Subtle difference but one most people really should understand, probably says a lot about the standards of education that most people under thirty haven't got a bloody clue (and of course UFGN )

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

The argument that "trickle down economy works" in a country where thousands of working families are reduced to using food banks is plain ignorant.

Its exactly the same argument that goes "sweatshops help the poor in xyz country because otherwise they'd have nothing"...... when those people are going home to a shanty town with no toilets and a car battery for a power supply

Socialism is only good for the elites and capitalism and its trickle down myth is good for the poor.... wow ok

Im sick of hearing the same old shit from the right tbh. Sick of pandering to it

Why is it that the best places to live in the world, with the lowest crime, tend to be more liberal and more equal, with better public services and more personal freedom? Funny that.

Right wing trickle down my c***.

Liberal, compassionate policies breed the best living standards.

Can you define "trickle down" economics? I did in a previous post and it is applicable to any free economy. Do you also deny that the principles of supply and demand is factual? They are directly related to each other, actually one and the same . The flippant use of the term trickle down economics is a political statement, not an economic one.

Your sweatshop analogy is simply hyperbole. You are talking about Soviet or Chinese style exploitation or Victorian Britain, not a modern capitalist economy. Global poverty is at its lowest level ever, not due to socialism but rather due to capitalism being embraced in the third world. I refer you to the Economist reporting on this from three years ago. If you REALLY care about the less fortunate and a wealth gap the actual fight is against systemic corruption. Recent revolutions and demonstrations across the world have been staged against corruption from Iraq to Bolivia. Corruption is a constant in socialist economies and sadly in most third world nations.

Could you name a socialist economy that has worked? I don't mean countries like Norway or Sweden which have massive social aide programs , but rather real examples of economic socialism working. Scandinavian nations are indeed very nice places to live but that is because they have thriving capitalist economies and amazing work ethic which gave them the wherewithal to implement social structures as they have.

Having worked and lived in countries from India and Nepal to the far east, Pacific Islands, Central America, Bahama, the UK and family in Sweden I have concluded for myself that the US is the best place on earth to live.

Funny that you use the term "more equal" given that was how Orwell described the ubiquitous end point of socialialism...each and every time it is tried. Yes socialism is the ultimate jealousy based ideology as socialist always want others to pay their way. As the old saying goes, socialism is great until it runs out of other people's money.

Life is never about equal outcomes, but it should be about equal opportunity. Don't misinterpret this for not supporting safety nets for those who can't do for themselves, but too much "help" to the point of generational dependency (which in the US can be traced directly back to LBJ and the start of the welfare state policies) which had the exact opposite effect than intended. Urban communities have been devastated by decay and family disintegration. Last week three separate political polls (one left wing and two middle of the road) in the US put black support for Trump at 34%, up from 8% three years ago. After five decades of liberal policies that have seen inner cities rotting away and stagnate job opportunities black voters are seeing the difference in their pocket books and lives.

Hard as it seems to comprehend at times, reality and results are often counterintuitive. Rather than being sickened by alternate ideas to yours perhaps think about the bigger picture and compare results apples to apples? In truth compassionate conservative policies make life better for all. Winners and losers are not picked but rather people contribute which is good for the wallet and the soul.

Firstly, to discount the likes of Scandinavia is disingenuous because you know full well that those are the closest examples we have to Socialism in action. What I advocate in practice is yes, a capitalist economy but with strong social values of excellent public services and strong personal rights.

These systems are indeed more equal in practice. They have gone out of their way to invest in services and put forward legislation re working conditions to make it so

Trickle down in this sense works but only because the water trickling down has been correctly channelled

Trickle down in a "hit and hope" style is a travesty. It does not help those who need help. Hence working families in the UK relying on food banks, an issue which you dodged.

Equal opportunity is just bluster unfortunately. Yes we need it of course but a lot of people dont get it. If you grow up in a tough crime ridden estate you need GENUINELY equal opportunities and that means spending a lot more on schools, especially out of hours provision, and especially on supporting apprenticeships.

Lastly, the US style demonisation of socialism as envy is barely worth an answer. it is about compassion, fairness and working together. For example, not allowing someone to be financially ruined by medical bills.

Food banks? Every person's situation is unique. There will always be those in need and they are helped. When did last UK citizen actually starve to death? Hell, when have you last seen an underweight Brit for that matter?

Opportunity is not restricted even in Penge or Liverpool. Laws and programs offering student loans, business start ups etc are all available. It comes down to the individual to make their life. Why do you think people immigrate to the UK or US from poor countries? Because they actually do have opportunities to chase.

Trickle down is as I pointed out is simply supply and demand. Now I won't accuse you of dodging as you did me, but please answer the questions I pose as I do yours. Can you possibly make a case that supply and demand is a myth? Can you explain where monies to support a socialist system comes from? Scandinavia is the EXACT example that fits. The citizens have decided a welfare state is a good thing as is their right. But that system is 100% dependant on a thriving capitalist economy. Do not confuse social programs with a socialist economy. In truth and something neo socialists do not admit is that we do indeed have current and past examples of true socialist economies. Bolivia just threw Morales out, Venezuela is a disaster, Cuba is a poor country with totalitarian rule, China is a human rights nightmare. Like it or not, socialism is a gateway to totalitarian rule and poverty. This nonsense of "well nobody has done it right yet" is a fanciful as the utopian ideals of Anarchism. It works this way. Every outcome is theoretically equal, economies collapse because industry and production collapses, the people get poorer while the elites get richer, the people object and the rulers impose draconian measure to keep them in line and people lose not only their liberties but often their lives. Socialism is a fool's errand that once experience the people reject.

You really should come over to the States and get the real scoop rather than relying on the media to explain the culture here (if that is the case, I won't presume). I watch the Beeb, read the Guardian, read the Economist and am continually amazed at how off base they are in terms of American coverage. They seem to think the US starts and ends in NYC and LA. The majority of Americans like private and employer based health insurance combined with Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare. The proposals for Medicare for all are rejected by most voters. The numbers do not add up and they see all the problems with the NHS. The law here prohibits a medical centre from refusing care based on ability to pay, there are medical bankruptcy provisions for those who need it. Sure it is never anything less than personal disaster to suffer financially due to medical circumstances but the US system is what the people want and like. A friend of mine went through medical bankruptcy because he and his wife decided not to carry any insurance. As with any bankruptcy in the US (save student debt) the record is clear after seven years. It is not the end of world, but substandard and delayed care can end your world.

[UFGN]

The argument that "trickle down economy works" in a country where thousands of working families are reduced to using food banks is plain ignorant.

Its exactly the same argument that goes "sweatshops help the poor in xyz country because otherwise they'd have nothing"...... when those people are going home to a shanty town with no toilets and a car battery for a power supply

Socialism is only good for the elites and capitalism and its trickle down myth is good for the poor.... wow ok

Im sick of hearing the same old shit from the right tbh. Sick of pandering to it

Why is it that the best places to live in the world, with the lowest crime, tend to be more liberal and more equal, with better public services and more personal freedom? Funny that.

Right wing trickle down my c***.

Liberal, compassionate policies breed the best living standards.

Can you define "trickle down" economics? I did in a previous post and it is applicable to any free economy. Do you also deny that the principles of supply and demand is factual? They are directly related to each other, actually one and the same . The flippant use of the term trickle down economics is a political statement, not an economic one.

Your sweatshop analogy is simply hyperbole. You are talking about Soviet or Chinese style exploitation or Victorian Britain, not a modern capitalist economy. Global poverty is at its lowest level ever, not due to socialism but rather due to capitalism being embraced in the third world. I refer you to the Economist reporting on this from three years ago. If you REALLY care about the less fortunate and a wealth gap the actual fight is against systemic corruption. Recent revolutions and demonstrations across the world have been staged against corruption from Iraq to Bolivia. Corruption is a constant in socialist economies and sadly in most third world nations.

Could you name a socialist economy that has worked? I don't mean countries like Norway or Sweden which have massive social aide programs , but rather real examples of economic socialism working. Scandinavian nations are indeed very nice places to live but that is because they have thriving capitalist economies and amazing work ethic which gave them the wherewithal to implement social structures as they have.

Having worked and lived in countries from India and Nepal to the far east, Pacific Islands, Central America, Bahama, the UK and family in Sweden I have concluded for myself that the US is the best place on earth to live.

Funny that you use the term "more equal" given that was how Orwell described the ubiquitous end point of socialialism...each and every time it is tried. Yes socialism is the ultimate jealousy based ideology as socialist always want others to pay their way. As the old saying goes, socialism is great until it runs out of other people's money.

Life is never about equal outcomes, but it should be about equal opportunity. Don't misinterpret this for not supporting safety nets for those who can't do for themselves, but too much "help" to the point of generational dependency (which in the US can be traced directly back to LBJ and the start of the welfare state policies) which had the exact opposite effect than intended. Urban communities have been devastated by decay and family disintegration. Last week three separate political polls (one left wing and two middle of the road) in the US put black support for Trump at 34%, up from 8% three years ago. After five decades of liberal policies that have seen inner cities rotting away and stagnate job opportunities black voters are seeing the difference in their pocket books and lives.

Hard as it seems to comprehend at times, reality and results are often counterintuitive. Rather than being sickened by alternate ideas to yours perhaps think about the bigger picture and compare results apples to apples? In truth compassionate conservative policies make life better for all. Winners and losers are not picked but rather people contribute which is good for the wallet and the soul.

Firstly, to discount the likes of Scandinavia is disingenuous because you know full well that those are the closest examples we have to Socialism in action. What I advocate in practice is yes, a capitalist economy but with strong social values of excellent public services and strong personal rights.

These systems are indeed more equal in practice. They have gone out of their way to invest in services and put forward legislation re working conditions to make it so

Trickle down in this sense works but only because the water trickling down has been correctly channelled

Trickle down in a "hit and hope" style is a travesty. It does not help those who need help. Hence working families in the UK relying on food banks, an issue which you dodged.

Equal opportunity is just bluster unfortunately. Yes we need it of course but a lot of people dont get it. If you grow up in a tough crime ridden estate you need GENUINELY equal opportunities and that means spending a lot more on schools, especially out of hours provision, and especially on supporting apprenticeships.

Lastly, the US style demonisation of socialism as envy is barely worth an answer. it is about compassion, fairness and working together. For example, not allowing someone to be financially ruined by medical bills.

Food banks? Every person's situation is unique. There will always be those in need and they are helped. When did last UK citizen actually starve to death? Hell, when have you last seen an underweight Brit for that matter?

Opportunity is not restricted even in Penge or Liverpool. Laws and programs offering student loans, business start ups etc are all available. It comes down to the individual to make their life. Why do you think people immigrate to the UK or US from poor countries? Because they actually do have opportunities to chase.

Trickle down is as I pointed out is simply supply and demand. Now I won't accuse you of dodging as you did me, but please answer the questions I pose as I do yours. Can you possibly make a case that supply and demand is a myth? Can you explain where monies to support a socialist system comes from? Scandinavia is the EXACT example that fits. The citizens have decided a welfare state is a good thing as is their right. But that system is 100% dependant on a thriving capitalist economy. Do not confuse social programs with a socialist economy. In truth and something neo socialists do not admit is that we do indeed have current and past examples of true socialist economies. Bolivia just threw Morales out, Venezuela is a disaster, Cuba is a poor country with totalitarian rule, China is a human rights nightmare. Like it or not, socialism is a gateway to totalitarian rule and poverty. This nonsense of "well nobody has done it right yet" is a fanciful as the utopian ideals of Anarchism. It works this way. Every outcome is theoretically equal, economies collapse because industry and production collapses, the people get poorer while the elites get richer, the people object and the rulers impose draconian measure to keep them in line and people lose not only their liberties but often their lives. Socialism is a fool's errand that once experience the people reject.

You really should come over to the States and get the real scoop rather than relying on the media to explain the culture here (if that is the case, I won't presume). I watch the Beeb, read the Guardian, read the Economist and am continually amazed at how off base they are in terms of American coverage. They seem to think the US starts and ends in NYC and LA. The majority of Americans like private and employer based health insurance combined with Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare. The proposals for Medicare for all are rejected by most voters. The numbers do not add up and they see all the problems with the NHS. The law here prohibits a medical centre from refusing care based on ability to pay, there are medical bankruptcy provisions for those who need it. Sure it is never anything less than personal disaster to suffer financially due to medical circumstances but the US system is what the people want and like. A friend of mine went through medical bankruptcy because he and his wife decided not to carry any insurance. As with any bankruptcy in the US (save student debt) the record is clear after seven years. It is not the end of world, but substandard and delayed care can end your world.

Well firstly, I'll call you out on medical bills, and I'm comfortable doing this based on what little I know on the issue. You can end up with substantial co-pays, yes? Big bills despite having insurance. You can end up bankrupt even with insurance, or at the very lesst, on the brink. This is madness. The Americans have been brainwashed in my opinion into accepting it. Lobbying and advertising has been used to normalise huge medical costs which are much higher than other developed countries

I am a centre left voter and thinker. I do not and never would support a purely socialist government. Again. Im calling you out on this. I dont appreciate disingenuous arguments and your angle on Scandinavia is exactly that. They have economies which are underpinned by socialist values. Their whole approach to life is underpinned by top class services and rights, and crucially a very high minimum wage. The latter makes visiting Oslo as a tourist a nightmare but thats beside the point

Sorry, you dont get to only give socialism credit for basket cases like Cuba.

Trickle down economy and supply and demand..... no, they are fundamentally different. Just because John needs to wipe his arse and Mike sells toilet paper, doesn't mean Sue is going to get that operation she needs unless the government has its spending priorities right and its tax regime right.

Currently if Sue went and bought a coffee in Starbucks the only way that would help her operation is if she kept the cup to piss in from her bed..... cos its not all about income tax, big corporations are getting away with paying f**k all and that is indefensible

On opportunity not being restricted...... just words pal, just words. Bright kids dont get the breaks they need often enough, and the obstacles are too great. Often schools are just not good enough, and it is extremely hard to make it to a good university from there.

Lastly, if you think having a charity food bank to feed someone in a rich country makes that situation acceptable, then seriously, have a word with yourself.

[LMAO]

Socialism is about control of production, the UK government produces bugger all .... control of "National Services" such as the NHS, military, police, and infrastructure is a function of nearly all types of government. The UK couldn't be much further away from a pure Socialist state. Pretty much all countries are Capitalist defined by free markets and taxation systems neither of which would exist under true Socialism.

Social Democracy which is a capitalist paid and taxed workforce providing the money for a social redistribution of wealth, is what most people consider to be Socialism, of course it isn't but then most people are too uneducated to know the difference.

People believe "paid for and maintained by taxes" is Socialism ... couldn't be more wrong .... Socialism is where all money is controlled by the state and everyone works for wealth that is in turn distributed to everyone. Taxes don't exist under true Socialism as the state controls all the money.

Very simplistic but probably some of you should read the basics ... https://www.thebalancesmb.com/the-characteristics-of-capitalism-and-socialism-393509

There isn't really a Socialist party in the UK, JC leads a Social Democratic party that supports practical reforms to Capitalism as an end in itself whereas a Democratic Socialist party ultimately want to go beyond mere Social Democratic reforms and advocate systematic transformation of the economy from Capitalism to Socialism.

Subtle difference but one most people really should understand, probably says a lot about the standards of education that most people under thirty haven't got a bloody clue (and of course UFGN )

Instead of being contrarian and wrong for the sake of it, maybe you should take another look at your article because it reiterates what I said:
In practice, most countries have mixed economies with economic elements of both capitalism and socialism.

[EliteKiller]

Instead of being contrarian and wrong for the sake of it, maybe you should take another look at your article because it reiterates what I said:
In practice, most countries have mixed economies with economic elements of both capitalism and socialism.

It comes to something when you misquote yourself - just how stupid do you have to be to do that?

They have economies which are underpinned by socialist values. Their whole approach to life is underpinned by top class services and rights, and crucially a very high minimum wage.

You see to achieve the "it's all free" society the exact opposite of what you say is true, far from being underpinned by socialist values, the shared ownership of production and distribution, the reality is that Scandinavian is underpinned by 100% capitalist economies.

The Scandinavian countries have almost no nationalised industries they are based on an entirely capitalist Social Democracy ... their whole society is predicated on the free market and entrepreneurship creating a private wealth that can be taxed and used to provide social services.

I put it to you that you are clueless and don't have the first idea what Socialism is ... you can't have "mixed economies" when Socialism decrees state ownership of production and distribution, exactly what Scandinavia does not have, and Capitalism decrees the exact opposite. If you want to have an argument at least learn what you are arguing about ...

Let's make it simple - Socialist values are the ownership of production and distribution with the state keeps all the profit and provides wages and social services - Capitalist values are where private individuals control production and distribution and pay wages, with the state collects taxes to provide social services.

This is junior year political basics, did you even go to school? You need to go away and learn the difference between Socialism, Capitalism and Social Democracy ... not the same things

Social Democracy (practised all over Scandinavia) is a capitalist framework supporting social needs ... it's not Socialism!

[UFGN]

Instead of being contrarian and wrong for the sake of it, maybe you should take another look at your article because it reiterates what I said:
In practice, most countries have mixed economies with economic elements of both capitalism and socialism.

It comes to something when you misquote yourself - just how stupid do you have to be to do that?

They have economies which are underpinned by socialist values. Their whole approach to life is underpinned by top class services and rights, and crucially a very high minimum wage.

You see to achieve the "it's all free" society the exact opposite of what you say is true, far from being underpinned by socialist values, the shared ownership of production and distribution, the reality is that Scandinavian is underpinned by 100% capitalist economies.

The Scandinavian countries have almost no nationalised industries they are based on an entirely capitalist Social Democracy ... their whole society is predicated on the free market and entrepreneurship creating a private wealth that can be taxed and used to provide social services.

I put it to you that you are clueless and don't have the first idea what Socialism is ... you can't have "mixed economies" when Socialism decrees state ownership of production and distribution, exactly what Scandinavia does not have, and Capitalism decrees the exact opposite. If you want to have an argument at least learn what you are arguing about ...

Let's make it simple - Socialist values are the ownership of production and distribution with the state keeps all the profit and provides wages and social services - Capitalist values are where private individuals control production and distribution and pay wages, with the state collects taxes to provide social services.

This is junior year political basics, did you even go to school? You need to go away and learn the difference between Socialism, Capitalism and Social Democracy ... not the same things

Social Democracy (practised all over Scandinavia) is a capitalist framework supporting social needs ... it's not Socialism!

You really are thick as shit. Three times now, THREE TIMES youve mixed LMAO up with me.

Youre incapable of reading ffs. Just give up and stop wasting peoples' time

[EliteKiller]

You really are thick as shit. Three times now, THREE TIMES youve mixed LMAO up with me.

Youre incapable of reading ffs. Just give up and stop wasting peoples' time

Hey FUCKWIT .... I respect that LMAO has a reasoned argument ... but not UFGN that's why I respond to the guy with an intellect and not the complete moron ... please stay out of a discussion that is very clearly miles over your head.

It's you UFGN who are to stupid to string three words together ... as usual your whole post is just bullshit and abuse ... you are one sad c***

[UFGN]

You really are thick as shit. Three times now, THREE TIMES youve mixed LMAO up with me.

Youre incapable of reading ffs. Just give up and stop wasting peoples' time

Hey FUCKWIT .... I respect that LMAO has a reasoned argument ... but not UFGN that's why I respond to the guy with an intellect and not the complete moron ... please stay out of a discussion that is very clearly miles over your head.

It's you UFGN who are to stupid to string three words together ... as usual your whole post is just bullshit and abuse ... you are one sad c***

Hey, c***

You just quoted me thinking I was him. Ive avoided you all evening and still you wont leave me alone you f***ing weirdo

Every f***ing day you do this. Just f**k off you freak!!

[UFGN]

Gunna have to start watermarking all my posts and LMAO will have to as well to save somebody from making an arse of themselves. Again. Honestly, what are you supposed to do to avoid this guy? Ive avoided him all day and hes brought my name up in posts that had nothing to do with me, and now this, yet again. Its just a bit weird.

It would be nice to be able to discuss politics with other posters without him butting in with his usual horror shows

[EliteKiller]

Here's a thought UFGN - stop quoting me - my response from now will always be f**k OF YOU BRAIN-DEAD IDIOT ... if that's what you want fine otherwise just stop quoting me so the rest of us can debate in peace. Even a complete simpleton like you should be able to manage that ...

[UFGN]

Here's a thought UFGN - stop quoting me - my response from now will always be f**k OF YOU BRAIN-DEAD IDIOT ... if that's what you want fine otherwise just stop quoting me so the rest of us can debate in peace. Even a complete simpleton like you should be able to manage that ...

But youve been harassing me all day, youve just been caught red handed doing it, you wont ever accept youre in the wrong. Youre just constantly on this weird power trip

The rest of us were debating in peace until you piped up.

You'll keep mouthing off about me regardless, no matter what I say, and any effort from me to avoid conflict will be thrown in my face, mark my words

[EliteKiller]

But youve been harassing me all day, youve just been caught red handed doing it, you wont ever accept youre in the wrong. Youre just constantly on this weird power trip

The rest of us were debating in peace until you piped up.

You'll keep mouthing off about me regardless, no matter what I say, and any effort from me to avoid conflict will be thrown in my face, mark my words

as promised -

f**k OF YOU BRAIN-DEAD IDIOT

[LMAO]

LMAO - UFGN

We literally share no common letters.

But either way, I'm correct in that mixed economies are what make the world go 'round and socialist elements are present in every major economy. UFGN also seems to understand this, but that's beside the point because we spoke about different things.