Yes you have Michael and you know it. Remember you trumpeting that most of the 'happiest countries in the World', some list you had got off some dubious website, were mainly 'socialist' and you identified Norway as an example?

Remember trumpeting that waiters in Oslo earning the equivilant of GBP 45,000 was a result of 'socialist' Norway?

Norway is not a socialist/capitalist hybrid. It is a country that has a very high income and low population. It can afford social schemes but is underpinned by capitalism. The Norwegian sovereign fund does not invest in mung bean collectives in Cuba, it invests in big business.

Sorry to pop that bubble.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Are they? Taking this kind of blanket approach undermines the fact that what has really made these countries successful capitalist economies, has been tempering the excesses seen in US Capitalism, with concepts straight out of the left and socialist movements in the UK. When you look at countries even like the UK, you see even the pro-capitalist parties making concessions to restrict the power of production and capital, for a common good of society and acceptance of the necessity of welfare, universal health care, education, social provision, workers rights and entitlements such as minimum wage, sick leave, materity leave, the equal pay act, sexual harassment laws, paid holiday legislation, health and safety, employment rights, trade union membership and representation, tribunals and so on, all of which are most definitely things that were provided by the state and capitalist enterprise because they wanted to.

The thing is, that these concession to the left and socialism, actually benefit society without necessitating somekind of Marxist state. Which makes sense, when you look at socialism in terms of its origin, as a criticism of the failures of capitalism.

Capitalism, to really succeed, requires the tempering of its capacity for excess, that has been provided by socialism. To an extent, as necessity to 'redistribute some of the wealth'.

The mistake, of both the left wing and often the right wing, is to dismiss socialism / capitalism out of hand - common of many posters. Neither really can succeed of flourish without the application of the other - particularly in relation to the maintenance and functionality of social well being and stability.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (08 Dec 2015 1.04pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

All European countries are capitalist. Some have more state legislation and controls on private enterprise than others - but they are are capitalist. All of the socialist European regimes collapsed by 1990 under the weight of their contradictions and hopeless, unworkable, dogmatic 'economics'.

Are they? Taking this kind of blanket approach undermines the fact that what has really made these countries successful capitalist economies, has been tempering the excesses seen in US Capitalism, with concepts straight out of the left and socialist movements in the UK. When you look at countries even like the UK, you see even the pro-capitalist parties making concessions to restrict the power of production and capital, for a common good of society and acceptance of the necessity of welfare, universal health care, education, social provision, workers rights and entitlements such as minimum wage, sick leave, materity leave, the equal pay act, sexual harassment laws, paid holiday legislation, health and safety, employment rights, trade union membership and representation, tribunals and so on, all of which are most definitely things that were provided by the state and capitalist enterprise because they wanted to.

The thing is, that these concession to the left and socialism, actually benefit society without necessitating somekind of Marxist state. Which makes sense, when you look at socialism in terms of its origin, as a criticism of the failures of capitalism.

Capitalism, to really succeed, requires the tempering of its capacity for excess, that has been provided by socialism. To an extent, as necessity to 'redistribute some of the wealth'.

The mistake, of both the left wing and often the right wing, is to dismiss socialism / capitalism out of hand - common of many posters. Neither really can succeed of flourish without the application of the other - particularly in relation to the maintenance and functionality of social well being and stability.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (08 Dec 2015 1.04pm)

__________________________________________
Yes they are.
All the things you list as benefits are the product of European countries being capitalist democracies. When Eastern Europe was socialist, there was good health care - for party members; stooge unions - whose main purpose was to identify 'counter-revolutionaries'; very minimum wages - for everyone; good education - for the kids of party members. Don't recall them being centres of gay rights though. But plenty of 'tribunals'.
The standard of living and freedoms of the average working person in these East Europeans countries is incomparably better under capitialism than it was under the yoke of socialism.

Edited by NickRobinson (08 Dec 2015 1.41pm)

All European countries are capitalist. Some have more state legislation and controls on private enterprise than others - but they are are capitalist. All of the socialist European regimes collapsed by 1990 under the weight of their contradictions and hopeless, unworkable, dogmatic 'economics'.

Are they? Taking this kind of blanket approach undermines the fact that what has really made these countries successful capitalist economies, has been tempering the excesses seen in US Capitalism, with concepts straight out of the left and socialist movements in the UK. When you look at countries even like the UK, you see even the pro-capitalist parties making concessions to restrict the power of production and capital, for a common good of society and acceptance of the necessity of welfare, universal health care, education, social provision, workers rights and entitlements such as minimum wage, sick leave, materity leave, the equal pay act, sexual harassment laws, paid holiday legislation, health and safety, employment rights, trade union membership and representation, tribunals and so on, all of which are most definitely things that were provided by the state and capitalist enterprise because they wanted to.

The thing is, that these concession to the left and socialism, actually benefit society without necessitating somekind of Marxist state. Which makes sense, when you look at socialism in terms of its origin, as a criticism of the failures of capitalism.

Capitalism, to really succeed, requires the tempering of its capacity for excess, that has been provided by socialism. To an extent, as necessity to 'redistribute some of the wealth'.

The mistake, of both the left wing and often the right wing, is to dismiss socialism / capitalism out of hand - common of many posters. Neither really can succeed of flourish without the application of the other - particularly in relation to the maintenance and functionality of social well being and stability.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (08 Dec 2015 1.04pm)

__________________________________________
Yes they are.
All the things you list as benefits are the product of European countries being capitalist democracies. When Eastern Europe was socialist, there was good health care - for party members; stooge unions - whose main purpose was to identify 'counter-revolutionaries'; very minimum wages - for everyone; good education - for the kids of party members. Don't recall them being centres of gay rights though. But plenty of 'tribunals'.
The standard of living and freedoms of the average working person in these East Europeans countries is incomparably better under capitialism than it was under the yoke of socialism.

Edited by NickRobinson (08 Dec 2015 1.41pm)

That's a rather myopic view of socialism though, because it assumes that socialism has only ever been the Soviet etc. It kind of misses out the entire history of the Trade Unions in the UK and the Labour movement - which most certainly were not capitalist.

It also misses the point that most of the Capitalist countries also have had socialist governments by election.

If you reduce socialism to just its effects in countries that have been 'socialist states' after revolutions.

I'd agree entirely that the Soviet Union, China etc are not countries to be admired or revered, they're oppressive and brutal regimes that effectively tried to murder their way to an imagined Utopia.

(that said I wouldn't really say that Capitalism has done much to change Russian politics, standards of living and attitudes of equality).

However, Socialism has a much wider history than Marxist-Lennism and Maoists.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Are they? Taking this kind of blanket approach undermines the fact that what has really made these countries successful capitalist economies, has been tempering the excesses seen in US Capitalism, with concepts straight out of the left and socialist movements in the UK. When you look at countries even like the UK, you see even the pro-capitalist parties making concessions to restrict the power of production and capital, for a common good of society and acceptance of the necessity of welfare, universal health care, education, social provision, workers rights and entitlements such as minimum wage, sick leave, materity leave, the equal pay act, sexual harassment laws, paid holiday legislation, health and safety, employment rights, trade union membership and representation, tribunals and so on, all of which are most definitely things that were provided by the state and capitalist enterprise because they wanted to.

The thing is, that these concession to the left and socialism, actually benefit society without necessitating somekind of Marxist state. Which makes sense, when you look at socialism in terms of its origin, as a criticism of the failures of capitalism.

Capitalism, to really succeed, requires the tempering of its capacity for excess, that has been provided by socialism. To an extent, as necessity to 'redistribute some of the wealth'.

The mistake, of both the left wing and often the right wing, is to dismiss socialism / capitalism out of hand - common of many posters. Neither really can succeed of flourish without the application of the other - particularly in relation to the maintenance and functionality of social well being and stability.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (08 Dec 2015 1.04pm)

__________________________________________
Yes they are.
All the things you list as benefits are the product of European countries being capitalist democracies. When Eastern Europe was socialist, there was good health care - for party members; stooge unions - whose main purpose was to identify 'counter-revolutionaries'; very minimum wages - for everyone; good education - for the kids of party members. Don't recall them being centres of gay rights though. But plenty of 'tribunals'.
The standard of living and freedoms of the average working person in these East Europeans countries is incomparably better under capitialism than it was under the yoke of socialism.

Edited by NickRobinson (08 Dec 2015 1.41pm)

That's a rather myopic view of socialism though, because it assumes that socialism has only ever been the Soviet etc. It kind of misses out the entire history of the Trade Unions in the UK and the Labour movement - which most certainly were not capitalist.

It also misses the point that most of the Capitalist countries also have had socialist governments by election.

If you reduce socialism to just its effects in countries that have been 'socialist states' after revolutions.

I'd agree entirely that the Soviet Union, China etc are not countries to be admired or revered, they're oppressive and brutal regimes that effectively tried to murder their way to an imagined Utopia.

(that said I wouldn't really say that Capitalism has done much to change Russian politics, standards of living and attitudes of equality).

However, Socialism has a much wider history than Marxist-Lennism and Maoists.

_______________________________________

Trade Unions came into being to get the best price for their member's product, ie: their labour - a laudable free market aim.
To pretend that all efforts to improve and regulate things in society are 'socialist' is a very odd view of the basics of socialism, ie: the state control of all means of production, distribution and exchange. Tried of course in many places in recent history, and always failed and impoverished the workers - accompanied of course by more and more oppression as the clever ideas turn out to be nonsense.

Edited by NickRobinson (08 Dec 2015 7.28pm)

Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Finland and the Netherlands have successfully combined a free market capitalist economy with a high class state run health, education and welfare systems that are supported by high taxes which prove that socialism can thrive and survive when it is implemented in a moderate fashion.

Countries like China are not socialist but communist and examples like Venezuela are an anti-socialist red herring purely because those in charge have failed not the notion of socialism itself.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]