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.

Well if my posts don't hit the spot with you perhaps those of C.Helman Energy Editior of Forbes might?

14th paragraph onward

[Link]

Maybe he knows a bit more than you or I about such matters.

It depends on your criteria.
[Link]

Some think Nova Scotians pay 42% tax whilst others say 30%

You would have to include all tax - hidden or otherwise - and not just the obvious ones to state whether one country has a lower or higher tax than the other, surely?

I am just bowing to that Forbes guy. He seems to know his stuff. Nothing you or Matthew have posted has come up with anything to truly negate the seeming fact that some of the most successful countries in the world have a strong sense of moderate socialism functioning well within their societies.

I don't see why that can't be admired for what it is rather than sniped at. Just because to some 'socialism' is 100% unworkable I suppose, no matter the evidence of today and in the past to say otherwise. The NHS? Free education? Etc. They must count for something via the left field.

f***ing hell, Kerm. You could at least try.

Pick a tax, any tax.

Nothing the Forbes bloke has written says that NZ and Canada have higher taxes, you did. That was what I questioned of your post and it seems you were wrong, you certainly haven't backed it up whereas I've found the first two examples, that most people think of in terms of taxation, disprove your statement.

Edited by Stuk (09 Dec 2015 3.41pm)

Michael, what you say is ill informed and largely based on assumption rather than anything with merit.

Having a social welfare programme is different from being socialist. This is what you plainly do not see, or want to see. For example, One Nation politics is capitalism with social welfare built in not with a 'bit' of socialism.

I fail to see how you can be a 'bit' socialist. Socialism is an ideology seeking control of markets. All of the countries you mention are free market economies running social welfare programmes.

What does a 'bit' socialist mean? It's like saying someone is a bit gay, it is meaningless and disingenuous.

What you are trying to do is convince yourself that some sort of 'third way', as espoused by Tony Blair and French politicians exists which provides the best of both Worlds. It doesn't and won't happen.

Cue a s*** load of years old internet links provided to back up your spurious 'thoughts'.