There are many differences. In a Communist state all resources are owned and dedicated to the state itself and controlled by the apparatus of the Communist Party in the best interest of the Sate - though not necessarilly of the citizens of that state. There is no (or very limited) private enterprise. There is no competitive market structure. In a Socialist state there is a Mixed Economy in which the State ameliorates the ravages of raw Capitalism upon the peoples of the state. The state dedicates itself to ensuring that the econmy produces the means to house, feed, educate and keep healthy all of the peoples of the state. In so doing it attempts to ensure that all of the peoples of the state have equal access to the opportunities offered without limitation eg cost.
Socialism to me is just to be lazy and have the state do everything for you. People need to look after themselves. It also comes across as very bitter toward success. It breeds contempt well if I can't earn that much money why should someone else. It breeds negativity in trying to make everyone equal in some way. It doesn't reward those who strive to improve themselves . All it seems to do is reward those who want their decisions made for them. Everyone enjoys the benefits of capitalism then slags it off. Highly skilled people should be rewarded and not singled out because they are prosperous.
Again this just shows your complete misunderstanding of socialism. Making stupid statements like "everyone enjoys the benefits of capitalism" really does make you come across as rather brainless Everyone enjoys the benefits of socialism ya tool that's the whole point Everyone (who's paid into the system) whether rich or poor gets a state pension, everyone whether rich or poor can use the health service, everyone whether rich or poor gets their bins collected etc etc That is socialism in action.
I'm going to suggest something shocking... ... there is no right answer! Certainly not one ism that is correct by itself and on its own as a single solution. Pure socialism is crap. Pure capitalism is crap. You need enough of a market driven economy and enough capitalism to provide incentive and enough socialism to provide protection for the little man. There is no exact perfect blend as it will constantly flux as society and technology and the challenges facing people change. So get out your mixing bowl... poor in a little socialism... a little capitalism.... hell a little sexism too to prevent women getting too big for their stockings and high heels. Now you have utopia. /kidding about sexism lest anyone wonder.
Isn't Socialism the big thing the republicans are throwing at Obama here? In Kentucky/ parts of Ohio it was massive.
That's just the tip of socialism. . The good bits. The bad bits are high taxes high borrowing to fund all the state run stuff. The Labour Party in its current form is barely decipherable from the tory's. the only difference is tax and spending. Labour borrow and spend tory's don't. True socialism is spending money that will sooner or later run out. As it discourages free enterprise. Just because I don't agree with socialism doesn't mean one is stupid. Just makes me a realist. It may have done a couple of good things but it also nearly destroyed this country.
It's the "tip" of socialism that's given us benefits we ALL enjoy today. Education for ALL, health care for ALL, pensions for ALL. You seem to be mistaking this for an argument between capitalism and socialism. The two aren't mutually exclusive. As I said before (giving William Lever as an example) you can be both a good capitalist and a good socialist. As Milk says above it's perfectly possible to have a society that takes the benefits of both systems but using Thatcherism as an example we can see how privatisation of everything can be massively detrimental to society. The state has a role to play when it comes to ensuring every single person (black, white, young, old, able bodied, disabled, healthy, sick, male or female) has access to what modern society considers the essentials to survive. Just as the private sector has a role to play in encouraging free enterprise, access to things other than lifes essentials etc
Disagreeing about political and economic approaches is perfectly healthy. However, one is indeed very stupid to enter such a debate by firstly demonstrating that one does not even understand the basic principles of the philosophy one is attacking. A little reading of Sun Tzu's Art of War may prove beneficial.
GDP and employment were higher in the 70s than the 80s. Thatcher was an economic failure as well as a social one.
Pretty much what Thatcher gave us them, removing inefficient state dominance of competition based industries, raising the proportion of taxes as a share of GDP, saving the NHS from Labour's cash limits, giving everyone access to houses, and promoting grammar schools which provide the brightest with educational opportunities without cost.
What everyone wants is fair government. Problem is nobody agrees what fair is. Is fair everyone gets the best they can from their natural abilities and advantages... or is fair that regardless of your ability you have to share what you get with others with lesser ability. You see it in sports too... I'm sure Real and Barca are perfectly happy getting all the money in Spain rather than it being distributed out. In America which ironically has the most socialist structure... I'm sure DC United and LA Galaxy are peeved they can't use their extra incomes to have an advantage signing young players because of the draft system. They will never be able to be on par with European teams... especially with how their league evenly distributes money. As a Liverpool fan I'd be peeved if we sold Suarez for £60 mill and the FA told us we had to give Wigan and Reading £5 mill because they made less money than us. I'm sure Whelan is annoyed he can't compete with us on xfer market because we bring in more money. How will Wigan ever have more titles than Liverpool and United if we keep bringing in more money than them. Whelan in areal world example would be all for income teams make from selling shirts and merchandise to be evenly split to all teams like they are in America.
That does bother me about the league. I mean it is good as you get teams who can rise and fall, have parity in the league, but it seems a bit much to me. Also don't like how the body that is MLS has the last say in transfer dealings of our players to other countries. For years they blocked Dempsey from moving and did their best to keep Donovan here as well ( loan but nothing else).
You can't re-write it because it's plain bollocks. The cost of consumer goods is the same for everyone and is not analogous to the tax system. Beer, bread cheese or whatever- the pauper pays the same as the millionaire if he shops in the same place. And 20% off nothing is still nothing. A better analogy would be that the rich man buys himself 100 pints- the poor can only afford a half each (leave the others out of it because it gets complicated). The landlord (government) decides to take 50% off the rich man. He tops up the poor men's pints with it and keeps the rest for himself- because government's like that. So, the poor men get themselves a drink and the rich man still has more than enough to get himself royally ****ered in the corner.
Let me pull this apart one by one: 1) Removing inefficient state dominance of competition based industries. Well that was so successful that manufacturing as a % of GDP is at an all time low here. Ok so in most countries it has declined slightly over recent years (China being the obvious exception) but even so take some of the worlds most successful economies and compare them with ours (Germany, Japan, S.Korea, Brazil etc) and they are all way above our figure of about 12%. Good work then Maggie. 2) Saving the NHS....too easy that one sweats as she and Howe wanted to draw up plans to get rid of it altogether before her own cabinet practically rioted and put a stop to it (something she denied in her autobiography but has since been proven as fact with the release of CPCS papers). 3) Giving everyone access to housing...again way too easy to dismantle this argument. Firstly was the right to buy a good thing? Yes it was. However she deliberately avoided any of the money from the sale of council properties being put back into social housing because she didnt want to spend anything on the upkeep of said properties, wanted the windfall from it there and then (as she did when she sold off our oil reserves...great idea that was eh) and thought the market would take up the slack. Thirty years later and the country has a massive housing crisis and ridiculously over-priced properties as a result. Genius. 4) As the report from the CPCS papers also shows, what happened with education (some good like the National Curriculum, more bad like the complete lack of spending on state schools and the demoralisation of the teaching profession just because they all had the audacity to be union members) was not exactly what she intended anyway. She wanted NO free education at all....you pay for it and if you can't you just don't get it....tough **** (ding dong thank **** she's dead) Not EVERYTHING she did was bad and evil but here's another few stats for you to chew over while you're considering what "she gave us": Poverty went up under Thatcher, according to these figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In 1979, 13.4% of the population lived below 60% of median incomes before housing costs. By 1990, it had gone up to 22.2%, or 12.2m people, with huge rises in the mid-1980s. With it came a huge rise in inequality shows the gini coefficient, which is the most common method of measuring inequality. Under gini, a score of one would be a completely unequal society; zero would be completely equal. Britain's gini score went up from 0.253 to 0.339 by the time Thatcher resigned
GDP adjusted for inflation has doubled since the year she took over. GDP per person has doubled. Now I read that as the standard of living improved. I'd be interested to know what our GDP figures would look like with out the financial services in it. Then see how much manufacturing has changed since. I'd wager there's not much difference. Info on GDP http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy
