Capitalism is better than socialism?

Well the extremes of either are disasterous, extreme capitalism you get Rapture from Bioshock, extreme communism you get basically get insect hives.



You are aware that anything funded by tax money and government run not for profit is socialist right? The police, the NHS, public education, infrastructure? None of these ringing a bell?

Almost all of which could be provided to a much higher standard by the market, and also not what that poster was referring to by socialism.

Define appropriate.

I've studied the socialist history of China in detail and USSR in less so. This is bs. People didn't starve in those countries because of the evils of Mao and Stalin (though they were) but because despite governments doing everything they could within socialism to create prosperity, the system ineluctably created bad allocations of resources and so people died.

One despairs at the kind of brain rot that must be present for someone to seriously hold such an opinion

Depends on the regime.

Depends on the regime.



The dictatorship aspect meant a culling of talent, a culture of fear, and most importantly, a focus away from the humanitarian. The emphasis of the USSR was on military and industry, an aim the succeeded at. They took a relatively weak and poor country into a super power. This can slso be seen in nazi germany, which although not strictly socialist, was fascist. Would russia and china be the powers they were without socialism? Unlikely. Would the uk have survived the war without employing those same principles? Also unlikely.



Admitedly its difficult to find good examples to compare the two. But countries that become fully socialist are rarely in great condition when they so. But we do have examples of developed countries employing socialist aspects, and they are always better for it.

Almost all of which could be provided to a much higher standard by the market, and also not what that poster was referring to by socialism.

That's a brave stand by the free market!

Private police? D:

Not a fan of free healthcare?

Really? The American Healthcare system would beg to differ.

Do you really want to have to pay the police or fire brigade to arrest someone or stop your house burning down yourself? Or be forced to cough up tens of thousands of pounds because you needed a particular medical treatment?

You already pay for the police and fire brigade, as shocking as this revelation usually is to those on the left.

The American healthcare industry isn't even close to free market system, it is one of the most heavily regulated industries in existence, which is why it is so unreasonably expensive. Despite that, the actual quality of American hospitals, medical training, medical research, and medical treatments, is absolutely second to none. People flock from all over the world to get treated in America.

The emergency services are Services free at the point of use. Meaning you don't personally have to shell out bankrupting levels of money if you need to use them.The American Healthcare industry is just that, an industry not a service. You can get exemplary treatment in American hospitals... if you can afford it. If you can't, you're screwed. Even by your own words it is "unreasonably expensive". Hence the NHS is the vastly superior means of running healthcare, it treats everyone for free at use, hell it even drives down the cost of private healthcare in this country because private hospitals know they can't bleed people for money when there is a free option.

Really? The American Healthcare system would beg to differ.

Do you really want to have to pay the police or fire brigade to arrest someone or stop your house burning down yourself? Or be forced to cough up tens of thousands of pounds because you needed a particular medical treatment?

The exceptional standard of American healthcare is testament to the fact that a privatised,

The exceptional standard of American healthcare is testament to the fact that a privatised, profit-based system is always the best if you...actually want to get quality healthcare. The fact that someone makes good money while delivering world-class treatment to patients is not a negative thing, in the mind of any remotely rational person. The only issue America faces is access, which is determined by cost, which is kept inflated in the US by the government's progressive over-regulation of the industry. Again, a failure of government, not the market.

The NHS is an average service which will never be able to adequately cope with the healthcare demands of a large, diverse and relatively unhealthy nation like the UK, will forever be stretched past its limits, and will forever be running into endless issues such as unreasonable waiting times, overworked & underpaid doctors, poor standards in hospitals, so on and so forth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11931401/Three-in-four-NHS-hospitals-are-failing-says-watchdog.html

How many private American hospitals do you think suffer from issues similar to the above?

Counter point: the Singapore health system, puts the NHS to shame and is a private system. Do you want me to cite a nation with a dreadfully implemented public healthcare system to argue that a system free at the point of use is a bad idea?

One could argue therefore that a pure free market is socialist because it just defines appropriate differently, and then we run into a contradiction.

China became a superpower ONLY when they turned to the market. before that they were the bitches of the USSR, who had historically been a very powerful country and whose mere geography meant they weren't as badly hurt by the war as the other countries. And in achieving any industrial aim they did, they essentially treated their people far worse than the original Feudal capitalists did. So I fail to see where success comes into it, on any metric.

Sure the UK society worked together in a desperate situation and it worked. Are you arguing that war time Britain was a more successful country for it's people than it's capitalist tendencies since then?

I've heard of their system - whilst it is apparently very good , it does also exclude the poorest too?

Is this system something the UK could implement?

Well, no. Because this isnt about how to define the two, but what their benefits are. For socialism, it is not so much security but allocation of resources. What the allocation aims to do depends on the regime in power.



I would hardly say russia was relatively untouched by the war considering they had among the highest loses in both wars, with only germany having higher in wwi, and india and china in wwii.

The success was not in humanitarian treatment, but in socialism being a better model for allocating resources. The USSR and Germany did extremely well at this.

Except it is one of the worst in the OECD...

Until a better system is in place wouldn't it be more rational to stick with a system which does not favour those with money to pay for healthcare?An average NHS? It's better than average surely?Personally I wouldn't know but I'm sure every hospital has its flaws