[Sdiff]

You are twisting he meaning of capitalism. A government can provide a bare minimum of services and still be described as capitalist, because the vast majority of responsibilities are left to the individual. I admit it is a little ambiguous therefore what a "capitalist" or "socialist" country is. I would say that if government spending is less than 25% of GDP it could be described as Capitalist; 20-45% as social democratic, and above 45% would be socialist.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
I think you are the one who is confused.
A nationalised industry IS a socialist idea.
Common ownership, be it direct (by the workers) or indirect (by the state) is socialism.

So you are saying a capitalist hierarchy, the state, in which people at the top own the rights of production, where capital is involved, where the worker is essentially working for a state owned corporation that has many market mechanisms with external profits and extrernal influence from the private sector (though heavily municipalized under corporate welfare) is socialism.

So this is why mainstream socialist parties aren't socialist at all, I suggest you take you're idea that socialism can mean state control here

http://www.revleft.com/vb/
http://www.red-marx.com/
http://www.socialistphalanx.com/

Of course, if You are a labourlist or fabian sort, social democracy and at a push ... democratic socialism (bit extreme for them) = socialism.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Sdiff)
25% of GDP it could be described as Capitalist; 20-45% as social democratic, and above 45% would be socialist.

People seriously ******* need to learn the difference between socialism and statism, the USA and australia, under you're definitions, would be socialist.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Sdiff)
You are twisting he meaning of capitalism. A government can provide a bare minimum of services and still be described as capitalist, because the vast majority of responsibilities are left to the individual. I admit it is a little ambiguous therefore what a "capitalist" or "socialist" country is. I would say that if government spending is less than 25% of GDP it could be described as Capitalist; 20-45% as social democratic, and above 45% would be socialist.

1 - You did not say "bare minimum". You said not tax people at all. Which would mean people would have to pay for EVERYTHING themselves. Which obviously would leave a huge number of people unable to afford things like education and healthcare. I am glad you now admit that the government need to provide some services.

2 - I am not arguing for a country to be totally socialist or totally capitalist. As you suggest yourself, you need a mix of them both (I am a bit confused because in your previous post you said we should not have a mix, yet in this post I am quoting you are saying we do need a mix). Capitalism makes the money, socialism ensures people do not suffer. There is no reason they cannot work together. The only question is how much should be capitalism and how much should be socialism.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by prog2djent)
People seriously ******* need to learn the difference between socialism and statism, the USA and australia, under you're definitions, would be socialist.

Wrong and wrong. USA and Australia are in the 30's.
And statism and socialism are equivalent unless the government spends a **** load of money on military. This really only applies to the USA.

[mevidek]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Riiiiiiight, the NHS is a "socialist" idea.

It's generally a left-wing idea, and it was made by Aneurin Bevan under a Socialist Government (Attlee's Labour Government 1945-9, back when Labour were still Leftists).

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I thought she had dementia?

[kka25]

(Original post by screenager2004)
Thatcher famously said "There is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families"

Do you know exactly what she meant by that?

[tory88]

I imagine she saw it as detrimental to society and a dangerous beast. Hence the comtempt.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by mevidek)
It's generally a left-wing idea, and it was made by Aneurin Bevan under a Socialist Government (Attlee's Labour Government 1945-9, back when Labour were still Leftists).

AAAAHH yes, that well documented period of history where capital was abolosihed, profit illegal, and we were moving towards classlessness.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Wrong and wrong. USA and Australia are in the 30's.
And statism and socialism are equivalent unless the government spends a **** load of money on military. This really only applies to the USA.

Ok so maybe they are a big less, but still, just because GDP as a % may come from the government over 50% does not make a nation socialist at all.

[the mezzil]

(Original post by 99luft Balons)
The problem is your focusing on the things in life that don't really matter. When I was a kid I had hopes and dreams. We all did. But over time, the daily grind gets in the way and you miss the things that really matter, even though they are right in front of you, staring you in the face. I think the next time you should ask yourself "Am I on the right track here?". I don't mean to be rude but people like you I really pity. So maybe you could use the few brain cells you have and take advantage of the knowledge I have given you now. Good luck.

[Arekkusu]

On a political level it was because it was a good reaction to the 1970's, the public perception being the unions ran the country and we could only afford to have the electricity on three days a week.

On a personal level it will have been because she worked her way up from a lower-middle-class household, uncommon even today for a leading politician, so as far as she was concerned everyone else could bloody well work for their due as well.

[prog2djent]

So I've come to the conclusion that the right wing has pretty much ruined people's perception of socialism, if rightists stopped calling everything socialist when something is done by the government, essentially anti-socialist propoganda, then people could see the MASSIVE distinction between socialism and social democracy.

I think the progressive portion of the left, I.e socialist juniors (who aren't revolutionary) have fallen for it too. Remember watching a clip of Bill maher saying "all socialism means is the government will take care of 2 or 3 more thigns" and Brad Pitt was on the show going "I've been to some european socialist countries, they are doing just fine", of course what he means is Scandanavian countries and W.Europeans countries with a few nationalised industries.

So really its the pseudo-left and clueless rightists who have propogandised the situation. You have stupid right wing people who call obama a socialist, and europe a socialist hell hole, and you get pseudo-lefties who praise obama and europe for, what they think is in their heads, socialism.

If people could understand that socialism has never existed aside from maybe the anarchist period of Spain, then the right would understand the USSR, N.Korea and Venezuela = extreme authoritarian statism, and clueless lefties would understand socialism =/= nationalisation, the right with that aswell.

[Steevee]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
I think you are the one who is confused.
A nationalised industry IS a socialist idea.
Common ownership, be it direct (by the workers) or indirect (by the state) is socialism.

This isn't true. No more so than Nationalism is a Facist idea. Yes, State Industry is normally imposed along with Socialist principles, but the NHS is not an industry, but a service, it's like saying a Police Force is a Socialist idea, which is ridiculous.

[Ann Widdecombe]

Perhaps because it's a repressive, regressive and sophomoric political ideology?

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Steevee)
This isn't true. No more so than Nationalism is a Facist idea. Yes, State Industry is normally imposed along with Socialist principles, but the NHS is not an industry, but a service, it's like saying a Police Force is a Socialist idea, which is ridiculous.

Not the case though.
You cannot compare healthcare to the police.
For one, private alternatives exist for healthcare. That isn't really the case with the police (yes you have private detectives but that isn't the same as a private police force).

The NHS was introduced by a socialist government based on socialist principles. Simple as really.

[wilson_smith]

(Original post by mevidek)
It's generally a left-wing idea, and it was made by Aneurin Bevan under a Socialist Government (Attlee's Labour Government 1945-9, back when Labour were still Leftists).

The NHS is hardly socialist in any substantive sense of the word - if one defines socialism as the common ownership of the means of production, and a sector shifts to state control, ownership isn't common but monopolised by a highly centralised body - the state. It's a very tenuous claim to maintain state-control equates to common control by reason of representative democracy, nor is this what socialism has traditionally meant or self-identified as.

[Steevee]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Not the case though.
You cannot compare healthcare to the police.
For one, private alternatives exist for healthcare. That isn't really the case with the police (yes you have private detectives but that isn't the same as a private police force).

The NHS was introduced by a socialist government based on socialist principles. Simple as really.

I can and I will, they are both a Public Service, simple as really.

And I seem to remember Uber-Nationalistic doctrines introduced by Socialist governments in Eastern Europe and Russia in the past, does that make Nationalism a Socialist doctrine?

[dj1015]

Just imagine all the money the government would save by scrapping the NHS????????????