Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First of all, if you wish to post in this thread, please do so only to answer my question, THEN debate. Not too concerned about hyperbole from either side of the fence, or indeed those sitting upon said fence.

So, Socialism eh? I have to say, I really don't understand the US objection to this style of Government. Okay, Britain isn't exactly a Socialist Country in the same way as France, but what with the NHS etc, we do have a definite Socialist Infrastructure. Having grown up with it, I find myself somewhat unable to comprehend why you would object to such things as Free Healthcare, Social Housing etc. Quick caveat, I am not saying you are wrong for objecting/not wanting it, I am just putting a question out there.

Now for my take. As I said, I have grown up in something of a Socialist Soceity. I think we all know the immediate cons of this (people taking the piss, higher taxation). But for the NHS etc, I am all in favour. I wasn't a terribly well child, and had it not been for the NHS, my family would be in pretty deep debt thanks to things beyond human control (not counting the disastrous arm/window interface). Plus I have lost my job a few times through Redundancy, and although not much the social security I received enabled me to job hunt more effectively. Sure, I am an example of someone using the system, rather than exploiting it, but that's my point of view based on my own experiences.

So, Fire Extinguishers at the ready, and off we go....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and as regular contributors to my threads might know, I'm not looking to set anyone up here and then shoot down their point of view. Just a rational discussion about the pros and cons as other people see them.

Venzuela.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/hugo-chavez-venezuela-nee_n_419007.html

Chavez is a socialist soap opera.

Back on topic, it is part of the American Dream that everyone can fly as high as they can get.

Also, individualism is much stronger in the US psychology than in Europe. The UK is in between.

Also, France scares us.

But does Socialism really hinder individualism? Certainly in Britain, I see it as a mechanism to help people up when they get knocked down, so they can get back on their feet and fighting with a minimum of fuss.

But as has been said by both ourselves, the UK is possibly a happy medium.

Its simple, I don't Want to work hard to be told how I must spend my money.

In what way? I think one of us has the wrong end of the socialist stick, and for the life of me I don't know which of us it is.

Living in the UK, I don't feel like anyone is telling me how to spend my money. Indeed, by being able to depend on the NHS, I don't need to spend it on Private Health Care (though I could if I wanted to) and nor do I need a Pension Fund (though I probably should).

Though of course having lived here all my life, I only have this single perspective, hence the thread!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But does Socialism really hinder individualism? Certainly in Britain, I see it as a mechanism to help people up when they get knocked down, so they can get back on their feet and fighting with a minimum of fuss.

You could say the opposite and it would still be true. Does capitalism force anyone not to worry about the group? Being capitalist doesn't mean you can't help people any more than being socialist means you say feth all to the individual. As a governmental function it has to hinder the individual in some way, even if it is paying higher taxes and for some being forced into doing something will always be a sore spot, even if they would do it without coaxing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But does Socialism really hinder individualism? Certainly in Britain, I see it as a mechanism to help people up when they get knocked down, so they can get back on their feet and fighting with a minimum of fuss.

But as has been said by both ourselves, the UK is possibly a happy medium.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704211704575139783944258388.html

*Amuricans view socialism as more government. We were formed with a view of extremely limited government and that most government would be at the state level. We had three wars about it, to date. The Bill of Rights was designed, the entire Constitution was designed, to limit what the government could do and protect us from it. Sadly, SCOTUS has let us down in that department.

*Historically, we don't like being told what to do. Most of us came here from countries where lords, dictators, and generals told us what to do. While it has changed slightly, it may the fashion in a few states (Cough Left Coast and New York), but in flyover country, its NOT the new black.

*You also have to understand. Our government sucks. I mean not just like a great sucking sound, but like epic black hole Kafka was an optimist kind of suckage. your government may be better and more efficient. It helps color our view.

*Historically, over time, countries with less regulation have done better economically. Current economy is impacting the states in a similar manner interestingly.

And now Sebster, Shuma, and Dogma will post about how I am utterly evil for daring to speak the words "limited government."

By not being given a choice on how the money taken out of my paychek is spent. If I want Health Insurance I should get my own. If I want to feed the homless I should take the change out of my pocket and do it. If I want to send my child to school I should do it.
-I should not have to replace the word "I" with "The Goverment"

Thing is skip, I see all those things you described as happening to me in a very short space of time. For instance, right now I am actually homeless due to circumstance. Lady I was living with has suffered from ill health recently, and needed the room I had back. Being between jobs (awaiting a Taxi Driving License) I don't currently have the money to get my own place, so I am sofa surfing for the next few weeks. I went to the Council to explore my options, and although unlikely to get immediate social housing, they can however lend me the money to pay a deposit. Now, in my town that's typically £1,000+. Not exactly a small amount, but I could certainly save it up in a few months. But the loan means as soon as I'm earning enough to pay for a room somewhere, bills and food, I'm laughing as I can get the loan straight away and be housed in short order. Sure I have to pay it back, but it's the expedience that matters. Plus there is no interest on the loan.

As for Schooling, it is every childs right to an education, so this is something I feel is very much the Governments duty to fulfil. Now don't get me wrong, much like Medical Care, I firmly believe if you can pay, you should pay, if only to give your kids the edge a private education brings.

I seem to remember from a Michael Moore film (I know I know, but bare with me) that the US does have some kind of Social Security payment system for the unemployed/low income, but it's more of a loan (like my deposit) than a hand out (like British Jobseekers or Income Support).

Sorry if this seems like a 'US BAD, UK GOOD!' thread, but the US is the only major country I'm aware of without much in the way of Socialist structure. I promise I actually want to explore the subject, rather than countries!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Frazzled, they better not make things personal. In my threads I look for opinion and interpretation, rather than people passing such things off as fact.

Who's skip? Thats an excellent way to start a punchout MDG-I think you inadvertently are zinging a cultural thing. Interesting that.

Sorry sorry sorry! In this instance, Skip = Anpu42.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

As for Schooling, it is every childs right to an education, so this is something I feel is very much the Governments duty to fulfil. Now don't get me wrong, much like Medical Care, I firmly believe if you can pay, you should pay, if only to give your kids the edge a private education brings.

I actually disagree strongly. I hate two tiered things. Everyone should have the same level or be free to do their own. It begets crapschool and crapcare whilst the rich get proper school/care. That was one of the great strengths of California before they went stupid. Via the UC/CS system, and even the bootstrap method through community college (my route), everyone had a shot at getting a worldclass education.

I seem to remember from a Michael Moore film (I know I know, but bare with me) that the US does have some kind of Social Security payment system for the unemployed/low income, but it's more of a loan (like my deposit) than a hand out (like British Jobseekers or Income Support).

Unemployment/social security (different things completely) are not loans. Ostensibly you pay into them and if you are unemployed or become an old fart, you get payments back.

Its not the reality of how they work but that was the idea.

Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s we did not have these systems. People with wealth would just help those with out it. The system was not perfect, but this is also where we got things like the Carnegie Foundation, and the Salivation Army.
Most of the Free world still does this. Bill Gates still run around and GIVES schools computers like candy, and why? I don't know, but he is not rewarded for this. I more people would do this we would not need Government run Social Services.
A Governments Job should be to make sure the borders are secure and that every citizen has his/her .rights observed

Ah fair enough. Perhaps he did his usual thing and cherry picked something to make the Republicans look evil.

And oddly Frazz, I do agree with you about the two tiered system. In the UK, we have quite a problem to class mobility known as 'The Old Boys Network'. Essentially, going to the right school can be more important than your actual qualifications. Indeed, the two big Universities in the UK, Oxford and Cambridge, have had knuckles rapped fairly recently (well, last 5 years) over accusations of elitism. But equally, I do get that some kids are more gifted than others in certain realms of study, and I feel the system should reflect this. In the UK, this means either Private, Public, Grammar or State Schooling. The latter two are free, the former you pay for. Yet with Grammar schools, you need to pass an exam (11 Plus) to get in, and even then you can be told to knob off if they just don't want you (though again this might be changing). For instance, I went through the State School, and found a lot of the lessons boring and unengaging, as I was ready to move on to the next topic quicker than my classmates. Plus the books we studied etc weren't exactly what I'd call quality literature. Compare to an ex-girlfriend who went to a Private School. Far more academic, and I think I would have thrived in such an evironment. But hey ho, you get your cards and just have to play your hand the best you can!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah fair enough. Perhaps he did his usual thing and cherry picked something to make the Republicans look evil.

And oddly Frazz, I do agree with you about the two tiered system. In the UK, we have quite a problem to class mobility known as 'The Old Boys Network'. Essentially, going to the right school can be more important than your actual qualifications. Indeed, the two big Universities in the UK, Oxford and Cambridge, have had knuckles rapped fairly recently (well, last 5 years) over accusations of elitism. But equally, I do get that some kids are more gifted than others in certain realms of study, and I feel the system should reflect this. In the UK, this means either Private, Public, Grammar or State Schooling. The latter two are free, the former you pay for. Yet with Grammar schools, you need to pass an exam (11 Plus) to get in, and even then you can be told to knob off if they just don't want you (though again this might be changing). For instance, I went through the State School, and found a lot of the lessons boring and unengaging, as I was ready to move on to the next topic quicker than my classmates. Plus the books we studied etc weren't exactly what I'd call quality literature. Compare to an ex-girlfriend who went to a Private School. Far more academic, and I think I would have thrived in such an evironment. But hey ho, you get your cards and just have to play your hand the best you can!

We have that here, but to not the extent. Our state university system can't be beat. Private schools are a different matter.

Yarr. I hear much of your Ivy League and Seven Sisters, and I do agree that the better the University, the harder you should have to work to bag your place. The problem in Britain is that I can leave a state school with 4 A Levels, all at the highest grade, and apply to Oxford or Cambridge, and lose out on a place to someone from say, Eton or Tonbridge School (both prestigious schools) who has 3 at the highest grade, just because of where they gained their qualifications.

Rather than get into one of these internet intellectual debates, ill get right to the point pop some smoke and go straight down the middle commando style!

Seems to me, if you have taken from the system, you will be all for it, and if all you seem to do is pay into it. You wont.

Easy isnt it?

For myself, i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system. No dole, no kids, no benefits of any kind, and i havent seen a doctor in 15 years.

I dont like Socialism, i am selfish, i look after myself and i want everyone else to do the same.

I understand why people are for it. But i dont agree with them.

I would get health insurance, and i like to spend my money on me. Women, comics, booze and warhammer, i dont like giving it to needy people, gypsies, asylum seekers, mental patients, criminals, homeless people, or any fether.

Is that simple enough?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yarr. I hear much of your Ivy League and Seven Sisters, and I do agree that the better the University, the harder you should have to work to bag your place. The problem in Britain is that I can leave a state school with 4 A Levels, all at the highest grade, and apply to Oxford or Cambridge, and lose out on a place to someone from say, Eton or Tonbridge School (both prestigious schools) who has 3 at the highest grade, just because of where they gained their qualifications.

Yep. Sounds like private schools. As stated, our state schools are much more open and based on merit, at least the ones I know of (there's a racial and geneder preference thing now though). You can't beat UCLA, UC Berkeley, UTexas and multiple other states schools (is University of Chicago public? I forget).

Absolutely, whereas I have occasionally taken from the pot and whilst I put it off as long as I could (this time last year, I sold my backstock of old GW stuff for £500, rather than sign on) but when it came to the crunch and no job was forthcoming, it was good to know I could fallback on the Social Schemes in the UK. As I said, the downside is when there are those with less scruples than ourselves, who decide to exploit the system for all it's worth, but I still don't see that as a downside unique to socialist policies and practices. Any system devised and defined by man has abusable sections, and any soceity has it's abusers of said systems.

Plus as I said, no one can tell what the future holds for them now, and as such I am supportive of any policy which helps out with the unforseen, and I see Socialist Tendencies in Government as just this sort of thing.

University of Chicago? No.

University of Illinois at Chicago. Yes.

Thanks Malf.

mattyrm wrote:
For myself, i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system. No dole, no kids, no benefits of any kind, and i havent seen a doctor in 15 years.

errr..weren't you in the army ? Which is entirely paid for by "the system" in the first place ? Don't you now work for a local council or similar ?

Further to my repy to Mattrym, I should add that I concede that the counter arguement to my own is just as strong, as one could claim, and not unfairly, that the very social 'safety net' I acclaim could be said to engender a kind of complacency, leading to some going for the handout rather than sorting it themselves. But either way, I'd still rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Frazzled wrote:And now Sebster, Shuma, and Dogma will post about how I am utterly evil for daring to speak the words "limited government."

You betcha!

Nah, limited government is a decent goal, and one desired by most evey country. No-one likes paying tax.

But this has to be compared against the tendency for people to think 'screw you, I've got mine so anything that helps anyone else is socialism'. For instance, people with healthcare arguing that people without shouldn't get any.


Meanwhile, any thread that starts with the idea that the US is capitalist and the UK is socialist is unlikely to give much insight into socialism or the values of the US or the UK. Both are capitalist economies with socialist underpinnings, and if you look close enough you'll notice that the UK isn't strictly more socialist in every area. While it has national health and a stronger social support network, its government is actually a smaller portion of its total economy.

Looking pre-stimulus to 2006 the US govt spent $2.7 trillion out of a total economy of $14 trillion, or 19%. The UK in their 2007/08 year spent $500 billion, out of a total GDP of $2.7 trillion, or 18.5%

reds8n wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
For myself, i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system. No dole, no kids, no benefits of any kind, and i havent seen a doctor in 15 years.

errr..weren't you in the army ? Which is entirely paid for by "the system" in the first place ? Don't you now work for a local council or similar ?

To be fair, not sure either of those modes of employment can be described as benefitting from Socialist Policies.

Anpu42 wrote:Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s we did not have these systems. People with wealth would just help those with out it. The system was not perfect

When you say 'not perfect' you mean literacy rates of around 50% and infant mortality among the poor getting up towards 50%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be fair, not sure either of those modes of employment can be described as benefitting from Socialist Policies.

Name a socialist utopia that doesn't have a bloated military?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But does Socialism really hinder individualism? Certainly in Britain, I see it as a mechanism to help people up when they get knocked down, so they can get back on their feet and fighting with a minimum of fuss.

But as has been said by both ourselves, the UK is possibly a happy medium.

It's the other way around. Socialism grows more naturally from a collectivist or group orientated worldview.

In terms of nationalities, the Japanese are most likely see themselves as part of a group, the Americans are most likely to see themselves as individuals. Europeans generally are in between.

Obviously these are not rigid positions, Japanese are quite capable of being 'selfish' and Americans are equally capable of organising themselves into groups for the benefit of all.

Sebster. Interesting figures, but I have to ask what it is they are spending the money on. If it includes Defence Budget, then I can tell you right now the UK spends a lot less percentage wise than the US, meaning more of the money is spent on Social stuff, again in terms of percentage.

BTW, what in the name of Satan's Portion do they spend the rest of it on? Or is that where Defence type stuff comes into it? Sorry, I'm shockingly ignorant when it comes to such things!