Socialism can it work

Soviet Union was communism…not socialism :)

However, France & other European countries are more socialist than others…however, by reallocating assets, they always come from some & go to others…so there is always a loser. There is in capitalism too though :)

No to your answer, I don’t know of a country where it has “improved” the lives of it’s citizens. I know of no truly socialist countries, most have socialism to some degree or another. Australia and England have socialized medicine. If you wish to make an appointment with a doctor in Australia, it might be 9 months down the road, with no choice of doctor or examination of his/her expertise. My information is from those who live there, not of my own. Those who can afford it purchase insurance to allow them to go see a doctor of their choice, and before a 9 month wait.

And the cost is a tremendous burden. In Sweden the tax is 50% of the income. In Australia, I am told it is 62%.

Socialism is a theoretical ideal. In actuality it does not perform well.

Depends on what you deem as “socialism”

If “socialism” is “communism,” like the kind practiced in the former Soviet Union, then its quite obvious people’s lives were not improved.

If “socialism” is the provision of basic welfare (food, simple shelter (not mansions), water, electricity) that every one needs to ensure basic survival, its not bad. Its worked in places like Europe, Canada, Australia and even parts of Asia, where poverty rates have been greatly reduced, yet capitalist economies continue to thrive. I think the reason why many people see “socialism” as a “bad word” is that they often mix it up with communism

In Australia, I am told it is 62%.

WOW didnt know that. That is an astounding amount of tax for a middle class family

Communism, if you invent somthing the government owns it and makes money off it. Socialism, if you invent something the government regulates it and tells you how much you can sell it for and where you can sell it. Capitalism, if you invent something the government can only tax it.

A balance of socialism and capitalism is best. Certain industries should not be left to the free market. Like energy, health care, road & bridge maintenance, police, etc…

Adding profit motive to something does not necessarily make it effecient, as conservatives will have you believe.

USSR– Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic sigh…remember Stalin? most socialist systems end up in revolution…communism/socialism—really much difference? communism-a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialismand Marxism-Leninism that is (was) the official ideology of the USSR… socialism–any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods…a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done…Webster ‘s

Pure socialism works very poorly, because people are basically lazy and most will do the minimum they can get away with if they will not get more by doing more.

Collective farms in the early colonial America resulted in mass starvation for that reason. Once privitized, that same land resulted in bounty. This is the story behind the story of Thanksgiving.

The libertarian movement (formerly known as classical liberalism until authoritarian socialists stole the name) resulted in the economic freedom of the US as a response to the wretched conditions authoritarian systems produced. It was invented to liberate the common man, and it worked.

Most people think government social programs are necessary because otherwise people would be dying in the streets. But that makes little sense, because the same people who vote foe the government to help, would contribute to charity if the government weren’t doing that.

Charitable contributions in the US runabout $300 Billion/year. If all that were donated to help the truly needy, it would come out to about $10,000 per needy family per year. The ability and the will to handle social safety nets via charity would exist (and used to exist prior to social programs), if the government were not involved.

So, there is no need for socialism in a wealthy land at least.