it has failed or is failing every where it has been tried....
2006-08-28 04:56:10 · 10 answers · asked by W E J 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the Canadian health care system is in shambles and they are looking at ways to reinvent it with CAPITALISM
2006-08-28 05:33:32 · update #1
Socialism doesn't just fail. There is the little matter of hundreds of millions of innocent people who are cruelly put to death in the genocides that ALWAYS happen whenever marxists of any stripe take over a country.
Marxism, socialism, communism, liberals......these things aren't just failures. They are heinously evil.
2006-08-28 05:02:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't know that it has failed in the same way communism has. After all, the Scandanavian countries are pretty much socialist and they seem to do pretty well.
But if there is a reason against socialism its that its core requirement is that people share. If a country is homogenous, that is, it is made up largely of a single race and/or religious group -- which is typical of the Scandanavian countries -- then sharing is a lot easier to implement. In a country like Iraq, though, where you have three groups (Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds) that have little in common and polar opposite agendas, sharing is just plain not going to happen.
Because of this, the UK or France might be good targets for socialist governments, and have been run by socialists in the past; in the middle east, Iran -- which is uniformly Persian and Shi'ite -- would be a candidate. The US, Iraq, India or, strangely enough, the former Soviet Union (not so much with present day Russia) and China, would not seem to be good candidates for socialism.
2006-08-28 12:06:12 · answer #2 · answered by DR 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because capitalism fails every time (count the depressions) and is replaced with this silly hybrid mix of socialism and capitalism, where the risks are socialized but the profits are privatized. See Chrysler, Savings & Loan scandal, Katrina (insurance companies made their profits but won't pay claims leaving the taxpayer holding the bag), Iraq (war profiteering on the taxpayer's dime), etc.
Why have a parasitic hybrid system where the rich extract all the wealth but leave the risk with the poor masses?
Even the rich will tell you they need monied consumers to make their profits. If they leave everyone like paupers, they lose too. The Gates and Waltons can't single-handedly consume all the economic output by themselves when they are the only ones left with any money. What use does Bill Gates have for millions of cases of milk, bread or baseball tickets?
That's why you have this hyrbid system trying to patch up a flawed laissez-faire model.
It's unsustainable....and America's huge national, public, private, corporate and trade debts reveal how flawed it is.
Where did all our national wealth go? To Swiss bank accounts?
Hmmm?
2006-08-28 13:07:44 · answer #3 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Canadian health care system is basically socialist and it works MUCH better than ours. Ours is a joke, a pathetic joke--even if you have insurance, your insurance company will do all it can to get out of paying a claim--40% of the US money for health care is wasted in paper work.
And what is a public beach or a public park but socialism? What is a public highway but socialism? Its just a word. If the system works, use it. If capitalism works, use it. If socialism will do it better or cheaper (and sometimes, like in health care, it does!), then use that, but don't screw up your whole society just out of fear of a word.
2006-08-28 12:02:49 · answer #4 · answered by jxt299 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hmm....UK, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Australia, Germany, Poland, Canada.....
I quite disagree. There are kinks to work out, but overall Jesus was right. Socialism is the way to go :)
Why not read a book before making assumptions?
You sound like a Libertarian Totilitarian.
2006-08-28 12:03:22 · answer #5 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Socialism- Few elite at the top
Capitalism- Few elite at the top
Whats the difference other than the fact everyone at least can go to the doctor when they are hurt or send their children to a decent school.
2006-08-28 12:14:39 · answer #6 · answered by MacCurious 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because the idea behind it seems reasonable and logical. The way it actually works, however, is by bringing most people down to the level of drudges with a few elite at the top. There is no real incentive to get better or try harder.
2006-08-28 12:02:57 · answer #7 · answered by smgray99 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
some people are born to think that way. Just like how there are some people that think that George Bush is innocent. Well... we all know about that.
2006-08-28 12:01:44 · answer #8 · answered by ♥ღαмαиdα♥ღ 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it seems to be working fine in sweden and holland.
2006-08-28 12:05:11 · answer #9 · answered by Mr.happy 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
immaturity & laziness!!
2006-08-28 12:04:06 · answer #10 · answered by therandman 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋