is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston Churchill
Comments to this truth?
2006-12-18 12:52:41 · 15 answers · asked by thegirl 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Absolutely. It encourages everyone to be on the lowest level because doesn't reward excellence. It is a whole lot easer to be the guy with the "needs" than the guy with the "abilities"
But this belongs in politics.
2006-12-18 12:57:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry Winston, I just don't buy it. I think there are many aspects of socialism that benefit us today - social security, public education, medicare. I think capitaliam works best when it is balanced by socialist principles to insure that the "haves" to not completely dominate and legislate the rules in their favor at the expense of those who have less. Speaking as a person who has worked for an elected official I can write with some assurance that the "haves" will certainly try.
2006-12-18 13:03:01 · answer #2 · answered by kvcar2 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well since Churchill lost the election in 1945. The labour party in the UK have made huge changes for British society. The big bad word for Americans socialism brought about the national heath service for all the people in the UK. Now is that bad? I don't think so. All of Europe has free health care. Remember Churchill wasn't working class. He was the grandson of the Duke of Marlborough. Yes Churchill was a great state no one question that. But as a politician after the war he wasn't that great. He didn't make any huge changes into British society like the labour party did.
2006-12-18 13:00:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Socialism is the absence of individual freedom. Just look at the Socialist President Hugo Chavez in Venzuela. He's doing away with all privately owned radio stations. The only radio stations that will be in Venezuela will be Government owned and controlled.
Socilialists economies always fail. Look at Cuba and North Korea. Look at how the Soviet Union imploded. The only reason why China is doing well is because they are more Capitalists now than Socialist.
2006-12-18 12:59:40 · answer #4 · answered by Darktania 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Winston Churchill wasn't so nice with many underhanded betrayals of allied countries such as Poland who suffered under Nazism only to be sold out to Russia by Churchill.
2006-12-18 12:58:15 · answer #5 · answered by robert m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is very true when you are rich. If you have a million in the bank and can easily pay for all your needs socialism is not for you. but when you are middle class or less and you cannot afford basic needs, socialism is best it all depends on your financial situation
2016-05-23 05:54:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I could point out that it has nothing whatever to do with Religion or spirituality. Thought of asking them in Politics and government? Or philosophy? Or is there a particular reason why you're asking this lot?
_
2006-12-18 12:55:50 · answer #7 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
National Socialism, certainly.
2006-12-18 12:56:51 · answer #8 · answered by STFU Dude 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I agree. Communism was the scourge of the twentieth century. Now
it seems that Radical Islamic will be the scourge of the twenty first.
2006-12-18 12:57:29 · answer #9 · answered by adrian b 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would say that applies to Communism quite well, but an argument could be made that it doesn't apply to socialism.
2006-12-18 12:57:04 · answer #10 · answered by Alucard 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋