Britain’s armed forces are too weak to fight Russia and cannot rely on the US in the event of a European conflict, MPs have been told.The UK must step up produc
NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It’s meant to be a collective defense. What’s happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.
I’m fine with NATO members relying on the US defense budget as long as they spend their money on socialist programs at home. The US could provide the best socialist safety net on the planet, and still outspend the rest of the world 40:1 on defense if it would just tax the rich. Tax capitol gains like income as well, and 80% tax on everything over 20 million a year, 95% tax on everything over 200 million a year, and 99% tax on everything over 1 billion a year.
Boom now we can do the best socialized medicine on the plan and have enough left over to build a couple hundred new NATO bases where ever member states want them.
The material reality of each country calls for specific actions according to the specific needs of that territory, there is no ordered check list a socialist country needs to achieve to be considered one.
Market socialism examples are Yugoslavia and Poland in the 70’s. Nordics have capitalism with (currently being cut) social safety nets, one of prime characteristics of socialdemocracy, ideology that do not promote socialism but capitalism with “human face”, as Nomad said, based on Keynes work. Blair and his followers in many countries went much off even that into the neoliberalism.
Yeah you’re right. I think it originated from Adam Smith? Vietnam would probably be described as market socialist
The Nordic model has social policies
Blair described his as an alternative to socialism
In the United Kingdom, Third Way social-democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism and said: “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice. … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly.”[7] Blair referred to it as a “social-ism” involving politics that recognised individuals as socially interdependent and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen and equal opportunity.
You seem to have a pretty narrow definition of socialism. I think most people would not use the term as narrow as you do no matter what quoted text you are about to post in response.
From simple Wikipedia: “Socialism is a political ideology that aims to make people equal. It generally focuses on equality of wealth (eg. similar wages, housing, education, healthcare), although since the 1960s, it has often focused on equality of power. It is normally considered left-wing, because it seeks to change society.”
??? You seem to have not only weird definition of socialism, because it’s totally not it, but even different wikipedia. Here’s what it says, in the very beginning (your definition is nowhere there):
Social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. Which is basically as broad definition as possible, everything left of succdems fit right in.
For the lulz, i searched for your definition, and it had only a single result, here. Specifically, a comment down below:
Concluding, i guess it must be true, since the well known socialist theoretician BAD BOY BUBBY said so /s
I’m fine with NATO members relying on the US defense budget as long as they spend their money on socialist programs at home. The US could provide the best socialist safety net on the planet, and still outspend the rest of the world 40:1 on defense if it would just tax the rich. Tax capitol gains like income as well, and 80% tax on everything over 20 million a year, 95% tax on everything over 200 million a year, and 99% tax on everything over 1 billion a year.
Boom now we can do the best socialized medicine on the plan and have enough left over to build a couple hundred new NATO bases where ever member states want them.
Welfare programs in capitalist countries are not socialism. “Socialism program” would be collectivisiation of the means of production.
deleted by creator
You want to abolish commodity production in the low phase of socialism? Lol.
deleted by creator
The material reality of each country calls for specific actions according to the specific needs of that territory, there is no ordered check list a socialist country needs to achieve to be considered one.
deleted by creator
Welfare programs in capitalist countries can be socialism.
No, by definition they aren’t. You added the “-ism” incorrectly, you should stop at “social programs”.
Must of missed the whole market socialism thing in the Nordics and under Blair in the UK?
Market socialism examples are Yugoslavia and Poland in the 70’s. Nordics have capitalism with (currently being cut) social safety nets, one of prime characteristics of socialdemocracy, ideology that do not promote socialism but capitalism with “human face”, as Nomad said, based on Keynes work. Blair and his followers in many countries went much off even that into the neoliberalism.
Yep, I was wrong.
That’s not market socialism, at best it’s called Keynesianism.
Yeah you’re right. I think it originated from Adam Smith? Vietnam would probably be described as market socialist
The Nordic model has social policies
Blair described his as an alternative to socialism
Sure they are.
You seem to have a pretty narrow definition of socialism. I think most people would not use the term as narrow as you do no matter what quoted text you are about to post in response.
Oh? Share yours then so we can compare.
From simple Wikipedia: “Socialism is a political ideology that aims to make people equal. It generally focuses on equality of wealth (eg. similar wages, housing, education, healthcare), although since the 1960s, it has often focused on equality of power. It is normally considered left-wing, because it seeks to change society.”
??? You seem to have not only weird definition of socialism, because it’s totally not it, but even different wikipedia. Here’s what it says, in the very beginning (your definition is nowhere there):
Social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. Which is basically as broad definition as possible, everything left of succdems fit right in.
For the lulz, i searched for your definition, and it had only a single result, here. Specifically, a comment down below:
Concluding, i guess it must be true, since the well known socialist theoretician BAD BOY BUBBY said so /s
Bad Boy Bubby is a good film, though.
Encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems. that is simply what I said, but you seem intent on arguing a point you are not making.