Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

[forkup]

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

First of all I don't like to be called dishonest nore do I particulary like to be called ignorant. I've studied economics both in school as afterwarths and large parts of this post have been spend on the definition of socialism. I'm also pretty well versed in history if I do say so myself. We seem do have different ideas about what socialism is. You chose to call only countries with a totalitarian governement system socialist, I include social democraties in the term socialist. Let's leave aside who is correct, because we both are and we both are also wrong.

Then you are either dishonest or ignorant. The European welfare states are only a smidgen more socialist than the United States. Some of them are in fact less socialist.

You don't want to call them what they really are, which is a welfare state, because that just doesn't sound very appealing, so you call them "social democracies," which is a deliberately meaningless and misleading.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try being honest. Socialists always lie. Always.

We aren't both correct. To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do.

Well in this post you apperently called me a socialist 'Socialists always lie', at the same time you called the country I live in not socialist 'Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries.' I asume those countries include mine since our system is simular. And then you end with this'To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do'. Now if you feel you've been consistent there that's fine but i actually find this entire thing a bit ironic.

And when you throw around terms like welfare state, wich is fine how is that any different then me calling my country a social democracy? As you pointed out we actually have a bigger social safety net then the US and we are definetly a democracy. While on the other had most ppl in this country work and our not on welfare.Wich is more correct as a description?

 

[bripat9643]

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

First of all I don't like to be called dishonest nore do I particulary like to be called ignorant. I've studied economics both in school as afterwarths and large parts of this post have been spend on the definition of socialism. I'm also pretty well versed in history if I do say so myself. We seem do have different ideas about what socialism is. You chose to call only countries with a totalitarian governement system socialist, I include social democraties in the term socialist. Let's leave aside who is correct, because we both are and we both are also wrong.

Then you are either dishonest or ignorant. The European welfare states are only a smidgen more socialist than the United States. Some of them are in fact less socialist.

You don't want to call them what they really are, which is a welfare state, because that just doesn't sound very appealing, so you call them "social democracies," which is a deliberately meaningless and misleading.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try being honest. Socialists always lie. Always.

We aren't both correct. To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do.

Well in this post you apperently called me a socialist 'Socialists always lie', at the same time you called the country I live in not socialist 'Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries.' I asume those countries include mine since our system is simular. And then you end with this'To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do'. Now if you feel you've been consistent there that's fine but i actually find this entire thing a bit ironic.

Living in a capitalist country doesn't make you a capitalist. If it did then Bernie would be a capitalist.

You're a bit short in the logic department.

 

[Never3ndr]

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

I just wanted to address this one point because it is the first one I saw...(don't ask me why I was scrolling the page and saw 4 before 1).

This is highly debatable, and, in my opinion, just plain wrong (as a general rule at least). I've linked to it several times, but there are a ton of studies indicating that less income inequality (more dividing) is positively correlated to how well the population and economy is doing. It even makes common sense if you think about it:

Let's say that you give one guy 90% of the wealth, and then spread out the remaining 10% through 1,000 people. You are likely to have one guy that has the resources to be highly productive while having 1,000 that are just scraping to get by (think of it as a lot of people lacking things like healthcare, transportation, education, etc. they just aren't that productive and, even if they wanted to be, lack the resources necessary to be productive) On the other hand, let's say you give one guy 10% of the wealth (the guy is still a wealthy man) and 90% of the wealth to 1,000 people. Now, you get a robust economy where everybody is able to participate and contribute. Which economy do you think typically does better?

As a hint: classically communist countries typically practiced the 90% to a select few and spreading out the scraps to the population, while socialism (in its modern iterations) typically mirrors more the later example. So, if you don't think that my hypothetical is a decent argument please explain why the communist societies like the USSR or North Korea are economic powerhouses while modern economies with heavy socialistic structures (like Canada or Sweden) are economic failures.

As an edit: I am not saying that we need to have total equality or equal division of wealth among all individuals...actually nobody is saying that. An extreme division of wealth reduces productive incentives and IS detrimental. However, as nobody is saying that is what we need, arguing against an extreme division of wealth is disingenuous at best and ignorant or malicious at worst.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

First of all I don't like to be called dishonest nore do I particulary like to be called ignorant. I've studied economics both in school as afterwarths and large parts of this post have been spend on the definition of socialism. I'm also pretty well versed in history if I do say so myself. We seem do have different ideas about what socialism is. You chose to call only countries with a totalitarian governement system socialist, I include social democraties in the term socialist. Let's leave aside who is correct, because we both are and we both are also wrong.

Then you are either dishonest or ignorant. The European welfare states are only a smidgen more socialist than the United States. Some of them are in fact less socialist.

You don't want to call them what they really are, which is a welfare state, because that just doesn't sound very appealing, so you call them "social democracies," which is a deliberately meaningless and misleading.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try being honest. Socialists always lie. Always.

We aren't both correct. To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do.

Well in this post you apperently called me a socialist 'Socialists always lie', at the same time you called the country I live in not socialist 'Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries.' I asume those countries include mine since our system is simular. And then you end with this'To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do'. Now if you feel you've been consistent there that's fine but i actually find this entire thing a bit ironic.

And when you throw around terms like welfare state, wich is fine how is that any different then me calling my country a social democracy? As you pointed out we actually have a bigger social safety net then the US and we are definetly a democracy. While on the other had most ppl in this country work and our not on welfare.Wich is more correct as a description?

What you have is welfare programs. The USA also has welfare programs. So where is this fundamental distinction between the USA, which you call "capitalist," and Canada, which you call "socialist?"

 

[georgephillip]

According to Marx, of the various types of socialism, only one type of socialism, "Scientific Socialism," created by Marx, would follow capitalism. It never came to pass.

Maybe it's time hasn't arrived yet? Marx badly underestimated the state's ability to save capitalism from itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't eventually go the way of feudalism?

The time for contradictions and 4 sided triangles will never arrive. Socialism will never work.

Capitalism has stopped working for 99% of workers.
What comes next, The Return to Feudalism?

 

[bripat9643]

According to Marx, of the various types of socialism, only one type of socialism, "Scientific Socialism," created by Marx, would follow capitalism. It never came to pass.

Maybe it's time hasn't arrived yet? Marx badly underestimated the state's ability to save capitalism from itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't eventually go the way of feudalism?

The time for contradictions and 4 sided triangles will never arrive. Socialism will never work.

Capitalism has stopped working for 99% of workers.
What comes next, The Return to Feudalism?

Capitalism is working fine. It's our traitor government that isn't working.

 

[forkup]

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

First of all I don't like to be called dishonest nore do I particulary like to be called ignorant. I've studied economics both in school as afterwarths and large parts of this post have been spend on the definition of socialism. I'm also pretty well versed in history if I do say so myself. We seem do have different ideas about what socialism is. You chose to call only countries with a totalitarian governement system socialist, I include social democraties in the term socialist. Let's leave aside who is correct, because we both are and we both are also wrong.

Then you are either dishonest or ignorant. The European welfare states are only a smidgen more socialist than the United States. Some of them are in fact less socialist.

You don't want to call them what they really are, which is a welfare state, because that just doesn't sound very appealing, so you call them "social democracies," which is a deliberately meaningless and misleading.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try being honest. Socialists always lie. Always.

We aren't both correct. To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do.

Well in this post you apperently called me a socialist 'Socialists always lie', at the same time you called the country I live in not socialist 'Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries.' I asume those countries include mine since our system is simular. And then you end with this'To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do'. Now if you feel you've been consistent there that's fine but i actually find this entire thing a bit ironic.

And when you throw around terms like welfare state, wich is fine how is that any different then me calling my country a social democracy? As you pointed out we actually have a bigger social safety net then the US and we are definetly a democracy. While on the other had most ppl in this country work and our not on welfare.Wich is more correct as a description?

What you have is welfare programs. The USA also has welfare programs. So where is this fundamental distinction between the USA, which you call "capitalist," and Canada, which you call "socialist?"

The fundemental distinction is; that in the US to large segments of the population.Wanting to find a way to give health insurance to everybody makes that person a socialist trying to find a way to make higher education accessible to everybody makes that person a socialist. Taxes for anything but the absolute essentials ( military,infrastruture,law enforcement) pretty sure i forgot some.Is asked. In short only what you can achieve induvidually has any value. While in Canada they try to give everybody at least an honest start and they feel that everybody has a right to education, health, housing, food. to name the most basic.

 

[bripat9643]

First of all I don't like to be called dishonest nore do I particulary like to be called ignorant. I've studied economics both in school as afterwarths and large parts of this post have been spend on the definition of socialism. I'm also pretty well versed in history if I do say so myself. We seem do have different ideas about what socialism is. You chose to call only countries with a totalitarian governement system socialist, I include social democraties in the term socialist. Let's leave aside who is correct, because we both are and we both are also wrong.

Then you are either dishonest or ignorant. The European welfare states are only a smidgen more socialist than the United States. Some of them are in fact less socialist.

You don't want to call them what they really are, which is a welfare state, because that just doesn't sound very appealing, so you call them "social democracies," which is a deliberately meaningless and misleading.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try being honest. Socialists always lie. Always.

We aren't both correct. To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do.

Well in this post you apperently called me a socialist 'Socialists always lie', at the same time you called the country I live in not socialist 'Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries.' I asume those countries include mine since our system is simular. And then you end with this'To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do'. Now if you feel you've been consistent there that's fine but i actually find this entire thing a bit ironic.

And when you throw around terms like welfare state, wich is fine how is that any different then me calling my country a social democracy? As you pointed out we actually have a bigger social safety net then the US and we are definetly a democracy. While on the other had most ppl in this country work and our not on welfare.Wich is more correct as a description?

What you have is welfare programs. The USA also has welfare programs. So where is this fundamental distinction between the USA, which you call "capitalist," and Canada, which you call "socialist?"

The fundemental distinction is; that in the US to large segments of the population.Wanting to find a way to give health insurance to everybody makes that person a socialist trying to find a way to make higher education accessible to everybody makes that person a socialist. Taxes for anything but the absolute essentials ( military,infrastruture,law enforcement) pretty sure i forgot some.Is asked. In short only what you can achieve induvidually has any value. While in Canada they try to give everybody at least an honest start and they feel that everybody has a right to education, health, housing, food. to name the most basic.

So it's purely a difference in attitude?

 

[forkup]

Then you are either dishonest or ignorant. The European welfare states are only a smidgen more socialist than the United States. Some of them are in fact less socialist.

You don't want to call them what they really are, which is a welfare state, because that just doesn't sound very appealing, so you call them "social democracies," which is a deliberately meaningless and misleading.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try being honest. Socialists always lie. Always.

We aren't both correct. To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do.

Well in this post you apperently called me a socialist 'Socialists always lie', at the same time you called the country I live in not socialist 'Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries.' I asume those countries include mine since our system is simular. And then you end with this'To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do'. Now if you feel you've been consistent there that's fine but i actually find this entire thing a bit ironic.

And when you throw around terms like welfare state, wich is fine how is that any different then me calling my country a social democracy? As you pointed out we actually have a bigger social safety net then the US and we are definetly a democracy. While on the other had most ppl in this country work and our not on welfare.Wich is more correct as a description?

What you have is welfare programs. The USA also has welfare programs. So where is this fundamental distinction between the USA, which you call "capitalist," and Canada, which you call "socialist?"

The fundemental distinction is; that in the US to large segments of the population.Wanting to find a way to give health insurance to everybody makes that person a socialist trying to find a way to make higher education accessible to everybody makes that person a socialist. Taxes for anything but the absolute essentials ( military,infrastruture,law enforcement) pretty sure i forgot some.Is asked. In short only what you can achieve induvidually has any value. While in Canada they try to give everybody at least an honest start and they feel that everybody has a right to education, health, housing, food. to name the most basic.

So it's purely a difference in attitude?

Of course its a difference in attitude and you adjust the laws in your country accordingly to reflect that difference in attitude.

 

[boedicca]

A great meany Millenials are functionally illiterate about history and economics because FEELINGS.

 

[georgephillip]

However, as nobody is saying that is what we need, arguing against an extreme division of wealth is disingenuous at best and ignorant or malicious at worst.

As I recall, that would be a good day around here!

 

[forkup]

Well in this post you apperently called me a socialist 'Socialists always lie', at the same time you called the country I live in not socialist 'Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries.' I asume those countries include mine since our system is simular. And then you end with this'To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do'. Now if you feel you've been consistent there that's fine but i actually find this entire thing a bit ironic.

And when you throw around terms like welfare state, wich is fine how is that any different then me calling my country a social democracy? As you pointed out we actually have a bigger social safety net then the US and we are definetly a democracy. While on the other had most ppl in this country work and our not on welfare.Wich is more correct as a description?

What you have is welfare programs. The USA also has welfare programs. So where is this fundamental distinction between the USA, which you call "capitalist," and Canada, which you call "socialist?"

The fundemental distinction is; that in the US to large segments of the population.Wanting to find a way to give health insurance to everybody makes that person a socialist trying to find a way to make higher education accessible to everybody makes that person a socialist. Taxes for anything but the absolute essentials ( military,infrastruture,law enforcement) pretty sure i forgot some.Is asked. In short only what you can achieve induvidually has any value. While in Canada they try to give everybody at least an honest start and they feel that everybody has a right to education, health, housing, food. to name the most basic.

So it's purely a difference in attitude?

Of course its a difference in attitude and you adjust the laws in your country accordingly to reflect that difference in attitude.

Unions in the US for instance have way less inffluence in the us then in the countries where talking about since they interfere with unbridled capatilism. Our railroads,postal service our energy infrastruture provider are state owned companies since we feel they're necessities.Etc.

 

[forkup]

And when you throw around terms like welfare state, wich is fine how is that any different then me calling my country a social democracy? As you pointed out we actually have a bigger social safety net then the US and we are definetly a democracy. While on the other had most ppl in this country work and our not on welfare.Wich is more correct as a description?

What you have is welfare programs. The USA also has welfare programs. So where is this fundamental distinction between the USA, which you call "capitalist," and Canada, which you call "socialist?"

The fundemental distinction is; that in the US to large segments of the population.Wanting to find a way to give health insurance to everybody makes that person a socialist trying to find a way to make higher education accessible to everybody makes that person a socialist. Taxes for anything but the absolute essentials ( military,infrastruture,law enforcement) pretty sure i forgot some.Is asked. In short only what you can achieve induvidually has any value. While in Canada they try to give everybody at least an honest start and they feel that everybody has a right to education, health, housing, food. to name the most basic.

So it's purely a difference in attitude?

Of course its a difference in attitude and you adjust the laws in your country accordingly to reflect that difference in attitude.

Unions in the US for instance have way less inffluence in the us then in the countries where talking about since they interfere with unbridled capatilism. Our railroads,postal service our energy infrastruture provider are state owned companies since we feel they're necessities.Etc.

 

[bripat9643]

What you have is welfare programs. The USA also has welfare programs. So where is this fundamental distinction between the USA, which you call "capitalist," and Canada, which you call "socialist?"

The fundemental distinction is; that in the US to large segments of the population.Wanting to find a way to give health insurance to everybody makes that person a socialist trying to find a way to make higher education accessible to everybody makes that person a socialist. Taxes for anything but the absolute essentials ( military,infrastruture,law enforcement) pretty sure i forgot some.Is asked. In short only what you can achieve induvidually has any value. While in Canada they try to give everybody at least an honest start and they feel that everybody has a right to education, health, housing, food. to name the most basic.

So it's purely a difference in attitude?

Of course its a difference in attitude and you adjust the laws in your country accordingly to reflect that difference in attitude.

Unions in the US for instance have way less inffluence in the us then in the countries where talking about since they interfere with unbridled capatilism. Our railroads,postal service our energy infrastruture provider are state owned companies since we feel they're necessities.Etc.

So a "social democracy" has stronger unions than a "capitalist" country? That's it?

 

[georgephillip]

According to Marx, of the various types of socialism, only one type of socialism, "Scientific Socialism," created by Marx, would follow capitalism. It never came to pass.

Maybe it's time hasn't arrived yet? Marx badly underestimated the state's ability to save capitalism from itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't eventually go the way of feudalism?

The time for contradictions and 4 sided triangles will never arrive. Socialism will never work.

Capitalism has stopped working for 99% of workers.
What comes next, The Return to Feudalism?

Capitalism is working fine. It's our traitor government that isn't working.

"ren·tier
ˌränˈtyā/
noun

1. a person living on income from property or investments."

Google

US capitalism works well for the richest investors and doesn't work well for labor or industry. FIRE sector incomes dominate through the "magic of compound interest" today just as they have since the Roman Empire collapsed. You really need to step out side the echo chamber and listen more closely.

 

[georgephillip]

After capitalism comes...

You still here, Andy?

Capitalism doesn't murder its own citizens, numskull. Communism does, by the millions.

How many millions of human beings has capitalism murdered since 1945?

Start with Korea in 1950.

Capitalism murdered South Korea?

According to some accounts, the USAF murdered one in three civilians living north of the 38th parallel during the Korean War. Can you imagine the profit margin on all those bombs?

How many did the North Koreans and the Chinese murder?

Depends on your source.
Many estimates range around 3 million total casualties.
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

• TOTAL
  • 1,333,060 killed + 1,067,740 missing (Nahm93, not including Chinese)
  • 1,892,000 (S&S, not including civilians)
  • 2,454,000 (Compton's)
  • 2,488,744 (Wallechinsky)
  • 2,854,000 (Britannica)
  • 2,889,000 (Eckhardt)
  • 3,000,000 (D. Smith)
  • 3,000,000 (B&J)
  • 3,062,000 (Rummel)
  • 3,500,000 (Lewy, incl. 2-3M civilians)
• [MEDIAN of TOTALS: ca. 2,950,000] or [TOTAL of MEDIANS: ca. 2,470,000]

 

[forkup]

The fundemental distinction is; that in the US to large segments of the population.Wanting to find a way to give health insurance to everybody makes that person a socialist trying to find a way to make higher education accessible to everybody makes that person a socialist. Taxes for anything but the absolute essentials ( military,infrastruture,law enforcement) pretty sure i forgot some.Is asked. In short only what you can achieve induvidually has any value. While in Canada they try to give everybody at least an honest start and they feel that everybody has a right to education, health, housing, food. to name the most basic.

So it's purely a difference in attitude?

Of course its a difference in attitude and you adjust the laws in your country accordingly to reflect that difference in attitude.

Unions in the US for instance have way less inffluence in the us then in the countries where talking about since they interfere with unbridled capatilism. Our railroads,postal service our energy infrastruture provider are state owned companies since we feel they're necessities.Etc.

So a "social democracy" has stronger unions than a "capitalist" country? That's it?

you honestly want me to go into all the ways social democracies are differently set up then the us? I don't think I would have the time. To name a few sending my kid to college here costs me about 6000 to 7000 dollars per anum.It costs more then that of course if you take in consideration my tax rate but it means she doesn't have to take out a student loan to go to college and I don't have to save my entire live to send her there. When I get sick I go to the doctor costs me about 5d and then I get my meds from the farmesist who gives me my pills immediatly. There's more of course, stricter regulations for water quality (Flint) wouldn't happen here. A total ban on hormone carrying meat in short our governement takes a direct interest in way more area's of day to day live.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism doesn't murder its own citizens, numskull. Communism does, by the millions.

How many millions of human beings has capitalism murdered since 1945?

Start with Korea in 1950.

Capitalism murdered South Korea?

According to some accounts, the USAF murdered one in three civilians living north of the 38th parallel during the Korean War. Can you imagine the profit margin on all those bombs?

How many did the North Koreans and the Chinese murder?

Depends on your source.
Many estimates range around 3 million total casualties.
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

• TOTAL
  • 1,333,060 killed + 1,067,740 missing (Nahm93, not including Chinese)
  • 1,892,000 (S&S, not including civilians)
  • 2,454,000 (Compton's)
  • 2,488,744 (Wallechinsky)
  • 2,854,000 (Britannica)
  • 2,889,000 (Eckhardt)
  • 3,000,000 (D. Smith)
  • 3,000,000 (B&J)
  • 3,062,000 (Rummel)
  • 3,500,000 (Lewy, incl. 2-3M civilians)
• [MEDIAN of TOTALS: ca. 2,950,000] or [TOTAL of MEDIANS: ca. 2,470,000]

North Korea killed them all. They invaded the South. When are you going to start crying about the poor Nazis who were "murdered" by FDR?

 

[bripat9643]

So it's purely a difference in attitude?

Of course its a difference in attitude and you adjust the laws in your country accordingly to reflect that difference in attitude.

Unions in the US for instance have way less inffluence in the us then in the countries where talking about since they interfere with unbridled capatilism. Our railroads,postal service our energy infrastruture provider are state owned companies since we feel they're necessities.Etc.

So a "social democracy" has stronger unions than a "capitalist" country? That's it?

you honestly want me to go into all the ways social democracies are differently set up then the us? I don't think I would have the time. To name a few sending my kid to college here costs me about 6000 to 7000 dollars per anum.It costs more then that of course if you take in consideration my tax rate but it means she doesn't have to take out a student loan to go to college and I don't have to save my entire live to send her there. When I get sick I go to the doctor costs me about 5d and then I get my meds from the farmesist who gives me my pills immediatly. There's more of course, stricter regulations for water quality (Flint) wouldn't happen here. A total ban on hormone carrying meat in short our governement takes a direct interest in way more area's of day to day live.

If you can't describe the distinction in a couple of sentences then you aren't talking about any kind of fundamental difference. You're quibbling about their policies vs ours.

 

[forkup]

Of course its a difference in attitude and you adjust the laws in your country accordingly to reflect that difference in attitude.

Unions in the US for instance have way less inffluence in the us then in the countries where talking about since they interfere with unbridled capatilism. Our railroads,postal service our energy infrastruture provider are state owned companies since we feel they're necessities.Etc.

So a "social democracy" has stronger unions than a "capitalist" country? That's it?

you honestly want me to go into all the ways social democracies are differently set up then the us? I don't think I would have the time. To name a few sending my kid to college here costs me about 6000 to 7000 dollars per anum.It costs more then that of course if you take in consideration my tax rate but it means she doesn't have to take out a student loan to go to college and I don't have to save my entire live to send her there. When I get sick I go to the doctor costs me about 5d and then I get my meds from the farmesist who gives me my pills immediatly. There's more of course, stricter regulations for water quality (Flint) wouldn't happen here. A total ban on hormone carrying meat in short our governement takes a direct interest in way more area's of day to day live.

If you can't describe the distinction in a couple of sentences then you aren't talking about any kind of fundamental difference. You're quibbling about their policies vs ours.

'governement takes a direct interest in way more area's of day to day live.' short enough to your liking bripat.Let me tell you I'm a very easygoing fella i truly am but I'll say this. I dont't like how you like to namecall, I don't like how apperently your only way of debating apperently is to try to find little logic holes you can prick. You ignore what you don't want to read and then attack only parts. Now we can of course do this the entire night but it's 3 am so if you want to do it again it'll have to wait till tomorrow.