An actual thread on the matter! (Capitalism Vs. Socialism/Communism)

[Madame Adequate]

communism can work. it did in israel.

I contest that it would work on a large scale (Under 7% of Israel's population was in a Kibbutzim.), moreover I don't care if it works well. It's wrong. As something of an aside, have you heard of the Westermarck Effect? It's fine in families, but could be very damaging in a communal society. I'll also note that Spiro and Bettelheim found people in Kibbutzim found it harder to bond closely to other people, though they found it easier to make a alrge number of loose friendships. Can you say 'Brave New World'?

once you start taking taxes then a boundary has been crossed. and it's a boundary that needs to be crossed.

I agree, that's what my support for the military and police force is about (Although their powers should be greatly limited.). But the boundary must only be crossed because of necessity and it must be crossed to the minimal possible degree.

lets examine when taxes paid for the government, army and nothing else. the industrial revolution period of the 19th century.

You mean the time when Europe rose from being another set of fueding monarchies into a democratic and first-rate continent?

it was a time of cholera. they streets and wells were filled with sewage. people were dying on an epedemic scale because noone cared about sewage. it wasn't the governments or councils job. and noone was going to pay for it out of the goodness of their heart. and the people most affected by it were too poor to pay anyone to do it. and alot of people died to the government saw sense and ended the madness and with the help of brunel built a sewer system that is the one we still use today. and noone is dying of cholera.

That is not a valid argument. Most people just weren't aware of the link between sanitation and disease. Nowadays you can ask any common Joe on the street and he'll be well aware that sewage systems exist for a reason. The Industrial revolution caused problems, yes, but it was the first real attempt at it we had. How can anyone expect it to be free of problems? Now we are aware that the government has a duty to protect people from coercion and exploitation.

in the end government intervention ended the cholera epidemic.

Epidemics and diseases (IE Disaster control) are another aspect of government which I support.

it was paid for out of acquired revenue but brought an idea forward of government intervention.

Which is a great shame. They should have done their part and stepped back.

then the country went to war (i can't remember if it was the boer or crimean war). and lots of the working class went to sign up. and were turned away. they weren't suitable, underweight, louse ridden, mal nourished with no intelligenced. the government was lacking in working class troops not because they didn't want to sign up but because they just weren't fit enough.

The Crimean would have been the one. At any rate, you're sincerely telling me the justification for socialism is war? Ok, well, if you can reconcile that with your stance against Iraq...

a country without an army would have been silly. so the government at the time had an idea. it was the foundations of the welfare state. sick pay and access to a doctor, injury pay, education, child labour laws, the end of the work houses, pensions etc. and the next war the country went into the great war. we won and had no lack of troops.

None of those are things I object to. I merely object to the government forcing me to have system 'X' for, say, pensions when I would prefer system 'Y', or no system at all for whatever reason. You just don't understand it; I am not much for contesting and arguing about which system is more effective (Though I make the case anyway because it's where most of the other side likes to fight.). I care about only the fact that it is wrong to steal.

other problems were in that time frame. housing. at the time when the people were flocking to the cities from the farms they were working in factories. working in factories was a bit like selling your soul. though it had been practiced before in the rural environment it has harsher in the cities. as a factory worker you basicly belonged to the factory owner. the food you bought was from him, the house you lived in was his, the water you drank was from his well (see above). and the easiest way to make money is too keep money.

An infringement on self-jurisdiction, thus illegal in any society worth discussing.

so the houses were . and i mean . single rooms for the whole family. no bed, no gas, no running water, no furniture, a single room. and not a big room either. no ventilation and no heat. food was horrible and often posinous (lead in the bread to make it weigh more was common as was adding dyes).

My answer for today's supposedly equivalent scenarios (Because, I don't know if you're aware, but the 19th century is not analogous to the 21st.): Don't breed until you can afford to sustain your children. And don't breed more than you can afford to sustain. Lead in the bread is a crime. No problem in getting the companies torn apart in any decent law system.

this of course was a bit of a problem since the government now realised that it's duty was to the people (especially if you need them to fight wars). and so they thought the slums needed to go. and after 1918 many did. "homes for heroes". they knocked down the slum housing and built council houses. fully gassed and with running water, heat, ventilation, windows, electricity. the full works. the plan was never fully completed due to an economic down turn and lack of materials for such a job. but it was the start.

And have you been to a council estate lately? Everywhere I've ever seen in Britain, 'council estate' is synonymous with 'pit of depression, drugs, and a lack of hope'.

on the topic of factories. working conmditions. working conditions were not great. many maimings, removal of body parts and injuries resulted. cotton mills ended up with people cutting hands stuck in places. children crawled around the back of the machines removing fluff and sometimes were crushed or raised their head at the wrong moment. but there was no law against it. fine to do what you wanted. such instances of people collecting sewage in city centres for fertilizer in large heaps was common practice too.

"but there was no law against it." And there's no need to discuss this further, because putting employees in dangerous situations is, oh, what's that word again? Oh yes, illegal.

the government then looked at this and thought that this was never gonna be a good thing. people were dying and getting ill and this was not a great looking thing for the worlds most powerful nation. and all those damned european countries were being nice to their people now and had democracy and this made britain look bad. that and less people meant less taxes and less army. so things had to be done. and laws were changed. no child labour, employers were no responsible, and the first health and safety and environmental health laws came in. no more dumping stuff in the street either.

And I don't have a problem with those laws. But they are merely an extension of law and order, not of social control espoused by most socialists.

so what else did the government need to do? education. badly educated children were not good for the economy. so off to school they went. mothers needed care when they were unable to work. babies need extra money. a few other extra's.

Yes, because we all know how well the public school system works. I hear almost universal complaints from Americans about theirs, and I am sure they are horrified to hear that in my experience Americans get a better education than British children do in the public school system. But both are horrifically flawed.

alot of this was also out of self interest for the government. the labour movement and unions were gaining support and the working class were gaining the vote. appeasing them meant keeping in power.

Hardly allows one to make claims of altruism. What would you say if the government used tax money to find and implement a cure for your disability, and then set off on an imperialist mission with you on the front lines?

but it saved lives. could be why we won the war. and was the foundations for modern britain.

Because modern Britain is such a wonderful place, free of social ills, with such shining examples of culture as the Tate Modern and Allison Lapper Pregnant.

and modern britain kept me alive and educated me.

Good for you. Modern Britain kept my father on his ass and didn't compel him with any kind of work ethic, and it put me through a largely useless system where I only learnt how to cheat and lie so that I didn't have to go through the same drudgery yet again. School taught me very little intentionally.