[TGB!]

[quote:9c64b]As for socialism, as you said yourself, TBG, it depends on how heavily they rely on the said system. For example, Britain, can be considered socialist to an extent, because it institutes policies such as free healthcare(I could be wrong about this, but it is what I have heard.)[/quote:9c64b]

Britain is no more socialist than the UNITED STATES. In this modern era it is not realistic to not expect some social services from the government, such as access to health care and an unemployment check every two weeks. However, there is a REASON why no government exists as a purely socialist state - because it does not work. Period.

[quote:9c64b]I honestly see no reason why a socialist economy could not function.[/quote:9c64b]

Because it stifles free market growth, which stifles industry, which stifles modernization and creativity, which stifles progress, which - well you see where this goes.

[quote:9c64b]Socialism is a government which is all about the people[/quote:9c64b]

Oh give me a break. As if capatalistic democracies somehow arent for the people.

[quote:9c64b]The entire reason for communism's creation was because of the corruption of the bourgeousie + nobles[/quote:9c64b]

Right - so instead of the material elite, you produced the political elite, who did a BANG UP job.

[quote:9c64b]So many live in poverty. And even more are oblivious of that.[/quote:9c64b]

Youre overgeneralizing causes of poverty under the United States government. Presuming a capatalistic model is the ONLY reason many live below the poverty line is specious. You dont think theres poverty in the Oceanic states? You dont think its possible for someone to receive government aid and not be below the poverty line?

[quote:9c64b]There are countries where thousands die of starvation....this would not happen if food was shared equally.[/quote:9c64b]

Irrelevant to this discussion, and a faulty expansion of the ideas of socialism.