The Problem With Soft Socialism

[Emtos]

Capitalism didn't make the jobs of the industrial revolution? Those factories weren't built by the state, you know. You either don't understand what capitalism is or you are laughably ignorant of history.

People already had jobs before. As peasants, in manual production. Never heard of luddites ? Capitalism didn't created jobs, it just decreased a part of jobs and increased the other part.

[Half Pint John]

It’s a lie!

https://www.hoover.org/research/problem-soft-socialism

Comment from your link
Leon Simmonds mitch911712 • 10 days ago
"And they also know that the rest of the people do not do well" - Untrue Democratic socialists countries have consistently high standards of living.
In the next paragraph he silently switches to talking about pure put socialism, which no prominent Democrat is advocating for.

[Cambronnne]

The next thing he’s going to claim is that the USSR was a pioneering green leader because citizens were required to use both sides of each toilet tissue.

And they set aside the entire chernybl area as a nature preserve.

[ljadw]

Comment from your link
Leon Simmonds mitch911712 • 10 days ago
"And they also know that the rest of the people do not do well" - Untrue Democratic socialists countries have consistently high standards of living.
In the next paragraph he silently switches to talking about pure put socialism, which no prominent Democrat is advocating for.

Democratic socialists are Marxists, people as Sanders .

[Hida Akechi]

The next thing he’s going to claim is that the USSR was a pioneering green leader because citizens were required to use both sides of each toilet tissue.

[ljadw]

Reaction to famine IS part of the famine. People starved and died not because potatoes were lost. They died because they had no food. And they get no food because capitalist government didn't sent it.

Even if food was sent,and food was sent: 87 % of the population survived, the majority of those who died,would die ,because there was no possibility to select those who needed /deserved food : people died because they were sick ,which was related to the famine : food only would not help them : they needed also medical treatment, but in 1845 medicine was that primitive that it was better not to consult a doctor and to become seriously ill, or even not seriously ill,resulted in a lot of cases/most cases in death .
About the selection of those who would receive food : every one (8,5 million ) would clam that they were seriously ill and that they were starving : who would decide that Ryan would live and that O'Neill would die ?And why Ryan ,and not O'Neill? Or O'Connor ?
The same problem happened in Ukraine, in Bengalen, in Ethiopia ,etc
I ask you again : to which people should capitalist government send food and to which people capitalist government should not send food ? The same question for the communist government in 1932, for the government of India in 1943 , for Oxfam,etc in the 80s .
It is very easy to say : the government should send food ,which means : the government should say : you receive food and you not : you must die .

[American87]

Biggest empire in the world cannot feed a couple of millions of people at a stone threw from home ? Ridiculous.

I’m not big on British history, but capitalism isn’t a factor here. In fact, socialist states let their people starve, like the USSR, and capitalist states like the USA support their people during national disasters. The British failure to support Ireland was for reasons other than capitalism. In fact, without capitalism the UK wouldn’t have the resources it did.

[ljadw]

Emtos is very imprudent by claiming that the Irish famine was caused by the British capitalist government, because 90 years later,the Soviet communist government did not better in Ukraine .

[Emtos]

I’m not big on British history, but capitalism isn’t a factor here. In fact, socialist states let their people starve, like the USSR, and capitalist states like the USA support their people during national disasters. The British failure to support Ireland was for reasons other than capitalism. In fact, without capitalism the UK wouldn’t have the resources it did.

51645258_2281701628817455_8177537484415041536_n.jpg

[Emtos]

Even if food was sent,and food was sent: 87 % of the population survived, the majority of those who died,would die ,because there was no possibility to select those who needed /deserved food : people died because they were sick ,which was related to the famine : food only would not help them : they needed also medical treatment, but in 1845 medicine was that primitive that it was better not to consult a doctor and to become seriously ill, or even not seriously ill,resulted in a lot of cases/most cases in death .
About the selection of those who would receive food : every one (8,5 million ) would clam that they were seriously ill and that they were starving : who would decide that Ryan would live and that O'Neill would die ?And why Ryan ,and not O'Neill? Or O'Connor ?
The same problem happened in Ukraine, in Bengalen, in Ethiopia ,etc
I ask you again : to which people should capitalist government send food and to which people capitalist government should not send food ? The same question for the communist government in 1932, for the government of India in 1943 , for Oxfam,etc in the 80s .
It is very easy to say : the government should send food ,which means : the government should say : you receive food and you not : you must die .

To people who're starving. It's not hard to tell by simple appearance who is starving and who is not. Nor is it hard to simply look ask the local authorities about the situation in their area. It was never a problem to see the difference between those who're starving and those who aren't.

[Half Pint John]

Don't be absurd

[Urban hermit]

Don't be absurder

Thats all he’’s got

[BELGRAVE]

It was indifference to the Irish by the British that prevented them from giving aid to the Irish starving to death then it was capitalism that killed the Irish.

It wasn't "indifference to the Irish" per se that prevented food aid being supplied to the areas afflicted by the potato blight. Had another part of the British Isles been in a similar position the result would have been exactly the same.

It was all part of the rampant capitalism doctrine that prevailed at the time. Relief measures were effectively stimied by the Corn Laws. Still, Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel was convinced that stavation could only be eventually averted only by freeing grain imports into Ireland and, by pushing the doctrine of Free Trade, to provide relief he destroyed his party.

[American87]

51645258_2281701628817455_8177537484415041536_n.jpg

Capitalism creates an abundance of resources. The UK had the means, but they didn’t provide relief to the Irish. That’s policy, not economics. Socialist/Communist states don’t have the same means to provide relief, even if they wanted to.

[Urban hermit]

Watch and learn

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kOomUpEdLE4