Dear runner,

pigs arse.

The most hardcore capitalistic society among first world nations is the US.

This is the result;

"Babies born in America are less likely to reach their first birthday than babies born in other wealthy countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a new study found. While infant mortality rates have declined across the OECD since 1960, including in America, the U.S. has failed to keep pace with its high-income peers, according to a report published in the journal Health Affairs.

Compared to 19 similar OECD countries, U.S. babies were three times more likely to die from extreme immaturity and 2.3 times more likely to experience sudden infant death syndrome between 2001 and 2010, the most recent years for which comparable data is available across all the countries. If the U.S. had kept pace with the OECD’s overall decline in infant mortality since 1960, that would have resulted in about 300,000 fewer infant deaths in America over the course of 50 years, the report found.

The reasons the U.S. has fallen behind include higher poverty rates relative to other developed countries and a relatively weak social safety net, says lead author Ashish Thakrar, medical resident at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System."

Those which are more avowedly socialist in their approach look after their citizens welfare far better.

Austro-Marxism created 'Red Vienna' - which was seen as a paragon of social democracy during the 1917-1934 period. They created a movement based on the principle of 'growth from within'. For workers whose lives who otherwise be dull, they led the creation of workers sport, radio, orchestras, libraries ; as well as first class public housing with hot running water, communal laundry facilities, swimming pools. This was paid for through progressive taxation. Which was possible because Vienna was established as a separate province. To get this in perspective you have to remember we're talking 1917-1934. These services, cultural movements and infrastructure were rare for the time.

The Austro-Marxists controlled the army in 1917 ; but as time moved on they formed their own militia to 'defend the republic and the democratic road to socialism'. However as time moved time fascist militias also formed ; and the Austro-Marxists gave up their grip on the armed forces. This meant that in 1934 - when they won the national elections - the fascist forces were able to dissolve the parliament. For many weeks they negotiated behind the scenes ; but in the meantime the fascists confiscated their arms and arrested their leaders. Determined resistance finally began spontaneously ; but the weakened Schutzbund militia could only hold out for a week by then.

The clerical Fascist Dolfuss took control. But the clerical fascists were hostile the Nazism ; and he was assassinated by Nazi agents. Austria was swallowed up by Nazi Germany in 1938.

The Austro-Marxists were not Stalinists. Today we would probably call them left social democrats. They were Marxists ; but more so in the spirit of the original social democracy.

BTW you don't have to take Marxism as an entire doctrine. As I said, I'm not a philosophical materialist ; and I think ethics must inform social movements rather than having a 'purely practical' outlook. I also believe in God. Marxism is an incredibly diverse historical movement.

Germany is a very successful socialist democracy
Steeleredux,
Well, the people I speak with in Germany must only pretend to be German because they say nothing that confirms what you're claiming !

Say what you like, I like Peterson and in fact at least a couple of other guys, like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro.
Now you all know I'm not a fan of some elite Jews and of course queers, but I am a realist and have an objective stance on life, and these guys, each in their own field or way, are worth listening to.
Peterson is a great orator, and regularly stops to 'think' about what he is about to say.
He is experienced in what he says, and most of all he is objective.
He believes, as do the other two, that by speaking your mind, if a listener is offended by what you say, it is you who are at fault, because if he did not intend to offend, then you are at fault.
If you did intend to offend, then you simply succeeded in making your point.
Free or more important, 'hate' speech is just as necessary as any other forms of speech.
Without it, you are not conveying your message.
If there are snowflakes who are so mentally and emotionally deficient, it is they who are in the 'abnormal' category and therefore should avoid any and all human contact for fear of self harm.
These people, by definition, are mentally ill.
Recently I read of a 'wallflower' that, believe it or not had to leave a church sermon, because what the preacher? was saying was SO BAD!
A PREACHER?, in CHURCH?, REALLY?
So come on people, let's all grow up a little and stop trying to bring us all down to the level and mentality of 3 year olds.
The overarching point here is that you're NOT 3 year olds so then act your ages, and stop bitching about nothing!
In case you need to be reminded, it's called FREE SPEECH!
Yes like everything in life, like marriage, you get the good with the bad, you don't get to cherry pick.

Tristan, the only model of Socialism that ever worked was National Socialism, which the Russians and the Chinese are adopting, right now. That is, give the wealth creators as much economic freedom as possible (ie, the free marketers were right, all along), while still maintaining absolute political control. Only time will tell whether this will work. The problem with all forms of socialism is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and socialists just can't stop controlling the wealth creators and meddling in the economy. They think that prosperity can be obtained by decree.

As for that shining example of Swedish socialism.

Sweden is no longer a socialist country. In the 1970's and 80's went partway down that path with a big taxing and big spending government which bought up public companies like Absolut Vodka, and it nearly went broke. The very high taxes were not enough to finance the Swedish national health care system, and it's health system resembled the Soviet or Cuban model. It's funny how people must get right to the edge of catastrophe before they figure out they are heading in the wrong direction. Although apparently, Phd's can never figure it out.

Finally Sweden did what you consider anathema. They cut taxes on their most productive people and productive entities. They cut public spending. Reduced regulations and government interference. Privatized government businesses, including the rail system. Sold Volvo to the Nationalist Socialist Chinese. Eliminated inheritance taxes. But most of all, they reformed their unsustainable social security system, actually privatizing the pension system to something resembling a superannuation fund. This privatized pension system introduced the sensible idea that social security payouts had to reflect the degree of Swedish economic solubility. Pensioners got more if the economy did well. Best of all, Sweden allowed parents to choose their own schools, and they encouraged private schools because they were more cost effective and better performers than public schools.

Oddly enough, Sweden taxes it's poorest at a higher rate than it's most productive, on the principle that the poor are the primary users of government services. User pays

on the principle that the poor are the primary users of government services. User pays
LEGO,
I agree with user pays but shouldn't Govt services then be value for money ? Where's the value in my tax dollars forfeited when so much of it goes to dug addicts, criminal defence, highly paid but useless bureaucrats etc ?