But the clues are there written all over history for any peoples faced with the "option" of becoming either Socialist or Communist. Far too many of them ended up communist when they thought they were going to be socialist, run by dictators or dictatorial political bureaux or the ruling party, single-party states, subject to unjust regimes, poorer than their non-socialist/non-communist neighbours and peers and so on and so on. It has failed so many times, who would take that kind of risk again? Especially bearing in mind the appalling records of socialist and communist regimes in the lists of genocides. Quite rare to see capitalist states engaged in genocide of their own people........
I wonder what percentage of GDP was milltary spending for the aforementioned countries over the last seventy or so years? Especially when compared the United States? It is easier for the government to fund social programs when a significant part of their budget does not have to be allocated to millitary spending. During, H.W. Bush’s Presidency, there was talk of a “peace dividend”. With Russia no longer being considered a threat, less money was spent on the millitary. This allowed for more fiscal flexibility and probably helped the US to have a balanced budget durung Clinton’s administration. Just as the saying, “Don’t confuse brains with a bull market”, one could say “Don’t confuse robust social programs as a sign of sound government management”. I’m not saying these countries were terribly managed. After all, they did have United States did foot a disproportionately large part of the defense bill for NATO and other defense agreements. What happens to these countries if the U.S. is no longer able to maintain its current millitary spending commitment? My guess is nothing. These countries probably will not change their millitary budget and accept less US commitment to the area. The Russians probably aren’t going to be an issue anyway. Even if they do become an issue, the worst that probably will happen is a return to the “good old days”.
Its politically convenient convenient for both left and right to over-state the proportion of GDP spent on defence. According to the World Bank, in 2016 the US spent 3.3% of its GDP on defence. Bearing in mind, the US gains back a proportion of its defence expenditure from export sales to other nations. Its hard to see that such a small proportion of expenditure could de-rail really important social programmes.
Just in case you don't really know what KM was on about..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx Personally I am against the carnage of revolution, anarchy and it's consequences. World War 1 was started by a revolutionary assassinating the leader of Austria. The British Socialists were less violent and more intellectually gifted. They supported the rights of the working masses against the rich, greedy bosses.
Marx, the original bourgeois socialist, whose blinkered writings underlie the worst genocides in human history.
u kidding right? or maybe you thought that i was kidding when i told you before that i studied him from mid-school and u sending me link to wiki ?
very good point if not America, our European friends here would speak Russian long time ago, and would learn what socialism is about the hard way - Russian way
is not that an explanation?: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/socialism-in-america.319406/page-19#post-4631037