Social welfare states only worked in Western capitalist democracies because capitalism provided a functioning economy to pay for the socialist programs.
Akhem, this is quite true, though for fairness sake I have to mention that Russia was in a shitty situation even before USSR.
But anyway, a mix of capitalism and socialism(not what soviets did!) is probably the easiest and safest solution.
After my country freed itself from Russian-imposed communism, people didn't ask for ruthless anarcho-capitalism like Methos advocates but indeed, were quick to show support for moderate solutions. Many veterans of anti-communist activism became activists for social justice when democracy was attained. A man named Jacek Kuron comes to my mind. Political prisoner under communism, under democracy he created a program of goverment-funded kitchens dispensing free soup for poor and unemployed. He accomplished many other things of course, though the 'Kuron soup' remained a particularly popular term.
When people bring up USSR and it's failings as an argument against either modern socialism, redistributive policies in a capitalist state or goverment regulations of bussines practices, it shows really huge ignorance.
Also, to adress Kongming's comment that you responded too. Lenin didn't exactly limit his persecution to 'rich people who wouldn't let go of their money'. Lenin was a Bolshevik and Bolsheviks intensely persecuted all the other revolutionary factions whose ideology didn't mesh with theirs. Amongst those were democrats, moderate socialists, anarchists and others. The Russian revolution against the Tsar was not
fought solely by communists, despite later propaganda claiming so!
Finally, as for Methos, I won't go to deep into argument. Vekseid said most things I would and he's more of a debater than I am. And I don't come to this forum for this sort of discussion in the first place.
I'll just add three criticisms:
1)At this point Methos seems to backpedal from his usual position. Of course help for those disabled to the point of being unable to work is admirable, but he seems to contradict everything else he wrote here. Why?
As for the poor? Were it up to me I'd eliminate welfare for all those except those that are disabled to the point of being unable to work.
2)Methos argues how humanity is no different than savages and how nothing in life is guaranteed and no one owes nothing to no one. But he seems to except the right to property from this. To property he clings as to a sacred right and feels 'entitled' to a society that enforces his rights at expense of everything else. While i don't oppose the idea of private property, it's important to bear in mind that private property is a human created concept, like everything else.
3)I've got family in Canada and talked to quite a few people from Canada on the internet. They don't claim their healtcare system is anywhere bad. I guess Methos's view is colored by his personal dislike of a socialized system.