Seems to me like H.G._Wells was a social democrat, not a radical socialist:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_H.G._Wells

You create you own definition and use it as a straw man to argue about.

Didn't I say that a few posts ago?

Of course creation of straw out of whole cloth provides the proof that the speaker knows he is talking out of the other side of his mouth.

is the following Socialism for the rich ?
in my opinion yes. Why should a very profitable corporation,
get Billions in U.S. taxpayer money ?
I would like to hear other people's opinion ?
May be i am wrong ?

the following article appeared in Forbes.com
written by Jason Notte
Jason Notte is a business journalist and freelance writer. Follow him at @Notteham

Tax dollars build sports stadiums far more often than they should, which is going to make this entire column possible.
Stadium finance is so awash in public money that it is difficult to imagine how stadiums and arenas are built without tax dollars. Occasionally, a city and its taxpayers get a freebie: Anschutz Entertainment Group and MGM Grand covered the cost of T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas. The New York Jets and Giants built their Met Life Stadium without tax dollars. Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke so desperately wanted to drag his team out of St. Louis that he's footing the bill for a stadium for both the Rams and the Chargers. The Golden State Warriors, meanwhile, are privately funding a new arena in San Francisco's Mission Bay.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnotte/2018/08/17/your-tax-dollars-at-play-how-stadium-tax-scams-pick-fans-pockets/#2ff559166fb9

also:

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers
by Chris Isidore @CNNMoney
January 30, 2015: 10:53 AM ET

If you're a U.S. taxpayer then you're subsidizing
the wildly profitable National Football League,
regardless of whether you're a fan.

The NFL is the most profitable pro sports league in the U.S., raking in an estimated $1 billion in profits on $10.5 billion in revenue last season, figures that are sure to increase this year. Those massive profits are made possible in part by the billions of taxpayer dollars that local governments spend on teams, coupled with tax breaks worth hundreds of millions for the teams, the league, their sponsors and fans. "I've been studying this for 15 years, and I still can not believe cities and states are lined up begging to give money to these very profitable [teams]," said Villanova professor Rick Eckstein, an expert on stadium finance.

Here's a rundown:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/news/companies/nfl-taxpayers/

You create you own definition and use it as a straw man to argue about.

Didn't I say that a few posts ago?

Of course creation of straw out of whole cloth provides the proof that the speaker knows he is talking out of the other side of his mouth.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=83914&postid=1983838
Pretty much

---

is the following Socialism for the rich ?
in my opinion yes. Why should a very profitable corporation,
get Billions in U.S. taxpayer money ?
I would like to hear other people's opinion ?
May be i am wrong ?

It's called Bread and Circuses when a government does it.
… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.
(Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81)

Hogwash

After conflicting referenced definitions. Back to Topic.

Socialism is a Ruling Class centralizing control of the means of production into the Government which they also control.

Those that deny this are either fooling themselves or fooling others regarding their true beliefs.

@ Clyde, definitions are important.
Socialism is an economic system, period.
While studying economics at the university level no mention of "the ruling class" was mentioned in the definition of socialism, period.
You are injecting the phrase of "the ruling class" into your definition, which then becomes a political system, not an economic system.
You create you own definition and use it as a straw man to argue about.

Socialism is a system which gives Government ownership and control over the means of production.

The few humans in Government controlling all then become a Ruling Class. This is always forgotten or ignored by those who champion Socialism.

The control of both Government and the means of production by imperfect humans, many of which will be evil. Has always and will always destroy the general economy and its people.

The belief in giving control to a Ruling Class of both Government and the means of production makes no sense.

That's the Bernie Sanders idea of Socialism, and is not a view put forward by anyone else but you.
Read about it here, https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/11/21/whatever-the-heck-bernie-sanders-is-talking-about-its-not-socialism/#5415662cab1a

Hogwash

In response to:

Socialism is a system which gives Government ownership and control over the means of production.

The few humans in Government controlling all then become a Ruling Class. This is always forgotten or ignored by those who champion Socialism.

The control of both Government and the means of production by imperfect humans, many of which will be evil. Has always and will always destroy the general economy and its people.

The belief in giving control to a Ruling Class of both Government and the means of production makes no sense.

Dear Wiggo "Socialist",

Giving reasons and examples. What specifically do you disagree with?

Sincerely, Clyde "Liberal"

Everything.

Since you mention the "Ruling Class".
What ever happened to "We the people" in the USA?
In our Constitution it's "All public power in Sweden is based on the people and the Riksdag is the people's foremost representative."

... What is Socialism?

I guess after 100+ years of arguements about what is communism \ Socialism | Facism \ Capitalism Et AL we shouldn't really be asking this question.

I think at the moment given the world values (USA, Britain, China, Europe & Asia General , Russia ETC) are pro capital it is hard to cut out or see a more social - less financial world.

Karl Marx believed that capitalism would be the engine that brought about a communist \ socialist world.

I guess once all the resources are used up as a modern society we would have no choice to become social or face the consequences of individualism.

For me the question isn't "What is Socialism" or whatever but the question is about how we can live with the benefits from our world where others suffer or gain less for what we get.

What is realism?

You've been told by me numerous times before Clyde, but unlike you I can't be bothered constantly repeating myself over and over and over again like you seem to love.

How about instead of repeating yourself all the time why don't you start actually contributing something tangible to these threads instead?

Since you mention the "Ruling Class".
What ever happened to "We the people" in the USA?
In our Constitution it's "All public power in Sweden is based on the people and the Riksdag is the people's foremost representative."

Sweden is a lucky country.

After WW2 your ecconomy was still intact. (Britain's and others were fairly destroyed.)

This is important now as Britain is still amongst the top 5 ecconomies even though we have only just paid off the WW2 debt.

(I still wonder if we have yet paid enough...)

No doubt there is a rulling class.

In English history I believe there was a discussion with Oliver Cromwell. It was a about a forest between armies.

Cromwell noted that whilst the forest separated them from us it also stood as a boundary that protects the poor from the rich.

What is realism?

Certainly realism is not a thought that you can make a political framework from.
Perhaps in Utopia where a central government is not needed and no need to vote for representatives.

Sweden is a lucky country.
After WW2 your ecconomy was still intact. (Britain's and others were fairly destroyed.)
This is important now as Britain is still amongst the top 5 ecconomies even though we have only just paid off the WW2 debt.
(I still wonder if we have yet paid enough...)

Yes. We were very lucky. Just as Switzerland.
In the 60's we were the second most richest country in the world after the US.
I remember visiting England in the early 70's and everything was really cheap.
Like a pint of beer that cost between 14 and 20 pence:)
And likewise in France.
However Germany at the same time was not so cheap...
That was some years ago and now it's very expensive to visit England.

Socialism is a system which gives Government ownership and control over the means of production.

The few humans in Government controlling all then become a Ruling Class. This is always forgotten or ignored by those who champion Socialism.

The control of both Government and the means of production by imperfect humans, many of which will be evil. Has always and will always destroy the general economy and its people.

The belief in giving control to a Ruling Class of both Government and the means of production makes no sense.

@ Clyde, the example of Israeli an kibbutz contradicts your all encompassing statement.

---

Sweden is a lucky country......
That was some years ago and now it's very expensive to visit England.

It is true.

A plain loaf of bread here costs about £1 or about $1.

Rent for a 1 bedroom flat \ apartment is about £120+ for a small private landlord palce.

A bottle of Vodka is £10 in the main supermarkets.

Paracetamol is 30p (£0.30) for a weeks worth but Co-codamol is £2.50 even though there is next to no real extra cost.

Liter of milk is around 95p (£0.95)

Today I guess Britain can raise it's prices.

Perhaps when time is done we can raise our heads?

Just out of interest which country do people think is the closest to socialism at the moment?

Just out of interest which country do people think is the closest to socialism at the moment?

Quite possibly some of the Native American countries are actually socialist, however being subsumed by the USA ...

Rent for a 1 bedroom flat \ apartment is about £120+ for a small private landlord palce.

And here it's now a minimum of 400 pounds for a small bedsitter! Most 1 bedroom flat \ apartment is about 600 pounds!!!!

Just out of interest which country do people think is the closest to socialism at the moment?

Canada and New Zealand.

During the GFC we were as well and we did quite well then with our economic standing in the world reaching 8th spot, but under our current capitalist government that has now dropped down to 36th spot.