I think you are generalizing a bit here about 'Socialists' as all being one thing. To be rewarded in proportion to human labours was something which Socialists craved for in the past. I said 'no man is an island' and I meant it exactly in this way - no man can become rich without to an extent living off the labour of others, and Socialism is about making sure that those others also get their just rewards. You also seem to imply that if we just let the rich (Capitalists or whatever) become richer that this will somehow radiate downwards as if by a magic hand - where is your evidence that this actually happens ? This strikes me as one of the myths of Capitalism - just like the other myth 'every man can make it if they work hard enough' - my uncle worked in a mine for 30 years and has only knackered lungs to show for it - and that is work which would kill you or I. You quote Venezuala as an example of Socialist mismanagement thereby apparently 'proving`that it doesn't work - yet where is the example of New York's estimated 50,000 homeless proving that Capitalism maybe also doesn't work ?
No reply necessary here. If you're not prepared to debate seriously then don't come on here with this subject in the first place !
New York, Tokyo, London many other capitalist centres draw in people with the hope of a better life but not willing to work to get it so I don't believe these to be failures just another example of the left wing elements of society acting as a living cancer on the human race. Socialists may have claimed to seek reward in proportion to labour but always take from those who work hard thus not allowing the individual the right to the rewards of their labour, an oxymoron if ever i saw one. The human race is an interactive species that flourishes under capitalism and dies under socialism, every socialist experiment has failed, russia, china, east germany, cuba, venezuela, wilsons britain to name a few. Wealth cascading happens in the uk, no need to look further for examples just look what happens every time we incentivize capitalism we get greater employment and an influx of new labour, when we turn left we get higher taxation and a constriction of the business infrastructure. Tebbit was right, every man can make it if he works hard and grabs the opportunities, we all get at least 3 in a lifetime. My family also comes from the mines and my grandfather worked in an asbestos factory and died of cancer, the unions never helped they were just a bunch of self interested waste of air. We are very close in family to the Bevans and i guess you'll say Ni was a great socialist but he wasn't daft, he knew capitalism was right just he stood up for human rights and certain non capitalist services should be orovided by the state and i still agree with him but i had countless arguments with his nephew around scargill and i was proven right. Thatcher was the medicine that saved Britain from the Wilson cancer, without capitalism britain would now be a third world poverty stricken state as we are we are one of the most attractive countries on the planet for unskilled migrants to aspire to.
I suggest you may be falling into the line of lumping everything you don't like into one barrel here. You simply cannot place the Wilson government into the same category as The Soviet Union, the G.D.R. and China - western democratic Socialism and the variant of State Communism practised in those countries are not interchangeable terms. The German economic miracle of the post war years was also under a much higher level of state involvement in the economy than you would be prepared to accept. Also the economic model which served Scandinavia so well in the past had large swathes of what you would call socialistic doctrine. The difference with the Scandinavians is that they genuinely see disparities of wealth as being divisive to society - which most British people don't. Most British people (Germans as well) see the state as being something alien and remote to themselves - maybe we need to look at smaller countries like Switzerland and the Scandinavian ones for our democratic role models. In those countries there is more of a feeling of being personally responsible for the state - because they are the state. Unbelievably 9% of all Swiss people are members of political parties (the same in Finland) in Britain ? Between 1 and 2%. I am a Socialist because I want the factory in my town to be a worker's cooperative. Because if it is locally and democratically run then the chances are greater that they will make choices which are good for the environment in which I live. In other words a Socialism from below which radiates upwards as opposed to the other way around. By the way I left Britain in 1989 (While Maggie was in control) because the only way I could get a liveable wage for my work was overseas - obviously I wasn't the only one because emigration was higher than immigration up to the late 90's in Britain - only changing under the Blair government.
In the US, the UK Conservatives are seen (if they are seen at all) by most as Socialists........all things are relative. I would say that neither extreme free-market or communist doctrines work for the simple reason that human nature (usually greed and selfishness) will always interfere. Naked socialism including workers co-operatives have never worked in the UK to create wealth, similarly totally free-market economics do create wealth, but this will not inherently "trickle down" or be shared without appropriate legislation. It is the question of what is "appropriate" that has confounded us for so long.
Good post - but I would like to see a definition of wealth. The question which is so rarely asked is that maybe we have enough already and now need to redistribute. For me wealth also has to do with natural environment - which is why I chose the workers cooperative example - I agree that this form of enterprise may actually make less profit in purely financial terms, but it's decision making is more likely to have a positive effect upon the natural environment in which I live because those decisions are being made by people who also share that natural environment.
It's an interesting debate but also one that is fundamentally flawed because all political systems are fundamentally undermined by greed - I've just finished a bottle of red wine whilst watching the X Factor with the family (the wine invariably helps my enjoyment!) ... and whilst at it, can I just give a big 'get in there' to Sam Bailey whose rendition of 'The Power Of Love' actually raised goosebumps on my flesh (and with no Leicestershire bias I assure you) ..... the only 'political system' that I have ever found myself entirely comfortable with is the North American plains tribes before being forced on to reservations by white expansion - where the measure of a man was by his deeds, both bravery and to the community (hunting mostly), and by what he gave away rather than what he accumulated by way of possessions - now that might be because I am at heart a Utopian Idealist but hey ho ... we can but dream about the ideal world that we'd like to live in, if ever there was a real choice ... and the wine also helps of course!
Agree with Fosse's post, greed will overcome everything. Even in the kibbutzim there will always be someone who thinks they can do better or get one over on everyone else, even though the basic idea is everyone is equal making equal contribution and taking equal reward for the common good, which is "commune-ism". Marx and Engels brilliant political thinkers,but their ideas won't work unless you can remove greed.
Ah-ha, the fifty million dollar (or should that be 100 million dollar?) question! What is enough wealth? To most in the world it would be a permanent shelter from the weather, enough food never to go hungry and safety and security from arbitrary violence. To most in this country it is to own their own home, to own a car (or cars) and all the latest techno-gadgets (smart-TV, -tablet, -phone and any other smart-offering that's currently on the market), to be able to eat out in good restaurants occasionally etc. etc. To those that have the above, it is maybe second homes in the country/by the seaside/abroad, a top-of the-range Mercedes, BMW or Lexus, a trophy wife, a £20,000+ home cinema set-up, a private jet, a country estate, a Premier League Football Club, a Formula 1 team etc. etc. That's part of the problem - will any of the folks in any of these levels actually want to willingly re-distribute? I somehow doubt it!
Good morning all from a wet and windy Weston-super-Mare! Some interesting and insightful posts up above, it's pretty obvious from reading them that "ne'er the twain shall meet!" Have a good day!
did you really bother to read all that You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to canary-dave again. left and right will never agree everyone of them knows their rights very few of them know their responsibilities looking forward to my next coffee
Spot on kiwi - and to aggravate matters our all-knowing government have recently decreed that all schools now by law have to become 'rights respecting' schools where, from nursery up, the children are to be taught their rights as opposed to their responsibilities. The lunatics certainly have taken over the asylum... Did you perchance get along to watch Brisbane outclass Wellington today?
Socialism is not how you have defined it. Many capitalists also believe no man is an island - they need to society of others to trade. Socialism is more about the belief that the state should run economic activity for the benefit of the common good rather than to create wealth for individuals. It is a good ideal but fails because the state is usually useless at running anything - it needs the spark of initiative and the motivation that personal gain gives - sadly people do not work as hard or efficiently for a "general cause" It also fails because many people are greedy and some people are lazy. I dislike the way you imply that the Socialist is a "he" (not genderwise) and "he" believes the set of statements you ascribe. Where did you manage to find the consensus that the Socialist believes each of these things - there is probably as much if not more debate between the spectrum of socialism as there is between "him" and the Capitalist. There is no way to debate your assertions of what there would not be without "him" I assert contrariwise that there would an equivalent of the NHS, state schooing etc etc as they exist in many countries that would never describe themselves as Socialist. I do not know why you choose Oldham as the representative of anything - elsewhere you criticise others for picking a random example - which is just what you have done there. Oh and Tebbitt did not say go south - this implies you have a northern bias - he simply said that when his father was out of work he had got on his bike and looked for work. Good advice. Britain is always impoverished by bad management under so-called Socialist governments and Unions. The period of Labour between 1964 and 1979 with Wilson and Callaghan saw our country devalue its currency and become the sick man of Europe - and a laughing stock - the brief Heath government in the middle (Heath was rubbish anyway) was hamstrung by the excessive powers of the Unions. Many of the people on here did not live through the 60s and onwards so rely on others - often lefty teachers - to indoctrinate them. I experienced these times first hand. It took Thatcher to take away the power of Unions to wreck our economy and hold the ordinary man - not the capitalist rich - to ransom. Labour had already wrecked our manufacturing base so what Thatcher did was a courageous and necessary killing off of a near dead man. Britain moved from agriculture to manufacturing to services - a typical economic development. We cannot compete with cheap labour in Asian and other countries so will always struggle to have a manufacturing base now. Services are a perfectly acceptable alternative means of earning wealth for the economy Aberdeen - I am almost sure your post is tongue in cheek - or do you really mean this? Apologies; I have now given some responses - but part of my original intention was to try to stir others into making comments rather than just pontificate myself - my views are only that and if nobody else agrees or wants to debate the so be it. I started this partly due to the two weeks without a match and this board was dead as a dodo Which helps illustrate my point about non-hornets - this forum became one of the most successful because we had a small but intrepid band who COULD be assed
Do parents not have a duty to teach responsibility? Perhaps schools already DO teach children about responsibilities - they did when I was there - but quite a few "rights" may be overlooked - our society has not been impressive in respect of attitudes to women, people from other ethnic, cultural or religious backgrounds nor sexual orientation. It is right to teach children about these. Not "lunatic" surely. I would like to see more parents teach their children about "rights" others have. It is again a typical lefty view that blames "the government" on matters such as this. This morning I watched on the news about disabled children being bullied and even thrown out of a wheelchair - who should respect their "rights" and is it not a good thing to teach that to children
What I find strange in the pro-Socialist argument is the focus on a few very rich individuals like the "bankers" and their wealth as being obscene. Why worry about them? In a properly regulated tax system, they will contribute according to their wealth. For me socialism just does not encourage people to strive to help themselves and to contribute to their own lives, it just drags everyone, except the politicians, to a lower level. Socialism only improves the lives of politicians as the seek to take control of more and more parts of our lives so that they can manage them for us. What I find really funny coming from the pro-socialists is the discounting of the utter failures in the past of socialist states and their attempt to link countries that are seen as idillic states like Sweden and Finland as good examples of Socialism in action - well they are not. They are just countries that are well managed and with very high tax regimes that they use to fund their institutions far more sensibly than we do in the UK. Yet, they have all of the social issues that the UK does - drugs, football hooligans, neo-nazis and huge alcohol problems despite massive taxes. The workers at SAAB, Volvo, Nokia, the Paper Mills and iron Ore mines have no bigger say than equivalent workers in the UK. Socialism does not benefit the working class it just prevents them from improving their their own lives by their own efforts and just promotes the industry of politics as the politicians take more and more control of all aspects of our lives.
