Morning all from a very wet bandit country. Great debate going on and fully agree with you Harry with your comment about being arsed, for this forum to survive as a vibrant and interesting place to visit, it's posters need to be arsed.
I think you'll find the vast majority of us can be, I've only seen one state it as a fact and one other imply it by asking a question!
You are right in saying that there is a very large spectrum of ideas within 'Socialist' circles. So, Socialist can describe anyone from Christian Socialist (Fabian Society) or Quaker Socialist through to Marxist-Leninist. It can also describe people approaching politics with an environmentalist perspective ie. eco-communist. Dare I say it but Hitler also described his evil party as being from the left (National Socialist). Also, Communist (or communalist) thinking does not begin with Marx and Engels but goes back to some of the earliest Christian thought and practice. Because the Socialist umbrella is so large (as are shades of ideas on the other side) a general left versus right debate is hardly possible. I will always focus upon the most negative aspects of neo liberalism and you can focus on any aspect of Socialism which is most vulnerable to attack. I regard neither the Labour Party nor the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. as being 'Socialist' in the way that I see the word, and so do not feel the need to defend them. I understand when you say that the board had become dead. At one time it was suggested that we have a general debating thread (Politics or whatever) so that we are not blocking the nest for others, and so that people who aren't interested can avoid it. Unfortunately Leo disappeared and the idea as well.
Dull, dark, wet day here, but no wind at the moment. And believe it or not, from having 'You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to canary-dave again'. I've now got, 'You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later'.
'Utter failures of Socialist States'. Worth remembering here that those countries which described themselves as Socialist or Communist were, prior to this stage, mostly 3rd World countries. You can only compare to what had gone before. Cuba, before Castro, was little more than a giant Brothel and gambling casino run by the Mafia. Bolivia had been a land in which all of its resources had been milked off by multi nationals at the expense of its native population. Both have been the subject of American embargoes. The U.S.S.R. before the revolution a land full of despots on the one hand and serfs on the other. You will say that they failed because of the inherent failures of Socialism but look at the U.S.S.R. for a minute. A 3rd World country in 1917 with little or no industry and no pre existing Proletariat (In Marxist terms) which had to rapidly industrialize and then survive World War II. 20 Million dead in that war leading to serious demographic imbalances and then an arms race initiated by the U.S.A. which is what effectively led to the over importance of the military state there and, ultimately, to economic shortages. None of those countries had fully developed Socialism in a Marxist sense. Thr role of the State, according to Marx ,is to oversee the development to completed Socialism and then to delegate power continuously downwards leading to the dissolution of the State itself - this final State never being reached. I find it interesting to speculate that if Karl Marx were alive today which country would he pick out as being the closest to his dream. Switzerland ? because of their basis democracy radiated from below upwards. Or maybe the Basque lands because there the concentration of workers cooperatives is highest ? You say why worry about the bankers - they will be regulated by a good tax system. O.K. but the problem is more than just about bankers but rather about the resources and wealth of the richest 20% of our society, wherever they come from, and how this wealth can be used to manipulate politics. There will always be industrious and lazy people on this Earth and they are found in equal numbers amongst the rich and the poor. Naturally the industrious rich will focus their venom upon the lazy poor (The profligate with 6 children who he can't afford etc.). The industrious poor will focus their resentment primarily against the lazy rich (e.g.The man who inherited his wealth and lives on his yacht). On the last point can you tell me how many of the millionaires in Britain or Germany actully have wealth based on inheritance ? In Germany about 98% and I can't imagine Britain to be that different. Certainly of the two 'lazy' groups the idle poor suffer more for their laziness. You will say that hard work should be rewarded and that this isn't the case under Socialism. Coming from more of a Christian Socialist tradition than a Marxist one I would say that I accept (Grudgingly) the concept of private ownership. Don't worry I'm not going to start getting religious here but simply point out that the bible condemns both inheritance and living from interest (The latter also mentioned in the Khoran) thus leaving only work as the medium by which a person can legitimately become rich. But then you have to define 'Work' as distinct from 'play' or 'rest'. John Ruskin defined work as being the production of something which had not been there before, and that the 'something' should be of use to others. If the object of the work is simply to move as much money as possible from 'there to here', namely from your pocket into mine, then it constitutes play (because I can do the same at the booking shop). Our problem is that we have managed to classify thousands of people who have no function whatsoever other than to move money from 'here to there' and to increase its value, as workers - and worse still have based our entire economy around them.
Of course they do - just as they have a duty to teach them when to go to the toilet, how to wipe their bottoms, tie their shoelaces, dress themselves, wash their hands, brush their teeth, feed themselves, behave in a manner conducive to learning - increasingly none of which happens in the home now as successive governments have decreed that these are things that can be done at schools by 'teachers'. Schools have for some considerable time taught - or tried to, but that's another story - about responsibilities in an age-appropriate and timely manner. My point was that the teaching of responsibilities now makes way for the teaching of rights - to children in the aforementioned categories. So, yes - the 'lunatic' comment was appropriate, and, no - it wasn't a typical lefty view of blaming the government, it was a statement of fact. No consultation with, or advice sought from those who know best, just an edict from upon high from those with limited knowledge of the processes of teaching and learning - unfortunately normal management practice in political circles, regardless of which end of the spectrum.
I fail to see how the government is directly responsible for parents not bringing their children up properly. Unless this is a by product of the amount of people doing mini jobs in Britain and thus simply not having the time for this function - still difficult to see how the influence of government can be so all embracing that potty training is influenced. As for rights versus responsibilities - the right balance is surely to emphasise that every right is related to a duty - that one stops where the other begins ie. my rights end when they encroach upon or restrict someone elses, and turn then into a duty to protect those others.
Socialism is just an ideal that does not fit with how people actually behave. We are programmed by our genetics to be selfish - read the Selfish Gene. In a modern society civilisation feeds off our consciences and makes us want to help those less well off than ourselves - those in poverty or hardship who cannot help themselves. This is good and right and proper but is not the hallmark of socialism but of civilisation. Most socialist do not focus on how to create wealth - even though the production of wealth is what has taken us from Dickensian poverty to today's society in which the definition of povertry in the likes of the UK is laughable - children not having their own bedroom and the family not having a colour TV. That is NOT poverty. Socialists think they are better than others because they want to help their fellow man instead of being greedy and grasping. Really - are they? No - most people of all political persuasions want to be able to leave the things they build up during their lifetime to their children. All they object to is scale. It is pure jealousy. I will leave my Ford Fiesta to my son and that is OK but you cannot leave your Mansion as it is too big. Socialists focus on looking at the cake and then sharing it out more equally. Capitalists want to make the cake bigger. Then even the person who gets the smallest slice is likely to get more than before. I suspect that most of the successful capitalist of the last century have done more to raise the standard of living of the poorest 10% than all the socialists combined. When you wreck an economy as Wilson Callaghan and Brown did everyone is made worse off. People should stop focusing on the gap between the rich and poor and instead look to see how society can best increase its wealth - and then use progressive not punitive tax systems to help the least well off. Make sure you have free education, health etc by all means - not many people object to a genuine social security system Calling people lazy or not is not helpful - but the lazy rich man does not expect a state handout. If you want to be lazy - go ahead - but don't then ask your fellow citizens to buy for you what you then cannot afford.
I didn't say that they were - the argument is that they are responsible for forcing schools to do the jobs that parents should be doing - and the 'take-up rate' of lazy parents is increasingly alarming. Quite why it is seen as a 'trendy leftist' view to blame the government for what happens in schools is beyond me - they set the curriculum, they tell teachers what to teach, how to teach it and even when to teach it, no arguments entered into. The only thing they don't do is accept responsibility when something goes wrong, so little wonder they don't want schools teaching about responsibilities I suppose.
I would take issue with some aspects here - as you might expect ! That man is programmed by genetics to always want more for example - if programmed by anything then it is from those around him - live in a capitalist regime for long enough and you will become influenced by it. Genetics also existed in e.g. North American Indian societies but with a different outcome. You say that Capitalists have done more to raise the standard of living of the poorest 10% than all the Socialists combined ? Really - do you mean Worldwide or in Britain here ? If the first then, as I said in a previous post, look at the abject condition of those countries which became socialist before it was introduced. If Britain, then look at how the dominant ideology of Victorian England, 'Laissez Faire' economics, was replaced by more state engineered economics by the end of that century because reformers then realised that unrestrained growth alone did not raise the people out of poverty as if by an invisible hand. Nearly all of the reforms made then were fought for against the wishes of Capital, be they laws on employment of children, sickness benefits, the establishment of cooperative shops, the extension of voting rights etc. All of these fought for either by the young trade union movement, the Radicals (Within the Whig party) - which became, in time, the first Labour Party, or by some enlightened entrepreneurs who were influenced by Methodism or Quakerism. You talk about how society can best increase its wealth forgetting that the World has only finite resources, and that limitations to growth are build into all forms of life on our planet and to our relations with that planet. Does it not occur to you that we may have enough wealth already ! You say that the lazy rich do not expect handouts - they have them already ! This coming through being able to live from interest on their capital - where do you think interest comes from, out of the sky perhaps, or relocated from somewhere else where it was sorely needed.
Interest is what you pay me to use what is mine - not a handout at all. You happily pay interest so that you can have my money for whatever it is you think you want. you would not expect to use my lawnmower for nothing so why should you use my money? North American Indians lived in a Neolithic society - not recommended for today - not for most of us anyway Britain - not worldwide - in Britain the benevolence of many Capitalists who had a social conscience benefitted thousands - but it was not a socialist i.e. state owned society Go back to Malthus who also thought the Earth's resources would run out. While the sun produces energy it is the ultimate driving machine - there are several billion years goodness yet to come - hopefully creative people not bureaucrats will learn how to harness that energy ever more efficiently Oh - and the Unions id an excellent job when they started up in the 19th Century - before they were hijacked by the selfish genes of the likes of Scargill
Uncle Joe Stalin jailed and murdered millions of innocent people to develop the USSR into the industrial power-house it was, surely you are not suggesting that was OK as it was on the road to a Marxist Socialist state. Cuba is still a 3rd world country, albeit with wonderful health and education systems. As I have mentioned on here before, I have been Cuba and the holiday rep was a fully qualified doctor who supplemented his meagre state salary by doing another job that paid better and in the tourist currency that he could use to buy the things his family desired - but no one was forcing him to do this it was his choice. What about Romania, another example of a failed Socialist state. I actually agree with you that the act of just moving money around is not a real job, but again you have fallen into the trap of "banker bashing". There are very few who work in The City or in Frankfurt or in Paris, that just move money around. But there are 1,000's who work in investment houses and hedge funds that fund our pensions and savings, there are 1,000's that buy and sell commodities, there are 1,000's that help companies find finance to expand and provide more employment, there are 1,000's that buy and sell shares on behalf of their clients. Add to this the 1,000's of people employed in the service companies and suppliers that these companies use and this is not a small mom and pop shop business. But I really do agree with you that any advanced economy has to have a core base of manufacturing and services and for a country like the UK, it has to be based on a high valued products and services, not the volume production of low value retail goods. Under Socialism the only people rewarded are the unelected leaders, they make sure their lives are significantly better than all of the heroes of the revolution! They do not radiate power down, they keep it in their grubby hits.
Are you a professional lender of lawnmowers ? If so I understand. If you are speaking from the point of view of a neighbour and considering this as normal then I am heartily glad that you are not my neighbour. Fortunately I live in a village where we borrow tools from each other all the time - thus saving on the greenhouse emissions involved in their production - and, raising our standard of living by the establishment of community. You cannot be serious in believing that we can go on expanding and increasing our consumption based on the aqcuisition of new 'alternative' technology - this is like telling a chain smoker that he should go on smoking because in future years there will be a cure for lung cancer. The situation with greenhouse gases and our reduction commitments means that the 'Green new deal' is not enough in itself. Look for example at agriculture, the main producer of methane and nitrous oxide emissions and by far the biggest polluter of our environment. The role of agriculture in our capitalist system is to keep prices low at all costs so as not to effect spending power in other areas. Return to the percentages of wages given out for food in about 1900 and most of our consumer revolution over the last hundred years would be paralyzed. The result, monoculture and factory farming - fields which can no longer regenerate themselves without masses of nitrous oxide based fertilizer. Yet the average consumer will go on expecting cheap meat 7 days a week. Transport. The second big problem. The scale of modern trade is alarming for anyone of my generation. Measured on ships tons the total amount of goods being transported in one day is the same as for the whole year of my birth - don't ask me to produce figures on this because I used to work for Maersk Shipping, the biggest Reeder in the World. Have you any idea of the poisons released by a container ship. The biggest of these the Emma Maersk produces more harmfull emissions on a World journey than all the cars in the European Union in a week. All so that the consumer can have his frozen rabbit pieces in a European supermarket. From Solar energy in the shipping branch - not a whisper. Even if a modern industrial nation like Germany produced all of it's electricity from alternative sources the actual carbon footprint would only reduce by about 2 tons per person per year (the goal being 7). Only an abandoning of Germany's position as a strong export nation would even partly achieve this goal. The goal of the future, for communities and for nations, is to reduce their dependence upon global systems dependent upon fossil fuels, and also their dependence upon global financial systems. These steps come first, the development of alternative technology may be a successfull technology of the future but that is too uncertain as yet.
I've seen nothing yet to change my view that "Ne'er the twain shall meet!" OK you lovely people, I'm off to bed! Night all Night H
I never suggested that Stalin was a model I would like to follow. If you remember rightly he was also heavily criticized by the later Soviet regime - leading to the renaming of Stalingrad as Volgograd etc. I think you are also being slightly selective in your choice of socialist states - not mentioning the earlier Sandanista regime in Nicaragua or the regime in Bolivia for example both cases of elected Socialist leaderships. South America was always a different case however with Socialism often being supported by a much more militant church than has been the case in Europe - the Jesuit state in Paraguay was a case of real Socialism way before Marx, and this history still plays an influence on South American Catholisism. As we may be starting to realize from the manner and style of the first Jesuit Pope. My only direct experience of State socialism has been in Nicaragua - during their literacy programme of the time, and later from contact with many former East Germans - the latter often say now that in the G.D.R. there was full employment, job security, no homeless and more Kindergartens enabling for higher employment of women. In fact many of them feel it is a shame that the country was simply taken over by its rich neighbour and that the re unification was a chance missed for incorporating the best of the 2 systems into one. Naturally there is the other side of walls, barbed wire and a brutal police state which I could not have lived in for a minute.
evening all Hope everyone's well and happy...half way through the boredom of the interruption for the international weekend...i need football!!! Dan, i may have a favour to ask you! Will message if i do
