Off Topic Political Debate

Absolutely - and the rulers of some countries that call themselves the People's Republic or Democratic Republic have very little interest for their people and are about as democratic as FIFA...

 

I would have to disagree. I would offer the only -ism that our current crop of politicians subscribe to is egotism.

 

See where you're coming from, Zen, though I'm not sure egotism is something you subscribe to. I was thinking more of what they might think of as a set of principles which might win favour with electors. Mind you, I can think of a few who think egotism is something to be admired

 

I don't think they ever saw society as inclusive enough to be described as socialists.

 

Hitler said in the early 1930's "The socialism of the future would lie in the community of the volk, not internationalism. and " convert the german volk to socialism without killing off the old individualists" meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. the state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied class.

I can understand why the lefties try to distance themselves from the nazis.

 

Seeing as how you are obviously well versed in Hitler's ideas you will presumably also know that he classed Marxism as a Jewish plot for World domination. There are too many communists who died in the gas chambers, too many of the SPD (German equivalent of the Labour party) who went the same way for your theories to have any solid basis to them whatsoever. Hitler's party can neither be classified as Left or Right because he drew his poisonous mix of ideas from so many diffuse and obscure sources. I appreciate that you are trying to discredit all socialists of every shade and orientation by your remarks (together with all of those which you have declared as socialists) but your methods are becoming less credible by the second.

 

He said many things and as I,ve said before using the word doesn't make you a socialist. No-one who looked at his deeds and policies would describe him as such. Socialism and lefties as you put it are very different concepts. One is an ideology., seriously conceived if difficult to implement successfully in large complex societies; the other is a vague derogatory stereotype which offers no foundation for serious debate.

 

Hitler also exterminated disabled, people with learning difficulties , and gays.... he was an evil despot... it is completely disingenuous to link him with any mainstream political movement....

There is no basis in what you say on this subject for any sensible discussion.

 

fool,

I did not link him with any mainstream political movement, read it again.

 

Totally agree - and Super Horns if you keep on in this vein we will have to consider taking action. There is a long standing tradition of heated debate on this forum and you are going way over the boundaries. I would ask you to stop baiting other posters and discuss the issues in the same manner as others

 

Oh dear. One more insult to another poster and you will be banned.

 

Originally there was was a socialist wing to the Nazi party. It was lead by Ernst Roehm. Hitler used these national socialist arguments (as opposed to the international socialist arguments of the German, and in particular, the Bavarian Communist party) until he had consolidated power and sent anyone of socialist or liberal tendencies to the concentration camps. He then purged the Nazi Party of its socialist elements in the 'Night of the Long Knives'.

Superhorns can attach as many labels as he likes, but from the mid 1930s onwards the Nazi Party was not socialist. It got huge amounts of support from, and gave support to, the private industrial sector. Funnily enough Superhorns believes that the private sector should get more support and more freedom from small government.

I want to make clear, here, that I am in no way suggesting that Superhorns is a Nazi or supports any of the Nazi social policies. However, small government, no matter what the intentions, puts too much power into unelected hands and minorities suffer. Look at the policies in Indiana at the moment, which are apparently designed to put 'moral' issues in the hands of businesses.

 

If you check back I quoted Hitler's socialist quotes from the early 30's.

There are huge benefits with small government. Governments are notoriously bad at negotiating contracts, i.e. Blair's good idea to involve the private sector to fund the NHS but he set up dreadful PPI deals. I'm afraid the attitude from too many state workers is "not my money so why care".

 

I think that you will find that that is the same attitude in large firms in the private sector. I have worked in both the private and public sectors, and in my experience there is greater financial accountability in the public sector but all large organisations suffer from what you describe because the workers are divorced from the higher levels of management. Conversely, the management of large organisations tend not to listen to legitimate suggestions from the workforce, because of this divide.

Interestingly this problem was considered in the early days of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia when Soviets were instituted. As the Communist Party gained control they abolished any effective Soviet organisation, though they kept the name as a sop to the memory of the revolution. Stalin and Lenin were totalitarian by nature and wanted no worker control of anything. The soviet system, in its purest form,included management.

What it all comes down to it is the level of power that various actors have, and how that power is distributed. I can't see that too much power in the hands of either government or corporations is preferable to the other. Both result in inequalities and the mis-use of resources.

In terms of efficiency of health resources, it would appear that the Cubans have got it right. More funds there go into preventative medicine, which is a much cheaper way of organising health. That does not excuse the excesses of the Cuban government, but it does show that government organisation of health is important because preventative medicine is not as profitable as 'curing' people. Making sure that people don't get sick is not something that profits private health systems.

 

I have experienced appalling lack of interest in saving money by NHS senior managers. Most trusts are desperate for savings but there is not enough accountability or desire to cut costs. We have even had an instance when an introductory product trial was sabotaged by nurses so they could retain the products of another company who happened to give them a free weekend away once a year.

Having owned small / medium sized businesses there is much more accountability / pressure to consider the financial aspect.

The Cubans may have got preventative medicine right but sadly very little else. This forum would not be allowed there.

 

Interesting to dip into this thread every so often. Like it or not the British government is the most invasive and controlling in western Europe, probably because they know they cannot trust the lower levels of government to act responsibly, irrespective of their political view. On one hand there is the Midlothian question and on the other the Shires, where complete control corrupts. Put a blue rosette on anything where I live and it will be elected, although the way the local council has behaved in the last few years that may change.

 

Funny as the Tories always used to be the party of decentralisation

 

I am not sure just how much invasion there is in the UK, but yesterday was told about the nearest town here that was given funding under the last government to build a large village and sports hall. Over a couple of years it progressed and was finished last Spring. The town council applied for the money to pay the builders, but were told that since the change in power the money was no longer available to them as it had been given to another much larger town that actually supports the current party in power. Seems as if the builder is likely to go out of business and the town council will have to find money over many years to clear the debt. Certainly a case of national government stamping on a small local council.

 

I think a great deal of problems have arisen with this thread because the word 'Socialism' is being used in different ways by different people. The word itself is a difficult one - does it refer only to states such as North Korea or can it be used to describe states in which the government has simply a much more central role in aspects of economic planning and coordination as in the Scandinavian models. Can the words socialism and communism be used interchangeably ? Some on here have criticized the 'state', but what is the state other than you and I ? It seems to me that the central difference between socialist and neo liberal thinking is that they have different social images of 'man'. The one presumes that man originates in some sort of savage Darwinian jungle - and that competition is the driving force of history. For this reason neo liberalists are intolerant of any interference with economic free competition. Also Marxism and National Socialism had elements of this thinking - but here competition was group based. In the first based on class competition and the other based on race (unfortunately the two overlapped at times - read Engels here). Pure socialist or communist thinking begins with the idea that cooperation is a more important biological factor than competition - based not just on Darwin, but combining those ideas with Kropotkin. Biologically are there more cases of cooperation than of direct competition in nature ? I believe so. No man is an island, and no man can become rich without having a society around him - unless you are capable of living and surviving alone on a desert island then you are firstly a 'social' being - and socialism is a recognition of this fact. The other mistake often made is to assume that communist or socialist ideology began with Marx - it didn't.

''Break in pieces quickly the Band of particular Propriety (Property), disown this oppressing Murder, opression and thievery of buying and selling of land, owning of landlords and paying of rents and give thy free Consent to make the Earth a common Treasury without grumbling.......that all may enjoy the benefit of their creation''.

Communist thinking prior to Marx and to the French Revolution was almost solely of a religious nature - and the writer of this text most certainly believed that christian meant, by definition, communist (communalist).

 

Nobody on this forum is advocating unadulterated selfish capitalism or promoting the Democratic People's republic of Korea. We have been discussing a relatively narrow band of politics which most of us would envisage coping with. However, there is still a debate to be had whether it is in the UK, France or Greece.

I completely disagree with Cologne's views as set out above regarding cooperation verses competition but that is the nature of debate. I believe capitalism can be fair, responsible, and the best way to improve living standards for all.