Off Topic Political Debate

Except you do not choose. You elect people to spend your money for you. The unhappy thing is governments are always spending other peoples money and the job is never done as carefully as if the money was being spent by you.

 

I wouldn't necessarily agree with you there, AK. Many, many people and businesses get into financial messes because they are not careful with their spending. The whole marketing industry has been created to encourage injudicious spending. If people make such good decisions why do so many gamble, live on a credit card that never gets paid off, throw out perfectly good stuff because the colours are not 'in' this year. If governments behaved like individuals we really would be in a mess.

 

But at least what individuals do with their own money is their own responsibility. When I pay taxes to give my money for example to people who choose to have children they cannot afford then it is not my choice.

 

Define socialism first please
None of those are myths - they are just statements you have made up as straw men to knock down easily. If you so chose you could debate those assertions but frankly I could probably come up with 100 more - and nothing would be proved.
I only agree with your last statement - I would expect thinking men to examine alternatives - so what?

 

You are right in asking for a definition of Socialism Leo. Unfortunately on this thread I have seen the word used to describe the Nazi regime, the so called Communist nations (which never were that), North Korea, Hollande in France, Miliband and Balls in England, the Green Party, and have also seen the word used to describe a youthfull stage which people 'grow out of'. The word is not big enough to cover all those ! There has never been a 'pure' Socialist State - maybe the closest was the Anarcho Communist experiment in the Catalan and Basque regions which were crushed by the combined forces of Franco, Stalin and the West in 1936. Maybe the eco Socialism of Bolivia also comes close. Socialism implies direct worker ownership of the means of production - it implies an end to private (but not personal) property. It implies that all organs of decision making have moved to the basis of society, and it implies that the political state has dissolved itself and transferred all decision making downwards and then assumes only an administrative function. In short the difference between the political and non political spheres has ended. The final phase of Marxism if you like (the phase the USSR never reached - and never wanted to). So - there is my definition, which, as you will observe, does not include the Hollande's, the Millibands, on the one hand, or the perversions of the Warsaw Pact or N. Korea on the other. By the `myths' of Capitalism I was referring to things held as general beliefs by substantial numbers of people - beliefs which I referred to as myths because they lack any empirical basis.

 

Leonardo , just expressing my personal views .. there is no need to get overly upset .If it makes you feel any happier just put in down to the bitter and twisted ramblings of a fool . If you want to talk politics you must be prepared to accept there are people like me out there who will spout out our rubbish .
Hornet in Cologne .. happy to agree with everything you wrote .
I have been a professional gardener for over 30 years .. worked for a fair few aristocrats and super rich during this time ...... talking about net worth in the 10s to hundreds of millions / billions .Through personal contact I know how many of them think and behave in their private lives and it ain't always pretty . Of course some are pleasant and decent folk . But there are plenty who are deeply obnoxious characters .
From my stand point it is not about me having any measure of envy for them or for that matter the less well off tory voters , who own the black BMW's / Audi's and play golf . ( I have absolutely no desire to own these vehicles or play such a daft sport ).
Personally , my views are born out of a sense of injustice that a few hundred thousand people, have more power , influence and wealth than perhaps 30-40 million fellow countrymen .
Globally the situation is even worse ...it appears that the worlds richest 1% now have more wealth than the remaining 99%
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016


I could write an essay on why I believe the Royal family is total nonsense and none of my words would be down to envy .
My dad worked very hard all his life , but for several reasons has not a penny to his name ..poor soul is in as bad way and probably will not be around much longer ...of course there are millions of elderly people in the same position . They all deserve better .
My partner works in A&E .. the stories and pressure you read about in the media are absolutely true .. people are dying on trolly's on a regular basis because of a lack of resources...Plus morale amongst the staff is as bad as suggested in the press .
We are a wealthy nation , but this wealth is not well distributed .
I stand by my comment ...if the population were truly well educated /informed and compelled to vote ..this country would be socialist ( not communist ) and would be a far better place to live in for the vast majority of the population .
Sadly , a perverse and dumbed down media,which is largely owned by the super rich , continues to misinform a significant number of the working classes ...The Sun newspaper is merely one example .
Jim

 

Tribalism surfacing again ...
A question comes to mind .... Would I likely get on better with a Luton supporting lefty or Watford tory .... I think I know the answer

 

It seems to me that what we believe to be the best system of government is forged by our life experience. I never went to university, but all four of my children did and achieved their degrees. I employed fifty people at one time and like to think that when the company made some money it was fairly distributed to them. The greater problem was the shareholders who put the money up for the company and wanted more of a return than I felt just. Without their input of money their would not have been those fifty jobs in the first place of course. My daughter works in two hospitals and will tell you that it is not lack of money, but the wastage that is the problem. Do not get her started on the cost of PPI. She knows that due to those badly agreed contracts the NHS is paying out huge sums now and will be for years to come. Not health care, but buildings that were nice to have if the country could have afforded them.

 

Not remotely upset - I have a very thick skin - too thick some would say. You were just caught in the cross fire of my swipe at the double standards of one or two here who attack superhorns for using words like fool (when talking about Russell Brand as it happens for whom such a word is mild abuse compared to what else he is called on here) and yet you cloud an argument with scattergun abuse of an entire section of society. I happen to like reading such views -I don't have to share them to enjoy a cut and thrust debate. I started this thread for just such - some of those who find themselves easily hurt by religious or political debates when they get edgy would avoid this thread.

 

If there has never been a "pure" socialist state as you say then it is even more strange to argue that anything could "automatically lead to socialism. Will get back to you on the other points tomorrow if I can

 

Its only a way of passing time ...we cant change anything as individuals .. I have deliberately avoided any erection coverage on TV
Out of interest , which Colleges at Oxford did your children attend ? .. Mine were at Oriel and Worcester ..both gorgeous places , but some of the 500 year old student accommodation was pretty sparten by modern standards .
I did not go to uni myself , but would have loved to study in the city .

 

Can you supply an example of a reasonable sized country which successfully employs your socialist views.To quote an irrelavent Catalan experiment obviously does not count.

 

Might I suggest you look deeply into the socialist experiment that is the current "Venezuela" which seems to fit your description. As one who lived in the 4th republic which was capitalist, even with its faults it provides a good direct comparison to the effect of implementation of socialist principles as encountered under Chavez 5th republic now continuing under Maduro. The fact is it does not work, it relies on competent management of state resources and the absence of corruption whicch unfortunately is part and parcel of human nature. I agree 100% with Leo in that the state should not take a disproportionate amount from those who achieve success through hard labour but should indeed provide a safety net for those unable to reach basic standards as well as an equitable society where ones quality of life is dependent upon ones efforts not on ones knowledge of how to milk the system so yes I also object to the loop hole exploiters in equal amount to the benefit scroungers.

 

I am not obliged to provide an example of a state which I consider to be perfect, any more than you are. The Catalan experiment worked until it was destroyed by external forces, and so cannot be classed as irrelevant. My wife spent time in Nicaragua during the Sandanista regime - she was working on the project bringing literacy to smaller remote areas of the country. Because democracy cannot work without literacy. They had to be protected at all times because for the Contras (supported by the CIA) literacy was a dangerous thing. The Contras were supported by the USA, and whoever is supported by the USA in that part of the World generally wins. Unfortunately, as long as the Americans consider middle and South America as being their back yard then socialist experiments there will find it tough.

 

I have not mentioned Venezuala and so do not have to reply on that. As to the State taking from those who have achieved. Well, the State is not remote on a hill somewhere - the state is you and I, or at least it should be. Also nobody achieved success through hard work alone because no man is an island and a person needs to have an infrastructure in place in order to succeed - that infrastructure has to be paid for, and it is only fair that he pays more for it.

 

you cannot provide a workable example because there are none. Our democratic capitalist system in the UK is probably one of the very best in the world which you seem to find plenty of fault with. In would help your cause to actually come up with a socialist state that we can learn from to improve ours.

 

I worry were the uk is heading giving any power to the ukip or snp is barmy . The last government of Torys/libs pull the counrty out of the sxxx everyone was saying the uk has got it all wrong and the rest of Europe was the only way forward .Well not the rest of Europe is still in the sxxx and the uk is pulling everything around then the scots was going to do well with there oil at $110 a barrel now its $65 and well they dont need to sell it they do well with out it just take a bigger kick back from england to go it alone RANT over its a good job im in the US

 

I can try to answer this in different ways. If you accept Socialism as a concept, not an entire, system of government, then Socialism has worked and is working in as much as all citizens contribute to produce things which you use, like roads, schools, hospitals etc. But I can go further than this and say that human nature itself is socialist. In as much as in nature you will see more interdependency and cooperation than you will see of competition or the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest'. There is no country in the World which can be described as 100% Capitalist (ie. only operates according to the dictate of the free market) or 100% Socialist. Which you well know. Britain is neither 100% Capitalist (if there were no state you would be paying protection money rather than taxes) or 100% democratic.

 

Has Miliband shot himself in the foot by saying that he would rather not be PM than do a deal with the SNP? I watched the question time debate and felt that his brother would have done a far better job than he managed.

 

The reason proponents of a Socialist ideal cannot name a state in which the model has ever worked is because in the modern world it cannot exist at the macro state level. If you really digest the description of such a condition in a modern context, then it cannot exist. For example the description is that such a condition equals " that workers own the means of Production" - what does that really mean? A teacher owns the right to decide what is taught in his/her classes? A Policeman owns the right to decide which laws he/she applies? In reality this condition is a fine model for micro economies such as communes where there is a limited population and the application of democracy is very effective, but a soon as you include scale and complications of wider and deeper communities, it will never work.
As for the assertion that an improved education system and forcing people to vote would lead to a continued Socialist state has absolutely no evidence to support it. It is based on the view of political intellectuals that seems to be very elitist - "if you don't believe in a Socialist model that I describe to you, then you must be poorly educated"
Socialism is a theory that has never been proved and its proponents will always say that where similar models have been applied and failed, that these are not really Socialist models, but they cannot actually describe what such a model really means in huge economy. It highlights the dangers of applying theories into the fundamentals of life.
Personally, I believe that a modern economy can be managed to provide a strong safety net for those less fortunate or who are struggling, but had to be done with pragmatism and common sense. A good example is the Bedroom Tax - in theory the principle is a good one, a single person living in a 3 bedroom house, is poor use of social housing. But applying even a small amount of common sense would tell you it's almost impossible to apply - so don't do it! On the same theme, I just cannot abide the spin that is applied to policies and New Labour are the most guilty of this. Why call restoring the 50p tax rate a "Millionaire's Tax" - very few Millionaires will be impacted, it will be higher rate middle earners. Why call it a "Mansion Tax"? It has nothing to do if a property is a mansion - a 3 story town house in Islington would be taxed , but the same house in Milton Keynes or Hull would not and it has no basis on the owners ability to pay. Why not be honest and tell it how it is, these are envy taxes aimed at London and the SE - and you can bet your Mansion that the Islington Village politicians will have a solution to avoid it - sell the property to your own offshore company and rent it back?
Rant over....