Off Topic Political Debate

The US does not employ it's armed forces to shoot people in the back for trying to leave the country. I'm not sure many of the residents of the former G.D.R. would agree with you and prefer a return to the past.

Can you please supply an example of a current country being run well with your kind of socialism?. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

No, the US military is too busy tossing drones on innocent villages and schools in Pakistan ! You can give me the credit of knowing more people from the ex GDR than you do - and many of them would quite gladly bring back some (not all) elements of the GDR. The unification was a chance to combine the best of 2 systems - a chance which was unfortunately wasted, and many people regret that. Also, you have absolutely no idea of what my idea of socialism is - what you are certain of however is your idea of what it is, namely a suitable adjective to describe anything which you personally do not like, be it in Greece, France the UK or wherever.

 

Are you unable to find an example then? Maybe your utopia does not exist, maybe it never did.

please kindly enlighten me.

 

You'd feel very silly if it turned out that Erich Honecker was his granddad

 

Why?

I've worked he is at least a disciple.

 

I have not claimed that the GDR was anything like an ideal state - nor was it a 'socialist`one - if you use the definition of this movement as one where all legitimate power comes from below. Nor was it a Marxist state, in as much as Marx would have disowned it. Do not attach labels to me which do not exist. My argument here is based on the idea that you seem to 'know' what socialism is, on the one hand, yet use the term very liberally on the other to describe anything which personally offends you - thus bringing Greece, Hollande and the modern Labour party under the same umbrella - where they do not belong. By the way, I am more attracted to the eco socialism of a country like Bolivia - if you need a starting point.

 

out

I know the brand of socialism as practiced by the Labour party and Hollande in France has failed it's citizens. The bunch of idealistic but woefully inexperienced university bods currently running Greece will also fail. Their threats to renege on their loans will make it impossible to secure loans from the financial world, except maybe some relief aid.. Their only hope is the dodgy KGB socialist Putin who is keen to expand his area of influence.

I think this thread has now run it's course.

 

I would certainly agree with your last point. The woefully inexperienced University bods (what a large number of unproved generalizations there !) were only called in by the Greek population because their more experienced predecessors had failed.

 

I, for one, would take more notice of you, Superhorns, if you could spell "its" properly. "It's" is short for "it is". I'm just remarking, that's all.

 

It was meant for Cologne rather than you. Sorry!

 

Many thanks for your contribution. How very interesting.

 

I agree with Superhorns. Society should be run by a bunch of unelected multinational companies which control so called democracies. That, after all is the nature of pure capitalism, as that noted socialist, Adam Smith, pointed out.

 

silly post!

 

Not a silly post at all Superhorns - although it does not fit to your ideas. Unregulated capitalism leads to monopoly (I don't think I need to produce evidence of this) - which, in turn becomes a threat to democracy. It is already the case that many corporations have turnovers larger than the GDP of their host countries. If you add things like TTIP being negotiated behind our backs, which effectively gives companies the power to take nations to court for compensation in the event of loss of profits through health, safety or environmental laws - eg. a certain tobacco company which is taking Mexico to court over their anti smoking posters - then you can very quickly come to the conclusion that Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

 

It was a silly post because that is not my views.

Let's agree to disagree, the only thing thankfully we have in common is our football team.

 

Superhorns, I do not really believe that my previous post reflected your views. I was illustrating what unregulated capitalism leads to. What you and Cologne are arguing about is the level of control that it requires. You still haven't explained at what point the control becomes socialist.

I also mentioned Adam Smith because he was totally opposed to the way capitalism currently organises society. Most people who quote him haven't read him. Similarly, Marx said that 19th century capitalism was the highest form of social organisation that had been achieved. He just wanted to improve the lot of the majority, that majority that Smith said would suffer without some form of regulation.

If workers have no protection at all from industrial power you end up with slavery.

 

Capitalism is regulated and if the UK can be taken as an example then the significant drop in union membership has not resulted in lower living standards for workers.

I have been a union official in the 70's and latterly an entrepreneur who has created several businesses. I know I have done more practical social good in my capitalist days. I currently part own a company that has (unintentionally) saved the NHS many millions by breaking a cartel between multinational companies supplying single use devices.

 

I am also interested in an answer to NZHorn's question - at what point do controls become 'Socialist' in your eyes ?

 

Cologne, I'm still waiting for your answer on the country which operates on your preferred socialist rules?

The above question is impossible to answer. In an ideal capitalist state there must be some controls which provide fairness to the whole population. There must be safety nets for the unfortunate with sensible social benefits. Unfortunately these are often abused.

However I do believe in small government which encourages its (for Vic) citizens to take responsibility for themselves.
It works.

In my industry the NHS are wasting millions because the purchasing managers are spending other peoples money. The hysteria against more private involvement is totally misguided. In France, a very socialist country, private companies are an integral part of the system.

 

If you think back then this argument arose because of your tendency to use the term 'Socialist' to describe everything which you don't like - almost as a form of insult. This reminds me of the Mcarthyism of the past in which all opponents were labeled 'Communists'. You already have the name of a country which I admire - so why ask - just read back.