socialism

[southeastastra]

what exactty is the problem with it

Implementation.

Humans are greedy.

It doesn't work.

You can't tax your way to prosperity. You can't borrow your way out of debt. You can't nanny people who want freedom.

Every Labour government in history have left Britain on the brink of bankruptcy. Socialism is pretty much the main reason why.

Pure socialism is a fine enough ideal. An equal society where concepts of 'rich' and 'poor' are eliminated and all functions/businesses/services are run by the government of the people on behalf of the people. In practice, some of the theory works but a lot of it doesn't.

A National Health Service with treatment free at the point of need is a great socialist principle but, as we know, costs a fortune and has many faults. I don't know if you remember what a nationalised telecoms industry looked like, for example, but it was utterly dire. Can you imagine a nationalised supermarket chain? A powerful, unionised workforce is another great ideal, but with unintended consequences. The sky-high taxes required in order to pay for a well-run socialist system have resulted in the past in the 'brain drain' effect. And when the tax money goes short because of a recession or similar, if too many businesses/people/functions are relying on it, it's a disaster.

Pure capitalism is also not a great way to run a society because it's unfair and creates big winners and big losers. But since human beings are naturally competitive and enterprising, no system can ever successfully eliminate it.

'Those with the broadest backs should bear the biggest burden' (Karl Marx said it, or something like.)

Sounds good to me.

Eton Dave's 'We're all in this together', by way of contrast, implies that those with metaphorically weak or broken backs - must share the pain.

Not the rallying cry of a leader who empathises with the people.

Incidentally, does anyone know how Riven is getting on in her plight?

"But since human beings are naturally competitive and enterprising........"

Chil1234 Really?? That's a huge moot point right there and open to debate. Competitiveness has been inculcated - it could be argued - by capitalism. Cooperation and interdependancy are, I believe, more natural human traits but they get eroded by the capitalist system we live in.

A blazing misconception though, is that capitalism favours competitiveness and enterprise whereas it doesn't. It creates pockets of concentrated wealth that actually hinder competition and enterprise in the long run.

'Competitiveness has been inculcated - it could be argued - by capitalism'

The Olympics started before capitalism. Competitiveness is a basic human instinct and is visible throughout all of nature.

In fact, Soviet communists, the champions of cooperation and interdependency for the rest of the world, were some of the most competitive, to the extent that they even cheated and drugged their athletes to gain a competitive advantage.

I quite like the Marxist idea of workers taking over their own places of work and fully profiting from their own labours.

But I think we learnt in the 20th Century that the big state, planned economy ideas are flawed. Plus, who decides which of us have the broad shoulders and should carry the heaviest load? Sounds a bit authoritarian for my liking.

I'm not particularly competitive so won't bother arguing with you.

The Olympics, though, were started to further internecine wars and then national rivalries.

How competitive do you find tiny children rather before they're conditioned into being competitive?

The OP referred to socialism; not Soviet communism which are like chalk and cheese. Proper socialism only existed for 3 years before fascist Stalin waded in.

Socialism will never be given a proper chance as long as we are brainwashed into believing we are all naturally competitive and self serving.

As I said - implementation.

@Glasnost Really! :) Cooperation and interdependency was essential within stoneage tribes but the ones that survived best were the ones that duffed up the next-door tribe in order to gain territory or defend their interests. We've got examples of coinage going back milennia and status-symbol goods found all over the world that could only have got there by being traded. The old Soviet Union, despite being fiercely anti-capitalist, had a brisk network of black marketeers. And look how the Chinese have embraced commerce in recent years. It's in our DNA to fight, win, survive, buy, sell, progress and want a bit better than the next bloke.

'The Olympics, though, were started to further internecine wars and then national rivalries.'

That's probably a Marxist interpretation that I am not aware of.

The Olympics brought all competing states together and suspended any struggles they had. It was a celebration of sporting prowess and human achievement and internecine rivalries were put on hold.

Children are competitive from a young age. They grab each others' toys etc. When very young, children are egocentric, it is only as they get older that they understand the needs of others and become more cooperative.

Socialism is good in theory, but often in practice it ends up being run by competitive humans who try to brainwash the rest of the population that competitiveness is bad, so that they themselves gain greater power. The danger of this is that it leads to nanny statism, where the great and the good socialists know what is best for everybody else. They plan what is best for the ordinary people, just like the elitist Fabian socialists did, with their support for eugenics. They know what's best and freedom slowly dies.

"Four legs good, two legs bad"... etc.

It's not in your DNA that's for sure. It's in your social background. Cooperation is the only logical way to survive. If you're ideologically oriented in that direction though, Chil1234, there's not alot to argue about. When you've taken the blinkers off we could have a proper debate. Until then.....Oh and I don't want better than the next "bloke" (or, even, woman) if that means he/she'll be worse off.

I don't wanto live in a society moulded on rivalry and im alright jackie (non) values. Look at the shite we're in as a reult of this being the dominant ideology post industrial revolution.

George Orwell knew a thing or two about the nanny statism of some socialist leaders

"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

"When very young, children are egocentric, it is only as they ger older that they understand the needs of others and become more cooperative."

By that interpretation of child development, you could say then that capitalism is akin to despotic toddler! Great! I agree.

I have posted this elsewhere - but it connects with this thread.

The Guardian have got themselves into a bit of a 'socialist dilemma'. They heavily critised Barclays for some tax and investment management tactics - which it turns out are used by The Guardian's managing company.

The Guardian appeared to imply that it was ok for them, because this money was needed to keep them solvent. .

But you misunderstand capitalism. It is not pure egocentrism. It unites a company of people in a common pursuit to create products for the benefit of other people. The competition between different companies ensures that the products produced best meet the needs of the purchasers. Those who fail to produce what meets the will of the people will go out of business. people end up having greater choice of products, such as cars, rather than being forced to drive the communist produced state Trabant. Capitalism ensures choice and freedom. It doesn't fit with the dictats of state apparatchiks, who themselves live in well-appointed dachas, while the ordinary people queue around the block for a slice of ham. That is why the enemies of freedom are against capitalism.

Blinkers?... Ideology? What about personality? Some people are perfectly content with their lot in life and are happy to bobble along being nicely cooperative and obedient, never complaining - nothing wrong with that. Others are not so easily satisfied, are rather more awkward, competitive and constantly strive for something better. We need both types to make a good society. Surely anyone can see that?

Capitalism ensures freedom and choice if you got the money to pay for it. Otherwise: tough shit. It's a shame that a perfectly relevant question from OP is now being hijacked by ideologically driven posters.

Claig's highly subjective description of capitalism is a mishmash of clichés and seems to be a dictation from capitalism HQ.

And Chil1234 the problems begin when those who are more competitive trample over everyone else in their urge to have more, more, more. Look at the mess we're in now due to a greedy few lording it over the rest of us.

'Look at the mess we're in now due to a greedy few lording it over the rest of us.'

But Tony Blair and Gordon Brown got us into the mess. Labour knighted Fred the Shred. The Conservatives have the unpleasant job of cleaning the mess up.

Look at the mess the Russian and Chinese people were in due to a greedy few, Stalin and Mao, lording it over the rest of them.

I think that one problem with socialism is that it is focused on equality of outcomes, this is fine when everyone wants the same thing but may and has caused problems when people want different things. I am still a socialist btw

exactly, witch, who decides what everyone wants? The planners, not the people.