socialism

[southeastastra]

what exactty is the problem with it

Glasnost, I totally agree that the huge inequalities of many capitalistic countries are dangerous. But not comparable to the atrocities of all the dictatorships, communist AND fascist.

People DO value those sectors, claig, which is why this government is penalising them most with their savage cuts. We should see how things pan out in a few years' time in the UK. Inequality will shoot up over the next few years if these cuts are allowed to go ahead and that's when the UK will resemble even more the US in terms of social injustice etc.

Thank God webchat with Nigel Farage in a min to cheer me up.

Glasnost I too used to believe that competition etc are simply nurtured by a capitalist state, but once I had twins I saw that many factors, partcularly those pertaining to personality are simply innate

One of my twins was born far more fiercly competitive than the other. It was almost from the get go...and yet theit environmental triggers were exactly the same.

You also see it here on MN. Some posters admit that they are simply not competitive and unambitious. others admit that they are fiercly driven.

We are beautifully complex humans and won't comfortably fit into a mold.

No matter what happens, we won't have the same outcomes even if we are all given the same environmental triggers. I've become convince dof this now.

To be completely honest, I have never really got all the fuss about ID cards.

Well for me, i objected not because I didn't like the idea of one. In fact on a day to day basis I think it would be a great help. Banks and pubs to name two places where a national ID card would be a great help.

My main objection was on cost and scope. Had they introduced a sensible plan, I'd be all for it. But I didn't see the need for biometric data to be stored on them at massive cost and using unproven technology. Especially when the government were not buying the fracking readers and no banks/police would have them either. It was just an expensive waste of cash.

The genius of Orwell (in 1984) was that he was able to show how both rampant consumerism and authoritariansim degrades indviduals and their individuality

socialism isn't a great theory - it's an absolutely awful theory, and anyone who studied Economics would understand, by then end of the first term, why it always leads to poverty, shortages and misery.

socialism is a naive romantic sentiment.. it's NOT a great theory. Weath comes from free markets.

stubbornhubby - gosh I do so agree, and why oh why is economics so derided as a school subject. When I rule the world I will implement the teaching of economics to all school children globally as my very first priority.

it's because, Bonsoir, economics is counter intuitive, full of startling insights that don't seem right when you first hear them.

Some examples..

• competition in a free market isn't selfish or wasteful, it's efficient and productive

• the wealth in a country isn't a fixed pie to be divided up, such that if I have more, you have less, wealth can be created, so there is more for everyone

• nations can ALWAYS gain from trading with eachother, even if one nation is more efficient at producing everything than the other is

• a legal minimum wage creates unemployment

All of the above are counter-intuitive to most people and it took until C19 before people worked out the truth.. Now all are Economics 1.01

I think that they are not "counter-intuitive" but "counter Judaeo-Christian moral tradition" which is what most primary school children are infused with. If we are going to teach economics effectively, we need to start young and to get rid of the myths and prejudices we tell young DCs.

I actually agree that Economics should be taught at school, alongside perhaps maths. It was the most useful A levels I took in so far as being useful in real life.

Wealth comes from free markets. Yes, but to a tiny minority.
When I moved to the UK I was shocked by the sheer poverty of some areas of the city I lived in.
Visit southern Italy and be shocked by the squalor some people live in, and yet a huge chunk of Northern Italy is probably one of the richest area in Europe.

Free market only works for a whole state if the government makes significant investments to improve the whole community, otherwise, it is not perfect.

francagoestohollywood - wealth for everyone

I don't seem many Italians on small boats travelling to nearby socialist Albania, nor were they climbing the fence to get to next door communist Yugosalvia...

Franca - I agree that there are areas of severe deprivation in many areas of Western Europe - shocking to people who have been brought up in wealthy areas. But what you are describing is inequality. How do we know that more people wouldn't live in even greater squalor under socialism? Isn't that what actually happened under socialism?

In the UK, 25% of the population are net contributors and 75% of the population are net benefiters of the redistribution of wealth. That's not too bad going.

I am not talking about wealth for everyone, but a more equal society. Italy has a very wide gap between the rich and the poor.

Of course many Italians weren't trying to emigrate to Albania or Yugoslavia, that's mostly because of their political situation, I believe. Would you have tried to emigrate to Pinoche Chile?

The Uk is another country with a huge gap between the rich and the poor.
Of course I don't know what'd happen in a pure socialist structure. It will never happen.

Franca - it's so hard. People have such very different opportunities in life - they are born with different potential talents and skills, and children have very limited control over the opportunities they pursue.

It might well be that 'redistributive' socialism increases real income inequality. The rich negotiate to increase their wages (to cover the high taxes) or avoid tax; whilst poorer people have their 'benefits' factored into their wages.

It is hard Bonsoir.

I wouldn't have wanted to be born in the USSR or Cambodia, of course.

I still find it difficult to accept that there are so drastically different opportunities for people living in the same relatively wealthy country.
I am now talking about Italy: in the last 25 yrs Italy has become more unequal, and that is depressing.

but the poorest people in Italy get wealthier every year, and the poorest people in socialist North Korea... get pooer.

The USSR failed in the end because - equality or not - it made everyone poor

(and - hush - it din't even makle them equal either)

I watched this on Tuesday and it seems somwhat relevant to all this:-

Harvard professor lectures about redistributive jusitice and John Rawls

No, the poorest people aren't getting wealthier unfortunately. Apparently the number of people living in relative poverty is increasing every year. Mind you, Italy's growth in the last 10 yrs has been disappointing, Italy didn't grow as much as the UK did in the early 2000s, for instance.

The USSR failed yes because the economic model failed against capitalism. And it failed because it was a dictatorship. Still is though, and people are still poor there.

Thanks for the link TheCoalition - very thought provoking.

Franca - I think the Soviet Economic model failed because it didn't work.

There is an interesting book about this 'Red Plenty' which is set at the optimistic point in history when it really seemed as if the soviet economic model might work. The book focusses on a maths genius who comes up with a complex formula for distributing 'consumer' goods....

Capitalism just showed the soviet people what the alternative was. Whether the communism kept capitalism in check is, I think, an interesting point of view.

The USSR had economic growth of over 20% a year at some points.