Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

socialism

171 replies

southeastastra · 23/02/2011 23:05

what exactty is the problem with it

OP posts:
wordfactory · 24/02/2011 15:43

And let's be very frank, in all countires that have attempted or are still attempting to implement socialism, there is a thriving underground capitalist society.

The people will trade, sell and barter for what they want/need as best they can.

A member of my family is cuban, and when she returns homes she takes as much as she can back for her sisters...for them to sell or swap.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 24/02/2011 15:49

Though the USSR wasn't a socialist or a communist country, and for that matter neither is Cuba.

NoSuchThingAsSociety · 24/02/2011 15:55

Socialism (whether 'National' or otherwise) is immoral, impractical and fails to take into account human nature.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 24/02/2011 15:59

The issue with the banking crisis is that it is has been the capitalization of profit, yet the socialization of loss. Capitalism when in profit; socialism when not.

There is not any one system that works all the time and would be naive to suggest that any nation has a single system in operation at any given time. My understanding is that services would be classed as socialism rather than just a monetary system.

HHLimbo · 24/02/2011 16:11

Hurray for socialism, its the best we've got.

I agree ilovem - these tories make me sick. They are stupid and selfish and nasty, and are not doing this country any good.

Bonsoir · 24/02/2011 16:15

No, we do not have socialism in the UK. Left wing capitalism is not the same thing as socialism.

witchwithallthetrimmings · 24/02/2011 16:17

fyi lots of very bright economists are socialists

huddspur · 24/02/2011 16:34

The problem with socialism is that involves an over-bearing state that interfers in every aspect of peoples lives whether they want it or not. It goes against human nature and the only way it could ever really be implemented is through totalitarianism with little regard to individual citizens.

glasnost · 24/02/2011 16:41

Socialism is "immoral, impractical and fails to take into account human nature" nosuchthingas? Sounds like the perfect description of capitalism to me.

There never has been a socialist government in the UK with the possible exception of the one immediately after World War 2 led by Clement Atlee. And the only real socialist rule in USSR was in the 3/4 years straight after the October uprising to 1922 before Stalin took over who had bugger all to do with socialism and was just a power hungry despot. The true socialists went into exile or were killed. So it's quite bizarre and silly to discount out of hand a political ideology that hasn't been given a real chance.

HHLimbo · 24/02/2011 16:41

In fact it appears to me that the more intelligent people are, and the more they know, the more socialist they become.

witchwithall - yes, very interesting that.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 24/02/2011 16:45

Also socialism/communism was never meant to operate in a single country. It's meant to be global to operate as designed/predicted.

stubbornhubby · 24/02/2011 16:46

Franca -- it's no coincidence that socialist countries are also dictatorships. They need to be to stop free enterprise, trading and wealth creation from breaking out :-) (and also to stop people leaving)

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 24/02/2011 16:54

stubbornhubby - we don't know if that is the case or not as their has never been a socialist country.

glasnost · 24/02/2011 17:06

It really does make you wonder why an ideology that has been put into practice only fleetingly creates such alot of blinkered opposition doesn't it? Methinks they protesteth too much and there just MAY be something in this socialism lark.

The Americans have spent vast sums and wasted countless human lives in fighting socialism at its root before it even has a chance to flourish.

It is the most contested political system because it's the fairest. The money men and bosses hate it for its redistribution of wealth principle so it could be said to go against THEIR nature but they're a miniscule minority and it beggars belief why all the rest (ie. the vast majority of the human race and then some) would be against it.

lenak · 24/02/2011 17:09

Socialism and Capatalism both work best when working together.

Capatalism should exist to give people freedom of choice and opportunity for advancement and improvement but it does need to be curbed by regulation to prevent it getting out of control - whether that is preventing direct advertising to children of certain products or anti-trust legislation to prevent unfair practices (Microsoft, the recent price fixing cases amongst cigarette companies etc).

More also needs to be done to encourage development where there is little will within the corporations but a strong social arguement. We would have and should have had green transport options which are both cleaner and cheaper for the consumer years ago, but because oil is more profitable, the will was never there to develop the technology. It is only recently, mostly through clean air legislation and dissatisfaction over rising oil prices that companies have finally got their arses into gear in developing the technology or rather implementing it.

It needs to be remembered that capatalism is not always good for the consumers, but is always good for the shareholders.

Socialism needs to exist to help those who are unable to benefit from Capatalist opportunities for whatever reason whether that be due to age, ill-health or job loss when capatalism goes wrong. Rather than socialism a better term is perhaps social justice.

The best thing to ever happen to this country was the implementation of the Beveridge report in the 1940's which tackled the five giant problems (Want, Disease, Squalor, Ignorance, Idleness).

It would take the richest and most mercenary of capatalists not to think the provision of state education, free health care, social housing and benefits for those truly in need were not important and worth safeguarding.

It is true that it could be done better and cheaper, it is also true that the 'benefit net' is perhaps cast too widely at the moment, but the concept of their exitence is sound, even if their implementation needs work.

Labour, or more specifically socialism is not to blame for them mess we are in now - capitalism and the greed of the banks is. America had been a right wing, capatalist country for 8 years before the banking crisis and they were as hard hit as we were in terms of job losses and ensuing poverty.

The difference is in this country, a poor family that have lost their income due to the banking crisis do not have to choose between essential medication for their sick child and feeding the rest of the family.

While I am glad of every opportunity afforded to me through capatalism, I am also glad that I live in a society that at least makes an attempt to take care of its young, sick and poor.

The best societies are the ones where capatalism and socialism work together to achieve equality of opportunity while providing a saftey net for those who need it. I believe Britain works like this - and we do it relatively well - even if we still have some way to go to perfecting it.

stubbornhubby · 24/02/2011 17:30

coalition -- there have been plenty of them.

Francagoestohollywood · 24/02/2011 17:41

Hubby, as much as I am fascinated by socialist theories, the fact the all the countries which experimented it turned into atrocious dictatorships causes me all sorts of dilemmas and angst.

On the other hand, as Glasnost pointed out earlier we've had various example of dictatorships in countries following the free market dictates and largely supported by the US.

Bonsoir · 24/02/2011 17:50

I am agog that there are adults alive today who don't know about countries that have lived under socialist/communist rule Shock

Maybe I should feel very privileged to have seen their horror for myself...

HHLimbo · 24/02/2011 18:34

The US as a country of extreme capitalism has its own atrocities Bonsoir.

For example, the third-world standard of healthcare it provides for its citizens, unless you are rich. Glad to see Obama is helping them improve.

HHLimbo · 24/02/2011 18:58

I think greater equality in this country would do us the world of good;

Slides from The Spirit Level: why greater equality is better for everyone:
www.slideshare.net/equalitytrust/the-spirit-level-slides-from-the-equality-trust

rabbitstew · 24/02/2011 19:18

Bonsoir - has Russia ever been a great place to live for the majority of its people??? I'm not sure I'd agree Communism made the situation any worse for the majority of people living there, even if a significant minority ended up worse off.

lIllyall · 24/02/2011 19:26

I find it best not to view it as a choice between socialism and no socialism, it's more of a spectrum. Some elements of socialism are beneficial. The NHS ,in principle, is good in my opinion compared to private healthcare because there are dangers associated with companies profiting from illness and it actually makes a country more efficient if the workforce is healthy, as Seebohm Rowntree exhibited in a study of the poor which showed that over 25% of the population were not earning enough money to adequately support themselves, even in terms of providing the basic necessities. A situation like this does not resolve itself and absolutely requires government intervention A.K.A Socialist reform. Too much government intervention is obviously also a negative as we can see from the examples of Soviet Russia, China etc.
People in the States in particular, but also many people in Britain tend to recoil in horror at the word socialism as it conjures up images of Communist tyranny and oppression. I find it's good to be open-minded enough not to write off a concept entirely without examining it but subscribing to "isms" i.e. saying "I'm a socialist" or "I'm a liberal" boxes you in too.
Having said that I believe the country could benefit by subscribing to a few more of the principles of socialism, as we have a large and growing gap between the rich and the poor, which is a cause of deep social problems. It won't redress itself, especially not with a government who penalises the poor disproportionately by cracking down on benefit frauds when tax evasion costs the government 15 times more. And who claimed they would crack down on tax havens then wimped out. But then again they get all their funding from big businesses so you wouldn't expect them to go against their own.
Much easier to turn everyone's heads from the direction of fat champagne swilling bankers and towards the lower classes with their tracksuits on their council estates. Everyone knows and sees these types of people, they're easy to look down on aren't they? and everyone is already against benefit fraud so forget that there's less jobs than people in the country, blame a chav! "my taxes are paying for you to drink that special brew you council estate scum, get a job". Ahem, rather than blaming the guy at the bottom look no further than those smug toff expletives whose job it is to sort out these problems but squabble like children for show on tv then go to one of their large homes that they earned with the money they got from their high-end job which they were destined to get the moment they set foot in Eton, based not on their merit but their birth.
So yeah, socialism not intrinsically wonderful but we could probably use a bit more of it in my opinion.

claig · 24/02/2011 19:32

Estimates are that about 15-17 million people were killed under Stalin alone. I don't think the Russian tsars killed that amount of people.

"Researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[107] In his most recent edition of The Great Terror (2007), Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, the various terror campaigns launched by the Soviet government claimed no fewer than 15 million lives.[108] Others maintain that their earlier higher victim total estimates are correct"

jackstarb · 24/02/2011 19:36

rabbit - I think it is agreed that Russia was the wrong place to try out socialism / communism. Didn't Marx think socialism should evolve from capitalism? Russia was poor and very rural. Not a good starting point.

The problem is socialism is not an economic system - it's really just a political philosophy. Das Kapital is a description of a utopian vision and not really a practical manual. The idea is appealing - but how do you get there?

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 24/02/2011 19:50

There aren't any countries that have applied Socialism in any kind of 'pure' form - they have all had significant other elements. It doesn't help that Socialism means about a million different things either.

That a totalitarian regime describes itself as Socialist doesn't make it so.