Socialism!

3 Feb 2010

a word bounded around and yet for all the talk of it
i can't see a successful example to put fore ward as a blue print to build upon
how could they effectively initiate it from the model we live with now and more importantly maintain it
man has always been hierarchical at all levels and so it has follows that for true socialism
how will the upper classes and intellectuals react and fit in. how will the socially excluded be brought in and contribute what about the free thinkers,radicals, the travellers, free spirits, the artists and what of the emigrants
the above feline amongst the flying rats? maybe
but i want to grasp why people talk about something that i can't see working
please no quoting the daily mail wink

3 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
omg what a thread to start at this time of night
to me socialism has always been defined by one phrase
"to each according to his needs,from each according to his abilities"
yes we are only in so much as we accept we all have different areas in which we excel,capitalism worships the pursuit of money above all other abilities,and that is damaging in the extreme
i will return after some sleep and sex when my brain is working better.

and i shall return to read what you have to offer

3 Feb 2010

The only system I know to have lasted are in monasteries.

4 Feb 2010

Quote by
The only system I know to have lasted are in monasteries.

often threatened to retreat to a Belgium monastery that brews it's own ale

4 Feb 2010

don't get me started on religion :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

4 Feb 2010

I think you're right in that socialism works on a small scale. ie within a community where all know each other, and can see that each gets their fair share. But for a large country that's not so easy to do. It won't work in the same simple way, or indeed for each different region. Because there will be different requirements and alternative systems which are needed to produce results.
Then some kind of centralisation begins to take effect and what works for the small community is lost to this bigger idea.

4 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
we could use britain 1939 to 45 as an example of a successful socialist state.

Umm...... no.
Britain '39 - '45 was a 'socially dependent state', driven by a single goal (a war) and quickly reverted to a true capitalist identity powerfully demonstrated by the Berlin airlift and it's statements about the soviets at that time.
We often confuse social responsibility and dependence with Socialism, but they are worlds apart.
Most importantly, as someone already said, we are naturally heirarchical (think Alpha male, etc) and cannot function in a truly Socialist way as the Alpha male (or similar) will always rise to the top and 'control' the mass - which is exactly what Socialism is NOT.
There are no real examples of long term national Socialism that has worked without some dictatorial control, and this means it's not true Socialism.
The only thing screwing it up is human nature !

4 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
i did say whether we could use it as an example married,not that i was 100% certain,
is socially dependant state worth googling,and are there other examples?
I agree with what socialism is not, but do you not think the alturistic urge could he harrnessed to counteract the urge of the aplha to dominate.

Ah, yes, I apologise if I seemed a little dismissive !
But...... could the urge be harnessed and Alpha's counteracted ?
No, I don't believe so - there is always a need for someone to administrate anything larger than a commune, and this leads to lots of opportunities for greed to rise and flourish - we are by nature, hunter-gatherers, and this genetic coding will come to the surface in some of us, regardless of the greater mass to want otherwise.
NB: MP's expenses really demonstrates this even in what you would think is a fairly area ......

4 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
It does however beg the quetion of why we should bother to create a more equitable society?

I agree, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"
Mind you, a mild beating every now and then isn't so bad :twisted:

5 Feb 2010

Quote by leprechaun
a word bounded around and yet for all the talk of it
i can't see a successful example to put fore ward as a blue print to build upon
how could they effectively initiate it from the model we live with now and more importantly maintain it
man has always been hierarchical at all levels and so it has follows that for true socialism
how will the upper classes and intellectuals react and fit in. how will the socially excluded be brought in and contribute what about the free thinkers,radicals, the travellers, free spirits, the artists and what of the emigrants
the above feline amongst the flying rats? maybe
but i want to grasp why people talk about something that i can't see working
please no quoting the daily mail

The fallacy that this analysis starts from is the belief in an innate human nature. In your case, you assert that hierarchy is somehow 'natural'. That idea, which is akin to a kind of social darwinism, is nothing more than the alibi that those who would alienate us from the products of our labour use to justify their theft of what is rightly ours.
The point is that in a socialist society all of us would have the chance to be intellectuals, or artists, or poets or travellers. Instead of the division of labour the sharing of labour would set us all free.

5 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
I think you're right in that socialism works on a small scale. ie within a community where all know each other, and can see that each gets their fair share. But for a large country that's not so easy to do. It won't work in the same simple way, or indeed for each different region. Because there will be different requirements and alternative systems which are needed to produce results.
Then some kind of centralisation begins to take effect and what works for the small community is lost to this bigger idea.

A valid point ,but i have been considering wether we could use britain 1939 to 45 as an example of a successful socialist course perhaps the reason it worked is that the population was generally motivated to move in the same direction.
I think it's fair to say that Britain from 1942 - 1951 was a successful social democracy, and that of all the 20th century's politicians none had a longer lasting impact than Clem Attlee, but I don;t think it was, per se, a socialist state.
The idea that there's a kind of centripetal force that makes centralization inevitable is a good example of a deduction from incomplete evidence. It certainly happened in Britain during the 40s, but that's because Fabian thought was essentially Fordist in its understanding of work. It certainly happened in the USSR under Stalin and the other inheritors of the great terrorist Lenin, but that's a consequence of the pervasiveness on the USSR of the strong leader model of dictatorship. Neither thing means that all systems of governance must lead to centralization.

5 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
The celtic monasteries were socialist paradises, perhaps we can learn from there attitude towards work, life and communal property, of course the rise of a different church meant they became corrupt and hierarchical
whether this is proof socialism can only work on the small scale is an interesting question

A key point to remember here is that the fall of the Celtic Church was no accident; the Saxons couldn't tolerate the Celtic critique of their coup d'etat in Britain and so set out to overthrow the Celtic church and replace it with the much more easily disciplined Roman model. The roman model of christianity with its strict hierarchies and supreme leaders who ruled with a clunking iron fist was always going to appeal to a bunch of German mercenaries who staged a coup and stole their employer's country (the saxons).

5 Feb 2010

Quote by leprechaun
a word bounded around and yet for all the talk of it
i can't see a successful example to put fore ward as a blue print to build upon

Depends what you mean by successful really, doesn't it? China's not doing to badly on the world stage in many respects. And you could say that Russia was pretty much a third world country before the revolution, so although most people were considerably poorer under communism than many in the west... they were coming from a very low base. Same thing with Cuba, which has done fairly well economically given the sanctions against it, and the fact that it was really no better off than most other Caribbean countries to start with. Not the greatest human rights records in any of the above, admittedly.
Sweden, Holland, France, and to some extent Germany come to mind... socialised democracies but a lot closer to the idea of socialism than much of the world, and very well-functioning states with a good standard of living and personal freedom. In fact we've had a good stab at it as well. I'd say (and have said on a fairly regular basis) that for all its flaws the NHS is our pyramids... one of the towering achievements of the human species. Not perfect, but still closer to its ideal than has almost ever been achieved by almost anyone.

Quote by leprechaun
how could they effectively initiate it from the model we live with now and more importantly maintain it

For me the way to do it would be to look at what has worked successfully in other countries and cherrypick.
In the European countries I mentioned above, there tend to be higher levels of taxation, especially income tax and VAT. People then get this back in terms of better health and education services as well as general infrastructure, business grants, and cultural funding. And in fact, since house prices and consumer goods tend to cost more in this country than a lot of other places, despite giving more away in tax, people end up with the same number of plasma TVs. Funny that.
On the other hand, one reason that China is currently taking the rest of the world to the cleaners economically is that they are doing capitalism in a socialist way... Chinese businesses get far more state support than western ones do; for instance, all copper in the world has been bought by the Chinese government and then fed out to their companies because they knew it would give them a commercial benefit.
They're also not shy about state-owned businesses. I think the idea is, if something can be profitable, why not let the state take the profit, rather than shareholders (and in the case of British privatised utilities, foreign shareholders at that). People have the idea that governments can't run businesses, but I'd say HSBC doesn't do badly (the Hong Kong Banking Corporation is 60% owned by the Chines government).
So I'd say higher taxes and more government involvement with business.

Quote by leprechaun
how will the upper classes and intellectuals react and fit in. how will the socially excluded be brought in and contribute what about the free thinkers,radicals, the travellers, free spirits, the artists and what of the emigrants

Well, the upper classes are the big losers in all of this since its their wealth that gets redistributed. I have relatively little sympathy for them to be honest. There's a difference between people who have done very well for themselves, and people who inherit massive piles of money and do nothing with their lives other than live off this money. Bollocks to them. Funny how the aforementioned Daily Mail doesn't mind rich people who loaf around their entire lives and keep all their money in tax havens, robbing the state of far more money than all the single mums and unemployed people in the country put together. Maybe because it's owned by one of them?
Now, people who have done well for themselves, great. There's a strong case that people need motivation to achieve, and that a society needs to hang on to its high achievers. This I guess is where your social democracies come in. Redistribute some of the wealth, but let people keep some of it, and make sure that the payoffs are worth it.
You don't have to worry about the intellectuals, they love a bit of it - from an intellectual standpoint they can see how it's a fairer system as it allows everybody a more equal opportunity to advance themselves, besides which they've all just got jobs in the newly expanded Universities. Free thinkers and radicals will probably be happy enough since they tend to come from more marginalised social groups. The travellers can be left to their own devices; the artists will be loving your enhanced state funding for art; and the emigrants, if they like it, can come home; if they don't they can stay wherever they've gone to. Result!

5 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
The celtic monasteries were socialist paradises, perhaps we can learn from there attitude towards work, life and communal property, of course the rise of a different church meant they became corrupt and hierarchical
whether this is proof socialism can only work on the small scale is an interesting question

A key point to remember here is that the fall of the Celtic Church was no accident; the Saxons couldn't tolerate the Celtic critique of their coup d'etat in Britain and so set out to overthrow the Celtic church and replace it with the much more easily disciplined Roman model. The roman model of Christianity with its strict hierarchies and supreme leaders who ruled with a clunking iron fist was always going to appeal to a bunch of German mercenaries who staged a coup and stole their employer's country (the saxons).I would like to point out that it was Alfred The Great who unified and reorganised the Saxon peoples. Again a time when a people were faced with destruction, everyone directed themselves towards the enemy and winning. Indeed it was said that "...that no man goes without a lord." only in his time. Before that the Saxon people were free farmers in the most.
Over the next few centuries all of Britain, That is what is now England, Island, Scotland and the Is Of Man, became sub-kings of the Saxon Bret-wold. Britain then became know as England, At no time did the Bret-wold attempt to overly interfere with local government.
Saxon kings set up and granted land to Christian churches in return for services. Mostly education and the care of the sick. Yes Norman Bishop-Barons currupted them and grabbed their resources.
It was in 1066, that England became an oppressive totalitarian state.
It is strange, that those parts of England that now seperate themseleves from England became a reservoir of Saxon Culture.

5 Feb 2010

Quote by
The celtic monasteries were socialist paradises, perhaps we can learn from there attitude towards work, life and communal property, of course the rise of a different church meant they became corrupt and hierarchical
whether this is proof socialism can only work on the small scale is an interesting question

A key point to remember here is that the fall of the Celtic Church was no accident; the Saxons couldn't tolerate the Celtic critique of their coup d'etat in Britain and so set out to overthrow the Celtic church and replace it with the much more easily disciplined Roman model. The roman model of Christianity with its strict hierarchies and supreme leaders who ruled with a clunking iron fist was always going to appeal to a bunch of German mercenaries who staged a coup and stole their employer's country (the saxons).I would like to point out that it was Alfred The Great who unified and reorganised the Saxon peoples. Again a time when a people were faced with destruction, everyone directed themselves towards the enemy and winning. Indeed it was said that "...that no man goes without a lord." only in his time. Before that the Saxon people were free farmers in the most.
Over the next few centuries all of Britain, That is what is now England, Island, Scotland and the Is Of Man, became sub-kings of the Saxon Bret-wold. Britain then became know as England, At no time did the Bret-wold attempt to overly interfere with local government.
Saxon kings set up and granted land to Christian churches in return for services. Mostly education and the care of the sick. Yes Norman Bishop-Barons currupted them and grabbed their resources.
It was in 1066, that England became an oppressive totalitarian state.
It is strange, that those parts of England that now seperate themseleves from England became a reservoir of Saxon Culture.
So why are you writing about a period 300 years after the period I was writing about, and using ahistorical claims like 'Britain then became England'?
Bear in mind too that William the Bastard had at least as good a claim to the English throne as Harold, and that his invasion was less about conquest than about removing a usurper.
Your last sentence makes no sense at all.

5 Feb 2010

The trouble with socialism is no matter how many times it fails or how spectactalar the failure, there will always be a section of society that yearn for it's return. The trouble is that to some people natural selection would be sure to see them fail over a level field on which to play. The idea that the best of humanity should be handicapped by some phony regime, while the weaklings of the world are given a helping hand will only hinder the advancement of humanity in the long run.
I believe in survival of the fittest, and yes I would "pull the ladder up."

5 Feb 2010

Quote by BrightonGeezer
The trouble with socialism is no matter how many times it fails or how spectactalar the failure, there will always be a section of society that yearn for it's return. The trouble is that to some people natural selection would be sure to see them fail over a level field on which to play. The idea that the best of humanity should be handicapped by some phony regime, while the weaklings of the world are given a helping hand will only hinder the advancement of humanity in the long run.
I believe in survival of the fittest, and yes I would "pull the ladder up."

You apparently don't know about "survival of the fittest" or Darwin (it's not a quote from Darwin) both apply to species rather than individuals.....sometimes the "fittest" individual is the least beneficial to a species/society and what would usually be seen as the less appropriate mate is the one who's genes need to be passed on.
And what has Darwinian evolution got to do with socialism ?
I have kept out of this because I believe it is a cul-de-sac of an argument most anti arguments will be like this one specious at best and pro will be preaching to the ...
If socialism is and has been such a total disaster why do nearly all western democracies still cling to some elements of it?
Why would the epitomy of western capitalism the U.S.A. operate a welfare sysrem ?why are they trying to introduce a socialist inspired healthcare system?
Socialism hasn't failed it has been repeatedly abused by many governments the world over,but still remains the model that capitalism aspires to.
Come the glorious day I shall man the barricades and dance in the ruins of corporate capitalism it is just a matter of time.
Vive le revolution

5 Feb 2010

Oh and the other often stated reason for the failure of socialist states ...money....this only holds true when the only reward offered for achievment is a more possessions,even in capitalist societies wealth is no real measure of ability. what we need is a healthy contempt for money and the wealthy.

5 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
T/away i was thinking of the council of whitby,634 not sure whether that was saxon or not,as my history outside British political of the nineteenth century is poor,
Staggers ,yes yes and yes, whilst capitalism believes that people have importance and value based on there monetary worth then i will look at any alternative .

The Kingdom of Northumbria was a Saxon Kingdom, but they called themselves 'Count' to link themselves to Caesar, 'Companion to Caesar'. Politics, even then.
.and I do like the idea of supplementing money with something more.

5 Feb 2010

Quote by
T/away i was thinking of the council of whitby,634 not sure whether that was saxon or not,as my history outside British political of the nineteenth century is poor,
Staggers ,yes yes and yes, whilst capitalism believes that people have importance and value based on there monetary worth then i will look at any alternative .

The Kingdom of Northumbria was a Saxon Kingdom, but they called themselves 'Count' to link themselves to Caesar, 'Companion to Caesar'. Politics, even then.
.and I do like the idea of supplementing money with something more.
Although the ruling family was Saxon in origin, the tensions in Northumbria, where Cymraeg was widely spoken and the Columban tradition widely observed, were resolved at Whitby, as Kaz points out, but that was 120 years or so after the Saxon coup. The saxons needed to gain a kind of hegemony over their kingdom, with its fractious sub kings (little more than glorified thugs and thieves) and difficult neighbours. Oswiu needed god on his side, given his problems with his own family and peers, and ditched his own religious beliefs to get Rome behind him.
If you ever have time take a walk to Tynemouth priory - it stands on penbal crag - penbal being an old cymraeg name for a headland. The persistence of British / cymraeg place names in the north, and the disparities in the burial record, for instance, makes clear that the saxon coup left a small saxon ruling class ruling over a still noticeably British populace.

6 Feb 2010

Quote by BrightonGeezer
The trouble with socialism is no matter how many times it fails or how spectactalar the failure, there will always be a section of society that yearn for it's return. The trouble is that to some people natural selection would be sure to see them fail over a level field on which to play. The idea that the best of humanity should be handicapped by some phony regime, while the weaklings of the world are given a helping hand will only hinder the advancement of humanity in the long run.
I believe in survival of the fittest, and yes I would "pull the ladder up."

Would you like to explain the role of contingency in relation to natural selection? Would you like to tell us if you've even read Darwin, or one of his intellectual heirs like STephen Jay Gould? I suspect not.
YOu might want to have a think about the concept of enlightened self interest while you're at it.

6 Feb 2010

Perhaps

has a lesson for use?

7 Feb 2010

The only problem with socialism is humans!

7 Feb 2010

Quote by browning
The only problem with socialism is humans!

couldn't agree more. People have always been the largest problem with any political or social model.
However, the fairness of a balanced socialist democracy appeals immensely.
I havent read the whole thread, but why is Darwin cropping up in here? Im confused. Did the 'cartoons' of him drawn by his contemporary's as a monkey bear too much of a resemblance to Marx? Is Communism an evolutionary biproduct of Finches and fruitflys?
Blimey. As for the Saxons getting in here, I can't imagine '747, Strangers in the Night' having all the much to do with a socialist manefesto, unless of course the strangers were sharing thier goods and chattle to see them through the long haul.
survival of the fittest? oh yes, well... read Genome; Matt Ridely, or The Selfish Gene, by that other chap...or or... something else, and you'll soon discover that it has nothing to do with the individual (as stated above) and very little even to do with the species, but everything to do with the gene. We have control over nothing except our own distruction, which we hurtle towards with gusto... ably assisted by the runaway capitalist system. Enjoy.
Here's a thought: Might Capitalism almost have it's own evolutionary path? It's very own gene-pool which it replenishes and refines through transaction and merger?
Have you considered how the Multinational has a life of it's own, beyond the control of the bacteria in it's gut which thought themselves its creator? Whomever thought they had control have lost it. The beast feeds, and it's appetite is large. We consume, as it consumes us.
who mentioned barracades?
lp