But the mechanisms fail under captialism. People are often reminded of the need to work hard to help others, yet time and again we need to fire people for poor output. Using the example of the army, how many soldiers slack off when they can (excepting on operations)? I know from countless posts on this board that the answer is most.

The reason I help my family is because I'm genetically predisposed to do so, and I want them to prosper. Looking after them normally means that somebody else misses out in some way. This tribal/pack behaviour is seen throiughout the development of human society and in almost every animal species. It has never been extended to cover more than the immediate relations/friends of the individual. IT is also the case that a number of people are capable of transgressing this and do seem to act entirely for their own self-centred good. Quite how such people will be accomodated in your system eludes me.

The issue with identifying fraud is that a capitlaist system can cope with leeches, whilst a socailist system must surely fail. Your point about me wanting to be equl is predicated on the idea that everyone will be doing the same for me if I help them. However, as soon as any inequality becomes apparent then the system breaks down.



Sadly, people do need to do shitty jobs. People need to sit in factories and midlessly press buttons all day and people need to clean sewers in order for society to function. Sadly, the only way to make people do these horrible jobs is to not pay them if they do not do them. Why do you believe that a worker will suddenly enjopy cleaning the sewer because society wants him to? Given that he will still get rations in prison, isn't that a better life?


I'm not doubting that you give to charity, but I seem to remember you saying on this board that you earn about £50,000. I assume therefore that you give 20,000 to charity because anything less would be hypocracy of the highest order.

The reason humans exist as we do is because we were better than anyone else at looking out for our own selves/gene pool. Trying to say that we will adopt a global view and overcome our innate behaviour that has been developed over millenia based on trust for others is simply crazy. Have you ever wondered why, in any university, its always the sociologists and arts faculty who are socialist whilst the economists and scientists are capitalist?

Its time to apply some science to your argument I think. Write down every factor upon which your socialist utopia depends (eg. changing human attitudes, strong governmental control) and then work out the assumptions that you must make to get to each factor. I guarantee that many of your assumptions will not stand up when exposed to the cold light of day.

I obviously failed to properly explain what I meant on this point. True, the mechanism for ferreting out such folks is less than optimal under Capitalism, but at the same time, it operates on a double-standard basis. Workers in a Capitalist system are very thoroughly supervised and are forced to accept wages representing much less than they individually produce (otherwise they wouldn’t be employed in the first place). They see their superiors treated in a very different way, i.e. that they're allowed to be much more incompetent until they’re fired; and even then they receive compensation which is in no way commensurate with any effort they put into the company. The workers see this and feel denigrated and unjustly treated and (rightfully) resent it. The result is that they don’t identify with the company and its products and regard their work simply as a means to earn a living.

Under such circumstances, it’s small wonder that some have elevated skiving to an art form. It’s debatable whether folks would react quite like that in a Socialist system, since their efforts would be seen as contributing to the common good, and, more importantly, they'd be able to discern that they were being treated with respect and dignity - something that bosses are all too often loath to do in a Capitalist society.

A survey was carried out at the end of the Eighties (if memory serves) by The Economist in which various aspects of workers’ lives were examined based on what sort of company they worked for. The employees of more enlightened companies who were also given a share of the companies' profits (but there were only nine such companies in the survey, four of them in what was West Germany) not only had much higher productivity figures, but also a much lower incidence of sickness, while the corresponding figures in "traditionally" run companies (of which there were 1,700 in the survey) were very much lower and very much higher respectively. In addition, ALL of the employees of the more enlightened companies said that they loved to work their, while a startling 87 percent of the employees of traditionally run companies said they'd just as soon work somewhere else if the opportunity arose. The percentage of these same employees complaining about extra (work) pressure put on them by skiving colleagues was about the same figure.

Admittedly, canvassing the opinions of the employees of only nine such enlightened companies in a survey and trying to reach some sort of conclusion is very difficult, but the facts do contrast very starkly with those presented from the other 1,700 companies. I suppose everybody has to make up her/his own mind as to their relevance.

The point is that even those of a “skiver” mentality who entered employment with the more enlightened companies quickly changed their attitude. Again, since the segment of the survey was so small, there’s no way that this change in attitude can be reliably extrapolated to include the whole of a country, but it’s a clear indication that such radical changes can take place as long as those involved are in a positive work (or social) environment from which they can reasonably expect mutual reciprocality.

You also mentioned the military environment and squaddies slacking off (except on operations). Exactly! When yon squaddies know how vital they are to the overall effort of the unit, then they can be relied on to do their job to the best of their ability.

All this is very much bound up in the complex interaction of human nature. In spite of the fact that I've been accused on numerous occasions of discounting human nature, I recognise its paramount importance. Indeed it's the ONLY factor holding our societies together.

Following on from my previous statements: if a person engaging in these essential community activities has the feeling that her/his contribution to the common good is greeted with dignity and respect, then there's no reason why they wouldn't want to take them up. The very reason why so many folks are reluctant to carry them out in our present society is because they know they'll be treated like shite. This, again, is a result of the extremely complicated (but actually simple to understand) structure of human nature, upon which I can enlarge, if required.

The reason why humans exist as they do is because they learned at an early stage how to kill off anything getting in their way - which is a very short-sighted view of things. In the meantime, our knowledge of the world around us has increased immensely and a growing number of folks are starting to question whether it might not be a good idea to actually go along more with nature than to try and fight it, as we’ve been doing hitherto.

As for your trust in others argument: there have been enough natural and man-made disasters to disprove that. Working on your basis, I wonder why anybody at all turned up to help when the Twin Towers were banjoed, or when the Tube stations were bombed on 7/7. Folks prove almost daily that they're willing to risk their own lives to save complete strangers. This shows that the capacity for adaptation of what we like to call “human nature” is only just under the surface of our civilised exteriors.

This has given me a bit of an insight into your basic attitude to Socialism. Can we once and for all agree that what is/was called Socialism/Communism is/was actually nothing of the sort?

Socialism is not about gobment control of anything. That’s what’s made Capitalism so destructive and was, essentially, one of the decisive factors in the fortunate demise of so many State Capitalist countries. So we know for a fact that any sort of central gobment doesn’t work for human beings. In fact, under Socialism there’s no real need for a central gobment at all.

We sort of "inherited" central gobments as a development of history. We were at no time ever asked, before or since their introduction, if we wanted them, and we're also never asked how they could be improved. That in no way says that they’re there forever and that no other way is possible, it just means that they’ve been there for so long that we tend to accept them without question. This is rather remarkable considering how central gobments have consistently failed to live up to even the most modest expectations. It’s now time for a positive change.

MsG

"We sort of "inherited" central gobments as a development of history. We were at no time ever asked, before or since their introduction, if we wanted them, and we're also never asked how they could be improved. That in no way says that they’re there forever and that no other way is possible, it just means that they’ve been there for so long that we tend to accept them without question. This is rather remarkable considering how central gobments have consistently failed to live up to even the most modest expectations. It’s now time for a positive change."



Errrrr.....The whole thrust of human development has been towards Central Government, and how it works. Why do you think so mnay different people in the last 400 years of British History have thought, fought and died just to have the right to have a say in how their lifes are ruled?

And I'm pretty sure the basic tenets of modern life get done quite well, thanks to a reasonably good grasp by Central Government that it does actually have to make sure the bins get emptied and the roads get repaired. It's only when Governments start thinking their underpants should be worn over their trousers that things go wrong....

I stand by my statement that central gobments have never delivered on their promises. I’ll go further and say that those folks you’re talking about never fought and died for any central gobment, but because they perceived their way of life to be threatened. The fact that they, too, inherited this central gobment, which they were never given a chance to vote for or against in the first place, has nothing to do with any struggle.

And I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but central gobment has never been about folks having a say in how their lives are ruled. The farcical notion of “democracy” has always been a cruel illusion. You have to remember that this much-vaunted British Parliament came into being as a result of the more well-off members of society, the ruling class, insisting on having a say about what happened to the money they were forced to pay to the Queen/King. Money, I might add, that was, in turn, squeezed illegally and with sometimes very brutal methods from their serfs. The Queen/King realised that yon ruling class could create a lot of hassle if s/he pissed them off too much and so the so-called “mother of all parliaments" was born (notwithstanding that the Icelandic parliament pre-dates it by a couple of centuries). What the UK has now is what it had then: a cosy club of politicians and members of the ruling class all intent on working into their own pockets.

The rest of the population are only bit-players on this stage and are, by and large, simply regarded as the cows who provide the milk, but are given a minimal amount of security and comfort to ensure that the milk keeps flowing.

I believe you’ll find that local gobment takes care of the bins and roads, since the oh-so-caring central gobment is more or less engaged full-time in trying to work a flanker on the opposition, or getting rid of any potential risk to their own positions posed by folks from their own ranks.

However, if you really believe that the UK central gobment is doing such a fine job for all us normal, insignificant Josephines and Joes, how does this sound to you?

You hand the total of your earnings to some geezer who promises to ensure that your life remains comfortable. He takes 30 percent straight off as a commission for himself. He's supposed to pay your rent/mortgage, buy your food and clothing and make sure that all the bills are paid. After a couple of months he comes back and says that you have to earn more because the money's not enough and if you don't cough up, he'll have to make cuts somewhere. So you find a second job and give him the extra money. A month or so later, he returns and says there's still not enough money, so he'll have to make cuts in expenditure. And so the story continues.

That, on a family scale, is what central gobments have been doing for decades. You’ll notice that your man never reduces his own commission, but insists that you deliver more money.

Whatever made us so utterly stupid as to trust such a blatantly dishonest system in the first place?

MsG

F**k me.......! The biggest events that shaped the current system that ruled us and you miss it out completely for some odd version of history.

Ever heard of the Putney debates in 1647? Where the victors of the Civil war attempted to thrash out a settlement of the future of Britain. Thomas Rainsborough argued that

"For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under."

That's universal suffrage in case you're wondering.

Or how about Chartism? Which includes a demand for the universal suffrage as part of the movements demands for reform.

Or the Suffragettes? Remember them? The women who fought for the right to vote. Emiliy Davison was killed in 1913 at the Epsom Derby.

All three groups over 400 years fought for the right to vote. Real History, real facts. Not some Marxist pseudo history.

Central planning socialism even when the politburo is totally altruistic and uncorrupt doesn't work because of Hayek's calculation problem. Human nature being what it is, giving greater power over the distribution of resources to ordinary human beings compounds the problem by resulting in more back-scratching.

Decentralised hippy/anarchist socialism isn't workable in any society larger than a small tribal village for exactly the reasons embedded in human nature that Jewunit pointed out. You can't run a civilsation capable of mass-producing antibiotics, aviation fuel, microchips or a national power grid with it.

Proponents of the first form of socialism usually start out dreaming about implementing the second type, but then they quickly find that human nature doesn't work that way, so they gradually become tyrannical and try to change it, usually whilst indulging in the kind of corruption any ordinary people can become prone to. viz New Labour.

So that's what you class as "universal suffrage"? My, my, words do appear to acquire an astounding elasticity when you use them.

Notwithstanding that universal suffrage was introduced into the UK in 1918 for males over 21 and for females ten years later, although some women were allowed to vote from 1918 onwards, but with property restrictions, apart from a few speeches by some enlightened folks, universal suffrage before that never really got off the ground - in contrast to France. Those are historical facts and have nothing at all to do with any Marxist definitions.

You also mentioned the tragic death of Emily Davison in the pursuit of women's suffrage, but you conveniently forgot to include why she died and why suffrage (for males) was introduced. After all, according to your take on history, it was a done deal long before that. Could it actually be that the ruling classes didn't want folks to vote until they were forced to concede? And if that was the case, why?

But anyway, that's not the point, really. Even with universal suffrage, ordinary folks have never had any say in running the country, nor even allowed to voice an opinion that any politician took seriously.

You also managed this: "The biggest events that shaped the current system that rules us". This is typical of the unreflective mindset that regards gobments in general as somehow necessary. Why should we be "ruled" by anybody?

If you think about it, there's no person on earth who has the right to tell you what to do. I know that's what we're subjected to, but it's not a universal and immutable law. There are, however, any number of folks who want to tell us what to do, to order us around. They can only do that by threatening us, overtly or covertly with repercussions if we dare to disobey. And they call it "democracy". I don't think so!

MsG

Putting aside the history lectures, and reverting to the thread title, the answer is simple:

the words 'modern' and 'socialism' do not sit easily together. The whole concept is not only flawed but failed wherever and whenever adopted.

Lsquared.

It's actually mildly interesting testing bugsy's responses. He's trotting out an almost classical, with a bitter twist, marxist history set with added "conspiracy theory" for flavour. To put it simply, the history of man is the rise to the xenith of perfection in a socialist society, evolving into the perfect communist society. It's not a bad theory, it's just unable to cope with the offputting...

He never really answers a line of thought, he just attacks it, he's not got that great a grasp of history and everything has been overshawdowed by some vast secret society that prevents us from moving to the perfect socialist society. He's unable to grasp just how tribal human groupings are, which is sad.

I'm vaguely capable of arguing another mind set, just not very well. He's not even capable of looking outside his own mindset.

I totally agree with your last sentance, Kit. The primary problem with Bugsy is that he seems to be totally incapable of accepting one signal truth; that his personal view of 'socialism' is not only not accepted by most people on this board but is different to the understanding of other socialists.

In short, Bugsy blindly assumes that all socialists agree with his exact beliefs and that, deep down, we are all socialists at heart. The only way that his utopia can even remotely become feasible is for both of these factors to be true. Sadly, given that neither factor IS true, he's a bit dead in the water and simply trotting out poorly understood political philosophy, non-understood history and pulp psychology.

And now, to cap it all, he's changing from socialism to anarchism with his comment "Why should we be "ruled" by anybody?" He completely ignores the fact that his socialist society would almost certainly result in one of the most tyranical and despotic regimes possible.

And, Novice, I've always liked that CS Lewis quote.

So true. Ony the most deluded Socialists suggest that everything will run perfectly with no control. There are many crimes in capitalism which would repeat in socialism and we would need a very strong government indeed to ensure equality. Quite wy these people would be less corrupt than any leaders before is beyone me. Maybe a love of power is unique to a capitalist system, as is a desire to have a better life, as is the existence of theives who are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of others to their own end. I see no reason why this last group, particularly, would suddenly appreciate the error of their ways and work to the common good simply because it is better for everyone.

I still want to know if Bugsy would cheerfully work in a mine. He has shown himself to be a massive hypocrite. He does little 'work' in the tradtional sense and yet keeps money over the average wage instead of donating it to those more in need than himself. He "considered" going to Africa as an aid worker, but his love for his fellow humans did not stretch as far as his love for taking the path of least resistance to a comfortable lifestyle with plenty of money. Hypocrites like bugsy are the reason why any attempts at socialism have failed in the past. We will never even come close to such a system until those who advocate it are willing to lead by example, unlike Bugsy.

Monosodium Glutamate (MsG)

What I can't see anyone suggesting here is that we and most of the rest of the developed world live in a system that is already socialist. We started the path in 1597 with the first 'Act for the Relief of the Poor' and largely finished in the late 1940s, all be it with periodic enhancement (minimum wage, etc.) since. The two most important elements relating to the means of production - healthcare and education - are all either state owned or regulated and are broadly accessible to all. No one starves. No one dies of easily curable diseases. Those few that are homeless tend to have have underlying personal issues. No one is paid 5p an hour for lugging coal out of the ground. There is always room for further improvement, but all the basics are there, and have been for some time.

The problem modern socialists in the UK and much of the world have is simple: they won. All that is left to debate is the tedium of issues such as pushing tax up or down one or two percent or whether or not the trains should be state owned.

I found this quite an interesting read.


More in the link.

To refer once more to the original theme of the thread: one of the main problems faced not only by modern Socialists but also by those living in a Capitalistic society is that nothing will change in a positive fashion until we begin asking serious questions about the nature of society, instead of merely accepting things as they are just because we’re told to and because we’re accustomed to things as they are. That was the intention of my statement: “Why should we be ruled by anybody?”.

Because both you and CarpeDiem accept Capitalism as the “best” system, you never bother to ask why banks and multinational companies are allowed to dictate national and international gobment policies, to the detriment of the respective populations. You never bother to ask why employers are allowed to dictate what we wear to work, why some numpty of a council worker can barge into your gaff on a whim. You genuinely appear to be insensitive as to where all this is leading. It’s folks like you who really are the main problem in any society.

Of course, you’re correct when you say that Socialism won’t work without control, but in the Capitalism we have now, control has got out of hand, with any prat insisting that they’ve the right to tell everybody what to do, just because they can. That’s happened because folks have been systematically deprived of their responsibility in society. You’re not allowed to take charge of your own life because far too many people have a vested interest in maintaining their own superior status by inventing and introducing ever more intrusive rules into our lives. That’s not what society should be about. But you prefer not to question it.

I’m sorry that you feel a bit left out in the moral stakes, but you’ve stated nothing to date that indicates that you’re anything but a self-centred, corrupt, unethical and immoral person, yet you question my moral stance. Your sweeping and self-serving statements about me are inaccurate, but you present them as if you’re my twin brother. It’s small wonder that Capitalism is in such a crisis with small-minded “champions” like you and your ilk representing it. Wise up, fella.

MsG

What on God's sunny green Earth has that got to do with capitalism? That's STATE COERCION, something absolutely characteristic of authoritation, normally SOCIALIST societies.

Predicted response:
"don't reconise socialist countries as such; in my system; blah blah blah"... Yaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn...

The problem with modern socialists, bugsy, is people like you. Wake up and smell the ersatz coffee (unless you're a party functionary).

MkG.

The Telegraph see what it wants to see. The headline findings from the report itself are


Only the two parts I've highlighted support the Telegraph article. The first section refering to having a low opinion of the poor, and the second regarding the social consequences of inequality. The latter is next to impossible to argue against as the evidence that inequality erodes social cohesion is massive. This feeds back into the first point, as social cohesion will determine the degree of bonding within a society and this will be reflected in peoples attitudes to other groups.

Inequality breeds contempt for the idea of the need for greater equality due to the separation of the groups (remember most people in this survey concidered themselves 'middle income', and were being asked about 'the poor') involved in the equality debate. As a result, inequality grows further, social cohesion further erodes and the distance between the two groups expands further, and so on. On the other hand, the greater the level of equality, the higher the level of social cohesion, and as a result it is less likely that one group will think of the other as undeserving. Inequality therefore decreases as anti-inequality policies will be supported, and so on.

This fact is manifested in the research as it is also show that when exposed to people with identifiable problems, attitudes soften massivly. In a society with high levels of social cohesion, people are less likely to need to have cases explained to them because the poor are less likely to be seen as aliens to be avoided, as people meet and interact with them every day, and so know the problems they face (here in the UK we shove them on to council estates and make funny TV shows about them). In a society with low social cohesion people are less likely to provide sympathy, but when exposed to type of evidence people in a high cohesion society have, this attitude is likely to change.

Absolutely correct, Stoatman. There are, and never have been, any Socialist societies. But just taking a quote out of context does relieve you of any response to the query embedded in the statement of which it was an integral part. Which still leaves us with the same problem, which is: “Why aren’t more folks seriously questioning a system that’s been fücking us over practically since its inception?”

We’ve been subjected to Capitalism now for many decades. In all that time, we’ve stumbled from one crisis to another, with each crisis getting progressively worse. All that Capitalism offers is more of the same but there's a realisation that at some stage there’s going to be a tremendous backlash. That's why they're systematically removing citizens’ rights with the willing approval and eager help of their respective gobments. But, then again, because it's happening under Capitalism, it's not state coercion, is it?

Would you like to expand on that, Stoatman? I believe it’s you who should do the waking up.

MsG

PS. If your “MkG” is supposed to represent “Mit kapitalistischem Gruß”, be aware that it actually is an official military abbreviation and means: “Mit kameradschaftlichem Gruß”.

Dear God in Heaven, this has gotten dreary and dull.......

It's like reading the online blog of a conspiracy theorist.

"All that Capitalism offers is more of the same but there's a realisation that at some stage there’s going to be a tremendous backlash. That's why they're systematically removing citizens’ rights with the willing approval and eager help of their respective gobments."

Really? It's the same level of dribbling crap that I'd exepct from a 7/11 the CIA flew those planes into the Twin Towers and there was nobody on them and the Moon Landing took place in the back lot at Fox Studios and the Titantice was sunk to prevent everybody noticing how brill the Brits were and Hitler was smuggled away by the Red Army to rule the USSR when Stalin died.

This is what I love about your arguments. You never answer the question or the point, preferring to go for the easier target.

As it happens I do extensive work for charity and will spend my life in the service of others, but I choose to make my points by referring to myself rather than other people as it avoids your spurious 'some people are altruistic already' which met my early attempts at reasoned argument. Fortunately, I favour a system which can cope with people like those I purported to be. However, you propose a system which requires people to be perfect without displaying any of these characteristics yourself.

What was false in the statement? You earn more than average wage. You do not give all of the disparity to charity. Having served in the forces for a while you have showed little of the altruism that you seek to find in others, preferring your cushy life to going to help in the third world. Please, tell me what is false here? You are nothing but a pathetic hypocrite who looks to a supposed 'evil system' to explain his own failings and to provide an idealistic outlet to his burning envy of those with a better life than himself.

FtI (Pretentious crap intended to make me look intelligent, in this case in Latin rather than German. I can, however, switch language if you wish.)

err, what? No, really, what? Representative of the state coming into your house without a warrant is not state coercion, because we have a (broadly) free market economy? I guess that makes sense on planet Bugsy...


and by the same token there neither are Nor ever have never been any capitalist societies. Perhaps the closest was the Netherlands during the Gouden Eeuw.

By the same argument that you use to say that anything which does not fit your exceedingly narrow version of "socialism" is, in fact, not socialism, surely it can also be argued that any state intervention in the economy at all (including the most mild of regulations) does in fact render it "not capitalist".

This is, of course, an entirely fatuous argument... just like yours.