Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

Sorry Bugsy.

Have to disagree old spud, there hasn't been a lot of socialism floating around Europe in the last 2000 years to speak of apart from the late 20th Century.

Might even say modern socialism /communism developed in concert with the industrial revoulution. You didn't need a trade union till there was a mass of workers in one place to be unionised. Trotskyites actively encouraged rural folk to work in the factories...so they could indoctrinate/educate more people. Or so the members of the CP told me and I guessed they would know.

The back gardens and allotments of Poland fed a good deal of all the soviet state with it's black market produce, that is capitalism in action, making a few extra quid for you and your kids by getting off your arse and doing the do.

But it is nice to have a big squishy socialist conceived national health service. Yin and Yang.

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Good quick summation of the two systems,...but philosophically the question is:

Why is the lust for material things (the heart of capitalism) so strong in some people (limited resources, unlimited greed)?

Once one has basic decent shelter, food etc. having 'more' does not make much sense.

Originally Posted by KevinB

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Good quick summation of the two systems,...but philosophically the question is:

Why is the lust for material things (the heart of capitalism) so strong in some people (limited resources, unlimited greed)?

Once one has basic decent shelter, food etc. having 'more' does not make much sense.

We are finite creature's and well aware that our time is short and so want to make the most of it.

This arguement is actually rooted in philosophy.

The future of capitalism can be guaranteed by human nature.

Socialism is merely an ideology.

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

You didn't need a trade union till there was a mass of workers in one place to be unionised.

I’d tend to the view that you didn’t have a trade union until there was a mass of workers in one place to be unionised, rather than didn't need one. What I’ve read of the social changes following the great plagues leads me to believe that ordinary people needed some way to exert power in defence of their interests, it just wasn’t there until mass casualties gave them a lot more power to move from Lord to Lord for better wages or more land.

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

Trotskyites actively encouraged rural folk to work in the factories...so they could indoctrinate/educate more people. Or so the members of the CP told me and I guessed they would know.

You’d believe members of the CP? :D Industrialisation has a whole lot of drivers, not least the creation of a pool of labour to shift from agriculture to industry. One of the stranger notions in economics is that it can be somehow ‘wrong’ in economic terms for more people to survive off a plot of land than are strictly necessary to farm it – memory tells me it falls under the heading of ‘overemployment’, but then memory also tells me I was a steely-eyed killer and sex-god, so make of that what you will.

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Don't you agree?

Wholeheartedly. The problems we’ve had, in this country at least, stem from the fact that we’ve never been able to find a happy medium but have swung from one extreme to the next. A culture of individualism has its downside.

Originally Posted by KevinB

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Good quick summation of the two systems,...but philosophically the question is:

Why is the lust for material things (the heart of capitalism) so strong in some people (limited resources, unlimited greed)?

Once one has basic decent shelter, food etc. having 'more' does not make much sense.

But it is basic human instinct. You may have basic shelter/food ect, but then you want a bigger semi or detached shelter, you want to shop at waitrose or marks instead of aldi and lido. Materialistic improvement has always been an aspiration of human nature.

Originally Posted by KevinB

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Good quick summation of the two systems,...but philosophically the question is:

Why is the lust for material things (the heart of capitalism) so strong in some people (limited resources, unlimited greed)?

Once one has basic decent shelter, food etc. having 'more' does not make much sense.

Which is why you will always be at the bottom of the food chain and remain a loser.

Originally Posted by Ord_Sgt

Originally Posted by KevinB

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Good quick summation of the two systems,...but philosophically the question is:

Why is the lust for material things (the heart of capitalism) so strong in some people (limited resources, unlimited greed)?

Once one has basic decent shelter, food etc. having 'more' does not make much sense.

Which is why you will always be at the bottom of the food chain and remain a loser.

:D

The answer is well described by Abraham Maslow back in the 60's with his pyramid of needs concept.

The fundamental problem of socialism is that is starts with the wrong premise. It's a political and economic ideology which argues for providing everyone with an equitable share of wealth (through the proletariat's seizure of the means of production etc etc).

The point of capitalism is that a free market economy empowers people to create wealth. To do this they have to take risks. Now we can, and should (in the current circumstances) argue about what represents an acceptable level of risk taking. That said, risk taking isn't just done by bankers and stock brokers; it's also done by anyone who takes a loan to buy a house, or to set up a business.

The problem facing modern socialists is the same one facing socialists in any other period: it's balls. Nationalisation, the sharing of wealth, centralised planning and allocation of resources prevents wealth creation, or slows it drastically. The Soviet Union fell for a number of reasons, but they key one was that it could not sustain itself economically. It's people could not use what resources they had to create wealth which would then percolate through society.

Contrast that with the UK since 1979. Yes we're no in a recession arguably precipitated by an under-regulated capitalist system. But remember the ride we took? Think how things changed in 20 years, and how much better off we all were because of wealth creation which we all benefitted from.

Socialists might like to think their time has come. And we'd be idiots to help them in that fantasy.

trouble is the bold risk taking of capitalism went way way to far and fecked everything up.
leaving the market to sort itself out is the exact oppasite of soviet style planning and as effective. without state intervention we might all be in a much much worse state.
controlled capitalism is probably the best we can do for the moment bankers won't like having to pay more taxes and having there "clever" ideas veoted
but tough should'nt have been caught skinny dipping as buffet said :(

unfettered capitalism is no better for the majority of people than socialism
nice in theory
but we need banks

'Problems' with British Socialists:

Brown, Harman, Hain, Hewitt, Hodge, Miliband(s), Balls, Cooper, Bliar, Mrs Bliar, Prescott, Smith J, Woodward, Woolas, 'Mr' West, Malloch-Brown and everyone's chum Mandelson.

Coupled with out-dated dogma and a lack of serious intellect anywhere within the system, these are but a small example of their 'problems'.

Add in horrendously flawed policies and criminally poor judgement and the 'problems' start to speak for themselves.

So...all you clever Capitalist supporters/fans should be able to explain: where has all the money gone?

Originally Posted by telecaster

So...all you clever Capitalist supporters/fans should be able to explain: where has all the money gone?

Nowhere, loads of it is still in my bank account.

Originally Posted by telecaster

So...all you clever Capitalist supporters/fans should be able to explain: where has all the money gone?

I have spent a lot of it personnally - saw it as a civic duty to support the economy.....plenty more left but not enough time for toy research at the moment.

Blair is not a socialist no way no how
scapped clause 4
PFI etc etc.
is a kunt not a socalist whole of nulabor are not that was the whole point of nulabour