Originally Posted by ctauch

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by ctauch

Because we are more aware that we are individuals then the primative "forefathers" were.

How does such awareness make a negative of positive contribution to society?

Originally Posted by ctauch

See it is the individual that makes for greatness.

If you'd be so kind as to define this "greatness", it would much add to argument.

Originally Posted by ctauch

Collectivism (socialism) stiffles innovation, because as an individual you gain nothing by being more productive.

So what is precisely this “gain” you enthuse about.

Originally Posted by ctauch

Individualism is freedom, socialism in it's purest sense is servitude.

You seem to have neglected the fact that you can only be "free" in relation to other human beings. So what exactly do you mean by your "freedom"? Please define it.

MsG

I can't believe that you are really as thick as you are making yourself out to be.

What great invention has been brought forward by socialism?

A monkey is not aware of it's individuality, as such they have not evolved passed poking sticks in termite mounds in all these thousand of years. One could argue successfully that monkeys live a life of socialism, and successfully....

You're a Septic and an out and out Republican to boot, so you're forgiven a lot on ARRSE. You're here for the humour you can provide.

As such, and in view of the Septic party you seem to admire so greatly, your views on the subject of Socialism are deemed as such. Sorry about that, knobnuts, try again on mil.com. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to accommodate you.

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You're a Septic and an out and out Republican to boot, so you're forgiven a lot on ARRSE.

I am a Conservative not a Rebuplican, there is a difference.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You're here for the humour you can provide.
As such, and in view of the Septic party you seem to admire so greatly, your views on the subject of Socialism are deemed as such. Sorry about that, knobnuts, try again on mil.com. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to accommodate you.

MsG

So that is a no on the great inventions brought forth under socialism then.

Typical socialist tactic, unable to win the debate of ideas and start slinging insults. You will note that my thick comment was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but your above post removes all remaining doubt I had.

Keep tilting at those windmills.....

The problem with all economic systems is that they run up against human weaknesses. The banking CEO on a thousand dollars an hour at the golf course while Wall Street is collapsing: the guy who'd rather live on the dole than empty rubbish bins.

Personally, I'm on the side of the dole bludger. At least he or she is still in touch with reality. Which is more than you can say for the people who think capitalism is going to be allowed out of the lunatic asylum again anytime soon.

What has socialism ever invented?

The world's first stored program computer, the first computer as we know them, was the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM) developed at Manchester University in 1948. It became the prototype for the Ferranti Mark 1, the world's first commercially available general-purpose computer.

At the time Britain was being run by the most socialist government it's ever had, the Attlee government. You know, the man who kicked Churchill out of Downing Street, carried out the nationalisation of a whole swag of major industries and founded the NHS.

Is that enough to be getting on with?

And, of course, any cross Atlantic discussion of socialism has to acknowledge that the American working class has always had the political sensibility of a pile of rocks.

Originally Posted by ctauch

So that is a no on the great inventions brought forth under socialism then...

Slightly odd question, as social policies emerged to temper the abuse of power by the capitalistos... so if it invented anything it was the idea of the of 'balanced or mixed economies' and led to social democracies. Few believe in socialism per se.

The systemic failures in the current problems aren't the 'reds under the bed' but the structure of wall street bonuses; predicated on free market capitalism where 'the few' chased vast wealth, as they are quite free to in a pure liberal democracy.

But where the few got stinking the capital didn't flow back in as inputs. If $10m is paid to three people they tend to hoard and these funds don't circulate back through the economy; give $10m in pay to 100 people they're more likely to spend it and it heats the economy. Call that socialism but really it's balanced economics.

Also, if economic growth rewards a spread of wage earners effectively then the economy heats. At the bottom end if the poor get too poor they don't create the demand in the system and the economy cools. Demand is created from this swathe of the great unwashed. The way to prevent the poor getting stuck and falling out of the economic cycle is to educate, provide health support, appropriate tax structures etc. Again you might label this socialism but the numbers tend to work.

Originally Posted by littlejim

What has socialism ever invented?

The world's first stored program computer, the first computer as we know them, was the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM) developed at Manchester University in 1948. It became the prototype for the Ferranti Mark 1, the world's first commercially available general-purpose computer.

At the time Britain was being run by the most socialist government it's ever had, the Attlee government.

Is that enough to be getting on with?

And that's where the conundrum begins. Pump lots of money into inventing something and then not have the economic or retail ability to be able to do anything with it. But someone else in capatalist society can.

At the time Britain was being run by the most socialist government it's ever had, the Attlee government. You know, the man who kicked Churchill out of Downing Street, carried out the nationalisation of a whole swag of major industries and founded the NHS.

Yup, and like Brown he bankrupted the country too through lack of planning. We had to go cap in hand to the Americans more than once after that!
Whils the rest of Europe spent it's Marshall plan money on rebuilding themselves and their industrial base we spent it on glasses and fillings.
The Attlee govt planed for the NHS to take up on pre-war health care spendign levels and budgeted accordingly. What they failed to take into account was that no one could afford heath care before the war and so no one botehred! Now the general populance could get free dental, glasses and GP care they swamped the system. Now why did Churchill get voted back in again?

Originally Posted by Speedy

At the time Britain was being run by the most socialist government it's ever had, the Attlee government. You know, the man who kicked Churchill out of Downing Street, carried out the nationalisation of a whole swag of major industries and founded the NHS.

Yup, and like Brown he bankrupted the country too through lack of planning. We had to go cap in hand to the Americans more than once after that!
Whils the rest of Europe spent it's Marshall plan money on rebuilding themselves and their industrial base we spent it on glasses and fillings.
The Attlee govt planed for the NHS to take up on pre-war health care spendign levels and budgeted accordingly. What they failed to take into account was that no one could afford heath care before the war and so no one botehred! Now the general populance could get free dental, glasses and GP care they swamped the system. Now why did Churchill get voted back in again?

Not quite. Britain was bankrupt two years into WWII. Keynes killed himself begging the US for dollars post-war. We were still the market leader across the world with order books booming.
The US placed crippling loan conditions on the UK, akin to a kick in the nuts to a dying man. Primarily the UK split its industrial production capacity in half in order to re-arm and be the lead nation for the newly formed NATO, at the demand of the US. Ship orders dragged on with the government apologising for the delays whilst our factories built tanks we didn’t need.300,000 men stationed overseas, 80,000 in Suez, all for an Empire that had gone. Our customers deserted us for our competitors.
The US put the bullet in the head of the British economy which as we know took 14 years… er, 50 years to recover from.

So what we've had on the newly resurrected thread to date is about all the mistakes made under *cough* Socialist gobments, in addition to comments that "Socialism can never work", but no actual reasons why it can't be made to do so, given that we now have a very good indication of how NOT to do it from the various sad experiments carried out at the beginning of the 20th Century.

One of the elements brought up again and again is this "human nature" and how Socialism is dead set against it. The fact of the matter is that human nature is intrinsic to Socialism, just as it's intrinsic to Capitalism. So what is this "human nature"?

We (humans) are animals of this earth and as such have exactly the same instincts as all the rest of the other species. We may have become dominant, but it doesn't mean that some sort of seismic shift occurred to make us independent of these basic instincts.

Building on the basic instincts that guarantee our survival is this human nature. And it's entirely selfish. Nobody ever does anything without a perceived advantage for her/himself. However, while I can see folks looking at each other saying: "Y'see?", let's examine that from another, but the same, viewpoint.

Let's say that you're an independent taxi-driver and your Ma rings up to say her car won't start and she has to be at the church-hall in 15 minutes for the annual fete. So, of course, you drive over, pick her up and drop her off at her destination. If Ms XXX had rung with the same tale, you'd have charged her the normal rate.

So why not ask your Ma for the same fare for, essentially, the same journey? It's because of the perceived advantage you have by carrying out the same task for your Ma, but without charge. It's because you gain status with your Ma by doing so.

Now magnify that and transpose it onto the whole local community. With that, I don't mean that you'd be doing everything for nothing, but that the charge you make would become secondary to the status you attain when you do it. That's the essence of Socialism.

MsG

I must have a mean status with my kids then......

Originally Posted by littlejim

The problem with all economic systems is that they run up against human weaknesses. The banking CEO on a thousand dollars an hour at the golf course while Wall Street is collapsing: the guy who'd rather live on the dole than empty rubbish bins.

The difference is that the CEO is providing a service for which people are, and pay attention now, willing to pay for. The banking CEO only earns what others are willing to compensate him for.

The guy who would rather live on the dole then empty rubbish bins is getting compensated by the government, which through taxes confiscated money from the “working class” and gave it to him. You see the dirty little secret is the government doesn’t produce anything, they take money from those that earn it by producing something of value and redirect that money to those that have brought them to power or their interests.

Originally Posted by littlejim

Personally, I'm on the side of the dole bludger. At least he or she is still in touch with reality. Which is more than you can say for the people who think capitalism is going to be allowed out of the lunatic asylum again anytime soon.

Well that explains a lot.

Originally Posted by “Adam Smith”

The self-interested pursuit of wealth may not be individually satisfying but leads to an aggregate increase in wealth that is in the best interests of a nation.

Originally Posted by littlejim

What has socialism ever invented?

The world's first stored program computer, the first computer as we know them, was the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM) developed at Manchester University in 1948. It became the prototype for the Ferranti Mark 1, the world's first commercially available general-purpose computer.

At the time Britain was being run by the most socialist government it's ever had, the Attlee government. You know, the man who kicked Churchill out of Downing Street, carried out the nationalisation of a whole swag of major industries and founded the NHS.

Is that enough to be getting on with?

Sounds more like fascism then socialism. The key difference between the two (socialism and fascism) is the respect to private property. But that discussion is going on else where on arrse.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Slightly odd question, as social policies emerged to temper the abuse of power by the capitalistos... so if it invented anything it was the idea of the of 'balanced or mixed economies' and led to social democracies. Few believe in socialism per se.

The systemic failures in the current problems aren't the 'reds under the bed' but the structure of wall street bonuses; predicated on free market capitalism where 'the few' chased vast wealth, as they are quite free to in a pure liberal democracy.

But where the few got stinking the capital didn't flow back in as inputs. If $10m is paid to three people they tend to hoard and these funds don't circulate back through the economy; give $10m in pay to 100 people they're more likely to spend it and it heats the economy. Call that socialism but really it's balanced economics.

Also, if economic growth rewards a spread of wage earners effectively then the economy heats. At the bottom end if the poor get too poor they don't create the demand in the system and the economy cools. Demand is created from this swathe of the great unwashed. The way to prevent the poor getting stuck and falling out of the economic cycle is to educate, provide health support, appropriate tax structures etc. Again you might label this socialism but the numbers tend to work.

Everyone poo poos “trickle down economics”, but those same people believe that if the government takes from (TAXES) the producers and gives to the non-producers (CHAVS AND SLAGS ON THE DOLE) that it some how will “trickle up”.

Fact of the matter is that those individuals that earn are driven to earn in order to gain a bigger market share they employ and innovate, spending capital to gain more and thereby serving the greater good. Bush as stupid as he was actually increased revenue to the treasury by lowering taxes on the top earners, causing them to spread the wealth through consumption and employment.

Originally Posted by “from ‘The Wealth of Nations‘, 1776“

Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intentions. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.