Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

Bugsy

Missing a few points. You ignore the regulation of bread and beer and whittle on some random dribble across a "Horrible History" level grasp of about 500 years of History.

The "Gentry" didn't involve themselves in regulating working hours, that's the task of the various Guilds of Artisans. National laws on bread and wheat grew out of urban, local, bye laws controlling said products, set up by the merchants who ran the towns. Nothing to do with the Gentry. who controlled land, not towns.

Then you dribble on about some "indigenous people" crap......WTF? Which indigenous people? The British displaced by the Romans? The Romo-British displaced by the Saxons? The Saxons displaced by the Norse? The Anglo-saxons displaced by Normans? Land had been owned by someone in England since the growth of the British tribes before the birth of Christ. The British tribes fought each other over land control before the Romans turned up for the first summer visit. Stop dreaming up some fake history of a "Golden era" of "Socialist communes"


Yes, Life was harsh. Get Over it. But learn some real History. The Crown was very careful to balance power, Strong Kings kept everybody slightly unhappy, letting one section of medevial society grow too unhappy was dangerous, how many revolts did England suffer in 500 years as opposed to Germany?

Please do me the courtesy of actually thinking before trotting out a chunk of bad marxist history theory. And do wonder what I actually think about the current system, not assume that I support the current regime. I may only be pissing on your chips because your grasp of history is frankly pisspoor...

Originally Posted by CarpeDiem

Actually, your post demonstrates how idiotic you are truly being, Bugsy. You have yourself admitted that 'human nature' requires a hierachy. THAT is the secret of the human genome. We need people above and below us, leaders and followers, and we need the opportunity to progress ourselves throughout our lives. This has been the case from the very earliest forms of 'society' or 'community' when we were apes eating bananas in Eden.

As for your comments about squaddies, they suggest to me that it is actually YOU who has never served, whatever you've said in other posts, for i have never met a member of any armed force who didn't recognise the need for, and importance of, a rank structure.

And your final sentance proves why. It shows that it is only the views of the people charged with protecting your socialist utopia that actually matter. If Jew_Unit and I (and every sensible, logical and sane person) disagree with what the guardians of the 'socialist' system says we must do, we are 'got rid of in short order.'

You have thus created a hierachy of value and importance that destroys any pretence to 'socialism'.

Congratulations, you've just disproved yourself.

You haven’t actually understood a fückin’ thing, have you CarpsDumm! You maintain that we need "people above and below us, leaders and followers, and we need the opportunity to progress ourselves throughout our lives, but you then veer off and adopt a generic course. So if this is so “generic� to you, it should be obvious, so explain the connections, if you please.

What’s the matter, mucker? Are you afraid I might throw up a squall that might reveal that you've never served after all? I can actually prove my service, buddy. Can you prove yours? So fück you with your primitive attempt to prove me "persona non grata“ squaddie-wise.

By the way, I love this: And your final sentance proves why. It shows that it is only the views of the people charged with protecting your socialist utopia that actually matter. If Jew_Unit and I (and every sensible, logical and sane person) disagree with what the guardians of the 'socialist' system says we must do, we are 'got rid of in short order.'

Great shot, mucker! Where did I ever say that unless it was necessary? Could it be that you just assumed it to be so from your oh-so-beloved Capitalist system?

You're really not doing a very good job here, fella. If you want to convince me that Capitalism is, in the long run, better than Socialism, you’ll have to be a lot more sophisticated than to date.

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You haven’t actually understood a fückin’ thing, have you CarpsDumm! You maintain that we need "people above and below us, leaders and followers, and we need the opportunity to progress ourselves throughout our lives, but you then veer off and adopt a generic course. So if this is so “generic� to you, it should be obvious, so explain the connections, if you please.

You said it yourself, fcuknuts.

Originally Posted by Bugsy on Page 21

That’s why it’s necessary for us humans to interact with other folks and find our own levels among our fellow beings, devoid of such divisive categories as class, height, wealth, thinness, education, profession etc.

If it is neccesary for us to 'find our levels', we are automatically creating a hierachy, whichever strata it is based upon. There has NEVER been a time when this was not the case as human society has always been hierachical in nature. Therefore a generic IS acceptable as there is nothing to counterbalance the example.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

What’s the matter, mucker? Are you afraid I might throw up a squall that might reveal that you've never served after all? I can actually prove my service, buddy. Can you prove yours? So fück you with your primitive attempt to prove me "persona non grata“ squaddie-wise.

Afraid? Not in the slightest, mucker. I have less than nothing to fear from anyone, least of all a twunt like you, and nothing to prove on that score. There are plenty of people on this site who have seen me in a service environment. I do find it extremely interesting, however, that the cnut who is so happy to question other people's service gets so scared when someone questions his. Get a dishonourable discharge, did you?

Originally Posted by Bugsy

By the way, I love this: And your final sentance proves why. It shows that it is only the views of the people charged with protecting your socialist utopia that actually matter. If Jew_Unit and I (and every sensible, logical and sane person) disagree with what the guardians of the 'socialist' system says we must do, we are 'got rid of in short order.'

Great shot, mucker! Where did I ever say that unless it was necessary? Could it be that you just assumed it to be so from your oh-so-beloved Capitalist system?

Ohhhhhhhhh so those who disagree will only be got rid of if 'it was neccesary'?! An especially entertaining response considering that it was you who said that

Originally Posted by Bugsy on Page 22

true Socialism would have no chance at all of existing without true democracy. I mean true democracy and not this lip-service we’ve heard from Capitalists to date.

So, we have a Socialist 'true' democracy where those who disagree are 'got rid of if necessary' as decided by... who?!

Doesn't sound particularly fcuking democratic to me, you nonce.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You're really not doing a very good job here, fella. If you want to convince me that Capitalism is, in the long run, better than Socialism, you’ll have to be a lot more sophisticated than to date.

The fact is that i don't need to convince you of the superiority of capitalism. As has been pointed out time and again, history has done that for me. Capitalism survives, socialism doesn't.

Socialism is the art of winning a popularity contest with other people's money. That's it.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Still no answer to my question. How do you deal with those who refuse to act in accordance with the rest of society? I now count this as the ninth time you have been asked this question.

Fti

It’s not the ninth time, Jew_unit, don’t try to create a false impression here. I provided an answer to your question some time ago in the thread, but you conveniently avoided any sensible response. So, OK, I’ll give you another answer wrapped in a reciprocal question with regard to the Capitalist system: "How do you deal with those who refuse to act in accordance with the rest of society?�, since this question is applicable to both systems.

Why should crimes regarded as such in the Capitalist system be anything but in a Socialist system?

But what you’re really aiming at is that you (it seems personally) would be hell-bent on being a “big fish� in the Socialist pool – which shows just how little you’ve learned about this so-called “human nature� you profess to be in touch and so au fait with. With regard to this, you want to proclaim that you’d never change and that you’d always be on the lookout to thoroughly fück over your community members, just as long as you could play (near to) top dog. I’m not sure if you realise, but what does that say about your basic character, fella?

I regard your posts as wanting to play Devil’s Advocate in the discussion, for I can’t seriously imagine a serving or ex-squaddie ever coming up with such a scenario. Although I don't actually know whether you've ever served or are serving.

However, to press on; if it became clear that you were in no way interested in supporting community life, but were only interested in proving that you were infinitely superior to everybody else in the community and that therefore the rules and regulations of the community didn’t apply to you and you could interpret them as you wished, you would be gotten rid of in short order. Just as in a Capitalist community, folks who aren’t prepared to follow the basic tenets of human behaviour with regard to others are removed from the community.

MsG

I haven't served, and I would act to protect those who I value/like and who look to me for help or support. However, everyone else can go f*ck themselves in a socailist system. People will be looking to screw me over for their own gain so I will look to do it to them first. Thats human nature I'm afraid. It's evolutionary biology at its most basic and all the signs are that we have failed to transgress this deep instinct.

Your answer to my oft-posed question was unsatisfactory, as I said at the time. How would you identify such behaviour? Given that identifying fraud is extremely difficult in our current system, how would you propose to identify something even harder to spot (such as a worker being lazy or someone illicitly trading his rations/money for his own gain)?

Sadly, I am superior to many in the community in intellectual terms. As are you, if your mad desire to display academic credentials is anything to go by. Others are far superior to me in terms of the skills they bring to the table, yet you seem to believe that eveyone is equal. How would you correctly apportion jobs such that everyone is happy and productive to the maximum possible extent?

My final question: why are you a translator (I think I have that right)? Society needs aid workers in Africa far more, so why aren't you doing that? You say that socialism will change by the slow alteration of peoples attitudes but you seem to be displaying little of this attutde yourself. Also, the average household income in the UK is £30,000 and is approximately 22,000 euros in Germany. I'm not sure which country you live in, but I hope that any money you earn over this amount is donated to charity as doing otherwise would be hypocracy of the highest order. could you possibly clarify this for me as I would lvoe to know if you are as hypocritical as literally EVERY socailist I've met (Cambridge is full of champagne socailist pricks).

£20 to HfH says I don't get a satisfactory answer to all of the points in my post.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You haven’t actually understood a fückin’ thing, have you CarpsDumm!

I considered this a little harsh on reflection and I was tempted to apologise for it, until you posted your response to this:

Originally Posted by CarpeDiem

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You're really not doing a very good job here, fella. If you want to convince me that Capitalism is, in the long run, better than Socialism, you’ll have to be a lot more sophisticated than to date.

The fact is that i don't need to convince you of the superiority of capitalism. As has been pointed out time and again, history has done that for me. Capitalism survives, socialism doesn't.

It really is true that we're discussing on a very uneven basis here. You, for whatever reason, still seem to believe that what was/is passed off as Socialism/Communism in the world actually deserves the epithet. How many times do I have to say it before you comprehend? There's never been a Socialist/Communist country ever!

If you insist on maintaining that illusion, then I see no point in any further discussion with you. If, however, you’re willing to agree with me that what was once described as Socialism/Communism was never any such thing, then we can continue. In that case, it would be helpful if you could gen yourself up on what Socialism actually is in the context of human interaction on every level so that we don’t get into useless arguments about two sides of a coin that never really existed.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

I haven't served, and I would act to protect those who I value/like and who look to me for help or support. However, everyone else can go f*ck themselves in a socailist system. People will be looking to screw me over for their own gain so I will look to do it to them first. Thats human nature I'm afraid. It's evolutionary biology at its most basic and all the signs are that we have failed to transgress this deep instinct.

Now this is an interesting one. You admit that you’d act to protect those you value/like and who look to you for help and support. I assume that this means your immediate circle of family, friends and acquaintances. But why exhibit such behaviour in the first place? Surely in this Capitalist dog-eat-dog society on which you appear to place so much value, even these folks can be coldly quantified in the context of their usefulness to you. So why this attitude?

I mean I can fully understand it, but I’d like you to ponder on it and at the same time attempt to imagine that this mindset, which you admit is present in your thinking, could possibly be extended to a wider circle of folks in the community, if you could be sure that reciprocality would occur in that case. This brings me to your next interesting point:

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Your answer to my oft-posed question was unsatisfactory, as I said at the time. How would you identify such behaviour? Given that identifying fraud is extremely difficult in our current system, how would you propose to identify something even harder to spot (such as a worker being lazy or someone illicitly trading his rations/money for his own gain)?

The mechanisms for identifying such behaviour are the same under Socialism as under Capitalism. Thus no great change is necessary. But here again you appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your Capitalist mindset would remain completely uninfluenced in a Socialist system. Is there not a chance, do you think, that your basic attitude would also undergo a change, once you realised that not everybody is out to fück you over, but rather intent on obtaining the maximum for the common good of the community of which you’re a member? Regardless of the size of such a community?

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Sadly, I am superior to many in the community in intellectual terms. As are you, if your mad desire to display academic credentials is anything to go by. Others are far superior to me in terms of the skills they bring to the table, yet you seem to believe that eveyone is equal. How would you correctly apportion jobs such that everyone is happy and productive to the maximum possible extent?

I realise that I’m more intelligent than a lot of folks in the community, although I fail to see where you get this “mad desire to display academic credentials from�. Unless you happen to be projecting your own unspoken intellectual aspirations onto me. At the same time I know that others are more intelligent and possess greater and more useful skills, however, that has nothing at all to do with "equality" as I understand it. Every person in a society has something to contribute. Some, like you or me, for instance, can contribute more than others less well-equipped intellectually or with regard to skills, while others can contribute more. Regardless of what we contribute individually, we all need to eat and drink (roughly) the same amount, we all require adequate clothing and accommodation. That’s the basis of the equality I mean.

In a Socialist society, we wouldn’t all be lashed in front of ploughs or be handed a spade to till the land. This is a common misunderstanding when folks talk about Socialism. Life would continue much as we know it, but with a more equitable division of the wealth created by our common efforts within our respective societies. Crucially, our "status" (for want of a better word) would be based on genuine and lasting respect and admiration from our fellow members of society, and not on transient and superficial things such as the amount of money we can display, or on how much we can "impress" others with the prices we're prepared to pay for our clothes. These elements would still be present, of course, but they'd have much less impact on others than the contribution we make to our relevant societies.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

My final question: why are you a translator (I think I have that right)? Society needs aid workers in Africa far more, so why aren't you doing that? You say that socialism will change by the slow alteration of peoples attitudes but you seem to be displaying little of this attutde yourself. Also, the average household income in the UK is £30,000 and is approximately 22,000 euros in Germany. I'm not sure which country you live in, but I hope that any money you earn over this amount is donated to charity as doing otherwise would be hypocracy of the highest order. could you possibly clarify this for me as I would lvoe to know if you are as hypocritical as literally EVERY socailist I've met (Cambridge is full of champagne socailist pricks).

I’m a translator because I find it an ideal way to earn the money I require for life's necessities without taking away from anybody else. I have actually thought about being a volunteer in other countries, Africa for instance, but that's not the course my life took. I carry out volunteer work on three days per week at the local Credit Union and I work one night-shift per weekend at the local hospital (since I’m ex-RAMC). I donate a lot of money to various charities, since I have the financial means. Perhaps a PM to MDN with regard to our own Holiday4Heroes charity would clarify things for you on that count.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

£20 to HfH says I don't get a satisfactory answer to all of the points in my post.

This is a difficult one, for you’re the person who has the final say in whether I've provided “satisfactory� answers.

MsG

Bugsy

"It really is true that we're discussing on a very uneven basis here. You, for whatever reason, still seem to believe that what was/is passed off as Socialism/Communism in the world actually deserves the epithet. How many times do I have to say it before you comprehend? There's never been a Socialist/Communist country ever! "


So what you're saying is that a Socialist Country is nothing more than a ideological dream, an intellectual experiment waiting to be properly tested. That all the attempts to implement the experiment failed at the very first hurdle. You could argue that all attempts in the 20th Century to create a socialist state failed the instant humans got involved.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

So what you're saying is that a Socialist Country is nothing more than a ideological dream, an intellectual experiment waiting to be properly tested. That all the attempts to implement the experiment failed at the very first hurdle. You could argue that all attempts in the 20th Century to create a socialist state failed the instant humans got involved.

But it never can be properly tested, because it can only work in a theoretical construct which discounts the influence of human nature.

Originally Posted by Fifth_Columnist

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

So what you're saying is that a Socialist Country is nothing more than a ideological dream, an intellectual experiment waiting to be properly tested. That all the attempts to implement the experiment failed at the very first hurdle. You could argue that all attempts in the 20th Century to create a socialist state failed the instant humans got involved.

But it never can be properly tested, because it can only work in a theoretical construct which discounts the influence of human nature.

Would impact be a better word..?

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

Originally Posted by Fifth_Columnist

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

So what you're saying is that a Socialist Country is nothing more than a ideological dream, an intellectual experiment waiting to be properly tested. That all the attempts to implement the experiment failed at the very first hurdle. You could argue that all attempts in the 20th Century to create a socialist state failed the instant humans got involved.

But it never can be properly tested, because it can only work in a theoretical construct which discounts the influence of human nature.

Would impact be a better word..?

Perhaps deleting "the influence of" would be even better.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

The mechanisms for identifying such behaviour are the same under Socialism as under Capitalism. Thus no great change is necessary. But here again you appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your Capitalist mindset would remain completely uninfluenced in a Socialist system. Is there not a chance, do you think, that your basic attitude would also undergo a change, once you realised that not everybody is out to fück you over, but rather intent on obtaining the maximum for the common good of the community of which you’re a member? Regardless of the size of such a community?

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.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

In a Socialist society, we wouldn’t all be lashed in front of ploughs or be handed a spade to till the land. This is a common misunderstanding when folks talk about Socialism. Life would continue much as we know it, but with a more equitable division of the wealth created by our common efforts within our respective societies.

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?

Originally Posted by Bugsy

I’m a translator because I find it an ideal way to earn the money I require for life's necessities without taking away from anybody else. I have actually thought about being a volunteer in other countries, Africa for instance, but that's not the course my life took. I carry out volunteer work on three days per week at the local Credit Union and I work one night-shift per weekend at the local hospital (since I’m ex-RAMC). I donate a lot of money to various charities, since I have the financial means. Perhaps a PM to MDN with regard to our own Holiday4Heroes charity would clarify things for you on that count.

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.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by Bugsy

The mechanisms for identifying such behaviour are the same under Socialism as under Capitalism. Thus no great change is necessary. But here again you appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your Capitalist mindset would remain completely uninfluenced in a Socialist system. Is there not a chance, do you think, that your basic attitude would also undergo a change, once you realised that not everybody is out to fück you over, but rather intent on obtaining the maximum for the common good of the community of which you’re a member? Regardless of the size of such a community?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by Bugsy

In a Socialist society, we wouldn’t all be lashed in front of ploughs or be handed a spade to till the land. This is a common misunderstanding when folks talk about Socialism. Life would continue much as we know it, but with a more equitable division of the wealth created by our common efforts within our respective societies.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

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?

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.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

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.

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....

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe" ][quote="Bugsy

"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?[/quote]
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.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

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 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.