Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

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.

Originally Posted by CS Lewis

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CarpeDiem

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.

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.

We are all egalitarians now, right? Everybody (apart from a few political Neanderthals) regards it as unjust that some people are much poorer than others, and those who are richer than most are resented, right? Poverty is universally seen as a product of an unjust society and all modern political parties must be committed to correcting this, right?

Wrong. None of the above statements is true. An oddly under-publicised study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published last week, which bears the rather dry academic title "Understanding Attitudes to Tackling Economic Inequality" (rather than the more explanatory "The Left Has Completely Failed to Comprehend Public Opinion"), reveals the startling news. Most people, it transpires, do not object to disparities in earnings – even quite large ones. For the most part, they attribute higher earnings to "high-level ability, performance or social contribution". They assume, in other words, that most of those with very high earnings probably deserve them because of their exceptional talent or dedication.

More in the link.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by CarpeDiem

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

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.

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

Originally Posted by Bugsy

...why some numpty of a council worker can barge into your gaff on a whim.

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.

Originally Posted by insert-coin-here

I found this quite an interesting read.

We are all egalitarians now, right? Everybody (apart from a few political Neanderthals) regards it as unjust that some people are much poorer than others, and those who are richer than most are resented, right? Poverty is universally seen as a product of an unjust society and all modern political parties must be committed to correcting this, right?

Wrong. None of the above statements is true. An oddly under-publicised study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published last week, which bears the rather dry academic title "Understanding Attitudes to Tackling Economic Inequality" (rather than the more explanatory "The Left Has Completely Failed to Comprehend Public Opinion"), reveals the startling news. Most people, it transpires, do not object to disparities in earnings – even quite large ones. For the most part, they attribute higher earnings to "high-level ability, performance or social contribution". They assume, in other words, that most of those with very high earnings probably deserve them because of their exceptional talent or dedication.

More in the link.

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

Nearly all the participants in the discussion groups placed themselves in the 'middle' of the income spectrum and interpreted the 'income gap' as the gap between the 'middle' and the 'super-rich'.

Most participants believed that 'deserved' inequalities are fair. They were not opposed to high incomes they perceived to be deserved through high-level ability, performance or social contribution.

Participants often made assumptions about the virtues of those with high incomes in order to justify income inequalities. However, after the start of the financial crisis of autumn 2008, they increasingly questioned whether high salaries were deserved.

Attitudes towards those on low incomes were often more negative than attitudes towards the ‘rich’. Two important factors driving these attitudes were widespread beliefs that there are adequate opportunities to earn a reasonable income and beliefs that benefit recipients will not contribute back to society.

Most participants strongly supported progressive tax and benefit systems. When considering evidence about unequal life chances, they were supportive of targeted interventions to improve life chances for the disadvantaged.

Many participants did not find abstract arguments for greater equality persuasive. They preferred arguments for greater equality framed in terms of fairer rewards for effort and contribution.

Many participants found claims about the possible negative social consequences of income inequality convincing. They showed strong support for a social vision based upon improving quality of life for everyone and were prepared to support certain egalitarian policies in this context.

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.

Originally Posted by stoatman

Originally Posted by Bugsy

...why some numpty of a council worker can barge into your gaff on a whim.

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...

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?

Originally Posted by stoatman

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

MkG.

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.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by jew_unit

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.

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

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.)

Originally Posted by Bugsy

. But, then again, because it's happening under Capitalism, it's not state coercion, is it?

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...

Absolutely correct, Stoatman. There are, and never have been, any Socialist societies

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.