Would the country be better off...

[gordondaviesmoustache]

First of all it is wrong and hopelessly naive to have any aspiration of an equal human society. Certain skills and abilities will always be more valued than others.

Anyone who seriously expects, for example, that the best musicians, actors and sports professionals in a future socialist world wouldn't have access to the best restaurants, holidays and fast cars has a serious deficit in understanding what it is to be human. If you have a talent that others value it is a very empowering gift.

It was the same in the Soviet Union. Instead of the entrepreneurial talent and creative energy that are valued in capitalistic societies, instead effective planning skills and an ablity to engage in double-think ruled the day and those that had those gifts prospered, both in terms of power and, to a much lesser extent, financially.

That power, concentrated by virtue of an engorged state, into the hands of a relatively small number of bureaucrats and apparatchiks was appallingly abused, in no small part by the fear of those who had power and were terrified of losing it. It also led to inertia on an industrial scale. Matters being decided (or rather not) by committee meant a great deal of well intended projects never meaningfully got off the ground.

I view it as a rather dull, dour system of government when creative élan is almost frowned upon at the expense of towing the party line. Iconoclasts that form socialist states eventually become its antithesis as its systems and MO get increasingly calcified.

I believe if you ever saw socialism adopted worldwide the planet wouldn't grind to a shuddering halt but it the incredible advances mankind has witnessesed in the last two centuries, since the rise of capitalism, would significantly diminish in speed and frequency.

I am certain that unfettered capitalism isn't the answer, but I think a socialist world would be much duller and slower than people realise.

 

[ifiwasarichfan]

First of all it is wrong and hopelessly naive to have any aspiration of an equal human society. Certain skills and abilities will always be more valued than others.

Anyone who seriously expects, for example, that the best musicians, actors and sports professionals in a future socialist world wouldn't have access to the best restaurants, holidays and fast cars has a serious deficit in understanding what it is to be human. If you have a talent that others value it is a very empowering gift.

It was the same in the Soviet Union. Instead of the entrepreneurial talent and creative energy that are valued in capitalistic societies, instead effective planning skills and an ablity to engage in double-think ruled the day and those that had those gifts prospered, both in terms of power and, to a much lesser extent, financially.

That power, concentrated by virtue of an engorged state, into the hands of a relatively small number of bureaucrats and apparatchiks was appallingly abused, in no small part by the fear of those who had power and were terrified of losing it. It also led to inertia on an industrial scale. Matters being decided (or rather not) by committee meant a great deal of well intended projects never meaningfully got off the ground.

I view it as a rather dull, dour system of government when creative élan is almost frowned upon at the expense of towing the party line. Iconoclasts that form socialist states eventually become its antithesis as its systems and MO get increasingly calcified.

I believe if you ever saw socialism adopted worldwide the planet wouldn't grind to a shuddering halt but it the incredible advances mankind has witnessesed in the last two centuries, since the rise of capitalism, would significantly diminish in speed and frequency.

I am certain that unfettered capitalism isn't the answer, but I think a socialist world would be much duller and slower than people realise.

That is a description of Communism not the Socialism with the true principles of the original Labour movement brought into a modern setting which were so eloquently described a short while ago by Rascal.

 

[Rascal]

First of all it is wrong and hopelessly naive to have any aspiration of an equal human society. Certain skills and abilities will always be more valued than others.

.

You are much brighter than to fall into the false accusation that Socialism means equality for all.

To me Socialism has always been more about equality of opportunity and if a learned fella like yourself cannot see that distinction then i think we are truly fucked as a society

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

First of all it is wrong and hopelessly naive to have any aspiration of an equal human society. Certain skills and abilities will always be more valued than others.

Anyone who seriously expects, for example, that the best musicians, actors and sports professionals in a future socialist world wouldn't have access to the best restaurants, holidays and fast cars has a serious deficit in understanding what it is to be human. If you have a talent that others value it is a very empowering gift.

It was the same in the Soviet Union. Instead of the entrepreneurial talent and creative energy that are valued in capitalistic societies, instead effective planning skills and an ablity to engage in double-think ruled the day and those that had those gifts prospered, both in terms of power and, to a much lesser extent, financially.

That power, concentrated by virtue of an engorged state, into the hands of a relatively small number of bureaucrats and apparatchiks was appallingly abused, in no small part by the fear of those who had power and were terrified of losing it. It also led to inertia on an industrial scale. Matters being decided (or rather not) by committee meant a great deal of well intended projects never meaningfully got off the ground.

I view it as a rather dull, dour system of government when creative élan is almost frowned upon at the expense of towing the party line. Iconoclasts that form socialist states eventually become its antithesis as its systems and MO get increasingly calcified.

I believe if you ever saw socialism adopted worldwide the planet wouldn't grind to a shuddering halt but it the incredible advances mankind has witnessesed in the last two centuries, since the rise of capitalism, would significantly diminish in speed and frequency.

I am certain that unfettered capitalism isn't the answer, but I think a socialist world would be much duller and slower than people realise.

That is a description of Communism not the Socialism with the true principles of the original Labour movement brought into a modern setting which were so eloquently described a short while ago by Rascal.

I said earlier that by the late 70's socialism started to fail in the modernising world and left us far behind the capitalist nations at the time US and Japan mainly which in turn forced a big majority of the country to the right. Quite literally in this country socialism killed itself

 

[Yaya_Tony]

I believe if you ever saw socialism adopted worldwide the planet wouldn't grind to a shuddering halt but it the incredible advances mankind has witnessesed in the last two centuries, since the rise of capitalism, would significantly diminish in speed and frequency.

It wouldn't have to be like that, at all. Given the world we live in now anyway, there is no reason why a decent socialist government today wouldn't actively encourage scientific development.

 

[Plaything of the gods]

First of all it is wrong and hopelessly naive to have any aspiration of an equal human society. Certain skills and abilities will always be more valued than others.

Anyone who seriously expects, for example, that the best musicians, actors and sports professionals in a future socialist world wouldn't have access to the best restaurants, holidays and fast cars has a serious deficit in understanding what it is to be human. If you have a talent that others value it is a very empowering gift.

It was the same in the Soviet Union. Instead of the entrepreneurial talent and creative energy that are valued in capitalistic societies, instead effective planning skills and an ablity to engage in double-think ruled the day and those that had those gifts prospered, both in terms of power and, to a much lesser extent, financially. Y

That power, concentrated by virtue of an engorged state, into the hands of a relatively small number of bureaucrats and apparatchiks was appallingly abused, in no small part by the fear of those who had power and were terrified of losing it. It also led to inertia on an industrial scale. Matters being decided (or rather not) by committee meant a great deal of well intended projects never meaningfully got off the ground.

I view it as a rather dull, dour system of government when creative élan is almost frowned upon at the expense of towing the party line. Iconoclasts that form socialist states eventually become its antithesis as its systems and MO get increasingly calcified.

I believe if you ever saw socialism adopted worldwide the planet wouldn't grind to a shuddering halt but it the incredible advances mankind has witnessesed in the last two centuries, since the rise of capitalism, would significantly diminish in speed and frequency.

I am certain that unfettered capitalism isn't the answer, but I think a socialist world would be much duller and slower than people realise.

Not only do many of the human traits you ascribe to socialism apply equally to modern-day plutocratic capitalism, but wouldn't we be in a much better place if we weren't launching ourselves headlong into ecological oblivion? You must bear in mind that aspirations are based in experiences and that a non-technological world was experienced as perfectly satisfactory for nearly all of mankind's existence - we survived - as indeed it still is for all other animals.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

First of all it is wrong and hopelessly naive to have any aspiration of an equal human society. Certain skills and abilities will always be more valued than others.

.

You are much brighter than to fall into the false accusation that Socialism means equality for all.

To me Socialism has always been more about equality of opportunity and if a learned fella like yourself cannot see that distinction then i think we are truly fucked as a society

I can see the distinction. I was setting out my stall but perhaps, upon reflection, the point I was making was a little inelegant, as was my unqualified use of The Soviet Union as a parallel.

I realise there are points of difference between socialism and communism but they are systems that re based on similar principles and therefore have similar symptoms. As a socialist you aspire to have a much, much larger state and that will still lead to the problems to which I referred.

In any event I wonder whether equality of opportunity for all, or even anything approaching it is ever achievable. Human beings with power and influence will always try and succeed in pulling strings to help their own.

You only have to look at the last three leaders of North Korea to realise that.

 

[Rascal]

First of all it is wrong and hopelessly naive to have any aspiration of an equal human society. Certain skills and abilities will always be more valued than others.

.

You are much brighter than to fall into the false accusation that Socialism means equality for all.

To me Socialism has always been more about equality of opportunity and if a learned fella like yourself cannot see that distinction then i think we are truly fucked as a society

I can see the distinction. I was setting out my stall but perhaps, upon reflection, the point I was making was a little inelegant, as was my unqualified use of The Soviet Union as a parallel.

I realise there are points of difference between socialism and communism but they are systems that re based on similar principles and therefore have similar symptoms. As a socialist you aspire to have a much, much larger state and that will still lead to the problems to which I referred.

In any event I wonder whether equality for all, or even anything approaching it is ever achievable. Human beings with power and influence will always try and succeed in pulling strings to help their own.

You only have to look at the last three leaders of North Korea to realise that.

Again a lazy comparison to a dictatorship in North Korea.

Marx himself thought Socialism was as a big an enemy to Communism as capitalism so confusing the two is futile.

I understand as a Liberal you want minimum interefernce in your life and that is fine by me but i can also see that big government does not neccesarily intrude on your life. Socialism enables the poor to aspire, yet does not doom the succesful to fail. I as a Socialist have no problem with wealth, i just want them to make sure the gap between them and the poorest of there brethern does not widen but decreases as that has to be good for society as a whole.


I would not want a Socialist government to dominate society, i would want it to enable society to do good. I would not want to curb entrenuership nor tax overtly, i would want to tax fairly.

A socialists true aim in my opinion is to narrow the gap between the rich and poor and over the last Labour Govt. that gap was exacerbated. Sadly so very fucking sadly.

 

[ElanJo]

"Socialism is [insert vague nice sounding intentions]"

So tiresome. The heart may be in the right place but fuck me... I wish they'd give the brain a look in from time to time.

 

[Bill Walker]

In theory socialism seems like a good idea, a fairer system, but in reality socialist governments always end up putting the country in the red with their policies and more and more government departments required to carry out their ideas and increased services.
In the end a conservative government has to be re-introduced to cut spending, reduce the cost of government and attempt to slowly balance the budget and bring the country back into the black.

Exactly this scenario has just happened in the state of Queensland here in Oz.

Moral is, socialism is great........... till the money runs out.

and unfettered capitalism is great unless your in 90% who are poor.

we can trade generallities and misrepresentations all day

generalisations maybe, but its invariably the case that money runs out,

I would like our systems to be fairer, I hate tax avoidance, but the systems are self balancing, cream always rises, its the way of nature Im afraid.