Would the country be better off...

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Oh dear - I really was expecting something more than specious comparisons, vague non sequiturs and the overwhelming odour of strawman from such an intelligent and eloquent poster as yourself.
I'll put it down to a bad day at the office, and suggest that you have a polite word with quality control when you get a minute.

If you'd like to give specifics, rather than broad-brush comments, I am happy to respond.

Oh, and I'm pretty certain "vague non sequiturs" is tautological :-)

The other day he suggested aliens would be held back by their lack of fossil fuels. Sometimes intelligent and eloquent posters say really daft shit.

I am surprised you didn't pull me up on this at the time rather than sneering at it a week later.

I said could and it was a perfectly valid thing to suggest. The absence of such materials could very well hamper the ability of other, intelligent species from ever developing the technology to escape from their worlds. Mankind would still be sailing round on wooden ships powered by sails without it and would doubtless be subsequently wiped out by a planet-wide event that they were unable to cope with at some point in the future.

Mechanisation, and all that flows from it, required fossil fuels. Its abundance and ready availability could very well be something that marks our planet as unusual. If so, what I posted could very well be the case.

Ok - I'll have a bash at clarifying.
Your initial comments regarding an equal human society have a degree of validity.
Clearly we will never have a true meritocracy - the fact that a nurse earns less in five years than a footballer earns in a week is ample proof of that.
But socialism is not really about the valuing of skills, but rather aspiring to a level playing field where everyone has equality of opportunity to achieve their latent potential, regardless of external factors, such as social status, or the wealth of their parents, but dependant on their innate ability.
Exactly what relevance the former Soviet Union has to any discussion regarding the relative merits of a socialist society is anyone's guess, and merely a lazy and simplistic comparison which can be disregarded.
And on what do you base your assertion that a socialist system would stifle advances in humankind?
There would still be great authors, and playwrights, and musicians, and scientists, so how would human development suffer as a result of a different political regime?
It just doesn't make sense.
Individual ability has never been suppressed by any system, be it left or right wing in nature, as creativity is an inalienable part of what defines us as human beings.
The notion that socialism would suddenly reduce the capacity of man to push the boundaries of what we currently know and understand is completely illogical, and is not borne out by historical fact.
To portray socialists as some kind of latter day Luddites is ludicrous.

I have already qualified my Soviet Union comments, which you may have missed. It is worth re-iterating, however, that there are similarities between socialism and communism (state control and ownership of the means of production) that renders claims that any comparison can be "disregarded" as a little premature. Qualified, yes, but not disregarded.

I have previously commented at length about the profit motive and the role I believe it has played in human advancement. The greatest medical advances since the war have been made by global-multinational pharmaceutical companies. Sure, discoveries like penicillin were made with noble intent at their core, but that was a discovery rather than a development. Capitalism gives a much greater degree of creative impetus to the development of new ideas, or put another way, the profit motive gives firms the incentive to take the egregious risks, inherently required when developing new technologies.

To say individual ability has never been stifled by any system is preposterous, as many living in North Korea today will testify.

As to you pointing out historical fact I would point out that the steam engine, the automobile, powered flight, radio, television, the micro-chip all came about in and around capitalism. I accept that more co-operative systems helped develop the internet and (in part) space travel, but neither of those would have been possible without the risk-taking entrepreneurs that went before them.

Human greed has harnessed the best of our talents as a species to propel us forward. There are downsides to it, of course there are, but to suggest that abandoning a system for a less dynamic one would be without any consequence for technological advancement is wide of the mark imo.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I'm really not entirely sure that holding up global multinational pharmaceutical companies as proof positive of the 'greed is good' mantra justification of capitalism's raison d'etre holds water.
Are these the very drug cartels who restrict treatment of life-threatening conditions such as HIV/Aids to those who have the money to pay through the nose for them, therefore effectively handing down a death sentence by proxy to those in the developing world who are too poor to pay for them?
The same drug companies who collude to price fix and are regularly implicated in stories regarding the suppression of cancer cures, because they make more money out of palliative painkillers?
The wonderfully altruistic businessmen who made a nice profit out of Zyklon B, Agent Orange, napalm and mustard gas?
Don't get me wrong - I think that those who research to save lives are doing sterling work, and most of us are living longer and healthier lives as a result.
But the big drug companies are hardly paragons of virtue.
And if they were brought into public ownership you could reasonably argue that their products would be more readily available to those in greatest need, rather than those with the biggest bank accounts.

 

[stonerblue]

They probably would actually which is in itself strange. Sorry I was going off what the assembly line workers were earning at the Apple assembly plant.

So you were just a little out on the hourly wage then. Does this alter your view?

My view on what, capitalism or China?

Both.

 

[ElanJo]

Exactly what relevance the former Soviet Union has to any discussion regarding the relative merits of a socialist society is anyone's guess, and merely a lazy and simplistic comparison which can be disregarded.

 

[TCIB]

...with me as lord commander of the night's watch ? yes it probably would.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

So you were just a little out on the hourly wage then. Does this alter your view?

My view on what, capitalism or China?

Both.

Well I have never held China in any high regard. Hasn't altered my view on capitalism as I wasn't oblivious to the fact this happens.

 

[JULES]

I'm always astounded by the inordinate amount of right-wingers who seem to spend all their time getting to know two-faced socialists.

have you read what you have written? that is complete crap

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Exactly what relevance the former Soviet Union has to any discussion regarding the relative merits of a socialist society is anyone's guess, and merely a lazy and simplistic comparison which can be disregarded.

You used to be a decent poster once.
Now you just post pictures and gibberish.
Whatever happened?<br /><br />-- Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:22 pm --<br /><br />

I'm always astounded by the inordinate amount of right-wingers who seem to spend all their time getting to know two-faced socialists.

have you read what you have written? that is complete crap

...which is the response most of the forum have to any of your posts.

 

[ElanJo]

Exactly what relevance the former Soviet Union has to any discussion regarding the relative merits of a socialist society is anyone's guess, and merely a lazy and simplistic comparison which can be disregarded.

You used to be a decent poster once.
Now you just post pictures and gibberish.
Whatever happened?

I'm not surprised you feel that way. Reason does indeed look like gibberish to certain people.

 

[southern muppet]

I'm still torn on this one, when it comes to the whole welfare/social safety net thing. I want to see as many folks getting a good quality of life as possible, but hate to see people taking the piss (yes I'm aware it doesn't happen as much as the right-wing press implies, but it sure as hell happens)

I also hate paying taxes but I've spent a lot of time in Africa and I've seen the extremes of what happens when no social safety net exists in society - and that's in societies that still have an 'extended family' ethic, fuck knows just how horrific it'd be in ours.