Socialism

[Mark T Jones]

in deference to @Nellyb78 id like to start a discussion on the nature of socialism


As a very broad sweep, my opener would be that it is a wonderful ideal which falls apart as soon as human nature is introduced

Where are yo on this?

 

[Newchodge]

I dont understand how any member of the human race cannot see it as fundamental to human existence.

I also understand that any person whose basic view on life is ME ME ME and absolute selfishness can make socialism difficult, if not impossible. So it is up to all of us who believe in people and the inherent need to ensure the welfare of all people, to prevent the selfish from taking charge of anything.

Oh damn ................

 

[SteveHa]

[QUOTE="Mark T Jones, post: 2887782, member: 255658"As a very broad sweep, my opener would be that it is a wonderful ideal which falls apart as soon as human nature is introduced[/QUOTE]

You appear to be confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism works until someone says "I want......"

Socialism, on the other hand, ensures that everyone has the basic necessities for life, at the expense of those who have more. They are not the same thing.

 

[Paul Norman]

in deference to @Nellyb78 id like to start a discussion on the nature of socialism


As a very broad sweep, my opener would be that it is a wonderful ideal which falls apart as soon as human nature is introduced

Where are yo on this?

Although, broadly, I would see that as an equally valid definition of Capitalism.

 

[Paul Norman]

I dont understand how any member of the human race cannot see it as fundamental to human existence.

I also understand that any person whose basic view on life is ME ME ME and absolute selfishness can make socialism difficult, if not impossible. So it is up to all of us who believe in people and the inherent need to ensure the welfare of all people, to prevent the selfish from taking charge of anything.

Oh damn ................

I think that ship may have sailed!

Regretably.

 

[Mr D]

I dont understand how any member of the human race cannot see it as fundamental to human existence.

I also understand that any person whose basic view on life is ME ME ME and absolute selfishness can make socialism difficult, if not impossible. So it is up to all of us who believe in people and the inherent need to ensure the welfare of all people, to prevent the selfish from taking charge of anything.

Oh damn ................

Perhaps there are a lot less members of the human race than you suspect.

Just out of interest, are there any places where socialism has been tried as a method on a large scale and worked in your view?
I can think of a couple but I'm not sure I'm using the same idea of 'worked' as you.

The selfish appear in a lot of societies, often ending up in power. That isn't the same as national leader.

Selfishness doesn't have to be absolute, mere envy will work when you don't want someone else to get ahead.

 

[Newchodge]

There is an evolutionary concept known as the hawks and the doves. Hawks eat doves. \if there are a lot of doves around there is a good food supply for hawks whose numbers will increase. The increasing number of hawks eat more and more dovesuntil there aren't enough doves to sustain the hwk population which decreases quite rapidly through starvation. As there are fewer hawks more doves survive and their numbers increase until the nimber of hawks increases because of the increased food supply. In an ideal world there is an equilibrium point which produces stable population numbers of hawks and doves.

I see socialism as trying to maintain that equilibrium in human society. Unfortunately there are a few too many hawks around at the moment, although some of them are beginning to die out, like Carillion which was a classic hawk.

 

[Newchodge]

Just out of interest, are there any places where socialism has been tried as a method on a large scale and worked in your view?
I can think of a couple but I'm not sure I'm using the same idea of 'worked' as you.

It seems to work pretty well in much of Scandinavia

 

[Mr D]

It seems to work pretty well in much of Scandinavia

Sorry which countries?

 

[NickGrogan]

How are you defining socialism, surely it's important to all be talking about the same thing.

There is an evolutionary concept known as the hawks and the doves.

Its an economic concept, not an evolutionary one.

 

[Mr D]

There is an evolutionary concept known as the hawks and the doves. Hawks eat doves. \if there are a lot of doves around there is a good food supply for hawks whose numbers will increase. The increasing number of hawks eat more and more dovesuntil there aren't enough doves to sustain the hwk population which decreases quite rapidly through starvation. As there are fewer hawks more doves survive and their numbers increase until the nimber of hawks increases because of the increased food supply. In an ideal world there is an equilibrium point which produces stable population numbers of hawks and doves.

I see socialism as trying to maintain that equilibrium in human society. Unfortunately there are a few too many hawks around at the moment, although some of them are beginning to die out, like Carillion which was a classic hawk.

Very nice view of a particular part of the food chain in nature. Which doesn't operate equilibriums.
However humans are not birds.

 

[Mr D]

How are you defining socialism, surely it's important to all be talking about the same thing.

Indeed it is.

 

[Newchodge]

Its an economic concept, not an evolutionary one.

Well it was taught to me as part of evolutionary biology.

 

[Gecko001]

Carillion is not a good example as they were actually weak. They were buying work by putting in tenders that were lower than cost. The fact that many of these contracts were with the NHS and other public sector agencies meant that they were painted by the tabloids as some sort of enemies of the people. Why let a good story get in the way of the facts.

 

[NickGrogan]

Well it was taught to me as part of evolutionary biology.

Presumably as an example of Game Theory, rather than as an actual part of evolution?

 

[Mark T Jones]

Although, broadly, I would see that as an equally valid definition of Capitalism.

Fair point; well made!

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

My humble opinion is that Capitalism is really the only thing we've found so far that more or less works.
Fortunately, we're all different though, and others will have a different opinion to me.

I think capitalism is fair and equal (all sacrifice the same), but many would consider socialism to be more fair and equal (all have the same).
I tend to think that effort should produce more return, and also that socialism strives to bring everyone towards equality of outcome, which I think is totally wrong. Equality of opportunity is good, and should be striven for, but equality of outcome is usually confused as the same thing.

 

[Mark T Jones]

[QUOTE="Mark T Jones, post: 2887782, member: 255658"As a very broad sweep, my opener would be that it is a wonderful ideal which falls apart as soon as human nature is introduced

You appear to be confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism works until someone says "I want......"

Socialism, on the other hand, ensures that everyone has the basic necessities for life, at the expense of those who have more. They are not the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Most of the definitions I have read are a lot to do with collective ownership etc

I can't pretend to be any kind of expert - this is interesting stuff for me.

 

[Newchodge]

Presumably as an example of Game Theory, rather than as an actual part of evolution?

It was a very long time ago. I think it was part of punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Mr D]

My humble opinion is that Capitalism is really the only thing we've found so far that more or less works.
Fortunately, we're all different though, and others will have a different opinion to me.

I think capitalism is fair and equal (all sacrifice the same), but many would consider socialism to be more fair and equal (all have the same).
I tend to think that effort should produce more return, and also that socialism strives to bring everyone towards equality of outcome, which I think is totally wrong. Equality of opportunity is good, and should be striven for, but equality of outcome is usually confused as the same thing.

Yes, capitalism made a bigger difference in past few decades for the poor than all the socialism touted by national politicians.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Yes, capitalism made a bigger difference in past few decades for the poor than all the socialism touted by national politicians.

Indeed. How does socialism look to fund the support? Tax the rich more and after a point they lose the marginal benefit for earning, so they are no longer incentivised to earn to fund that system. Does that mean that people are inherently selfish? Probably yes.
I seem to remember from my time studying economics that one of the key principles in basic economics is that rational people are motivated only by economic and financial gain.

 

[Mr D]

Indeed. How does socialism look to fund the support? Tax the rich more and after a point they lose the marginal benefit for earning, so they are no longer incentivised to earn to fund that system. Does that mean that people are inherently selfish? Probably yes.
I seem to remember from my time studying economics that one of the key principles in basic economics is that rational people are motivated only by economic and financial gain.

And those looking to make more money seek out ways to improve their income.
Starting microbusiness, finding new markets for products, changing what they do.

One of my suppliers buys in stuff from the far east, lots of it handmade. Entire families producing crafted items rather than just trying to get by with day labouring and subsistence farming on marginal land.
Patriarch or Matriarch of the family is the one dealing with the buyer and is probably the rich one - the entire family benefitting from producing and selling the stuff.
Times that by a few million families...

 

[quikshop]

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Churchill, 1945

Churchill also stated that Capitalism was the least worst option.

Our nature as a hierarchical species better fits a meritocracy than socialism which seeks to replaces individual freedoms with control from the centre.

The problem we face now is that our implementation of Capitalism with an eroding social conscience and shoddy rules based framework is causing untold harm and driving huge divisions in society.

The Tories want the status quo, Labour would turn us into some kind of pacifist irrelevance bankrupting the Country within a term and the Lib Dems would make offending someone a crime punishable by public flogging.

As Churchill posed, what is the least worst option?

 

[Newchodge]

The problem we face now is that our implementation of Capitalism with an eroding social conscience and shoddy rules based framework is causing untold harm and driving huge divisions in society.

and there is no way that Capitalism can reverse that trend.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Churchill, 1945

Churchill also stated that Capitalism was the least worst option.

The great man was spot on there.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Tax the rich more and after a point they lose the marginal benefit for earning, so they are no longer incentivised to earn to fund that system.

History shows that the entrepeneurs were not dis-incentivised during periods of much higher taxation than now. In fact if you remove tax altogether from the rich they stop being productive altogether, just look at the rentier class before the French Revolution.

 

[Mr D]

and there is no way that Capitalism can reverse that trend.

Neither can Socialism.

 

[Newchodge]

Neither can Socialism.

We've tried Capitalism and it has failed. we haven't tried real socialism so you cannot say that iy cannot reverse that trend

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

just look at the rentier class before the French Revolution.

I'm too young to remember that

Certainly I feel like a fairer tax system would discourage tax avoidance and evasion....even if it doesn't stimulate production.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

We've tried Capitalism and it has failed

Has capitalism failed?

 

[quikshop]

We've tried Capitalism and it has failed. we haven't tried real socialism so you cannot say that iy cannot reverse that trend

That just sounds like a Momentum protest board slogan.

Living under capitalism has given my family the opportunities to rise from the very poorest in society to being quite well off within a generation, and the next generation of my family are forging ahead with their own career choices to better the standard of living for their children... all under capitalism.

The problem with capitalism is that social mobility is out of reach for those in generational poverty, those hamstrung as much by their own parents as they are the system we live under.

No, capitalism hasn't failed it needs modernising.

 

[Mr D]

We've tried Capitalism and it has failed. we haven't tried real socialism so you cannot say that iy cannot reverse that trend

Ah yes, we haven't tried real socialism bit. Was waiting for that.

Go ahead, try it. I'll wait until its done somewhere and shown all the socialists how it can work.
Please don't try experimenting at home, people have suffered enough here.

 

[Mr D]

That just sounds like a Momentum protest board slogan.

Living under capitalism has given my family the opportunities to rise from the very poorest in society to being quite well off within a generation, and the next generation of my family are forging ahead with their own career choices to better the standard of living for their children... all under capitalism.

The problem with capitalism is that social mobility is out of reach for those in generational poverty, those hamstrung as much by their own parents as they are the system we live under.

No, capitalism hasn't failed it needs modernising.

Agreed - if capitalism needs changing then change it.

Hey perhaps we should ask Angela Merkel what her family experience of socialism was. She'll have experience of two systems herself.

 

[sirearl]

However humans are not birds.

Are you sure,what about their brains!

If capitalism had its way many of us would have been dead by now.

 

[Mr D]

Are you sure,what about their brains!

If capitalism had its way many of us would have been dead by now.

Many people are dead by now. Whether under false socialism (as opposed to real socialism) or communism or capitalism or whatever. Which system can allow someone to improve their own life?

 

[dan19900]

It seems to work pretty well in much of Scandinavia

So the first thing the UK should do is get rid of the minimum wage and massively cut down immigration?

I wouldn't really say any of Scandinavia was particularly socialist but I'm sure having a lot of natural resources and not having your country trashed by the 2nd world war helps with any economic model.

 

[Mr D]

So the first thing the UK should do is get rid of the minimum wage and massively cut down immigration?

I wouldn't really say any of Scandinavia was particularly socialist but I'm sure having a lot of natural resources and not having your country trashed by the 2nd world war helps with any economic model.

They also have different snow than us, they can keep trains running.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

They also have different snow than us, they can keep trains running

I think they just have regular snow, the same every year, for a lot of the year. This means they can spend money on rail and road infrastructure that can cope with weather.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

So the first thing the UK should do is get rid of the minimum wage and massively cut down immigration?

There's certainly a lot to be said for getting rid of the minimum wage, if you believe what the likes of Peter Schiff says about it.

 

[Mr D]

I think they just have regular snow, the same every year, for a lot of the year. This means they can spend money on rail and road infrastructure that can cope with weather.

Or perhaps.... willing is the term.
Willing to spend money on infrastructure. As do many places with more snow than UK.