Where would society be without socialism?

nickmason

islandannie wrote: »

#
Maggie told us "there is no such thing as society"

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

This is one of the best examples of the trouble with politics - of how something can be taken out of context, how a "lie is half way around the world before the truth's woken up". It's why so many politicians don't say anything because this misrepresentation happens.

Look at the full quote in its context (bear in mind that this was an unscripted interview so it does read conversationally), and tell me whether you still disagree.

I suggest that the theme is that society is the pulling together of individuals, not a concrete entity, that what someone takes "from society" is taking from other individuals. That while it is right for society (ie the aggregated people) to look after those in need there is a problem that people think that they can take without realising that they are benefiting not from the abstract state with its bottomless pit of money but from other individuals. Or worse by realising and still, selfishly, not caring. Frankly seems pretty apposite today, to me.

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!" There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 2] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

She goes on to talk about how we need to teach responsibility to our children, and can only do that by example.

islandannie

nickmason wrote: »

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

This is one of the best examples of the trouble with politics - of how something can be taken out of context, how a "lie is half way around the world before the truth's woken up". It's why so many politicians don't say anything because this misrepresentation happens.

Look at the full quote in its context (bear in mind that this was an unscripted interview so it does read conversationally), and tell me whether you still disagree.

I suggest that the theme is that society is the pulling together of individuals, not a concrete entity, that what someone takes "from society" is taking from other individuals. That while it is right for society (ie the aggregated people) to look after those in need there is a problem that people think that they can take without realising that they are benefiting not from the abstract state with its bottomless pit of money but from other individuals. Or worse by realising and still, selfishly, not caring. Frankly seems pretty apposite today, to me.

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!" There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 2] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

She goes on to talk about how we need to teach responsibility to our children, and can only do that by example.

and to think you actually believe that.

Shame.

Gorgeous_George

Some things matter and some things don't.

I would rather be financially skint as a country than morally broke as a society.

GG

nickmason

islandannie wrote: »

and to think you actually believe that.

Shame.

Are you "shaming" my belief that that was what she said, my interpretation of it, or my belief that that my interpreted understanding is valid? Genuinely curious.

nickmason

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Some things matter and some things don't.

I would rather be financially skint as a country than morally broke as a society.

GG

Where is the moral bankrupcy in society in what she said?

A._Badger

Then, presumably, you're happy with the way we are, GG? Broke and morally bankrupt?

islandannie

nickmason wrote: »

Are you "shaming" my belief that that was what she said, my interpretation of it, or my belief that that my interpreted understanding is valid? Genuinely curious.

Your stupidity for believing that as a creed.

nickmason

islandannie wrote: »

Your stupidity for believing that as a creed.

Okay. It's interesting that it's a creed that almost every western government subscribes to. Certainly every non-socialist one (ie I exclude the current Labour administration).
Obviously that everyone who knows what they're talking about seems to agree is no proof of anything - we aren't, after all, made of plum puddings, nor is the world flat.
All I was trying to do was illustrate how that quote was taken out of context; what I wasn't trying to do was make the case that socialism doesn't work. Frankly that's been done.

PS - always nice to be called stupid. Have a nice Christmas.

drc

islandannie wrote: »

For a start the Banking system would have collapsed.and the consequences would have been catastrophic.

Well, for starters without Socalism there would be no gulags, no Stasi, Stalin would not have killed tens of millions, there would have been no Berlin wall, no Lenin, no stealing from the hardworking to give to the lazy, no fake 'equality', no quashing of intellectual debate, no threats of violence or real violence against those who didn't 'worship' their great leaders, no jailing of people for thought crimes...

I agree that Capitalism in its purest form is horrible but Socialism is just as bad, if not worse.

islandannie

nickmason wrote: »

Okay. It's interesting that it's a creed that almost every western government subscribes to. Certainly every non-socialist one (ie I exclude the current Labour administration).
Obviously that everyone who knows what they're talking about seems to agree is no proof of anything - we aren't, after all, made of plum puddings, nor is the world flat.
All I was trying to do was illustrate how that quote was taken out of context; what I wasn't trying to do was make the case that socialism doesn't work. Frankly that's been done.

PS - always nice to be called stupid. Have a nice Christmas.

That would be every western government whose capitalist system has just collapsed only to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

Hmmm looks likes Socialism has to pick up the bill without even a thank you.