We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Where would society be without socialism?

1235789

Comments

  • Sapphire wrote: »
    What socialism? There is no socialism in this country. The labour 'government' is not socialist.

    It may be hiding behind an 'image' of 'socialism', but you'd have to be really thick/naive/close-minded to identify it with any kind of socialism.

    In this country, there is now virtually no difference between labour and the Tories in terms of ideology – though labour is by far the worse option as a government as far as my family and I are concerned.

    Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership.

    Like the banks. :cool:

    I never mentioned any politcal party,yet you assume i am a labourite.:confused:
    Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - Albert Einstein.

    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”-

    Orwell.
  • dopester
    dopester Posts: 4,890 Forumite
    Sapphire wrote: »
    What socialism? There is no socialism in this country. The labour 'government' is not socialist.

    Yes it is. Except it has operated in a different way to traditional socialist methods of old... it still redirected wealth, resources and monies and benefit transfer payments.... to please their main interest group... the voters most likely to vote for them.
    The Labour Party grew out of the trade union movement and socialist political parties of the 19th century, and continues to describe itself as a party of democratic socialism.

    Labour was the first political party in Great Britain to stand for the representation of the low-paid working class and it has traditionally been the working class who were known as the Labour Party grassroots and traditional members and voters.

    Traditionally, the party was in favour of socialist policies such as public ownership of key industries, government intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, increased rights for workers and trade unions, and a belief in the welfare state as well as publicly funded healthcare and education.

    Since the mid-1980s, under the leadership of Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair the party has moved away from its traditional socialist position towards what is often described as the "Third Way" adopting some free market policies.

    This has led many observers to describe the Labour Party as social democratic or even neo-liberal rather than democratic socialist. Blair himself has described New Labour's political position as a "Third Way". The current Labour government have brought in policies such as introducing a minimum wage and increasing the spending on the NHS and education. It also has been credited with reducing the gap between the rich and poor.

    The 2008 Labour Party Conference, for some, represented closer ties with big business and away from workers as Gordon Brown proclaimed "we are, we always have been and we always will be a pro business government".

    Wikipedia
  • moggylover
    moggylover Posts: 13,324 Forumite
    dopester wrote: »
    Yes it is. Except it has operated in a different way to traditional socialist methods of old... it still redirected wealth, resources and monies and benefit transfer payments.... to please their main interest group... the voters most likely to vote for them.



    Wikipedia

    Well, wiki might be fooled - but there is not a socialist anywhere who would:D
    "there are some persons in this World who, unable to give better proof of being wise, take a strange delight in showing what they think they have sagaciously read in mankind by uncharitable suspicions of them"
    (Herman Melville)
  • where is the capitalist solution to the collapse of capitalism?someone,anyone,anybody,please tell us.
    Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - Albert Einstein.

    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”-

    Orwell.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Generali you dissapoint me,you are normally a lucid poster.Have you been on the sherry?

    Well between you and I there's been a glass or two of the good stuff imbibed today.
    Soviet Union = communism.

    I need go no further.

    I mean you no ill. Quite the reverse in fact. But let us not slip on the tap shoes of revisionism today: it's much better to retain the ballet pumps of truth.

    Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and so on alll described themselves as socialists and killed a good proportion of their countries' population by dint of having policies that any reasonable person should describe as "murderous"
  • mewbie_2
    mewbie_2 Posts: 6,058 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    where is the capitalist solution to the collapse of capitalism?someone,anyone,anybody,please tell us.
    steal it. print it. borrow it.
  • Generali wrote: »
    Well between you and I there's been a glass or two of the good stuff imbibed today.



    I mean you no ill. Quite the reverse in fact. But let us not slip on the tap shoes of revisionism today: it's much better to retain the ballet pumps of truth.

    Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and so on alll described themselves as socialists and killed a good proportion of their countries' population by dint of having policies that any reasonable person should describe as "murderous"

    Generali either stop it or go for a lie down.
    Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - Albert Einstein.

    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”-

    Orwell.
  • drc
    drc Posts: 2,057 Forumite
    What`s your point?

    We are all equal but some are more equal than others...
  • drc wrote: »
    We are all equal but some are more equal than others...

    Well you`re not as equal as me.

    Merry Christmas.
    Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - Albert Einstein.

    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”-

    Orwell.
  • A brief history lesson for those of you with blinkers.

    Post war we have had two economic systems. Labour won in 1945 and created the Welfare State and an economy driven by nationalised industry. This continued under both Labour and Conservative governments until the late 60s when it saw its first major challenges. The Heath government of 1970 tried to reform what had become known as the corporatist model but ended up going head to head with the unions and losing. Labour also tried reforms and was also beaten by the unions. During this long spell both parties had policies broadly the same - investment in the welfare state, wage controls, national planning, nationalisation (yes, the Tories nationalised things!)

    Post 1979 it all changed. Thatcher brought in Monetarism (the control of the money supply) as a means of battling the runaway inflation which had battered the economy ever since the 1973 oil shock. She was partially successful but the recession of the early 1980s was deepened as a result. Post 83 ushered in what we all now know as Thatcherism - free market capitalism, unrestricted markets, privatisation. Most of these ideas were adapted from America, where Reagan had already implemented them. This Anglo-American neo-Liberal model was adopted across Europe and quickly became the only economic model in town. Labour challenged it unsuccessfully for a few elections before accepting it. Since 97 Labour have continued the same economic platform (as did Clinton in America) and the free market has reigned supreme.

    What we have just witnessed is an end to the free market model created by Reagan and Thatcher. Whoever was in power now on either side of the Atlantic would have made little difference as Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Labour, all shared the same system. the system collapsed under a right leaning government over there and a left leaning government over here - hard to point the finger and say either side is solely to blame.

    I have read some partisan stuff on here and elsewhere that is baffling. The system failed because it was unregulated and collapsed under its own greed. I don't recall any conservative politicians here or Democrats there arguing for tight regulation of financial markets, or action to stop our house price bubble - its only earlier this year that John Redwood in his capacity as Conservative policy wonk wrote a paper arguing that a Conservative government should further deregulate the mortgage market.

    Labour have made many many mistakes over their time in power, often from the mouth of an arrogant chancellor who believed in his own boasts of an economic miracle. Pretty much the same as Lawson in 1989 who after 6 years as Chancellor was self-absorbed in his own growth bubble about to collapse. No Chancellor of any party can abolish boom and bust - it is a natural economic cycle just as boom is.

    Now we see the creation of a new economic settlement involving state intervention and regulation and an end to cheap consumer credit. Economists are almost unanimous in their solution to the fix and to the eventual outcome. Even the Germans despite their intervention into politics here have spent more than we have bailing out their own banks, and have budgeted a 2% of GDP investment into their economy which is more than ours. Politics here is now a question of the future than the past. If Labour (9and every other government) fix things, then Labour will win again in the midst of the recession just as Major did in 92. The Conservatives are widely seen to have offered no alternative policies as yet - if they come up with something or if the downturn steepens and the government finally start looking bereft of ideas, then it will be the Tories election.

    Either way its wide open. We have never been here before - a global recession hitting simulateously. It could go any way.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.