How Socialism Works (not for the faint hearted)

dotdash79

This is horrible people doing horrible things. Nothing more, nothing less.

The reasons why can be discussed.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

One for the sympathizers to understand who they are siding with.

Because it's that simple?

Appears this thread is designed simply to deeply offend everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint if I'm honest.

Linton

Generali wrote: »

Hayek correctly predicted that in all cases, socialism is the Road to Serfdom.

This demonstrates the point in a very strong way. There is no equivalence in capitalist liberal democracy.

Perhaps Hayek is not a good example of a disinterested observer.

Much of what makes our "capitalist liberal democracy" liberal and democratic is essentially socialist in nature and was opposed by those on the right at the time. Many of the major concerns of government nowadays are such as would be considered irrelevant by a true capitalist but would be shared by a government based on socialist principles, though of course the implementation could be different. So to put "capitalist liberal democracy" as the antithesis of socialism is perverse to say the least.

antrobus

Linton wrote: »

....Much of what makes our "capitalist liberal democracy" liberal and democratic is essentially socialist in nature and was opposed by those on the right at the time. .....

Give us some examples.

Linton

antrobus wrote: »

Give us some examples.

NHS
Equal pay was proposed in the 1930s and 1940s but successfully opposed by the conservatives before they changed their minds in the 1950s/60s
Minimum wage was opposed in recent times though they have changed their minds now
First Old Age Pension - opposed by part of the Conservative party
Universal suffrage, again originally opposed but now accepted

Perhaps of interest is the list of 10 social reforms Marx proposed in the Communist Manifesto as the basis of a socialist program. Some are irrelevant now as they have been superceded by social and technological changes. However they include....

1) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
One can argue about how heavy our current taxes are, but they are much closer to "heavy" than in Marx's time especially at the higher end.

2) Abolition of all rights of inheritance
In terms of what Marx intended to achieve, the abolition of the wealthy hereditary landed gentry, this has largely been achieved.

3) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour.

Shock horror!!

Perhaps the thought of minimum wages, widespread state benefits, free health care, housing standards and support for housing the poor etc etc was too socialist even for Marx.

Much of what was dangerously socialist in the past has been accepted by the modern Conservative party with the only argument being one of implementation - as Disraeli said "an organised hypocrisy". But that shouldnt hide the point that the whole concept of state intervention for the benefit of poorest and weakest in society is one that is counter to a conservative capitalist doctrine and so makes many modern conservatives uneasy despite their pragmatic acceptance.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Why do you think that?

Embarrassing yourself here Gen.

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

Hayek correctly predicted that in all cases, socialism is the Road to Serfdom.

This demonstrates the point in a very strong way. There is no equivalence in capitalist liberal democracy.

Britain's been ruled by socialists since 1950 - even the thatcherite government was socialist according to Hayek's theories.

And I don't see any serfs here.

Basically, by disregarding the clear and obvious differences between British Socialism and communism you're just showing that you're insane on this issue. Not part of the real world.

Voyager2002

antrobus wrote: »

There is nothing remotely socialist about the Swedish economy. It is quite unashamedly capitalist.



Now that would be an example of hyperbole.

General Pinochet might well have led an unpleasant right-wing authoritarian government that went around shooting its oppnents, but the 'horrors' were comparatively mild, compared to say, Cuba.



Her close ties with Pinochet were based on Chilean radar providing the British forces with advance warning of Argentintian air movements. There are probably still people around in the UK who have reason to be grateful for that heads up.




And there was I thinking that everyone already knew that;

The workers' flag is blackest black.
The red one's just for bureaucrats

(Lesson 1, how to upset a Trotskyist)

I thought it was the Left who were supposed to re-write history:

Some of my friends were detained in a concentration camp before managing to leave Chile. Several of their friends and relatives were murdered, often after prolonged torture. Other victims of the regime included musicians, artists, church leaders, even a British doctor! These abuses are so well-documented that not even apologists for the regime seek to deny them. The horrors were very real, and it is not easy to find modern "left-wing" governments that behaved in a comparable manner: the list basically begins and ends with Kampuchea, and of course North Korea. Cuba has no place in such a list: your mention of Cuba in this context suggests a total lack of knowledge and understanding in relation to Latin America (the region that was the subject of my PhD).

Thatcher's links with Pinochet predate the Falklands/Malvinas conflict. For example, at least a year before then her regime decided to resume arms sales to Chile, a measure that was denounced by the catholic church in the UK, partly because the church in Chile had been one of Pinochet's main targets.

Kennyboy66

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Sadly, the description of the reality of life in North Korea is apparently accurate.

I very much doubt whether there is anyone in the UK who actually sympathises with this monstrous government. People on the left, including those of us who describe ourselves as socialists, have a far better record of taking action to help the victims of this kind of regime than people on the right -- the standard right-wing response is to complain about left-wing "bleeding hears" and to refuse to allow this kind of concern to get in the way of sporting or business links.

General Suharto "One of our very best and most valuable friends"

Saddam Hussein - secretly supplied arms to him from 1981

Cambodia - “the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government”. As well as providing training to the Khmer Rouge from 1983 onwards.


All admirably supported by the well known socialist Margaret Thatcher

antrobus

Linton wrote: »

NHS
Equal pay was proposed in the 1930s and 1940s but successfully opposed by the conservatives before they changed their minds in the 1950s/60s
Minimum wage was opposed in recent times though they have changed their minds now
First Old Age Pension - opposed by part of the Conservative party
Universal suffrage, again originally opposed but now accepted

Perhaps of interest is the list of 10 social reforms Marx proposed in the Communist Manifesto as the basis of a socialist program. Some are irrelevant now as they have been superceded by social and technological changes. However they include....

1) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
One can argue about how heavy our current taxes are, but they are much closer to "heavy" than in Marx's time especially at the higher end.

2) Abolition of all rights of inheritance
In terms of what Marx intended to achieve, the abolition of the wealthy hereditary landed gentry, this has largely been achieved.

3) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour.

Shock horror!!

Perhaps the thought of minimum wages, widespread state benefits, free health care, housing standards and support for housing the poor etc etc was too socialist even for Marx.

Much of what was dangerously socialist in the past has been accepted by the modern Conservative party with the only argument being one of implementation - as Disraeli said "an organised hypocrisy". But that shouldnt hide the point that the whole concept of state intervention for the benefit of poorest and weakest in society is one that is counter to a conservative capitalist doctrine and so makes many modern conservatives uneasy despite their pragmatic acceptance.

To be honest with you when I asked 'Give us some examples?', I knew what I was going to get.

We'll just take a few points.

NHS - the founding principles were set out in the 1944 white paper 'A National Health Service'. There was no argument in 1945 about the establishment of the NHS, simply a debate about which form it should take.

State funded education - For state funded primary schools see the Elementary Education Act 1891. That good old Tory the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was the PM at the time. State funded secondary education was the result of the 1944 Butler Act and Rab Butler was a noted conservative. So far from being opposed by the right, state funded education was largely invented by the Conservative Party.

Child labour - well there where a number of factory acts throughout the 19th C that gradually restricted child labour. Some were passed by Conservative governments - who can forget the Climbing Boys Act 1875? - and some by Liberal governments. On the whole however, it was the left wing liberals who opposed restrictions on children working in factories because they owned the factories.

The only surprise is that you didn't mention council housing. Which is, of course, another Conservative invention.:)

As for the rest... Well, your claim that that the "abolition of the wealthy hereditary landed gentry... has largely been achieved" is frankly risible. Next you'll be claiming that we have actually confiscated the property of all emigrants and rebels.