Is it the fault of NuLabour or socialism?

[Old Greg]

You won't get socialism with a small state. Someone has to enforce your "Equality".

Equality does not have to be enforced. Equality as I defined it is 'of equal value'. We are already equal. Nothing anyone can do to try to enforce the opposite through capitalist power structures can change that.

[Bagpuss]

My point is seeing the bad in one party but only seeing the good in another is fatuous. I know not everyone thinking like that but many really are that stupid especailly when their policies are now a cigarette paper's width apart.

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy, we haven't done this for a while. Good to hear from you,

The self-interest argument is one that is up for debate and we won't convince each other. I believe that humans have a capacity for both selfishness and selflessness andthat this is shaped to a large extent by the society in which they live. This society will tend to move people towards selfishness, and in the very extremes of society such as recruitment consultancy, then people will no doubt shoe extreme attitudes and project in onto their fellow humans.

Socialists recognise that people are different, but believe that they are not of different value. Equality, not sameness.

The key to socialism is not that it's caring for others (I think you've mistaken it with Christianinty or at least Christian socialism or Christian communism), but that cooperation will bring better results than competition than the overwhelming majority.

I didn't say mutuals or co-ops were a panacea, but they do challenge the consolidation of power in the hands of a shareowning class, that inhibits social progress. Start to crack that, and things can change for the better in terms of distribution of power and wealth, which is after all the point of socialism. Where we end up won't look like Karl Marx's vision, but I've never been dogmatic about things (and dogma is the curse of socialism).

You'll never sort out public services within a capitalist system. With choice, it will end up with the strong trampling the weak, with no incentive to improve services endured by those whose 'choice' is determined by the choices of the empowered. Without choice, we'll just continue with a lumbering centralist system which is unresponsive to needs. The answer lies in proper democratic control of services, but I don't think capitalist democracy is set up to deliver that. As for the 'great lie of socialism', you seem to be under the misapprehension that capitalism vs socialism is big vs small state. I want a very small central state.

When I say self interest I will make the point that most people enjoy helping others, and most people are not greedy and selfish (I would never employ any of these ). When I say "self interest" a lot of people naturally act for the good of others.

We need a system whereby money is not the determining factor with regards to quality of life. If people who earn low salaries can at the same time send their kids to a very good school, buy a reasonable house in a reasonable area that is crime free and enjoy a good standard of health then that would be excellent.

At the moment under our "socialist driven" public sector we cannot unless we are lucky (bright enough to go to a top grammar school/ be born healthy) expect any of these without paying extra.

I have longed to hear a debate about using vouchers to buy education and health. We can shop around for food and clothes in a way that ensures that the production and deliver of these commodities is of the highest order, why cant we do the same with health and education?

[Old Greg]

And oddly made more stuff during the 3 days than in the normal 5...

That's cos we nicked France's stuff while the electricity was off.

[DodgyAgent]

Equality does not have to be enforced. Equality as I defined it is 'of equal value'. We are already equal. Nothing anyone can do to try to enforce the opposite through capitalist power structures can change that.

We are not equal. We have different looks, different brains that are doing different things to accommodate the differences in each persons body. We look different,no two people are the same. The only way to gain "equality" is to force it.

[Old Greg]

We are not equal. We have different looks, different brains that are doing different things to accommodate the differences in each persons body. We look different,no two people are the same. The only way to gain "equality" is to force it.

We are different. We are equal. The two are not contradictory.

Equality means we are of the same value even if we are different, because (I assert) value derives from our humanity not our looks or brains.

[chicane]

We need a system whereby money is not the determining factor with regards to quality of life. If people who earn low salaries can at the same time send their kids to a very good school, buy a reasonable house in a reasonable area that is crime free and enjoy a good standard of health then that would be excellent.

What incentive is going to be present for people to work up the career ladder or start businesses if the resulting rewards don't provide a better quality of life?

Where would all the tax revenue to fund the public sector come from?

And who would live in all the tulip areas of town?

[Ruprect]

We are different. We are equal. The two are not contradictory.

Equality means we are of the same value even if we are different, because (I assert) value derives from our humanity not our looks or brains.

I suspect that your (rather niaive if I may say so) definition of equality is not what socialist equality aspires to anyway. If it was, presumably we could do away with the race relations act, equal pay act etc, as everyone's gonig to be nice to each to each other anyway?

[sasguru]

We are different. We are equal. The two are not contradictory.

.

Certainly not. Most people are far superior to Cybercretin.

[Cyberman]

Certainly not. Most people are far superior to Cybercretin.

... except Spasguru