Is it the fault of NuLabour or socialism?

[Cyberman]

Hang on

To me capitalism dictates...

A/ Markets should be allowed to control and self regulate themselves. the invisable hand, laisse faire, supply and demand. Let the market decide.

Socialism is more..

B/ The Government should control the Markets, and interviene where the markets fail


It's rather disingenuous to argue, the Tories would have opted for method B over A.

Not at all. The Tories privatised many utilities but still had regulators to avoid monopolistic practices(eg: OFGEN, OFGAS, OFWAT, OFTEL and the Rail regulator). Also, under Thatcher there were credit controls whereby it was impossible to get a mortgage without a deposit. To say that capitalists do not exercise control over the markets is extremely naive and ignorant.

[DodgyAgent]

As a kind of socialist, I think these are interesting times. The Tory / Labour divide boils down to 2 capitalist parties with relatively minor differences in taxation and public spending. There's no socialism in either, as socialism is about ownership and control, which both parties have maintained should always be private and open to consolidation in the hands of a few.

The part-nationalisation of the banking system is not a socialist solution, but presents an opportunity. It's not a solution, as state ownership and control is not (in my view of socialism) a desirable outcome, but it is better than private ownership if it's part of a route towards democratic ownership.

So the opportunity is to move from state ownership to a different model of ownership. There are some existing models out there: workers' cooperatives, partnerships (like John Lewis), mutuals (owned by customers). I'd like to see (for those banks that are in trouble) perhaps a hybrid of worker and customer ownership / control, set up in a way that privatisation is impossible (without Act of Parliament, which will always trump everything). Politically, I think it might capture the zeitgeist and be a popular choice.

It doesn't make the world a paradise (but then, I've never bought into utopian socialism - or scientific socialism for that matter), but it makes steps in the right direction in terms of where power lies. It also does so in such a way as overcomes what I have always seen as the 2 problems with socialism: 1. How do you get power from those who have it without them getting the army and police to shoot you, and 2. Having achieved '1', how do you make sure that some all-powerful party doesn't set up its 'dicatatorship of the proletariat' and shoot you.

By the way, I don't think any of the above will happen, but it's nice to give a cheery wave to those once in a lifetime opprtunities that whizz past you before returning to business as usual.

People are driven by self interest whether they are capitalists or socialists. capitalists are believers of laissez faire and socialists are people who believe that we share responsibilities and rewards amongst each other equally. Capitalists accept that individuals are different whereas socialists do not (they presumably have poor eyesight).

The problem with socialism is that society works at a level that is the lowest common denominator, so no one prospers. The problem with capitalism is that only few prosper in a dog eat dog world.

The only reason people "like to think" that they are socialists is because socialism is (wrongly) associated with caring for others, (or if you are a politician controlling the activities of others through the state).

"Mutuals" and cooperatives may seem to be a "nice" and inclusive way of creating wealth for all but they are not. They are run for the benefit of those who own them whether they be shareholders or employees. These institutions (like any other wealth creating organisation) are run according to capitalist principles.

The trick is to create public services that are run with all the dynamics of private business whereby the pursuit of self interest works to the benefit of all. So the only way to run public services is by giving those who consume them choice and to finally consign the great lie of socialism to the dark ages.

[PM-Junkie]

Tory governments always run out of support, Labour governments always run out of money. It was ever thus, and ever will be.

[Old Greg]

People are driven by self interest whether they are capitalists or socialists. capitalists are believers of laissez faire and socialists are people who believe that we share responsibilities and rewards amongst each other equally. Capitalists accept that individuals are different whereas socialists do not (they presumably have poor eyesight).

The problem with socialism is that society works at a level that is the lowest common denominator, so no one prospers. The problem with capitalism is that only few prosper in a dog eat dog world.

The only reason people "like to think" that they are socialists is because socialism is (wrongly) associated with caring for others, (or if you are a politician controlling the activities of others through the state).

"Mutuals" and cooperatives may seem to be a "nice" and inclusive way of creating wealth for all but they are not. They are run for the benefit of those who own them whether they be shareholders or employees. These institutions (like any other wealth creating organisation) are run according to capitalist principles.

The trick is to create public services that are run with all the dynamics of private business whereby the pursuit of self interest works to the benefit of all. So the only way to run public services is by giving those who consume them choice and to finally consign the great lie of socialism to the dark ages.

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.

[Cyberman]

Tory governments always run out of support, Labour governments always run out of money. It was ever thus, and ever will be.

Labour governments never run out of support because their supporters depend on money taxed out of hard-working and high-earning Tories.

[Solidec]

Labour governments never run out of support because their supporters depend on money taxed out of hard-working and high-earning Tories.

You really are as bad as the unions and public sector when it comes to supporting your party, come hell or high water. I think you are the ONLY person on this board who wouldn't have a bad thing to say about the tories.

Open your eyes man, they may be much the lesser of two evils when it comes to government, but they are a country mile away from being the utopian ideal political party in their convictions, morals and honesty!

I hate Labour as much as the next man, and now that I have lived through a Labour government, I have 1st hand experience so know never to vote for them again.

I was too young to vote or know much about politics in the 90's so cannot pass judgement on the tories yet, but am not so naieve as to think the sun shines out their backsides.

[minestrone]

I was too young to vote or know much about politics in the 90's so cannot pass judgement on the tories yet, but am not so naieve as to think the sun shines out their backsides.

Last time Labour had a run we had light from candles in our house when we wanted to study for exams, the bins were emptied once a month, electricity was on 8 hours a day. It is happing again, if this twit is not removed we are going to go back that.

[Bagpuss]

...and what was it like under Ted Heath (conservative for the youngies)

3 day week, power cuts, candles, we are not going back to that are we?

[Ruprect]

you seem to be under the misapprehension that capitalism vs socialism is big vs small state. I want a very small central state.

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

[minestrone]

...and what was it like under Ted Heath (conservative for the youngies)

3 day week, power cuts, candles, we are not going back to that are we?

Heath was always on the down slide, Thatcher had to come in and sort the problems.