Question for socialists

[KimberleyChris]

Old Greg.

Very eloquent.

Watching the antics in the commons at the moment, it seems as though the current 'ascendant' standpoints (moderate one-nation conservatism and mixed-market social democrat Labour) are almost falling over each other to agree louder than the other. The only real issue between them is the method and pace of rectifying the financial deficit.

You could almost form three parties now, with the front ranks of Labour and Conservatives becoming cross-benchers.

[Old Greg]

Old Greg.

Very eloquent.

Watching the antics in the commons at the moment, it seems as though the current 'ascendant' standpoints (moderate one-nation conservatism and mixed-market social democrat Labour) are almost falling over each other to agree louder than the other. The only real issue between them is the method and pace of rectifying the financial deficit.

You could almost form three parties now, with the front ranks of Labour and Conservatives becoming cross-benchers.

I don't see one nation Toryism. I see the ideologues in charge who see the recession as a once in a lifetime opportunity to destroy public services. That is a respectable view to hold in a democracy but it should be openly presented and debated, not sneaked in.

[KimberleyChris]

I don't see one nation Toryism. I see the ideologues in charge who see the recession as a once in a lifetime opportunity to destroy public services. That is a respectable view to hold in a democracy but it should be openly presented and debated, not sneaked in.

Maybe, I'm just comparing the current brood of tories to the horrors of the past. Please, not the 'T' word again..I'm just about to eat

[xoggoth]

The essence of socialism (although someone else will say it’s something else) is democratic ownership and control of the means of production and therefore of distribution of goods and services.

That seems to accord with all usual definitions. The problem is, what does democratic ownership mean and can it ever exist in reality? We can't all of us have a direct and equal say so the practice is for state officials to determine policies on our behalf and that is why corruption and dictatorship will almost always happen.

In a free market* with true competition, not just between commercial companies but other organisations such as charities, there is a crude but effective check. If they deliver what their customers need they flourish, if not they go under. Results matter. With central government control these checks do not exist, any assessment of the worth of any initiative, department or expenditure is purely subjective and that leads to waste and empire building.

*With proper government controls, more than we have now, I am not a fan of unfettered capitalism either as I said above.

[AtW]

DimPrawn confuses socialism with communism which promised everything free (food, house, edukation etc).

[Bagpuss]

This has veered off from the original question to Why I hate Socialists-Volume 1054, By Dodgy Agent aged 13 3/4.

I would say there are good reasons to have access to free* healthcare and education. Not least because it gives opportunity for the poor 'e by gum' to work their way up. What would the alternative be? Back to privilege and birth entitlement versus poor health and underachievement?

Everyone has the same base opportunity to make a success of their life irrespective of background they can be assured of a good standard of health and education. Yes, equal opportunity to quality of life, the one thing Mr Agent continually praises Maggie for.

A well educated and healthy society has added benefit for everyone. Making housing free is a moot point, if a person is healthy and educated, they can earn money to pay for the basics. Someone who can't read and/or is too sick to sell their labour cannot earn much at all. Re-open the poor houses I hear you say!

*People pay for these services out of taxation, be it PAYE, VAT, NI etc etc.

[EternalOptimist]

All threads here veer off topic.

its a brave man who returns to the topic

[Old Greg]

That seems to accord with all usual definitions. The problem is, what does democratic ownership mean and can it ever exist in reality? We can't all of us have a direct and equal say so the practice is for state officials to determine policies on our behalf and that is why corruption and dictatorship will almost always happen.

In a free market* with true competition, not just between commercial companies but other organisations such as charities, there is a crude but effective check. If they deliver what their customers need they flourish, if not they go under. Results matter. With central government control these checks do not exist, any assessment of the worth of any initiative, department or expenditure is purely subjective and that leads to waste and empire building.

*With proper government controls, more than we have now, I am not a fan of unfettered capitalism either as I said above.

A complete direct and equal say sounds like utopian socialism which had been out of fashion for 100 years, although their are a few political theorists with ideas such as Parecon, but they are way off the mainstream. Utopianism. is about a perfect society whereas most socialists want a better society.

I happen to believe that the need for a state diminishes with socialism. There is less need for control. As for the checks of capitalism, at an individual corporate level, we see checks that lead to success or failure. But at a macro level we see continuous expansion and contraction with resultant misery.

[EternalOptimist]

is about a perfect society whereas most socialists want a better society.

most socialists want a better society

i think thats the point, its the others that we are worried about. they hav'nt got a good track record

[Old Greg]

most socialists want a better society

i think thats the point, its the others that we are worried about. they hav'nt got a good track record

I meant want a better as opposed to a perfect society.