| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: Socialism |
 |
|
|
|
What's your point of view/understandng of socialism?
Personally I find it to be the most practical method of ensuring that the weakest in society are helped, simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sheffman
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Location: Sheffield via London
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
... and common ownership by the people for the people wouldn't be a bad start 
Although there are many Socialist organisations the the UK, (it's a shame they all couldn't get their heads together) I find the Socialist Party of Great Britain has just about got it right ( http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/gbodop.html ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i don't really know much about socialism, i mean i never learnt anything about politics ( or much history ) at school, names like socialism, communism, marx, lenin etc don't really mean anything to me ... i guess i should learn, the paper i get most days has 'for peace and socialism' written on the front, i should really understand better what it means ...
i know i'm against capatalism though, and for a way more equal system. tony benn got it right with that thing he says about "if you have bread and you charge for it, only the rich get any bread. if you have a system where you fight for it, only the strong get bread. or you could share it and everyone, the rich, the strong, the poor and the weak, all get equal bread" sounds about right to me 
anyone know of any good books or web site that might help me understand the differences between the systems and the people involved in them?
its funny but lots of americans friends call me a communist  or a hippy  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
OK, here I go. I mentioned in another thread that I have "severe misgivings" about Socialism, and this is why:
(I'm possibly about to make myself look very ignorant, because the only things about Socialism I've heard or seen have been things such as Wikipedia articles and times when George has spoken about it, so I'd be very grateful if anyone can correct me wherever I go wrong...)
My understanding is that it's a system in which there is no real distinction between rich and poor because everyone gets the same. Wealth is shared out equally among the masses no matter who you are, or what you do.
Some might view that as an absolutely brilliant way to live, but I have a few problems with the practicality of it.
If everyone gets the same, no matter what they do, then does that mean that lazy bastards who just sit on their arse all day have the same amount of money as someone who works a 12 hour days and is really enthusiastic and efficient and focussed? If so, then that is totally unfair. If you do more work, or harder work, or work for longer hours, then you should be rewarded for that with more money.
I feel that it would also breed apathy - because people would start to think "hang on, I don't really need to work as hard as I am, because we all get the same no matter what, so I'll let the others pick up the slack" - which, if enough people started to lean that way, would make productivity in general plummet. Part of the reason some businesses are very successful is because people have targets to meet, responsibilities that fall on them and they are driven to try as hard as possible to succeed because of the rewards that come with success.
This isn't to say that I am happy with Capitalism - infact I hate Capitalism because it goes too far in the other direction. It disgusts me that some people can have an executive office job in London and get hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses alone, never mind their actual wage - that's vile and also totally unfair. And minimum wage is way too low in the UK (I think it's around £5.25 or something??), that should also be fixed.
I'm all for the gap between rich and poor being reduced by giving the poor more money, and restricting the astronomical amounts of money the rich are allowed to make, but I truly believe that there has to be the possibility of making more money than someone else, because otherwise there would be no such this as entrepreneurialism, there would be no such thing as ambition - because everyone's lot would be exactly the same no matter what they do.
Those are my feelings. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, then please correct me. I'm still learning about all these things |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| What you're describing is more communism than socialism Kate. Socialism does allow for people to make money and be rewarded for their efforts, but they just don't get as much in their pockets as they would under capitalism because of extra taxation. The taxes raised would ideally go to better health and education, in order to make the economy stronger for the future by dint of having a healthier and better educated workforce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
behroze
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Socialism to me is the adage that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are social animals, we need other people's help, and we must help others for reciprocation. Acting in a selfish/greedy manner will only serve to alienate you in the short run quit possibly destroy society in the long run if enough people are selfish/greedy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Bush, Blair and their eternal wars are the best advertisement for socialism.
When the political pendulum swings back to the real left, I just hope it doesn't swing so far to the extreme left that we end up with communism (where the central authority controls everything).
The problem is, the more Bush, Blair and their war machine swing the political pendulum to the right, the more likely
the eventual swing back to the left will go to extreme.
Indeed, there is a fear that the social cohesion of society could be ripped apart by Bush and Blair.
The attempts at pushing "integration" by Blair is actually alienating people, and not encouraging "integration". It is a form of fascism : You will do and wear what we think is acceptable .. not what you want to wear (e.g. in cases of head scarves).
p.s. Miniskirts allowed, we aren't a dictatorship after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| GG_Fan wrote: | | p.s. Miniskirts allowed, we aren't a dictatorship after all. |
you can't get people out when we're waging war, but you'd see the biggest protests in this countrys history if they tried that, especially with summer coming 
i think i'd be a bit more radical that you guys, i think we need to scrap money, or the illusion that is has any real value. i mean when they say we can't help the starving because we haven't got enough bank notes that we print ourselves to save them, but we have the manpower, food, water, medicine and knowledge and infrastructure to deliver a better life to all of these people, which system helps them? aliens would be baffled looking down on us
we've got a kinda weird mindset that we need to get out off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | | i think i'd be a bit more radical that you guys, i think we need to scrap money |
Some form of money (i.e. medium of exchange) is always needed. The issue is who controls it. This was why the "gold standard" prevented the government having total control via the "money printing presses". Shame that the present monetary system is built on "paper" money whilst Bush & Co. have been letting the printing presses run continuously, thus robbing the holders of the existing paper money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Some form of money (i.e. medium of exchange) is always needed. |
yeah i understand that, thats why i said or the illusion it has real value - you need something, it could be pebbles or milk bottle tops, soon it'll just be numbers on a computer system, but i agree you need something
we seem to have built up too many imaginary borders that keep us limited to thinking in a little closed off box
like i don't know a great deal about the money system, but i'd take the creation of money back from the private bankers and give it the people, we'd print what ever money we needed, interest free, to fund the schools, hospitals etc so that everyone everywhere had the best, everyone else would still work for money like normal, so those who work harder get rewarded and the lazy ones wouldn't.
but to say we can't save these people or have the best education or health system when everything else is there except this paper stuff is crazy - the only reason this system is in place is to keep the people who implemented it in power, its another way of control, and the more reliant on the 'system' we've been become, for everything, water, food, heating, the more the forms of control work. i mean, we're ( taxpayers ) paying off debts on money they can create out of nothing?! and we do it, its normal - this is now reality.
theres a quote from the first director of the bank england from when he left, basically saying if you wanna make yourselves slaves, keep the money system as it is |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
popinjay
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | What you're describing is more communism than socialism Kate. Socialism does allow for people to make money and be rewarded for their efforts, but they just don't get as much in their pockets as they would under capitalism because of extra taxation. The taxes raised would ideally go to better health and education, in order to make the economy stronger for the future by dint of having a healthier and better educated workforce. |
Right. Some things are too important to be left to private companies. If we privitised our healthcare (like the US) then their bottom line isn't to heal people, it's to make as much money while spending as little as possible. There are tens of millions of Americans who don't have any healthcare at all because they can't afford it, who could die because they're too poor to pay doctor's wages. Socialism says that's wrong, and your money doesn't determine your worth as a human being.
"The US is the only country in the world where healthcare is considered a privelidge rather than a right"
Can't remember who said that. Maybe Chomsky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sheffman
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Location: Sheffield via London
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| behroze wrote: | | Socialism to me is the adage that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are social animals, we need other people's help, and we must help others for reciprocation. Acting in a selfish/greedy manner will only serve to alienate you in the short run quit possibly destroy society in the long run if enough people are selfish/greedy. |
... spot on behroze.
Margaret Thatcher once said "There is no such thing as society" (which is absolute bo**ocks) What she wanted to say was "We, as Tories, want to grind you all into the ground so we can exploit you without any fuss, therefore we need to destroy the fabric that binds you all together" She knew that 'society' was her enemy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
popinjay
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Sheffman wrote: | | behroze wrote: | | Socialism to me is the adage that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are social animals, we need other people's help, and we must help others for reciprocation. Acting in a selfish/greedy manner will only serve to alienate you in the short run quit possibly destroy society in the long run if enough people are selfish/greedy. |
... spot on behroze.
Margaret Thatcher once said "There is no such thing as society" (which is absolute bo**ocks) What she wanted to say was "We, as Tories, want to grind you all into the ground so we can exploit you without any fuss, therefore we need to destroy the fabric that binds you all together" She knew that 'society' was her enemy. |
And Neil Kinnock's reply...
"'No such thing as society', she says. No obligation to the community. No sense of solidarity. No principles of sharing or caring. 'No such thing as society'. No sisterhood, no brotherhood. No neighbourhood. No honouring other people's mothers and fathers. No succouring other people's little children. 'No such thing as society'. No number other than one. No person other than me. No time other than now. No such thing as society, just 'me' and 'now'. That is Margaret Thatcher's society." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
great reply from kinnock, but she pretty much got her way  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colston
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| I wonder whether socialism would be a cure all or whether greed and selfishness is just part of human nature and not a product of capitalist living. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
