ChatterBank8 mins ago
Socialism
Whatever happened to good old fashioned socialism? The idea of a classless utopia where all are equal? Did Thatcher kill the idea stone dead?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Romeo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Despite being a staunch opponent of it, I don't think Thatcher killed it per se, I think it'd be more adequate to say it killed itself.
Note, for example, the dismal failure of Labour leaders like Niel Kinnock and, to a greater extent, Michael Foot - staunch socialists who were chewed up and spit out by the electorate. The only real left-wing alternative is the Liberal Democrats, and though they've been on the rise in recent years
I think the main reason for this is the absolutely disastrous economic situation in the 70's - directly a result of social-democrat economics, which could only sustain itself on the post-war boom. Which ended in '73. Plus people weren't too happy with men like Arthur Scargill holding the country to ransom.
However, although the pendulumn's mainly swung toward more right-wing/centre-right government at the moment due to the legacy of Thatcher, this is much the same way it
swung toward the left in the aftermath of Attlee's legacy. It's always possible it could swing back again...
Read Cosgrave's 'The Strange Death of Socialist Britain'
Note, for example, the dismal failure of Labour leaders like Niel Kinnock and, to a greater extent, Michael Foot - staunch socialists who were chewed up and spit out by the electorate. The only real left-wing alternative is the Liberal Democrats, and though they've been on the rise in recent years
I think the main reason for this is the absolutely disastrous economic situation in the 70's - directly a result of social-democrat economics, which could only sustain itself on the post-war boom. Which ended in '73. Plus people weren't too happy with men like Arthur Scargill holding the country to ransom.
However, although the pendulumn's mainly swung toward more right-wing/centre-right government at the moment due to the legacy of Thatcher, this is much the same way it
swung toward the left in the aftermath of Attlee's legacy. It's always possible it could swing back again...
Read Cosgrave's 'The Strange Death of Socialist Britain'
What ever happened to good old fashioned socialism?
It was called Communism, and it could be replaced by this if we are not careful.
http://www.alislam.org/library/links/communism .html
It was called Communism, and it could be replaced by this if we are not careful.
http://www.alislam.org/library/links/communism .html
Labour wasn't necessarily a shoe-in in '97 - it was only going to win because of Blair's ideological turn.
Labour had met with dismal failure as a far-left party - under Foot, Kinnock, and Smith. They failed for exactly the same reason the Tories did in 1945 - the electorate looked back (in the '45 case to the depression) to the failures the system had previously yielded.
anotheoldgit: There is an enormous difference between socialism and communism, and an even greater one between Islam. I'm aghast.
Labour had met with dismal failure as a far-left party - under Foot, Kinnock, and Smith. They failed for exactly the same reason the Tories did in 1945 - the electorate looked back (in the '45 case to the depression) to the failures the system had previously yielded.
anotheoldgit: There is an enormous difference between socialism and communism, and an even greater one between Islam. I'm aghast.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
fender62
You say, I dont think it could really ever happen personally
its to divisive, capitolism democracy will always win
peoples nature.
Do you really believe this? The following passage is from the very interesting link you posted. I think this link could be an subject up for discussion in itself.
Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.
You say, I dont think it could really ever happen personally
its to divisive, capitolism democracy will always win
peoples nature.
Do you really believe this? The following passage is from the very interesting link you posted. I think this link could be an subject up for discussion in itself.
Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.
-- answer removed --
Communism was supposed to have been a classless society but was it? The leaders had their expensive perks and made great efforts to keep 'the others' at a lower level. If everyone had the same income, the same educational standards ( and that would mean suppressing those with abilities to achieve much more ) and all the repressive moves to enforce these things, the economy of that country would stagnate. You need incentives to improve conditions for the people of that country, not just so that individuals can rake in all the extra money for themselves but it must be worth their while to do so.
-- answer removed --
Hi 10ClarionSt,
There was a great need for the working man to be protected and supported many years ago and occasionally in more recent years. I belonged to a teachers' trade union and I was very disappointed when demands were made against the established way of doing things, regardless of what happens to the smooth running of education, impairing the education of young children. There is always a danger that union leaders are hungry for power but do not accept responsibility for their actions. No privilege without responsibility should be the way.
There was a great need for the working man to be protected and supported many years ago and occasionally in more recent years. I belonged to a teachers' trade union and I was very disappointed when demands were made against the established way of doing things, regardless of what happens to the smooth running of education, impairing the education of young children. There is always a danger that union leaders are hungry for power but do not accept responsibility for their actions. No privilege without responsibility should be the way.
OK. Let me ask: is there still a case for socialist revolution in Britain today? Let's look at certain things:
1) There are still class differences. Some live in castles while others live on the streets.
2) There are still institutions like private schools, which make no difference these days ( I can tell you that those who went to private schools end up in universities as those who didn't).
3) Today the upper class tend to live in city penthouses. They may own or lease rural castles, but they don't live there. The middle class live in the country but work in or through the city. They live in cottages or converted farmsteads but work in city business through their laptop.
4) The new money who come from working class backgrounds, are vulgar in taste ( big suburban bungalows, a private swimming pool, a 4X4 in the driveway) and often buy propery to sublet it to people from their own parental background.
5) The traditional working class, who live in council rented housing and work in manual work, like the Royals. This might include those who drive souped up cheap cars and wear sovereign rings and base ball caps.
6) The poor, such as the homeless and destitute.
Wouldn't it be better if we shared out wealth and got rid of snobbery and consumerism? Let's buy a house to settle down and raise a family instead of using it as a means to make money. Let's stop trying to outshow each other with boast and vulgar garden statues and 4x4s. Let's have a new society where we look at people's needs and produce accordingly.
1) There are still class differences. Some live in castles while others live on the streets.
2) There are still institutions like private schools, which make no difference these days ( I can tell you that those who went to private schools end up in universities as those who didn't).
3) Today the upper class tend to live in city penthouses. They may own or lease rural castles, but they don't live there. The middle class live in the country but work in or through the city. They live in cottages or converted farmsteads but work in city business through their laptop.
4) The new money who come from working class backgrounds, are vulgar in taste ( big suburban bungalows, a private swimming pool, a 4X4 in the driveway) and often buy propery to sublet it to people from their own parental background.
5) The traditional working class, who live in council rented housing and work in manual work, like the Royals. This might include those who drive souped up cheap cars and wear sovereign rings and base ball caps.
6) The poor, such as the homeless and destitute.
Wouldn't it be better if we shared out wealth and got rid of snobbery and consumerism? Let's buy a house to settle down and raise a family instead of using it as a means to make money. Let's stop trying to outshow each other with boast and vulgar garden statues and 4x4s. Let's have a new society where we look at people's needs and produce accordingly.
Romeo, the wealth of he country should be shared out but not by widespread handouts. Every fit person must make a contribution to the wealth of this country besides maintaining their own chosen lifestyle. Many, many people, however, will need to be supported by the state because of their GENUINE inability to do otherwise. And Romeo, I was from a traditional working class background, no council house, and when I was commissioned in the RAF and later started a teaching career, there were local people who thought those things were way above my status as working class.
It's a lovely idea, Romeo, but in practice it simply doesn't work. Or it just gets corrupted - but the fact that it's so damned easy to corrupt is a serious problem with the theory.
For example, under the ideal, everyone who's able works & produces for themselves and those who can't. That's all well and good - but what if you get someone (whose perfectly able to work) who says they don't want to?
This presents the state with a serious dilemma - what are you going to do? If you force him - well, on a macro scale, that's conducive to the authoritarianism communism usually ends up in. Get rid of him? Same problem.
Allow him to be unemployed? According to the theory, you're still supposed to provide according to his need - so all you're going to do is end up with plenty of other able-bodied workers (legitimately) wondering why they're working when this chap receives exactly the same as they do for doing nothing when he could work. Thus, you'll get even more people opting for unemployment.
Not provide for him? Violates the thory.
So you effectively make unemployment illegal (among those who are employable) - which falls flat in the face of supply and demand, and is a wonderfully effective way of sending inflation through the roof, and your economy down the tubes.
For example, under the ideal, everyone who's able works & produces for themselves and those who can't. That's all well and good - but what if you get someone (whose perfectly able to work) who says they don't want to?
This presents the state with a serious dilemma - what are you going to do? If you force him - well, on a macro scale, that's conducive to the authoritarianism communism usually ends up in. Get rid of him? Same problem.
Allow him to be unemployed? According to the theory, you're still supposed to provide according to his need - so all you're going to do is end up with plenty of other able-bodied workers (legitimately) wondering why they're working when this chap receives exactly the same as they do for doing nothing when he could work. Thus, you'll get even more people opting for unemployment.
Not provide for him? Violates the thory.
So you effectively make unemployment illegal (among those who are employable) - which falls flat in the face of supply and demand, and is a wonderfully effective way of sending inflation through the roof, and your economy down the tubes.
I have been to the former Soviet Union,and Communism does NOT work.
I think the biggest tragedy that has happened in British politics in the last twenty years was the death of John Smith. I may not have agreed with him,but that doesn't mean to say I didn't trust him. His death robbed Labour of a fine leader,and possibly robbed the country of someone who was not hungry for power,but eager to serve the people. Unlike the vainglory,self egoist prat that has occupied 10 Downing Street for the last ten years.
Ta Ta
Marky B
I think the biggest tragedy that has happened in British politics in the last twenty years was the death of John Smith. I may not have agreed with him,but that doesn't mean to say I didn't trust him. His death robbed Labour of a fine leader,and possibly robbed the country of someone who was not hungry for power,but eager to serve the people. Unlike the vainglory,self egoist prat that has occupied 10 Downing Street for the last ten years.
Ta Ta
Marky B
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics46 mins ago
ChatterBank51 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
