Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
The Enigma Of Socialism
What is its appeal? Are its supporters ignorant of world history, or of even current politics? In the USSR, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Venezuela it has led variously to the suppression of free speech, the imprisonment of dissidents, state-sanctioned mass murder and widespread starvation - as witnessed recently by the President of Venezuela telling the people not to be squeamish about eating their rabbits.
So what began as a dream of equality ends up with you having to eat your pets!
With all previous attempts at Socialism having patently failed, why did nearly 13 million of the population vote for Jeremy Corbyn last June, are they unaware of the suffering and misery which Socialism has unleashed on the world?
So what began as a dream of equality ends up with you having to eat your pets!
With all previous attempts at Socialism having patently failed, why did nearly 13 million of the population vote for Jeremy Corbyn last June, are they unaware of the suffering and misery which Socialism has unleashed on the world?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
I think you are confusing a socialist regime with a socialist government, though. At least one person in this thread has described Attlee's government as Socialist, and I am not sure that many people even from that time would recognise your description -- and those who do would surely be well-advised to consider the context of, say, the end of the Second World War that had left the country fairly ruined anyway (or a particularly acute winter in 1947/48, I think, or various US economic choices, on which the UK had been reliant, being cancelled early in the Attlee government and having the rough effect of cutting the umbilical cord when a fetus is still in the womb, etc).
Pure socialism, as seen in countries such as Venezuela or Eastern Europe, is obviously undesirable. But it's a mistake to take that to mean that everything a socialist government could stand for and implement to be also undesirable. Why is there no scope for balance, for trying to find the best of both extremes of economic policy? Capitalism tends to work very well for some people and not well at all for most others (oversimplification); it's not exactly unreasonable that most others would seek some version of a system that at least tries, in principle, to make more people better off.
Pure socialism, as seen in countries such as Venezuela or Eastern Europe, is obviously undesirable. But it's a mistake to take that to mean that everything a socialist government could stand for and implement to be also undesirable. Why is there no scope for balance, for trying to find the best of both extremes of economic policy? Capitalism tends to work very well for some people and not well at all for most others (oversimplification); it's not exactly unreasonable that most others would seek some version of a system that at least tries, in principle, to make more people better off.
For democracy to thrive, you need socialism and you need capitalism.
We do not live in a purely capitalist society.
If we did, there would be no such thing as the NHS. There would be no such thing as public schools, there would be no such thing as National Insurance and state pensions.
Capitalism - pure capitalism would see the privatisation of all public utilities, allowing the market to set the price for all services we use.
Capitalism need elements of socialist principles to work, because we as a society recognise that pure greed is not good (despite what Michael Douglas may have told us all those years ago).
Pure capitalism needs to be restrained. Pure socialism cannot be contained.
We do not live in a purely capitalist society.
If we did, there would be no such thing as the NHS. There would be no such thing as public schools, there would be no such thing as National Insurance and state pensions.
Capitalism - pure capitalism would see the privatisation of all public utilities, allowing the market to set the price for all services we use.
Capitalism need elements of socialist principles to work, because we as a society recognise that pure greed is not good (despite what Michael Douglas may have told us all those years ago).
Pure capitalism needs to be restrained. Pure socialism cannot be contained.
Well, you're welcome to try your project fear and see how that works out for you this time.
Funnily enough, Churchill tried the same in 1945, insisting that Attlee "would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo" to make his government work. The British people didn't listen -- and anyway Churchill was horribly wrong. They won't listen to you now, or anyone else who tries the same sort of guff.
Funnily enough, Churchill tried the same in 1945, insisting that Attlee "would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo" to make his government work. The British people didn't listen -- and anyway Churchill was horribly wrong. They won't listen to you now, or anyone else who tries the same sort of guff.
I'm not really getting tetchy, although it is frustrating that you can't seem to see the basic fallacy in your argument. And it certainly is legitimate to call it an effective Project Fear.
One thing worth adding, too, is that supposing for the sake of argument I was in abject poverty, then what exactly is your message? "You might be in dire straits now, but voting for Labour won't make things any better", presumably. But why would you expect anyone to not wish to at least try and take the chance? They're already in a horrible mess. Voting for someone who at least will try to address that, as opposed to the current lot who don't seem to wan to try, seems a worthwhile gamble.
I wonder how much you really listen, if you don't seem to understand this rather basic point. If, as you say, you can "afford" whatever abject future you fear under a Corbyn government, perhaps you aren't in the position to understand why it might be seen as worth the risk. Put another way, can you not see that the last Seven years of Tory rule (yes, even under the Coalition it was essentially mostly a Tory government, tempered only slightly) haven't exactly brought any real incentive to many to continue voting Tory?
It's not tetchiness to express some amount of... I don't know... confusion? Frustration? -- at how you don't really debate, so much as talk down to.
One thing worth adding, too, is that supposing for the sake of argument I was in abject poverty, then what exactly is your message? "You might be in dire straits now, but voting for Labour won't make things any better", presumably. But why would you expect anyone to not wish to at least try and take the chance? They're already in a horrible mess. Voting for someone who at least will try to address that, as opposed to the current lot who don't seem to wan to try, seems a worthwhile gamble.
I wonder how much you really listen, if you don't seem to understand this rather basic point. If, as you say, you can "afford" whatever abject future you fear under a Corbyn government, perhaps you aren't in the position to understand why it might be seen as worth the risk. Put another way, can you not see that the last Seven years of Tory rule (yes, even under the Coalition it was essentially mostly a Tory government, tempered only slightly) haven't exactly brought any real incentive to many to continue voting Tory?
It's not tetchiness to express some amount of... I don't know... confusion? Frustration? -- at how you don't really debate, so much as talk down to.
Part of the reason why Labour surged earlier this year is because of 'the enigma of austerity'.
What that effectively meant was that the poorest in society were feeling the brunt of the governments economic plan. Now, if we had four years of austerity, followed by an investments in jobs, infrastructure and regional development I suspect that Labour wouldn't have seen the swings it did, and May would be sitting one a tidy (increased) majority.
However, the brutal fact is this - there is a generation now growing up with a £30,000 debt around their necks, with little chance of joining the capitalist utopia of owning a home, and working jobs with zero hour contracts.
For these people, the balance of fairness is out of whack. I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, but thus far - our current government is failing to provide a viable solution.
Corbyn needs to be be challenged on how he is going to fund this fairer society. He cannot simply magic money out of the air.
May has to be challenged on when the austerity measures are going end. She cannot simply magic support out of the air.
What that effectively meant was that the poorest in society were feeling the brunt of the governments economic plan. Now, if we had four years of austerity, followed by an investments in jobs, infrastructure and regional development I suspect that Labour wouldn't have seen the swings it did, and May would be sitting one a tidy (increased) majority.
However, the brutal fact is this - there is a generation now growing up with a £30,000 debt around their necks, with little chance of joining the capitalist utopia of owning a home, and working jobs with zero hour contracts.
For these people, the balance of fairness is out of whack. I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, but thus far - our current government is failing to provide a viable solution.
Corbyn needs to be be challenged on how he is going to fund this fairer society. He cannot simply magic money out of the air.
May has to be challenged on when the austerity measures are going end. She cannot simply magic support out of the air.
Jim, //why would you expect anyone to not wish to at least try and take the chance?//
Because experience teaches that socialism does not and cannot work - and anyone with any sense learns from experience. Did you ever travel to the USSR (The Union of Soviet ‘Socialist’ Republics), or to socialist Yugoslavia, or to that bastion of democracy, the DDR (the German Democratic Republic)? No? I’m willing to bet Mikey didn’t either because while he was swanning around the USA (as he repeatedly insists on telling us he did) enjoying the benefits of the free, capitalist society in which he resides, he completely forgot – and still forgets - that his comrades trapped under his beloved Red Flag not only lived (and in some instances still live) a very Spartan existence mostly in over-crowded tenements, scratching a living, obliged to bribe doctors for medicine for their sick children, and with no liberty to experience other countries and other cultures as he did. Rosy naivety and impossible idealism rules the socialist mind. Are you really willing to ‘take the chance’ on what Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell are offering? More fool anyone who is.
Because experience teaches that socialism does not and cannot work - and anyone with any sense learns from experience. Did you ever travel to the USSR (The Union of Soviet ‘Socialist’ Republics), or to socialist Yugoslavia, or to that bastion of democracy, the DDR (the German Democratic Republic)? No? I’m willing to bet Mikey didn’t either because while he was swanning around the USA (as he repeatedly insists on telling us he did) enjoying the benefits of the free, capitalist society in which he resides, he completely forgot – and still forgets - that his comrades trapped under his beloved Red Flag not only lived (and in some instances still live) a very Spartan existence mostly in over-crowded tenements, scratching a living, obliged to bribe doctors for medicine for their sick children, and with no liberty to experience other countries and other cultures as he did. Rosy naivety and impossible idealism rules the socialist mind. Are you really willing to ‘take the chance’ on what Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell are offering? More fool anyone who is.
There is a generation with a £30,000 debt because too many people are going to university with little hope of reaching the heady heights a degree once ment you could.
Get back to only the top academically going to university and pretending it means something. then helping the rest of us to attain the best we can.
With fewer going to university we could afford to fund it.... the end of starting out with £30,000 debt.
In fact isn't that a socialist concept? Give to those that need it and not everyone? Hmmm I'm coming round to this socialist thing.
Get back to only the top academically going to university and pretending it means something. then helping the rest of us to attain the best we can.
With fewer going to university we could afford to fund it.... the end of starting out with £30,000 debt.
In fact isn't that a socialist concept? Give to those that need it and not everyone? Hmmm I'm coming round to this socialist thing.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles50 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Technology94 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.