Is Socialism Feasable?

[ToraToraTora]

Given human nature is what it is.

[woofgang]

well it hasn't been so far.....

[VHG]

Trouble is greed always rears its ugly head.

Read Animal Farm.

[Zeuhl]

Relying on people to be socially responsible isn't as certain as relying on their desire to fulfil their self interests

[naomi24]

No. It's an ideology that can't work.

[Old_Geezer]

Depends on what you mean by feasible. Any political system has its strengths and weaknesses. The trick is to keep excess misuse of power/opportunity.etc in check. Nothing wrong with socialism in principle, it's the most fair system I've come across, and in this country has, in the past, helped keep excesses of capitalism in check. But a little balance is useful to bring the best out of a system.

[FredPuli43]

Socialism or communism? All countries have elements of socialism. Communism is total socialism. It is doomed to fail because it depends on every human working to the common good, with no profit to themselves.Humans aren't built that way; we have a degree of common interest in our genes, but not that much. Pure capitalism doesn't work too well, which is why capitalist countries have some elements of socialism, but it's a great improvement on communism

[atalanta]

Socialism means:
"to everyone according to his needs, from everyone according to his abilities"
Which means that a person with twelve children and only one leg should get hundreds of pounds a week from the state and not have to work, but a young strong single person who can work like a slave will only just get enough to live on.
In other words, the perfectibility of human nature.
And the perfectibility of human nature is, quite frankly, nuts.

[seadogg]

No ideology is feasible in its pure form and in practice, socialism will have different practical applications in different countries. Without socialism, would we have had the great reforming administration of 1945 which gave us the N.H.S. and an enhanced system of social security?

[Sharingan]

I would hope so. In Iceland after literally years of a centre right colalition they kicked out all the bank loving capiltalists and now have a very left wing government which the majority of Icelandic people seem to support. The idea works in small places like Iceland because people can more easily see the common good but in larger countries often falters for exactly the reasons that have been previously described, plus some people are unaware of the benefits they themselves reap from socialism ( state housing, NHS etc) so discount it as ' unworkable' despite enjoying the benefits of it. Can you really imagine the likes of David Cameron founding something like the NHS if it didn't already exist?

[LazyGun]

Before you start speculating on whether socialism is against human nature, you first need to define socialism.

Then you have to explain how it is that the human species has become the predominant species on the planet, uniquely amongst the primates demonstrating a degree of altruism and co-operation.

All those returning servicepeople following the second world war were intent on developing a better world, and some of the most enduring and best loved social reforms happened in that post-war phase - the NHS, education reforms, all of that...

[Sharingan]

'All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others', Tetjam.

[naomi24]

//Can you really imagine the likes of David Cameron founding something like the NHS if it didn't already exist?//

Yes, I can – but without the appalling waste of resources. I think some people are suffering under the misapprehension that the welfare state in this country began with a Labour government after World War II. It didn’t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_welfare_reforms

[LazyGun]

"Yes, I can – but without the appalling waste of resources." = When compared to?

As to the beginnings of the welfare state- I think most recognise the influence of people like Lloyd George, prior to the 1st world war, in introducing the principles of a welfare state, in response to a huge social and cultural demand- and in recognition of the popularity of the newly formed Labour Party and its threat to the support base of the Liberals.

These can be regarded as socialist principles, regardless of the name of the party that introduced them. It was the Labour Party of 1945 that introduced measures recommended in the Beveridge report, a massive expansion of the role of the state and redistributive taxation.

So I come back to the OP - Socialist principles are alive and well and thriving in every Western country. Humans have thrived because of our unique ability to co-operate for the common good, itself a socialist principle. Most of us are fortunate not to have lived in an extreme version of a political system, like Ayn Rands Libertarian Capitalism, or the communism of soviet russia.

[naomi24]

LG, //When compared to?//

I’m not sure why it has to be compared to anything, but since you ask certainly the past 30 years or so.

//I think most recognise the influence of people like Lloyd George, prior to the 1st world war,//

Perhaps those who know their history recognise it, but there are many who assume the whole thing began post WWII - hence my link.

//These can be regarded as socialist principles, regardless of the name of the party that introduced them. //

In this instance, it’s important to acknowledge that socialists don’t have a monopoly on ‘socialist’ principles and that Labour governments haven’t been alone in espousing beneficial welfare reforms.

[emmie]

no it can't, and hasn't.

[emmie]

social reform has been going on a lot longer than some seem to think, it didn't start with the setting up of the NHS, but to expect people to think, behave in the same way is asking a lot.

[emmie]

can't anywhere that seem to show their system is any better than other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iceland