true

OP the model we have is just fine, if Labour can make the numbers work their brand of Socialism be it Corbyn or Blair will function. Personally I think there is not a snow balls chance in hell Corbyn / McDonnell economics can work. None. Zero.

Fiction but… Star Trek’s Federation.

Supposedly a dream socialist ideal. Capitalist also?

Though technically, some point in TNG’s history they suddenly stated they don’t work for money, they work for the betterment of themselves and society. Yet they seem to have wealth in possessions, property, and there are businesses that aren’t state owned (not sure how they run without money though).

It was all flawed though. Whenever it suited the plot they’d be bartering something, and then on DS9 the Federation staff are happy to spend money.

I agree I think the UK suffers because we have one foot in the nordic/european “socialist” model and one foot in the US individualistic free market model and as a society we have never really decided which we prefer most.

I think that’s largely it. We have a 1000 years of history where those who pull the strings have bent just enough to avoid loosing their grip on power which hasn’t been the case on the continent.

jambalaya – Member
OP the model we have is just fine, if Labour can make the numbers work their brand of Socialism be it Corbyn or Blair will function. Personally I think there is not a snow balls chance in hell Corbyn / McDonnell economics can work. None. Zero.

depends if they can make a dent in corporate protectionism, and corporate collusion with politics.

It could also be said the our concept of human right enshrined in the ECHR are a social democratic definition of human rights – they are balanced and qualified toward those ends and do generally tend to strike the right balance within that context.

See for instance Art 3 on the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

and Art 2 of the ECHR

Article 2 – Right to life

1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

@Nipper99 – What does human rights have to do with socialism? Regardless of whether you sit on the left or right the UK defends human rights.

We have a 1000 years of history where those who pull the strings have bent just enough to avoid loosing their grip on power which hasn’t been the case on the continent.

We’ve had quite a few attempted revolutions in that period and several civil wars, one of which killed about 200,000 out of a population of 5 million.

The reason we’ve avoided revolution and civil war recently is that we’re too good at it.

Also not getting your human rights point

As noted different systems way weight things differently but are you really trying to suggest that we only have a right to life because we are not socialist or that socialism wont uphold this

Can you explain what you mean here

PS stw proves anything can be argued but that does not make it true

seosamh77 – Member
Yer deregulating capitalists are anarchists libertarians, but no-one likes to mention that.

Atlas Shrugged.

Which is just one of the reasons why I can’t stand Rush.
🙂

Mr Woppit – Member
seosamh77 – Member
Yer deregulating capitalists are anarchists libertarians, but no-one likes to mention that.
Atlas Shrugged.

Call it what you like, but it’s where any true anarchist system would end up. Those with the resources would dominate and thrive.

Which brings up anpother thought, I don’t really think the political spectrum is a straight like left and right or and xy graph. Simplistic, but a circle would probably be more accurate.

In answer the OP’s original question..

of course it can..you just have to look on here to see the number of rabid lefties sporting 5k mountain bikes…

😉

@seosamh77.. try ‘The Political compass’,

2010 uk parties

2015

2017 GE

tpbiker – Member 
of course it can..you just have to look on here to see the number of rabid lefties sporting 5k mountain bikes…

😆

My pension funded, invested in (non oil) global companies has been earning 25% for the last two years.
In the relatively modest sum I have accrued thats still more than the UK average wage paid to me for doing nothing sittting on my arse.

I live in an area where many people have have much more invested in similar funds returning similar percentages and scoffing at the poor.

The companies can make such returns on investment because they continully drive down costs usually through squeezing the workforce into zero hours contracts and such.

Austeriity means the rich get richer whilst pissing up the backs of the poor and telling them its raining.

You dont need socialism or capitalism, they are terms from the last century you just need fairness. Our kids will make it happen when the old haves of this country are dead.

i disagree. the divide will only grow further. people are getting more and more narcissistic and materialistic every generation. combined with far east countries like dubai, china and india with the fastest growing economies who are only this generation starting to dip their fingers into new countries and prospects.

Sadly socialism has a major weakness. It relies on mans natural inclination to look after himself to be overpowered. Its a great idea but it isn’t natural. Even extreme communists ( taking that as socialism at its extreme) want their view points and interests to come first. I know no one who is prepared to give their own lifestyle for the greater good. Its usually theoretical with a bit of taking from those who have more chucked in. Rather sad I think as the utopia would be great. You are always going to fight the battle of what is fair. For example my conversation with my parents earlier who resent the fact that they are liable to spend their savings on their old age care. That is not the objection. What’s galling to them is the fact they are penalised for working, saving and being prudent whilst a friend down the road has lived extravagantly all his life, never saved, travels the world and hence is broke. The state is paying for his care. Fair?
Capitalism is more natural. The strong prosper. Not nice to many peoples point of view. Each to their own.
What is wrong and in my view part of the problem is that people are so nasty about their objections. Currently its the extreme left that are so vociferous. At another time it will be a different lot.
I think we need a mixture of ideals all tempered by a few more manners.

The pretty pics above makes no sense. Left wing parties are very authoritarian. They tell people what to do and fail to accept disagreement.

Currently its the extreme left that are so vociferous.

Not directed at you. But this is a point, the extreme left isn’t Jeremy Corbyn btw! 😆

Its a great idea but it isn’t natural

imagine we are trapped on a desert island say 30 of us

All searching for the things to keep us alive

I find a beached ship …do you think most folk would

1. Share tit equally
2. Claim it as theres live like a king and watch the rest starve

I dont buy it that extreme greed is natural. its driven into us by the fact we build a a society that accepts and tolerates it

Secondly no one teaches their child to keep all the sweets and to take what they want from the weaker kids.

I think the real problem is that for capitalism to survive the 1% only need to trickle down a little and it needs fewer good people [ none] than socialism.

Left wing parties are very authoritarian. They tell people what to do and fail to accept disagreement.

Pinochet in particular was well know for his respect of disagrement.

Dictators do bad things whatever the hue but the reality is almost all left wing parties are less authoritarian than right wing ones.
There are exceptions and there are incredibly right wing libertarians – the US in particular-but they are not the norm.

Pinochet in particular was well know for his respect of disagrement.
Dictators do bad things whatever the hue but the reality is almost all left wing parties are less authoritarian than right wing ones.
There are exceptions and there are incredibly right wing libertarians – the US in particular-but they are not the norm.

Dunno about that – Stalin and Mao are pretty good examples of left wing authoritarians. Maduro is turning into a left-wing authoritarian, the current Chinese government is a weird mix, and North Korea… But then of course we have the mid 20C dictators: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc. All right wing.

So I don’t think left or right wing is particularly linked to being a ****.

Capitalism is a game like monopoly or cluedo whatever, theres no reason we cant decide to play a different game with less extreme winners and losers.

Junkyards example is one I use whenever considering this stuff. When we used to live in groups of 20 to 100 people whom we all knew what would we do? Ask yourself that when faced with the questions that effect 60 miilion people.

Thing is north Korea for example how can you call that left wing. You have a mass population living under stringent rules of collectivisation. Do we really think those at the top is are living under the same conditions? So what actually defines a political system? what the masses endure or how the powerful live.

Imo the idea of classifying left and right is warped and doesn’t properly describe what is actually happening.

Junkyard – lazarus

I dont buy it that extreme greed is natural. its driven into us by the fact we build a a society that accepts and tolerates it

Secondly no one teaches their child to keep all the sweets and to take what they want from the weaker kids.

I think the real problem is that for capitalism to survive the 1% only need to trickle down a little and it needs fewer good people [ none] than socialism.

The majority of human beings are not capitalists by nature, even those of us that have had it forced upon us by circumstance recognise it’s that or die in order to survive and if you’re lucky offer others the opportunity to survive alongside and for most one man enterprises survive is about all you get to do.

I’m also of the belief there has eventually to be a better way, how much more is one mans labour worth than another, however great the skill difference? 10 times? 100 times, 1000 times, 10,000 times, How wealthy should one person be permitted to be? If we suddenly had to start from the begining, all over again knowing what we now know, surely a sensible planet wide scale should be drawn. No reason we cannot have differentials to cater for Human nature and the desire to ‘succeed’ but at what cost to others? The truth is pure socialism never will succeed because those at the top of the tree generally always are tempted by the bigger apple. So all the time capitalism and profit driven enterprise hold sway, the socialist all too soon becomes the champagne socialist and to hell with all the rest.

And meanwhile the planet is raped of its resources and what was it I heard on the radio this morning 15% of this country allegedly the 5th wealthiest on the planet, have no assets or are in debt.

two pages and nobody has mentioned the founders of socialist theory , marx and engels , op , the communist manifesto written in 1848 seems as relevant now as ever , its an easy read and gives the ideals of a socialist society , marx always said that advanced capitalist societies would provide the best models for socialism , but equally would be difficult to attain due to the social / economic circumstances , whereas conversely revolutionary activity is more likely in less developed capitalist countries, russia is a good example , where the proletariat led the revolution but were a tiny minority compared to the peasantry , who supported the ideals of sharing and owning the land they worked for the aristocracy . Stalin who cunningly succeeded lenin , attempted to build socialism in one country but surrounded by a capitalist world this is not possible and a grotesque state emerged , authoritarian , non democratic and doomed to fail . Trotsky who usually gets a bad press , for fearful reasons , like jezza , but on a different level altogether , predicted all this and more and fought all his life for socialism , he was stalins nemesis , hence all the attempts which did eventually succeed to kill him , his supporters in russia received the same treatment , but his legacy is alive and well , last month in france a self declared trotskyist got 20% of the popular vote , very nearly eclipsing the bureaucrat macon .
i digress from the original question somewhat , but jezza and co are very restricted to what they can do within a capitalist system , which its essence is exploitation , sure they can get reforms and make society more equal than the extreme we have now , but they are social democrats , who do not wish to overthrow the exploitative model .

Junkyard – lazarus 
imagine we are trapped on a desert island say 30 of us

All searching for the things to keep us alive
I find a beached ship …do you think most folk would
1. Share tit equally
2. Claim it as theres live like a king and watch the rest starve

What’s the saying? Human race is only three meals away from anarchy*

Sharing for the greater good goes out the window when it’s a desire to survive.

* though I think the quote comes from Red Dwarf amongst others 🙂

Indeed, Captain Oates – did he go out and die, or did they eat… oh wait, that’s Red Dwarf also 😀

I stand by my assertion that the kids when united will never be divided. We did our bit but they are supercharged by the internet and know no division.

Look out out grey hair old man your kids are going to eat you..nom nom.

edit: bit flowery, that’ll be the middle class vino in garden.

Sadly socialism has a major weakness. It relies on mans natural inclination to look after himself to be overpowered. Its a great idea but it isn’t natural.

…and this is the ultra Darwinist legacy. Thanks Dawkins, you ‘tard, you and your sort did more for the “Gordon Gecko, Trump alpha male bullshit” that we’re all suffering from today than any political group has ever managed

Mattsccm, you’re wrong, actually. You’re brainwashed (as we all are to an extent) that the “might is right” model is how humans behave naturally. Makes for a great best selling book, but it’s almost entirely bollocks, we’ve spent most of our existence helping each out, it’s only the last few hundred years that we’ve started mostly **** each other over.

whether we can get back to that model of existance remains to be seen (i doubt it, there are too many vested interests)

1. Share tit equally

😯

amongst my best typos

Marz was writing when large numbers of people were working producing basic commodities. Most of that work has now been automated, which rather changes the landscape.

Anyway. I think we are overlooking the bottom line here. Very few people would see one of their own family or close social group really struggle when they had the means to help. This is well documented – people act altruistically towards people they perceive as “one of us”. But not so much against “one of them”. Where you sit on the left/right spectrum could be expressed in terms of how wide you draw that circle. Early labour movement drew it around the whole working class – us Vs them was proles vs toffs. Currently it’s Brits vs the EU.

Currently it’s Brits vs the EU.

Not for around 48% of us, it isn’t. You’re right though; people need an enemy to rail against. The über rich seem as good a target as any 😈

the answer to the original question is NO

molgrips , you talk from a very insular and restricted view , little island britain , big world out there with many producing goods just like we did hundred years ago , big mistake to believe we are not inter connected , the proletariat has never been bigger universally , or more exploited

Unusually for a political thread, I’m with Jamba on this one – I think.

Oh and for the individually minded read self centred and grow up a bit. Children are dependent, teenagers are independent, adults are interdependent.

Socialism is just a basic recognition of our interdependence.

Saw the thread title and thought, “Sweden is a nice place to live”

Look up the Nordic model. It’s not perfect, but a lot better than the shit show we have here.

Problem is, it takes people in power to have some responsibility towards society as a whole, something the Tories (and new labour) are incapable of doing.

I have no facts to back it up but can’t help thinking the amount we get involved in things elsewhere is a major difference to the likes of Sweden, so even if we had a culture shift it would need a massive change in foreign policy etc to have the same proportion of funds per head to actually make a more socialist society sustainable in the way those types of things are in Sweden. That said, even they are on a dangerous verge of change politically …

I like people.
I think they have a propensity to decency, given the right opportunities and a shove in the right direction.

Social Democracy innit?

molgrips , you talk from a very insular and restricted view

Not sure you quite understood what I was trying to say there… I was simply making an observation about human nature.