Forum menu
I a understand the true socialist model where the state provides all for it's citizens and I get the capitalist model. What I am struggling to grasp and I find all of this very interesting is how both socialism and capitalism can co-exist or whether it's even possible.
What do the socialists on here want for this country. Who will pay for it and how do you ensure the books balance without increasing the public debt even further?
But both capitalism and socialism co exist to greater or lesser extent in nearly every country, it's the blend that different. Pure capitalism has never existed, and pure socialism is a piepdream (IMO).
I suspect that you are mistaking socialism for communism. I'm no expert, but I don't think socialism expects or wants 'the State to provide for all of its citizens". Rather it strives for social justice and reduced inequality of wealth, health and happiness.
I think we have, generally speaking, a good mix in this country: However, the socialism aspect is currently being very badly run and funded.
I suspect that you are mistaking socialism for communism.
It's not surprising as the RW media seem to deliberately use the phrases interchangeably.
flanagaj - Member - Block User - Quote
I a understand the true socialist model where the state provides all for it's citizens
Umm, no.
Seriously- I would *genuinely* recommend getting a a good book on political theory and reading up on it. Get better informed away from STW. You sound to me from your various threads as if you're ready to get into it.
This is good:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Introduction-Political-Philosophy-Jonathan-Wolff/019929609X
And from there, branch back and check out the classics; Mill, Hobbes, all available for free these days.
It really depends on your definition, but the UK government employs around a 1/5 of the uk work force id argue thats socialism working well with capitalism already.
it can't because everybody is an individual who will do what they want or please in their own manner.
it can't because everybody is an individual who will do what they want or please in their own manner.
Absolutely, hence anarchy is the most desirable solution.
Paying for it is the easy bit. You get the people who benefit from it to pay. Hard bit is making the wealthy accept that they are wealthy because of society as a whole. Its not those at the top paying for those at the bottom. I think some kind of universal basic income is the way to share the wealth. No stigma like benefits. If you are part of a society you receive a portion of the wealth.
it can't because everybody is an individual who will do what they want or please in their own manner.
You may be but that is skewing your thoughts. Some of us are happy for better equality even if it means we are worse for it. It doesn't stop me doing what I want though, what do you actually think socialism is?
You could read something like Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice'.
Although my main degree many years ago was law we were required to take one non-law module per year so I did political philosophy for three years.
Of all of it Rawls has stuck with me and had a long lasting effect on how I judge, as a yardstick, all the tosh that's pumped out these days - fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle (that allows inequality only to the extent that they benefits the worst off - recognising talent and entrepreneurship and rewarding it but recognising that the allocation of talent etc. is largely a matter of brute luck and as such not wholly deserved).
what do you actually think socialism is?
as a human race we always thrive to be the best and do it by whatever means necessary. in old times that was putting food on the table.in modern times it's the likes of apple and mobil. sucking everything out of every resource so the top few can gain more. socialism can never work, because as i said people are too individually minded.
As mentioned it's the balance that's important, socialism and capitalism do co-exist. imo capitalist dominant societies should slowly convert to the concept of universal-ism(ie NHS, pensions, student fees, prescriptions charges etc, that could and should be expanded to other aspects). Problem is we're going the other way these days with people actively fighting against that towards individualism.
It's not desirable to live in a pure socialist society imo, it'll lead to stagnancy. Going the other way will just leads to incredible divisions in society.
All about the balance. But there should be a concerted effort to promote the ideals of universal-ism, where ever possible immo. We should also reign in the worst excesses, both individual and collective.
It's all about the direction of travel, that direction is something that pushes me towards scottish independence these days(more in hope of a change in direction than anything else). Though the current politic impasse has interested me to see where that starts heading once the dust settles. If the direction changes, I could quite easily be convinced against SI.
every country in the world is mixed
Even at its most extreme capitalism the army is provided by the state or socilaistically,
Others say read up on it and form your own view
Personally I dont care that much as long as we look after the weak and divid the resources more fairly
i never understand why folk are happy that we have millions living in poverty do the odd person can live with so much wealth they could never hope to spend it anyway is the richest 10 folk on the planet have more wealth than the bottom 50%.
Whatever model you use this is a fail for me
Anarchism isn't a political system. It's basic concept is challenging unnecessary authority and dismantling and replacing it whenever it becomes necessary(Or not replacing it as the purist would tell you, but be honest, that's ridiculous, power structures will always form). Anarchism as a philosophy, imo, can exist within any political system.Three_Fish - Member
Absolutely, hence anarchy is the most desirable solution.
A fine ideal, imo. But by god did it take me a long time to understand that concept! 😆
Thanks.https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Introduction-Political-Philosophy-Jonathan-Wolff/019929609X
From a philosophical aspect though has social media and the ever increasing rise of the materialistic world we seem to live in have caused the imbalance between 'want' & 'need'?
A true socialist surely would not 'want'?
Every time i hear anyone talk of anarchy I just think of the wild west
if we look at stateless societies today like the Sudan and Somalia I dont see a lack of government/hierarchy helping folk much
Its just leads to an extreme version of survival of the fittest/power coming from might
Yer deregulating capitalists are anarchists, but no-one likes to mention that.
A true socialist surely would not 'want'?
I want to be healthy
I want to eat
I want a better world
I want a bike
etc
Why do you think "want" is incompatible?
Excessive greed and self indulgent consumption is incompatible - you cannot have your multi million pound yacht as it means thousands have to live in high rises without adequate fire protection ...society can decide which is more worthwhile for the greatest good of the greatest number
Yes they can, its a matter of degrees
A true socialist/utilitarian society by its nature would not be a pleasant place to be - a true socialist society could not for instance have any meaningful concept of human rights which are essentially a liberal/libertarian concept.
Why do you think "want" is incompatible?Excessive greed and self indulgent consumption is incompatible - you cannot have your multi million pound yacht as it means thousands have to live in high rises without adequate fire protection ...society can decide which is more worthwhile for the greatest good of the greatest number
Because "want" is greed?
I won't argue your second point as it is very valid, but you cannot redress the balance unless the balance is redressed globally.
😯a true socialist society could not for instance have any meaningful concept of human rights
That is just not true
I am sure it is for some people but not allBecause "want" is greed?
another point is that socialism needs a re-brand. it's a tainted word in many peoples minds. why i prefer to call it universal-ism.
I also think there needs to be promotion of the concept that capitalism and socialism aren't separate systems, they complement each other. There's a ying yang thing going on.
Fair point the "socialist" regimes have a lot of responsibility as they were largely shitty dictatorial regimes
extreme form of state capitalism going on too. capitalism at the very top and grim socialism below that for the masses.Junkyard - lazarus
Fair point the "socialist" regimes have a lot of responsibility as they were largely shitty dictatorial regimes
They can, but I think the main issue has been this - you need two types of money.
You should have one form of money for the "socialism" aspect - a basic income, which provides a safety net.
Then you should have another form of money for the "capitalism" aspect - venture money, which you can risk/invest as you see fit, and lose or multiply accordingly.
The problem is we only have one type of money to try and reconcile what are conflicting aims - on the one hand, safety, and on the other, risk.
For example, if we had two types of money pre-banking crisis, then the bailouts should have taken place with the "risk" money, and the "socialist" money should go untouched.
That is just not true
It must be true unless you mean a socialy democratic society whick is not the same thing.
socialism being (probably not the best definition:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a wholeThat of itself curtails the rights of the individual.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
That of itself curtails the rights of the individual.
Whose are the individuals rights you refer to? The owner(s) or the worker(s)?
If the owners, well yes, as it collectivises their ownership.
If the workers, well no, as they then get some say the never had before(hoever diluted by the collective, i agree that alone would bring it's own complications and self interest).
An incredibly simplistic example i'll give you. but the pont is that rights depend on your perspective.
The thing with human rights is their universal applicability be you an owner or a worker so you have to deny that universality.
Back to Rawls; choose the system of distributive justice on the basis that you won't know what your eventual position in society will be - get the person who cuts the cake to take his piece last and so on.
again, it's a balance, when do the rights of the individual supersede the collective, and when do the rights of the collective supersede the individual.Nipper99 - Member
The thing with human rights is their universal applicability be you an owner or a worker so you have to deny that universality.
I doubt that's something you can apply absolutes to and there has to be give and take.
you said there was no meaningful concept of human rights not that rights were curtailed
Are you saying i can go and reclaim the rights of ownership of land for example - no one ever really owned it did they ? - or are my rights curtailed?
Every single society will curtail your freedom to some degree the issue is whether what it offers is worth the sacrifice
Take the highway code. it curtails my rights to drive/cycle/walk as I please but leaves me much safer on the road so its a freedom worth losing for safety . It does not mean there are no meaningful human rights.
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.
We need ernie, always find his contributions interesting and thought-provoking. Come back ernie!
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.
It also true than one nation Toryism is essentially dead
Ghandi has allready covered it...
There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice and politics without principle.
Dunno, about dead, but one observation I'd make from the recent election is that in 2 aspects, top down dictatorial rule, ie Mayism and the SNPs top downism, have taken a bit of a beating.Junkyard - lazarusIt also true than one nation Toryism is essentially dead
the SNP were "beaten" as the unionists combined and by beaten we mean second best result ever and still easily having a majority
there was a big element of that, biggest element was just snp supporters not turning up.
2015 - 1,454,436
2017 - 977,569
says a lot about peoples opinions on snp performance, imo.
Done to death on other threads
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.
depends if they can make a dent in corporate protectionism, and corporate collusion with politics.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.