Is socialism actually working here?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

sydtheeagle England 24 Jun 15 8.23pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 3.58pm Quote The Sash at 24 Jun 2015 3.35pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jun 2015 1.02pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 12.58pm [Link] I may have just found an example where socialism is actually bettering the lives of the many rather than unintentionally worsening lives. What do you think? That's not socialism, that Anarchism. I like it. Personally I don't think socialism really makes peoples lives worse here, arguably things like welfare, disability living allowance and the NHS serve to cushion the impact of capitalism and post-industrialism. Absolutely it is. The definition of Anarchy is not 'without rules' but 'without rulers'...and it would f***ing work In the developed world at any rate there isn't socialism or capitalism in their truest form - Both have lurched towards corporatism and an enslavement to business - usually in the West, its the financial business. Edited by The Sash (24 Jun 2015 3.37pm) You can't have rules without rulers......It's a contradiction. It's not a contradiction at all. What I think you're trying to say is "you can't have rules without A ruler" (singular.) But you can. Collective rule self-imposed by all the people is still being ruled. Whether the idea is Utopian and impractical is another debate. Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 24 Jun 15 8.23pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 3.58pm

Quote The Sash at 24 Jun 2015 3.35pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jun 2015 1.02pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 12.58pm

[Link]

I may have just found an example where socialism is actually bettering the lives of the many rather than unintentionally worsening lives.

What do you think?

That's not socialism, that Anarchism. I like it. Personally I don't think socialism really makes peoples lives worse here, arguably things like welfare, disability living allowance and the NHS serve to cushion the impact of capitalism and post-industrialism.

Absolutely it is.

The definition of Anarchy is not 'without rules' but 'without rulers'...and it would f***ing work

In the developed world at any rate there isn't socialism or capitalism in their truest form - Both have lurched towards corporatism and an enslavement to business - usually in the West, its the financial business.

Edited by The Sash (24 Jun 2015 3.37pm)

You can't have rules without rulers......It's a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction at all. What I think you're trying to say is "you can't have rules without A ruler" (singular.) But you can. Collective rule self-imposed by all the people is still being ruled. Whether the idea is Utopian and impractical is another debate.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 Jun 15 9.25pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 24 Jun 2015 8.23pm It's not a contradiction at all. What I think you're trying to say is "you can't have rules without A ruler" (singular.) But you can. Collective rule self-imposed by all the people is still being ruled. Whether the idea is Utopian and impractical is another debate. It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot. So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic. Let's leave it at that. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 Jun 15 9.25pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 24 Jun 2015 8.23pm

It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot.

So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic.

Let's leave it at that.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle England 24 Jun 15 9.29pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 9.25pm It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot. So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic. Let's leave it at that. But aren't there examples where it does work? For instance -- not quite the same thing but the same principle of self imposed rule -- where barter economies work effectively in place of central monetary systems. I think essentially you are right, by the way, but it's not a universal truth. Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 24 Jun 15 9.29pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 9.25pm

It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot.

So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic.

Let's leave it at that.

But aren't there examples where it does work? For instance -- not quite the same thing but the same principle of self imposed rule -- where barter economies work effectively in place of central monetary systems. I think essentially you are right, by the way, but it's not a universal truth.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000 24 Jun 15 9.40pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 9.25pm Quote sydtheeagle at 24 Jun 2015 8.23pm It's not a contradiction at all. What I think you're trying to say is "you can't have rules without A ruler" (singular.) But you can. Collective rule self-imposed by all the people is still being ruled. Whether the idea is Utopian and impractical is another debate. It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot. So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic. Let's leave it at that. Wouldn't the chocolate teapot work if it was cold tea? 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

24 Jun 15 9.40pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 9.25pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 24 Jun 2015 8.23pm

It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot.

So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic.

Let's leave it at that.

Wouldn't the chocolate teapot work if it was cold tea?

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 Jun 15 10.34pm
Quote johnno42000 at 24 Jun 2015 9.40pm Wouldn't the chocolate teapot work if it was cold tea? 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 Jun 15 10.34pm

Quote johnno42000 at 24 Jun 2015 9.40pm

Wouldn't the chocolate teapot work if it was cold tea?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 24 Jun 15 10.58pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 12.58pm [Link] I may have just found an example where socialism is actually bettering the lives of the many rather than unintentionally worsening lives. What do you think? What to you constitutes "socialism" Stirling?
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

24 Jun 15 10.58pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 12.58pm

[Link]

I may have just found an example where socialism is actually bettering the lives of the many rather than unintentionally worsening lives.

What do you think?

What to you constitutes "socialism" Stirling?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 Jun 15 11.25pm
Quote legaleagle at 24 Jun 2015 10.58pm What to you constitutes "socialism" Stirling? Why on earth ask that? The concept of socialism is quite well know, it's where the ownership of production and the ability to distribute and trade are owned or at least overseen by the state. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 Jun 15 11.25pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jun 2015 10.58pm

What to you constitutes "socialism" Stirling?

Why on earth ask that?

The concept of socialism is quite well know, it's where the ownership of production and the ability to distribute and trade are owned or at least overseen by the state.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 24 Jun 15 11.46pm
I think IMO not perhaps quite just that but I asked since some people give the impression sometimes things like the NHS are examples of "socialism" or talk about the effects of certain things within our decidedly non-socialist country as "socialism" having an effect on foreign investment (see posts copied below,though I may have misunderstood your's).I wouldn't personally describe the NHS as "socialism",though I know where Jamie is coming from and don't disagree personally that the things he refers to are very positive and a force for good. Not infrequently , some of the right (not saying you) bang on about Labour governments/prospective governments in the past 50 years here as having introduced or proposing "socialism".When what they're on about isn't socialism,but rather just using the term in a demonising way as a bogey word to bash say the Labour Party. Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 1.09pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jun 2015 1.02pm That's not socialism, that Anarchism. I like it. Personally I don't think socialism really makes peoples lives worse here, arguably things like welfare, disability living allowance and the NHS serve to cushion the impact of capitalism and post-industrialism. It can be argued that socialism drives away external investment. That its higher taxes upon the more wealthy drive them away from the tax system completely. That's why the poor always end up paying for the mistakes of state.....Because they can't leave, take their stuff and get out. Edited by legaleagle (24 Jun 2015 11.56pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

24 Jun 15 11.46pm

I think IMO not perhaps quite just that but I asked since some people give the impression sometimes things like the NHS are examples of "socialism" or talk about the effects of certain things within our decidedly non-socialist country as "socialism" having an effect on foreign investment (see posts copied below,though I may have misunderstood your's).I wouldn't personally describe the NHS as "socialism",though I know where Jamie is coming from and don't disagree personally that the things he refers to are very positive and a force for good.

Not infrequently , some of the right (not saying you) bang on about Labour governments/prospective governments in the past 50 years here as having introduced or proposing "socialism".When what they're on about isn't socialism,but rather just using the term in a demonising way as a bogey word to bash say the Labour Party.

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 1.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jun 2015 1.02pm

That's not socialism, that Anarchism. I like it. Personally I don't think socialism really makes peoples lives worse here, arguably things like welfare, disability living allowance and the NHS serve to cushion the impact of capitalism and post-industrialism.

It can be argued that socialism drives away external investment.
That its higher taxes upon the more wealthy drive them away from the tax system completely.

That's why the poor always end up paying for the mistakes of state.....Because they can't leave, take their stuff and get out.

Edited by legaleagle (24 Jun 2015 11.56pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 25 Jun 15 12.41am
Quote legaleagle at 24 Jun 2015 11.46pm I think IMO not perhaps quite just that but I asked since some people give the impression sometimes things like the NHS are examples of "socialism" or talk about the effects of certain things within our decidedly non-socialist country as "socialism" having an effect on foreign investment (see posts copied below,though I may have misunderstood your's).I wouldn't personally describe the NHS as "socialism",though I know where Jamie is coming from and don't disagree personally that the things he refers to are very positive and a force for good. Not infrequently , some of the right (not saying you) bang on about Labour governments/prospective governments in the past 50 years here as having introduced or proposing "socialism".When what they're on about isn't socialism,but rather just using the term in a demonising way as a bogey word to bash say the Labour Party. Edited by legaleagle (24 Jun 2015 11.56pm) I do attack some left wing ideas quite aggressively because ultimately I'm interested in what works to the betterment of society as I see it. I do see the value of some left wing ideas and as Jamie said in an earlier post left of centre politics has contributed to significant improvements in modern life.....It created trade unions at a time of massive exploitation, it started the NHS......Of course, the extent of these creations is another point but it has to be said some ideas from the left have improved society. But what things are desirable in society and what systems are more likely to bring them about? High employment, high affordable homes to population ratio with reasonable levels of social housing. Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy....These and many more ideas are no doubt desirable....But will socialism bring them to reality without bankrupting the country and bringing it to a standstill. It's not as though I'm a massive fan of capitalism either it's just that its regulated implementation does work to an extent.....A flawed extent but at a base level it works. If real socialism actually worked in practice I'd support it but except for the interesting titbit in the link I've only seen failures. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

25 Jun 15 12.41am

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jun 2015 11.46pm

Edited by legaleagle (24 Jun 2015 11.56pm)

I do attack some left wing ideas quite aggressively because ultimately I'm interested in what works to the betterment of society as I see it.

I do see the value of some left wing ideas and as Jamie said in an earlier post left of centre politics has contributed to significant improvements in modern life.....It created trade unions at a time of massive exploitation, it started the NHS......Of course, the extent of these creations is another point but it has to be said some ideas from the left have improved society.

But what things are desirable in society and what systems are more likely to bring them about?

High employment, high affordable homes to population ratio with reasonable levels of social housing. Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy....These and many more ideas are no doubt desirable....But will socialism bring them to reality without bankrupting the country and bringing it to a standstill.

It's not as though I'm a massive fan of capitalism either it's just that its regulated implementation does work to an extent.....A flawed extent but at a base level it works.

If real socialism actually worked in practice I'd support it but except for the interesting titbit in the link I've only seen failures.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 25 Jun 15 12.56am
A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about... But,moving on to your point: "Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "? Closest we've ever had to getting towards that IMO was under the Attlee government operating in very much an overall capitalist, social democrat, liberal democracy environment I'd say...not "socialism"...but IMO generally moving in a direction a lot better (allowing for the circumstances then and improved technology/knowledge etc now) than what we've got and where we're moving today... Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

25 Jun 15 12.56am

A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about...

But,moving on to your point:

"Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "?

Closest we've ever had to getting towards that IMO was under the Attlee government operating in very much an overall capitalist, social democrat, liberal democracy environment I'd say...not "socialism"...but IMO generally moving in a direction a lot better (allowing for the circumstances then and improved technology/knowledge etc now) than what we've got and where we're moving today...

Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am)

Alert a moderator to this post

OldFella London 25 Jun 15 1.13am
Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about... But,moving on to your point: "Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "? Closest we've ever had to getting towards that IMO was under the Attlee government operating in very much an overall capitalist, social democrat, liberal democracy environment I'd say...not "socialism"...but IMO generally moving in a direction a lot better (allowing for the circumstances then and improved technology/knowledge etc now) than what we've got and where we're moving today... Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am) Legal was there...oh no, perhaps he wasn't. Atlee is the most overrated of politicians. But Legal knows better, anyway. W*nkers of the world unite, perhaps, on a joint Legal/Gusset/Brand/Tux/Serial/next fool to lead Labour ticket. Where we're moving today? Work, and get paid properly. Or don't, and don't. Unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, in which case there will ALWAYS be a proper safety net. Lefties - just go away and support Palace for 5 years. Just a suggestion Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..
Alert a moderator to this post

OldFella

London 25 Jun 15 1.13am

Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am

A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about...

But,moving on to your point:

"Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "?

Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am)

Legal was there...oh no, perhaps he wasn't. Atlee is the most overrated of politicians. But Legal knows better, anyway. W*nkers of the world unite, perhaps, on a joint Legal/Gusset/Brand/Tux/Serial/next fool to lead Labour ticket.

Where we're moving today? Work, and get paid properly. Or don't, and don't. Unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, in which case there will ALWAYS be a proper safety net.

Lefties - just go away and support Palace for 5 years.
Just a suggestion

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 25 Jun 15 1.24am
Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about... But,moving on to your point: "Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "? Closest we've ever had to getting towards that IMO was under the Attlee government operating in very much an overall capitalist, social democrat, liberal democracy environment I'd say...not "socialism"...but IMO generally moving in a direction a lot better (allowing for the circumstances then and improved technology/knowledge etc now) than what we've got and where we're moving today... Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am) Difficult to go back seventy years but I take your point.....The problem with modern left wing politics is that along with it comes all that comes the egalitarian thought police stuff. Not for me. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

25 Jun 15 1.24am

Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am

A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about...

But,moving on to your point:

"Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "?

Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am)

Difficult to go back seventy years but I take your point.....The problem with modern left wing politics is that along with it comes all that comes the egalitarian thought police stuff.

Not for me.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is socialism actually working here?

Site Map

Sponsors