About Socialism

I was a Prog for decades - still am, but it's a small p now. I was a capital P until I realised that they/we were interested in standing still, not moving forward. We were forever trying to freeze time in some utopian moment (possibly the turn of the century-ish). Worse, like all conservatives and ideologues, we believed that OUR way was the right way for all times and places. A genuine progressive understands that different times will demand different solutions and different politics. A famine might mean we need to go full commie. A plague might mean we need to go full libertarian. Also, changing social norms and economies mean that neither side is wrong or right, but different elements of each are right for different problems.

It's about the vehicle moving forward towards the greatest good for the greatest number, by adjusting to the prevailing conditions. The make and model of the vehicle are irrelevant.

 

Modern examples will serve you better. Worth keeping in mind that the genie is out of the bottle now. Entropy demands there's no going back.

 

Once again, complexity is just not something we can cater to. Not without killing the planet, and killing millions of the most impoverished and oppressed peoples. Complexity is a luxury that humanity and earth cannot afford. We're obliged by decency to limit our largess to the fundamentals. That's were real equality lies, not in the indulgence of First World nuance.

 

I'm a socialist. A commie, even. I believe in (and practice - at different levels over the years) collectivism. The problem is that the First World Progressive city dweller is the polar opposite of a collectivist. They are the individualists, being unwilling to sacrifice their 'independence and free choice' for the good of the family/collective/community.

 

I just have to pass along a response I saw to a news article regarding Venezuela's socialism this morning. Simple little story-

"I was talking to a friend’s little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were to be the President, what is the first thing you would do?’ She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’ ‘Wow - what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘You don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my sidewalks and driveway, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house.’ She thought that over for a few seconds ‘cause she’s only 6. And while her Mom glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?” And I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party, sweetheart.”

 

Obvious tosh. Its naive to talk about human capital without also factoring in social capital. Blair's "education, education, education" is a classic example. By making it easier for middle class kiddywinks to go to university, New Labour actually harmed social mobility. They acquired jobs which originally went to high ability working class kids. At the same time, middle class graduates had more business links and therefore acquired a higher rate of return.

How many of your likes come from right wingers? Bit of a lesson!

The problem is that you don't derive radical argument. This is a classic example, where you parrot supply side tosh.

 

Of course they are.

So are rural dwellers. And suburbanites and every one else.

This is one of the reasons why collectivism / communism / socialism is evil and always fails.

There is no moral ethical or any other standard which concludes that the group or community is more important than the individual.

Persons have rights groups do not and each community is only as valuable as the individual decides. And there is nothing wrong with that.

You place your own needs above the group and you should. This is why collectivism never works and is abominable. It is nothing more than an excuse for slavery to the mob

 

UK is a mixed economy and proud.

I just hate that people don't stick up for Capitalism as much as they stick up for Socialism in this Mixed Economy of ours.


It's Free Trade (booo)! and Command Economy (BOOO)!
and... Life isn't perfect but it is what it is.

 

The UK is neoliberal. Naff all to do with socialism.

 

What about unemployment/social housing and social healthcare?

I'd argue that in the UK, I was taught what economic type the UK has when I studied Business.
It's being taught that there are four types of economies;
Market
Command
Traditional
&
Mixed.

The UK has a Mixed Economy because it has both Free Market and Command economies.

Saying UK is Neoliberalism is naff.

 

A mixed economy is a natural outcome in capitalism, given its inherently unstable and requires intervention. To refer to socialism in the UK is laughable. Labour have very little rights, stripped away by Thatcherism since 1979. End result? Profiteering with zero hours contracts.

 

https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/types-of-economies/

Officially UK is Mixed Economy, and that link is for quickness to show you/anybody interested the 4 types of economy.

I don't really like Command Economy, personally.

 

Repetition of the obvious! A mixed economy has naff all to do with socialism. Government is the key economic agent in capitalism. It ensures the reproduction of capitalist profit.

 

I just wonder why people think Capitalism is an economic structure when it's a philosophy.
Capitalism says you must bring home the bacon if you want to eat.
Market economy is based on supply and demand; let's say chocolate almost goes extinct; The cocoa crop needed to make our chocolate is virtually wiped out in this climate change? (for example) - The price of chocolate goes up.
That's Market Economy.

There are 4 types, and UK is classed as Mixed citing the NHS.

 

Use of the market is neither a sufficient or necessary condition for capitalism. See state capitalism and elimination of the market. See market socialism and use of the market to avoid socialist calculation.

 

Mixed. As in "Mixed up". Which is really just polite Brit speak for "FUBAR"

 

The Brit economy is certainly problematic, twinning a low skilled equilibrium with over-reliance on the finance sector. That's the result of Thatcherism and right wingers playing at economics...

 

Simple, in a socialist society, people are subjects of the State meaning they have no self ownership. The State is the soverign and the people are subjects. In a republic like the US the people are Soveign Citizens and the government is the servant of the people. They therefore own themselves, and their property, and cannot be compelled by force to do what is contrary to their own best interests. At least that is the way it was supposed to be.

 

Are you happy about how government is doing as servant? Some people think your government is too big as it is now, but I guess it's not even biggest issue?

 

I am not happy. Our government has become more of a tyrant than a servant. We need to reduce our governments in totality.
We need to return to the ideals our country was founded on.

 

The cliche is that socialism delivers the tyrant. Based around Austrian economics, it ignores how capitalism is just more effective at maintaining authoritarianism. We see that with the US. Politicians bought by special interests. Foreign policy corrupted by the military industrial complex. Domestic policy favouring the corporation over the individual.

 

It is not capitalism that allows the corruption of politicians, and government, it is socialism. It is socialism which allows corporations and monopolies. It is socialism that allows fascism and the collusion between business and government. It is socialism that supports the regulations that suppress competition and free markets. Today our society and government is more socialist than at any time in our history and we have a government which is owned outright by corporate interests.

 

Not just the "Republican Party", the same applies to the Collective. If the homeless guy wants in, he has to pull weeds himself.

 

Socialism only functions when participation is voluntary. As in, voluntary participation because the individual sees it as in their best interests.

 

No it isn't. It's a surplus based economic model, where goods and services are purchased via that surplus. In fact, Socialism also says you must bring home the bacon if you want to eat ... but in this case literally, because you don't have the surplus to go to the store and buy it. So yeah, nothing to do with philosophy.