Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Why does Thatcher have a contempt towards Socialism?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes she's under the conservative party, but any reasons why she would want to abolish socialism all together, especially during her premiership?

    *Asking because would want to know her political thought and views, and I'm still new to politics and economics.
    • 74 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I remember her saying, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

    As far as I know, she didn't believe it to be economically viable. I'm not aware of other reasons for her 'contempt' towards it.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Because she was an individualist. Socialists by their nature favour the collectivisiation of the economy wherever possible because they believe this offers the poor a guaranteed way out of poverty. Thatcher thought this was nonsense and instead promoted the individualist free market ideal, wealth is generated through trade and investment so her idea was to free up the wealth makers and allow everyone to benefit from a larger share of the pie.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Probably because socialism ruined the British economy before she came in. It is a morally reprehensible ideology which advocates stealing money from productive members of society and giving it to unproductive members of society.

    Also strong misc presence ITT.
    • 22 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    allow everyone to benefit from a larger share of the pie.
    But that isn't really the case. It allows a small minority to benefit.
    Now, you can argue that it does allow the money made to be spend on things like the NHS etc etc, which do benefit everyone. But that is because they are SOCIALIST ideas.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But that isn't really the case. It allows a small minority to benefit.
    Now, you can argue that it does allow the money made to be spend on things like the NHS etc etc, which do benefit everyone. But that is because they are SOCIALIST ideas.
    Capitalism substantially benefits living standards. All one needs to do is compare more capitalist countries with socialist ones to see how much better capitalism is. The NHS only exists because it leeches off capitalism.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    because socialism believes in the welfare of all it inhabitants not just the rich.thatcher doesn't.SIMPLEES!
    • 22 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sdiff)
    Capitalism substantially benefits living standards.
    Only for a minority.
    For it to also benefit the rest, you need to mix in some socialist ideas such as benefits, state funded healthcare etc etc.

    (Original post by Sdiff)
    All one needs to do is compare more capitalist countries with socialist ones to see how much better capitalism is.
    Of course, there are no countries that are pure capitalist. They all have elements of socialism mixed in too. For good reason.

    (Original post by Sdiff)
    The NHS only exists because it leeches off capitalism.
    Which is pretty much what I said. We can fund such things thanks to capitalism. But without these socialist ideas, capitalism would not work.
    Basically, capitalism needs socialism so people don't suffer, and socialism needs capitalism to pay for the schemes and such.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    the NHS etc etc, which do benefit everyone. But that is because they are SOCIALIST ideas.
    Riiiiiiight, the NHS is a "socialist" idea.

    :iiam:
    • 22 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Riiiiiiight, the NHS is a "socialist" idea.

    :iiam:
    Yes it is.
    It is a state funded and run organisation where profit is not relevant (and profit made pays for the non profitable treatments).
    If that is not socialist, then what the hell is.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Riiiiiiight, the NHS is a "socialist" idea.

    :iiam:
    Hmm... state-provided healthcare for all.

    It's hardly a capitalist concept.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    :mad:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Only for a minority.
    For it to also benefit the rest, you need to mix in some socialist ideas such as benefits, state funded healthcare etc etc.



    Of course, there are no countries that are pure capitalist. They all have elements of socialism mixed in too. For good reason.



    Which is pretty much what I said. We can fund such things thanks to capitalism. But without these socialist ideas, capitalism would not work.
    Basically, capitalism needs socialism so people don't suffer, and socialism needs capitalism to pay for the schemes and such.
    Capitalism benefits the majority. If the government were to stop redistributing wealth; stop taxing people, the majority would be better off. Sure some leeches would be worse off, but these are a minority. Look at America of old. Back when they remained true to their founding principles of libertarianism, they were extremely prosperous. This has started to decline, because of mostly the military industrial complex mixed in with some socialism.


    Our current system is mostly capitalism with some socialism. The failed system of old Labour was mostly socialism with some capitalism mixed.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Its a statist idea, and no it isn't completely capitalistic, though capital is involved, and the NHS tries to copy the market mechanism in some ways.

    You have made the classic error of thinking socialism = public sector, mostly its my fellow dunder headed rightists that make this error, but I've noticed a lot of Social democrats, or socialist juniors, make the mistakw aswell.

    Its just all so common, "what we need is to blend socialist ideas and capitalism to ...."

    er, no, you can't have socialism and capitalism working together, you can have nationalised industries or municipalities within a capitalist system, essentially this is state capitalsim, or for socialists, real socialists, this is the worst thing of all, capital within state socialism.

    :ms:

    can you remind me who is owning the rights of production?
    • 22 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sdiff)
    :mad:
    Capitalism benefits the majority. If the government were to stop redistributing wealth; stop taxing people, the majority would be better off. Sure some leeches would be worse off, but these are a minority.
    Really?
    So if we took aware all state education, all state healthcare, state funding of roads, etc etc etc, the majority of people would be better off? Despite the large costs they would now have to pay for education, healthcare, university, roads, unemployment insurance, sickness insurance, to get rubbish collected, for street lights etc etc?
    What world do you live in?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sdiff)
    Capitalism substantially benefits living standards. All one needs to do is compare more capitalist countries with socialist ones to see how much better capitalism is. The NHS only exists because it leeches off capitalism.
    You only need to consider all the countries involved in a capitalist system to see that this isn't the case. After all, the British economy is a capitalist system that extends beyond the UK - it includes operations in Nigeria, Iraq, China, Uganda, India etc. When you take into account the affect on EVERYONE affected by the system, not just those who benefit the most, you see that it's a terribly harmful system.

    Capitalism raises mean living standards by dramatically increasing the living standards of the few while not benefiting or reducing the living standards of the majority. It produces a very tail-heavy distribution of living standards.

    Neither median, nor modal living standards improve under a Capitalist system.


    (Also note that the USSR was not a communist system, it was a autocracy. But from your viewpoint it worked great - look how fantastically well off the communist party became!)
    • 22 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Its a statist idea, and no it isn't completely capitalistic, though capital is involved, and the NHS tries to copy the market mechanism in some ways.

    You have made the classic error of thinking socialism = public sector, mostly its my fellow dunder headed rightists that make this error, but I've noticed a lot of Social democrats, or socialist juniors, make the mistakw aswell.

    Its just all so common, "what we need is to blend socialist ideas and capitalism to ...."

    er, no, you can't have socialism and capitalism working together, you can have nationalised industries or municipalities within a capitalist system, essentially this is state capitalsim, or for socialists, real socialists, this is the worst thing of all, capital within state socialism.

    :iiam:

    can you remind me who is owning the rights of production?
    I think you are the one who is confused.
    A nationalised industry IS a socialist idea.
    Common ownership, be it direct (by the workers) or indirect (by the state) is socialism.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    You only need to consider all the countries involved in a capitalist system to see that this isn't the case. After all, the British economy is a capitalist system that extends beyond the UK - it includes operations in Nigeria, Iraq, China, Uganda, India etc. When you take into account the affect on EVERYONE affected by the system, not just those who benefit the most, you see that it's a terribly harmful system.

    Capitalism raises mean living standards by dramatically increasing the living standards of the few while not benefiting or reducing the living standards of the majority. It produces a very tail-heavy distribution of living standards.

    Neither median, nor modal living standards improve under a Capitalist system.


    (Also note that the USSR was not a communist system, it was a autocracy. But from your viewpoint it worked great - look how fantastically well off the communist party became!)
    Imperialist capitalism is awful, you really shouldn't have brought that up because everyone on the left and capitalists with a conscience understand it is awful.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99luft Balons)
    The problem is your focusing on the things in life that don't really matter. When I was a kid I had hopes and dreams. We all did. But over time, the daily grind gets in the way and you miss the things that really matter, even though they are right in front of you, staring you in the face. I think the next time you should ask yourself "Am I on the right track here?". I don't mean to be rude but people like you I really pity. So maybe you could use the few brain cells you have and take advantage of the knowledge I have given you now. Good luck.
    What the hell is this?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Thatcher famously said "There is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families"

    So of course she wouldn't accept socialism.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Imperialist capitalism is awful, you really shouldn't have brought that up because everyone on the left and capitalists with a conscience understand it is awful.
    True, but I could also point to the number of young unemployed people in the UK or Spain, or to the number of incarcerated people in the USA. Capitalism doesn't benefit everyone, it benefits very few people and that skews the average.

    And when has there ever been an example of non-imperialist Capitalism?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 11, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE English mock revision

Revise together & check out past papers

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.