[screenager2004]

(Original post by kka25)
Do you know exactly what she meant by that?

That she thinks people should look after themselves first. With capitalism, it's every man for himself.

She spoke of obligations and entitlements, but completely denied the fact that it was the system and social structure that she enforced that was dis-enabling the working classes to fulfil their obligations in the first place.

[prog2djent]

According to WelshBluebird logic

Fascism is socialism
statism is socialism
a dictatorship is socialism
totalitarianism is socialism
feudalism is socialism
nationalisation is socialism
the public sector is socialism
Nationalism is socialism
National socialism ... is socialism
Education is socialist
The police force is socialist
the army is socialist
the courts are socialist
the NHS is socialist
the royal mail is socialist

[prog2djent]

(Original post by wilson_smith)
The NHS is hardly socialist in any substantive sense of the word - if one defines socialism as the common ownership of the means of production, and a sector shifts to state control, ownership isn't common but monopolised by a highly centralised body - the state. It's a very tenuous claim to maintain state-control equates to common control by reason of representative democracy, nor is this what socialism has traditionally meant or self-identified as.

This

[mevidek]

(Original post by prog2djent)
AAAAHH yes, that well documented period of history where capital was abolosihed, profit illegal, and we were moving towards classlessness.

I'm sorry? It's true, the NHS Act of 1948 set up the NHS in 1949, and was originally an idea created by Aneurin Bevan, a Socialist. The earliest other influence would probably the National Health Insurance Act of the early 20th Century, created by Lloyd George, who was also pretty far-left for a politician compared to those today. The work of the Labour Party at the time, however, was what really created the NHS and the welfare state.

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
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?

The point is that if the government no longer funds the majority of the list you have given, only a fraction of the taxes currently collected would be taken from everyone's income and everyone would have the economic freedom to choose where to put their money when it comes to health, education, services currently run by local councils.

Socialism takes away the important freedom of capital (which would give incentive for only useful goods and services to be produced and provided, unlike the inefficiently produced rubbish the public sector pumps out year after year). If the private sector provide services such as health care they could provide the same appalling quality of the national health service but for much less, i.e. costs to everyone go down in the long run.

Socialism chases unsustainable short run solutions to problems that will remain with us in the long run - capitalism isn't just for the few rich people - it frees up their wealth to benefit the whole of society.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Socialism takes away the important freedom of capital .

Don't worry, these posers aren't real socialists, they are largely pro-capitalists statists who are more right wing than they think.

And the major socialist parties around europe aren't socialist either, I mean the biggest one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(France)

social democratic.

Derp.

[Drapetomanic]

(Original post by prog2djent)
People seriously ******* need to learn the difference between socialism and statism, the USA and australia, under you're definitions, would be socialist.

As a socialist, I can vouch for what you're saying.

Socialism by definition is the common ownership of the means of production. The NHS is a statist idea, not a socialist one. However, something like the NHS could exist in a socialist society, I envisage the NHS being ran by it's workers like a cooperative.

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Don't worry, these posers aren't real socialists, they are largely pro-capitalists statists who are more right wing than they think.

And the major socialist parties around europe aren't socialist either, I mean the biggest one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(France)

social democratic.

Derp.

OK, don't really get what you're trying to say, but yes, not many if any -fully- socialist political parties exist in Europe.

Problem is that the moment a sizable amount of the economy consists of government run enterprise, it has a significant negative impact on the private enterprise of that economy. It does not require a fully socialist system for us to witness the problems it breeds, it only takes an inflated public sector in a country that claims to be capitalist, such as the UK, and from there it is a downward slope with more and more people believing that more, rather than less, government intervention will fix the problems which were caused by government activities in the first place.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
As a socialist, I can vouch for what you're saying.

Socialism by definition is the common ownership of the means of production. The NHS is a statist idea, not a socialist one. However, something like the NHS could exist in a socialist society, I envisage the NHS being ran by it's workers like a cooperative.

I'd rather it be run as a co-op than by the state.

I've linked a user to revleft and invited him to tell people that socialism is either common/worker ownership, or can be run by the state, I bet that'd stir up the hive.

Speaking as a right wing person, I can safely say our side has done its job in propogandising socialism = state control over the economy/nationalisation on a few industries, you can see it with braindead republicans who think europe is socialist and obama is a commy because he might have give some more powers to the federal and legislative levels over certain industry, yet he's still a crony capitalist at the end of the day. But what we have aswell are people that think that is actually socialism, and wear it as a fashion label. People who think europe is also socialist and use us as a positive yardstick.

As I've said before, socialism, true socialism is always revolutionary, and capital will be abolished, profit made illegal, assets first handed to the state via collective councils, class slowly destroyed, and the workers have full control, then the state disolves. Whether it will work is a different issue.

But what we have is a bunch of quasi-leftist progressive 'liberals' who think that socialism = nationalisation, and that somehow, socialism is half way between capitalism and communism, absolutely rediculous.

Statism is a bit of a broad term too, you can have right wing statism which is fascism, left wing statism which is the transitional communist proletariat period, and centrist (really center right) statism which is social democracy, and most socialist poseurs are social democrats who are more right wing than they think.

[Herr]

She was against the unions who were essentially disrupting and causing far more problems to Britain than anything else of that era.

I won't say that she was completely against socialism, remember she hardly did anything to the privatization of the NHS and despite lowering of taxes, especially for the rich it still remained quite high. What she was highly against was simply wastages which she saw as widespread in all areas of government.

Am sure if she came in at a moment of boom her policies would have been totally different but she came at a moment of economic downturn and plenty of uncertainties, frugality and austerity was indeed required and in a way "wanted" by the British public she just delivered according to the mandate she was given.

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Don't worry, these posers aren't real socialists, they are largely pro-capitalists statists who are more right wing than they think.

And the major socialist parties around europe aren't socialist either, I mean the biggest one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(France)

social democratic.

Derp.

Socialist =/= Social democrat, gotcha, my bad

Both fall down in the same fashion - no incentive to do anything whatsoever leading to an unproductive nation

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
Just imagine all the money the government would save by scrapping the NHS????????????

And just imagine how many people would suffer because they would not be able to afford to pay for private healthcare.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
The point is that if the government no longer funds the majority of the list you have given, only a fraction of the taxes currently collected would be taken from everyone's income and everyone would have the economic freedom to choose where to put their money when it comes to health, education, services currently run by local councils.

You assume that the amount saved by people not paying as much tax (indeed that is a massive assumption itself - that taxation would be lowered) would be enough to pay for things like healthcare and education and everything else. The reality is that it would not be enough.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Socialism takes away the important freedom of capital (which would give incentive for only useful goods and services to be produced and provided, unlike the inefficiently produced rubbish the public sector pumps out year after year).

Of course, none of that is true.
The NHS, state education etc etc is not rubbish. And without it, the vast majority of people would simply not be able to afford those things.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
If the private sector provide services such as health care they could provide the same appalling quality of the national health service but for much less, i.e. costs to everyone go down in the long run.

1 - Costs would go UP because of the need for profit. Not down.
2 - The NHS is not awful. For the vast majority of people it is brilliant. The stories you hear in the media are the minority. Similar issues exist in the private sector too (where a minority of treatments go wrong), but in those cases it is left to the NHS to pick up the pieces.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Socialism chases unsustainable short run solutions to problems that will remain with us in the long run - capitalism isn't just for the few rich people - it frees up their wealth to benefit the whole of society.

Can you give an example of a purely capitalist country where this has worked? No you cannot, because there has never been one. Every capitalist country in existence has had to use some socialist / left wing ideas (be it things like universal healthcare, benefits, or whatever).

[Drapetomanic]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I'd rather it be run as a co-op than by the state.

I've linked a user to revleft and invited him to tell people that socialism is either common/worker ownership, or can be run by the state, I bet that'd stir up the hive.

Speaking as a right wing person, I can safely say our side has done its job in propogandising socialism = state control over the economy/nationalisation on a few industries, you can see it with braindead republicans who think europe is socialist and obama is a commy because he might have give some more powers to the federal and legislative levels over certain industry, yet he's still a crony capitalist at the end of the day. But what we have aswell are people that think that is actually socialism, and wear it as a fashion label. People who think europe is also socialist and use us as a positive yardstick.

As I've said before, socialism, true socialism is always revolutionary, and capital will be abolished, profit made illegal, assets first handed to the state via collective councils, class slowly destroyed, and the workers have full control, then the state disolves. Whether it will work is a different issue.

But what we have is a bunch of quasi-leftist progressive 'liberals' who think that socialism = nationalisation, and that somehow, socialism is half way between capitalism and communism, absolutely rediculous.

Statism is a bit of a broad term too, you can have right wing statism which is fascism, left wing statism which is the transitional communist proletariat period, and centrist (really center right) statism which is social democracy, and most socialist poseurs are social democrats who are more right wing than they think.

I agree completely with everything you've said, except maybe the bold. I've moved away from the the socialism you've described to a more market orientated system. Still revolutionary, still common ownership of the means of production, still decentralization of power and the state. The difference is that worker ran enterprises compete for a profit on the market as a means of allocating and producing goods and services. I'd argue that's still socialist, if not communist.

I think I'd also get shouted down on revleft for suggesting such things these days.

[LETSJaM]

So it took precisely 8 posts for people to drift off topic and start arguing with each other. Riiight...

<3 x

[Cheese_Monster]

Thatcher rejected socialism primarily along the lines of neo-liberal thought. The state shouldn't have excessive power as high public spending would lead to greater inflation. Also, she thought that the state often has separate interests from the people and can be the 'stepping stone to totalitarianism'. Hence, why she wanted to roll back the frontiers of the state, especially considering when she came to office, the trade unions had disproportionate influence in a form of corporatism.

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)

You assume that the amount saved by people not paying as much tax (indeed that is a massive assumption itself - that taxation would be lowered) would be enough to pay for things like healthcare and education and everything else. The reality is that it would not be enough.

The reality is that current taxes are not enough to pay for these things either - you obviously just think it's ok for government to spend what it doesn't have. I'm not implying that current policy makers would cut taxes, they would not. But it would be the logical follow through of cutting the spending - cutting the taxes that fund the spending.

Of course, none of that is true.
The NHS, state education etc etc is not rubbish. And without it, the vast majority of people would simply not be able to afford those things.

The difference is that when considering economics, you must consider potential output, not absolute output. If the public sector uses 100bn to provide something worth 60bn, I'd like my taxes back, thanks. It could be so much better for what it costs but the public sector can never reach anything resembling efficiency.

1 - Costs would go UP because of the need for profit. Not down.
2 - The NHS is not awful. For the vast majority of people it is brilliant. The stories you hear in the media are the minority. Similar issues exist in the private sector too (where a minority of treatments go wrong), but in those cases it is left to the NHS to pick up the pieces.

As above, if the private sector provides what the gov provides for a cost of 70bn and it is worth 60bn, they can take the margin as profit and I'm happy to pay less for the same level of healthcare quality. (these numbers are exemplar, not accurate for the UK)

Can you give an example of a purely capitalist country where this has worked? No you cannot, because there has never been one. Every capitalist country in existence has had to use some socialist / left wing ideas (be it things like universal healthcare, benefits, or whatever).

There have been few countries close to full capitalism. The best alternatives we have today are of low-tax, low intervention with high economic freedom; countries such as Switzerland, Hong Kong. Whereas the social democratic models boast examples such as Spain, Greece and France - so appealing. And for those who have income too low to actually pay for health insurance, the government can pay for it as a direct benefit - so no one is actually left without health insurance, i.e. your argument is pretty invalid. If i am correct, the Swiss healthcare system is (or close enough to) 100% privately provided, and the government provide private health insurance for those who cannot afford it once taxes are at the level of a country such as Switzerland.

[kidoo]

(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.

You like breaking peoples statements up into segments and antagonising them by siphoning every word they say - So I'll do the same to you.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Only for a minority.

How does capitalism only benefit a minority? It benefits more than 95% of people because if you engage in economic activity you improve your utility and through capitalism that is how you raise living standards.

THANK capitalism because due to its product you have a house over your head right now.

Basic economics tells you that there is only a finite amount of resources available and the utopian allocative measure of Socialism simply does not take that into consideration.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
socialism needs capitalism to pay for the schemes and such.

I think you are confusing one principle with the other, their principles are synonymous.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by kidoo)
You like breaking peoples statements up into segments and antagonising them by siphoning every word they say - So I'll do the same to you.

I am not antagonising anyone.
I am simply responding the the different points made in turn.

(Original post by kidoo)
How does capitalism only benefit a minority?

Because the profits made only got to the tiny minority at the top.

(Original post by kidoo)
It benefits more than 95% of people because if you engage in economic activity you improve your utility and through capitalism that is how you raise living standards.

But the point is that it only benefits the rest because of left wing / socialist ideas (which I agree are only possible because of capitalism). They have to work together.

(Original post by kidoo)
THANK capitalism because due to its product you have a house over your head right now.

But it is only thanks to socialism and the left wing that I did not die when I was 1 week old (as there is no way my parents would have been able to afford the healthcare I required when I was born).

(Original post by kidoo)
Basic economics tells you that there is only a finite amount of resources available and the utopian allocative measure of Socialism simply does not take that into consideration.

And basic humanity tells you that there are more important things than money, and capitalism simply does not take that into consideration.

(Original post by kidoo)
I think you are confusing one principle with the other, their principles are synonymous.

I am not confusing anything.
I am saying that in order for left wing / socialist policies to exist (such as universal healthcare, of taxpayer funded education), then you must have some sort of capitalism to pay for it.
At the same time, pure capitalism without anything I have mentioned would be a total hell, without people left to suffer and die for no reason other than lack of money.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
The reality is that current taxes are not enough to pay for these things either - you obviously just think it's ok for government to spend what it doesn't have. I'm not implying that current policy makers would cut taxes, they would not. But it would be the logical follow through of cutting the spending - cutting the taxes that fund the spending.

There are many areas of government spending that could be cut, or areas of government funding that would be increased.
However, because of political beliefs amongst other things, none of those things will ever be looked at (unless we have a massive change in our political landscape).

(Original post by JuKaMy)
The difference is that when considering economics, you must consider potential output, not absolute output. If the public sector uses 100bn to provide something worth 60bn, I'd like my taxes back, thanks. It could be so much better for what it costs but the public sector can never reach anything resembling efficiency.

But once again, money is not everything.
Giving everyone in the country access to healthcare for example is much more important than some people at the top making a lot of money.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
As above, if the private sector provides what the gov provides for a cost of 70bn and it is worth 60bn, they can take the margin as profit and I'm happy to pay less for the same level of healthcare quality. (these numbers are exemplar, not accurate for the UK)

But there is nothing to suggest they would provide it for less.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
There have been few countries close to full capitalism.

But all have had some kind of left wing / liberal / socialist policy to help those who need it.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
And for those who have income too low to actually pay for health insurance, the government can pay for it as a direct benefit - so no one is actually left without health insurance, i.e. your argument is pretty invalid.

So that is not pure capitalism. The idea of benefits (be it cash, or in terms of paying for a product like private health insurance) is not a capitalist idea.

[wilson_smith]

(Original post by kidoo)
How does capitalism only benefit a minority? It benefits more than 95% of people because if you engage in economic activity you improve your utility and through capitalism that is how you raise living standards.

To say market exchanges yield a utility gain for both parties does tremendously little to justify the edifice of capitalism. Slave societies existed wherein free exchange of slaves yielded immediate utility gains for those exchanging - this doesn't somehow justify slave societies. Market pricing only considers the two persons exchanging, not the effect of the transaction on anyone else - that is, the externalities. More widely and importantly, your claim says nothing for the structure under which those transactions are taken etc. - it's beyond naive to think the existence of free exchange automatically equates to a normatively dominant state of affairs, it says nothing for the justness, fairness, or the measure of any other normative value, present in a society.

(Original post by kidoo)
Basic economics tells you that there is only a finite amount of resources available and the utopian allocative measure of Socialism simply does not take that into consideration.

What socialist allocative measure? How doesn't it take it into consideration? There isn't one blanket system of allocation which all socialists endorse.