Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by ..Northern Soul
Oh right. What to, some sort of libertarian?? When did this happen?
Yeah, friedmanism if that's a word. Sometime around last August/September. It took some courage to do it, I'll give her that, even if I personally disagree with the decision.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Do you think private/public partnerships are ever justified in key services such as education and healthcare?
I like a lot of Socialist ideas, but I think outright Socialism stifles enterprise and entrepreneurship a bit too much, and often stifles economic or public improvements for ideological goals. Blairism/New Labour FTW.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Overground
Do you think private/public partnerships are ever justified in key services such as education and healthcare?
Not so much. People making money out of state education = very unsocialist.
I like a lot of Socialist ideas, but I think outright Socialism stifles enterprise and entrepreneurship a bit too much, and often stifles economic or public improvements for ideological goals. Blairism/New Labour FTW.
We're not really strict socialists, in the sense that we want business to exist to the extent that it supports the common good. We just don't support the dreams of capitalism: we don't want the labour of the majority to get a few men rich. We believe in compassion and collective goals.
Also: much of Scandinavia is basically socialist and, as a result, has very, very high average living standards. We need to stop thinking about economic success in terms of GDP and exchange rates, and concentrate on what matters. It's a myth to brush socialism off as if it doesn't work. It clearly does.
Blair is a charming populist. He had two ideologies: personal discretion and religion. I love the man, but you can't base your poolitical views on his.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by smalltownboy
What are the Socialist parties' policies on healthcare and are they planning any reform of the NHS?
Remove market forces from the NHS; allow absolutely no privatisation.
Tax all private health care providers into submission. That way, rich people don't get to skip the queues and use your doctor, just so that he can make a quick buck.
And obviously raise income tax on the v. rich significantly, so that we can plough more money in and make it world class.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Yeah, why should people who can afford a private service be allowed to use it, when instead they could be putting a further burdon on a crippled, woefully inefficient public service? Whilst we're at it, let's abolish all private schooling - afterall, if we're in the game of suggesting money should be invested (in ones health), then it shouldn't be allowed to be invested in education either (or business, I guess), and lord knows that if the exchequer needs anything, it's more people cashing in on something they're already paying for (oftentimes more than most) but aren't currently using.
Remember guys, it's incredibly easy to moralistically repremand the fiscally liberal, denouncing their selfish ways and offering greater rewards to people merely for being born unto this country when it's other people's money that's being given away. Very generous indeed.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by DanGrover
Yeah, why should people who can afford a private service be allowed to use it, when instead they could be putting a further burdon on a crippled, woefully inefficient public service? Whilst we're at it, let's abolish all private schooling - afterall, if we're in the game of suggesting money should be invested (in ones health), then it shouldn't be allowed to be invested in education either (or business, I guess), and lord knows that if the exchequer needs anything, it's more people cashing in on something they're already paying for (oftentimes more than most) but aren't currently using.
Let's break this down a bit. Personally, I am also opposed to private schooling; however, it is a rather different matter to health. What you fail to grasp in your analysis is that the people providing private health care are exactly the same doctors as the ones providing NHS care. When someone pays for a private operation, all they are paying for is the right to skip ahead of everyone on the NHS waiting-list. It's positively barbaric and, frankly, evil.
Also this rather negates your point about the "burden". Yes, actually, private healthcare is a burden on the NHS, because it limits its ability to function.
I think, in this case, we have a right to feel morally superior: you think something as arbitrary as personal wealth should be used to deny someone a life-saving operation. I do not.
Remember guys, it's incredibly easy to moralistically repremand the fiscally liberal, denouncing their selfish ways and offering greater rewards to people merely for being born unto this country when it's other people's money that's being given away. Very generous indeed.
Yes, it is very easy to morally reprimand someone for being selfish. Funny that.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by JT87
In your own words, what exactly is socialism?
(Sorry if this is a stupid question, i'm not too educated in politics.)
Socialism is a belief in the equal value of all human beings; the belief that we should all work for the good of each other; and a sincere belief in compassion. It is the belief that a society should care deeply for everyone living within it.
Okay, that took me less than a minute, so it's fairly rough.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by DanGrover
Yeah, why should people who can afford a private service be allowed to use it, when instead they could be putting a further burdon on a crippled, woefully inefficient public service? Whilst we're at it, let's abolish all private schooling - afterall, if we're in the game of suggesting money should be invested (in ones health), then it shouldn't be allowed to be invested in education either (or business, I guess), and lord knows that if the exchequer needs anything, it's more people cashing in on something they're already paying for (oftentimes more than most) but aren't currently using.
Remember guys, it's incredibly easy to moralistically repremand the fiscally liberal, denouncing their selfish ways and offering greater rewards to people merely for being born unto this country when it's other people's money that's being given away. Very generous indeed.
+1 Dan. And +1 your original, non intrusive and bloody well done sig. Not too many of those around here, sadly.
I'm not a fan of socialism - maybe it's their random shouting and strange, church hall-like folding tables they insist on using to block the path in the centre of town, when I'm just trying to get to Game. Or maybe it's the fact that I rather like being at the front of the queue. I tend to think of it as a reward for working hard.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by The Humble Mosquito
Let's break this down a bit. Personally, I am also opposed to private schooling; however, it is a rather different matter to health. What you fail to grasp in your analysis is that the people providing private health care are exactly the same doctors as the ones providing NHS care. When someone pays for a private operation, all they are paying for is the right to skip ahead of everyone on the NHS waiting-list. It's positively barbaric and, frankly, evil.
Also this rather negates your point about the "burden". Yes, actually, private healthcare is a burden on the NHS, because it limits its ability to function.
I think, in this case, we have a right to feel morally superior: you think something as arbitrary as personal wealth should be used to deny someone a life-saving operation. I do not.
You talk as if the time and effort, nay, the labour of doctors and nurses across this country is the government's to control. They shouldn't be playing to the government's fiddle just because you deem it to be what they should be doing. Why shouldn't all mechanics work for the good of the people, and not for personal profit?
Allow them to do what they will. If they have a burning desire to help people, allow them to work for a pittance on the NHS. If they merely want money, like the vast majority of people out there who aren't doctors and work to put food on the table, allow them to work privately. If they are willing to take a pay-cut and do both, allow them to do that. But to say that their labour should be designated centrally by the state just because they chose to go into a profession that aids people's health is ridiculous. You want their time, pay them appropriately, just like anyone else.
Yes, it is very easy to morally reprimand someone for being selfish. Funny that.
Allowing people to make agreements amongst each other, free from interference from the government? Yes, very selfish.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by DrunkHamster
I guess you learn some economics...
That made me lol because it is so true. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to some socialistic ideas, I think that a basic welfare state and universal healthcare should be a part of any society that can afford them.
I have a question or three!
To what extent do the socialists answering questions on this thread seek to have socialism established? Are there any countries or regimes that you wish to emulate?
For *some* reason or another Juche, Maoism and Stalinism seem to be unfashionable so I pretty much assume that when someone in this country is a self-proclaimed socialist they are a 'libertarian socialist' or a Trotskyite. What's your particular socialist sect?
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Bismarck
You're agreeing with a false premise. There is no balance involved. A worker's value is the value of products and services he produces. Labor is one of the major costs of any business. An employer will thus pay a worker some sum that is less than the value of his work, since the employer has to pay for capital and has to risk his money on behalf of the business. So let's use some random numbers. An employer needs to make 20% off each worker in order to turn a profit. Let's say he has 3 employees. Employee x generates $15 a day. Employee y generates $10 a day. And employee z generates $5. As things stand, he's going to pay employee x $12, employee y $8, and employee z $4. As things stand, he can keep all 3 workers employed. Now you institute a minimum wage. Let's say you make it $5. Employee z no longer justifies his salary. He's going to get fired. If you make the minimum wage $9, employees y and z will no longer be able to justify their salaries. They'll both get fired. So what do you have now? The increase in the minimum wage is going to slightly bump up the wages of the workers who make slightly less than the minimum wage and the wages of those who keep their jobs. Yet it leads to people getting laid off.
There is no way around it. You artificially increase the cost of labor (meaning that productivity didn't increase at the same time), you decrease the amount of labor that will be employed. Labor will now be substituted with capital (machinery, technology, etc.) to the greatest extent possible. If it's difficult to replace labor with capital, then labor will be outsourced to other countries. If that doesn't work, the company will go bankrupt. Any of the three consequences is going to increase unemployment. The last two cause massive unemployment. I'm always amused at how people can argue with this basic law of economics. There is a trade off. You either have low unemployment and a low minimum wage (or no minimum wage) or you have high unemployment and a high minimum wage. It is conceivable that certain other economic policies might reduce the unemployment rate even with a high minimum wage, but those same policies would have reduced it even more if there was a lower minimum wage. So if socialists want to be taken seriously, they have to acknowledge this trade-off (and many other trade-offs) instead of pretending that they can have the best of both worlds.
Minimum wage is meant to stop the situation where an employer pays significantly less than the workers value, to increase their own profit margin. The employer will still need to employ people, whether at the lower or higher wage, to remain in business. And if a business is only able to get a very low level of value from an employee, you would have to question the viability of the business to rely on such cheap labour anyway.
And also higher minimum wage = higher disposable income = more economic activity (i know its not quite as simple as that).
Anyway, a question for the socialists. I've noticed a mention of the Scandanavian model of socialism as a justification for its successfulness. Is the socialists view of the future of the United Kingdom using the Scandanavian model, the more traditional European model (in countries such as France and Germany), or a mix between the two (and if so, what is the mix)?
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Why do you think the world is ready for Socialism? When Marx himself even said that capitalism has to reach its pinnacle before Socialsm can be achieved.
TSR's model parliament.
Useful Resources:
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
