socialism or "social democracy" causes a boring, drab society

Watch
greatdude78
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
with absolutely no zest for anything.

everything controlled by the state. tax medium-sized businesses up the arse and generally have just a dull time.

three cheers for socialsm.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
Gosh, you're right. Everything was lovely before 1900. And it's lovely again now, as this country hasn't had democratic socialism since 1979.
0
reply
adelitaashmi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Yup!

And I hope it will be always fine!


socialism or "social democracy" is really a vast term which needs to be explained, in depth.

World Breaking News
0
reply
Катя
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
Yes, because capitalism is just such a laugh.
0
reply
sevchenko
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
Social democracy is a myth. Socialism has to be practised to it's fullest extent or else it won't work. It can never work in a capitalist society
2
reply
greatdude78
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by sevchenko)
Social democracy is a myth. Socialism has to be practised to it's fullest extent or else it work work. It can never work in a capitalist society
learn history.
0
reply
JamesGibson
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
The post-war period up until Thatcher becoming PM was one of the most vibrant periods of British history. We had an expansive NHS, growing education system and public services that were the awe of the world - that was, until the free market zealots decided to privatise the very lifeblood of British society.

Socialism, small businesses and worker collectives can be just as exciting and dynamic as capitalist institutions, if not more so. Just look at the internal bureaucracies of the biggest banks like HSBC and Goldman Sachs, they're full of boring corporate bureaucracies that all center around making the guy at the top more money. Waitrose, Mondragon and John Lewis follow a collectively-owned model, and are much more successful at engaging with both their consumers and employees than businesses ran by brokers and institutional investor.

I feel socialism as a model hasn't failed, but the state-skewed versions have. What we need is a democratic economy, ran collectively - not by a single group of people, whether that group is the government or rich investors.

The way forward is a mixed economy, with markets for small businesses and socially owned democratic sectors for our big institutions like transport, health and energy.
0
reply
Monkey.Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by gladders)
Gosh, you're right. Everything was lovely before 1900. And it's lovely again now, as this country hasn't had democratic socialism since 1979.
1) I don't remember 1900 being a crossing point between capitalism and socialism, surely 1945 would be a better place to start in that respect?
2) what technological, industrial, medical etc innovations came from socialism and not capitalism?
3) and again, I don't recall life around 1979 being hailed as a particularly great uk time period

(Original post by sevchenko)
Social democracy is a myth. Socialism has to be practised to it's fullest extent or else it won't work. It can never work in a capitalist society
1) communism has been proven to be a disaster economically in every single country its been placed into
2) generally, the more capitalism you have, the better off an economy is, so I don't know how the "more socialism is best socialism" logic works when generally that's the opposite of the reality; social democracy isn't as much of a failure as communism because off how it was partly capitalistic, so you'll have to explain that to me
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by greatdude78)
with absolutely no zest for anything.
Yeah, life was so much more "interesting" when we had cholera and slums and people could be sacked at will.

Has it occurred to you, based on your inability to capitalise and incoherent syntax (obviously not a public school boy), that you would have been one of the cholera-racked, poverty-stricken, slum-dwelling labourers?

First world problems. You can't even conceive of how much better your life is today than it would have been 150 years ago, because of the policies enacted by the Labour Party.

By the way, I take it your forego free NHS treatment, free education and student loans as a matter of principle?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Monkey.Man)
1) I don't remember 1900 being a crossing point between capitalism and socialism, surely 1945 would be a better place to start in that respect?
The Labour Party has been around since 1900 and had a few governments before that. And outside of the UK there have been socialist parties in government before then.

2) what technological, industrial, medical etc innovations came from socialism and not capitalism?
I doubt it's anything to do with either of those and down to people being smart.

3) and again, I don't recall life around 1979 being hailed as a particularly great uk time period
I doubt many people enjoyed the 80s either.

1) communism has been proven to be a disaster economically in every single country its been placed into
Can't argue with that, but aren't we talking about democratic socialism?

2) generally, the more capitalism you have, the better off an economy is, so I don't know how the "more socialism is best socialism" logic works when generally that's the opposite of the reality; social democracy isn't as much of a failure as communism because off how it was partly capitalistic, so you'll have to explain that to me
The more capitalism you have, the richer the rich are, and the poorer the poor are.

You are making the classic mistake of thinking that the choice is either socialism or capitalism, when in fact, and what occurs in every country, is a blend of the two. Capitalism has to be tempered with a concern for the poor to prevent outright misery; socialism by itself can stifle development, but needs an acquisitional incentive to make progress.
1
reply
sevchenko
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by Monkey.Man)

1) communism has been proven to be a disaster economically in every single country its been placed into
2) generally, the more capitalism you have, the better off an economy is, so I don't know how the "more socialism is best socialism" logic works when generally that's the opposite of the reality; social democracy isn't as much of a failure as communism because off how it was partly capitalistic, so you'll have to explain that to me
1) Socialism has never been proper implemented according to the theory as stated by Marx hence all existing practical examples of "Socialist" societies are false and are not a fair indicator of the practicality of socialism.

2) Post war Britain is the best example of what I'm talking about. The Post-war consensus held Britain back from relative prosperity because of the growth of the welfare state and the rise of collective incentives such as nationalization and trade unionism. The nation was effectively in a economic and social depression until Thatcher saved the day and unleashed the true ruthless nature of capitalism on this nation.

For capitalism to flourish the Market has to be free and self regulating, it can't be constrained by heavy government involvement. Heavy government involvement is key feature of the transition to socialism.

If you're going to do Capitalism it has to done it's fullest extent with minimal Government involvement. As we saw with post war Britain the ideologies aren't equally compatible with each other. Hence why Social democracy is just counter productive for everyone

The same applies to Socialism. It just won't work in a capitalist mainframe because the ideologies are just too opposing. The modern Labour party
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by gladders)
You are making the classic mistake of thinking that the choice is either socialism or capitalism, when in fact, and what occurs in every country, is a blend of the two. Capitalism has to be tempered with a concern for the poor to prevent outright misery; socialism by itself can stifle development, but needs an acquisitional incentive to make progress.
Splendid comment. Pure socialistic command economies are clearly inadequate when it comes to innovation and economic growth, the centre cannot respond quickly enough to changing circumstances. It is obviously desirable to have a market system to deliver things like food, consumer items, and so on.

But pure capitalism is disastrous. In fact, you might call Somalia a pure, free market; this is what happens when you have no state. Might makes right, power comes from the barrel of a gun. And that situation is hardly conducive to business enterprises. A society where there is no state, with private police forces, with absolutely no social safety net, is a libertarian's wet dream. This short documentary below gives you a good idea what it would be like if the people who abhor state intervention had their way

0
reply
sevchenko
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
Splendid comment. Pure socialistic command economies are clearly inadequate when it comes to innovation and economic growth, the centre cannot respond quickly enough to changing circumstances. It is obviously desirable to have a market system to deliver things like food, consumer items, and so on.

But pure capitalism is disastrous. In fact, you might call Somalia a pure, free market; this is what happens when you have no state. Might makes right, power comes from the barrel of a gun. And that situation is hardly conducive to business enterprises. A society where there is no state, with private police forces, with absolutely no social safety net, is a libertarian's wet dream. This short documentary below gives you a good idea what it would be like if the people who abhor state intervention had their way
What you've described is Anarcho Capitalism. Capitalists want a state but they want it's role reduced to the bare minimum. Who else is going to maintain order and enforce contracts. Social contract theory bro
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by sevchenko)
What you've described is Anarcho Capitalism. Capitalists want a state but they want it's role reduced to the bare minimum. Who else is going to maintain order and enforce contracts. Social contract theory bro
Well, yes, but as I said, socialism is an element within a capitalist state. It's not either or; it's how much of one or the other is involved. You could have a night-watchman state, but it will be a massively unfair economy not unlike 1800s-1830s Britain, where people were forced to work 12 hour shifts for 6 days without holidays, pensions, unions or education in workhouses. That's a true capitalist state; do you want that?
0
reply
sevchenko
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by gladders)
Well, yes, but as I said, socialism is an element within a capitalist state. It's not either or; it's how much of one or the other is involved. You could have a night-watchman state, but it will be a massively unfair economy not unlike 1800s-1830s Britain, where people were forced to work 12 hour shifts for 6 days without holidays, pensions, unions or education in workhouses. That's a true capitalist state; do you want that?
I agree with you. Unregulated capitalism is very dangerous. The NHS and welfare state are effectively mild socialist incentives.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by greatdude78)
with absolutely no zest for anything.

everything controlled by the state. tax medium-sized businesses up the arse and generally have just a dull time.

three cheers for socialsm.
Socialism refers to common ownership OR state ownership of the means of production. Also, socialism, by definition, does not specify anything related to tax.

Please learn some terms.

(Original post by Monkey.Man)
1) communism has been proven to be a disaster economically in every single country its been placed into
What countries have ever truely been communist? (No money, no state, no classes, everyone owns everything?)
0
reply
Monkey.Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by SHallowvale)
What countries have ever truely been communist? (No money, no state, no classes, everyone owns everything?)
if you're going to nit-pick to the point of saying something like this as if it's a meaningful argument against what I said about the "communist" or state-communist systems *economically* then I'd ask you to reconsider
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by Monkey.Man)
if you're going to nit-pick to the point of saying something like this as if it's a meaningful argument against what I said about the "communist" or state-communist systems *economically* then I'd ask you to reconsider
I'm not arguing against your point that communism is economically bad, don't get me wrong. I would just like to know what countries you are referring to.
0
reply
Monkey.Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I'm not arguing against your point that communism is economically bad, don't get me wrong. I would just like to know what countries you are referring to.
I'm not talking about modern china/vietnam, I'm talking about the eastern pre-berlin wall fall european systems, the soviet union, maoist china, cuba, north korea etc - obviously the only limit was that the leaders were paid more than the other citizens
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by sevchenko)
What you've described is Anarcho Capitalism. Capitalists want a state but they want it's role reduced to the bare minimum. Who else is going to maintain order and enforce contracts
In the libertarian's wet dream, private police forces. Haven't you been paying attention?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you haven't confirmed your firm and insurance choices yet, why is that?

I don't want to decide until I've received all my offers (39)
40.63%
I am waiting until the deadline in case anything in my life changes (21)
21.88%
I am waiting until the deadline in case something in the world changes (ie. pandemic-related) (5)
5.21%
I am waiting until I can see the unis in person (9)
9.38%
I still have more questions before I made my decision (5)
5.21%
No reason, just haven't entered it yet (6)
6.25%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (11)
11.46%

Watched Threads

View All