Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Socialism "corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself". Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Communists/Marxists/Bolshevik's should be banned.

    Bolshevik revolution was a foreign hijacking of Russia that led to many millions dead.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting. Now let's hear from Deep Blue.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Pft!

    Kasparov? Chess player. No particular authority on socialism. Join me next week I'll be asking ex world champion darts player Eric Bristow aka "the Crafty Cockney" for his views on American Art during the Reconstruction period.
    To be fair, Kasparov's book on Russia and Putin is brilliant. I'd definitely recommend it. You'll find it in Waterstones etc so if you find yourself in one then do read a few passages.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    "I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd"

    - Garry Kasparov
    Stopped reading after the first sentence. What they had in the Soviet Union was the furthest thing from socialism. If the guy doesnt understand that then he's not worth listening to.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Death Grips)
    Stopped reading after the first sentence. What they had in the Soviet Union was the furthest thing from socialism. If the guy doesnt understand that then he's not worth listening to.
    Who owns the 'means of production' is a pretty fine distinction in that context. The 'means of production' isn't the primary developer of wealth and capital; it's knowledge. Trying to claim that the communist states weren't 'true' socialism in that sense just seems like a cheap attempt to deny the underlying problem, which is that socialism and communism don't have any mechanism for people to generate capital from knowledge, whether it be patenting a new technology or even simply bargaining for a high salary for their skill set.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Death Grips)
    Stopped reading after the first sentence. What they had in the Soviet Union was the furthest thing from socialism. If the guy doesnt understand that then he's not worth listening to.
    It really wasn't. But nice try.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Elements of both capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive...as far as I'm aware nobody is suggesting America go full-on 100% socialist.
    Glad to see some sense on here.
    Those on the right need to realise that 'socialists' in the UK and USA for example are clearly not supporting and wanting a Soviet style, Gulag, complete governmental control over everything.

    Rather they want slightly more government run services and a moderate redistribution of wealth. Hardly Stalinite stuff.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Who owns the 'means of production' is a pretty fine distinction in that context. The 'means of production' isn't the primary developer of wealth and capital; it's knowledge. Trying to claim that the communist states weren't 'true' socialism in that sense just seems like a cheap attempt to deny the underlying problem, which is that socialism and communism don't have any mechanism for people to generate capital from knowledge, whether it be patenting a new technology or even simply bargaining for a high salary for their skill set.
    Try using some common sense. Do you think Sanders supporters:
    A.) Want a Soviet style regim with Gulags and absolute state control over all aspects of life. Or

    B.) Want a slight redistribution of wealth, higher taxes and more responsibility for those at the very topic and an expanded public sector and higher quality public services such as healthcare and transport.


    Why some people insist that to favour socialism means you want a Stalinite system is perplexing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I wouldn't even know why and how inequality is a "huge problem" - it's not a problem in reality. only in the mind. the fact that one person has more than another person doesn't harm the person with less, seeing as they didn't get more in the first place by stealing it from the other person.
    Because money buys influence, quite simply.
    I don't particularly want to live in an oligarchy where those with huge wealth call the shots, even if not democratically elected.

    Is it right that companies give their CEO's an enormous pay rise while paying it's workers a starvation wage and making their contracts less secure?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Because money buys influence, quite simply.
    I don't particularly want to live in an oligarchy where those with huge wealth call the shots, even if not democratically elected.

    Is it right that companies give their CEO's an enormous pay rise while paying it's workers a starvation wage and making their contracts less secure?
    1) "money buys influence" =/= "money buys democracy". there are laws to stop that. and if they are weak laws, then they ought to be strengthened.
    2) *sigh* companies are private entities so they can do what they want.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Try using some common sense. Do you think Sanders supporters:
    A.) Want a Soviet style regim with Gulags and absolute state control over all aspects of life. Or

    B.) Want a slight redistribution of wealth, higher taxes and more responsibility for those at the very topic and an expanded public sector and higher quality public services such as healthcare and transport.


    Why some people insist that to favour socialism means you want a Stalinite system is perplexing.
    Again with the ****ing comprehension. I was responding to a point about the Soviet Union not being socialist.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, back to Sanders. First off it might be good to post another comment by Kasparov which further illustrates what he was talking about.

    "Yes, please take Scandinavia as an example! Implementing some socialistic elements AFTER becoming a wealthy capitalist economy only works as long as you don't choke off what made you wealthy to begin with in the process. Again, it's a luxury item that shouldn't be confused with what is really doing the work, as many do. And do not forget that nearly all of the countless 20th-century innovations and industries that made the rest of the developed world so efficient and comfortable came from America, and it wasn't a coincidence. As long as Europe had America taking risks, investing ambitiously, and yes, being "inequal," it had the luxury of benefiting from the results without making the same sacrifices. Who will be America's America?"

    I half-agree with this. I think part of the reason the United States puts out so many innovations is simply because it is very big. Also, being pro big-business is not the exact same as being pro-economy. However, I think part of the reason for the United States' economic power is its ability to create large businesses which generate staggering amounts of wealth and economic activity. Look, for instance, at how American companies are so dominant in technology, probably the single most important area in increasing future productivity. For that reason it's not entirely irrational to stick with what works ie. keeps it a superpower. A lot of what Sanders' says makes an infinite amount of sense to me as someone who grew up in a half-way social democracy, but through his policies and actions he strikes me more as an impassioned activist than someone with the ability to deal with the negative consequences of globalisation and the United States' economic model. One thing I can't get over is the $15 minimum wage he proposes. Raising the minimum wage is a policy that makes sense, but $15 is higher than the living wage in Manhattan. It would cause significantly higher unemployment, or at least the introduction of very creative types of work contracts that will completely screw the poorest out of reasonably stable employment. If he's going to let his idealism get in the way of common sense he won't accomplish anything in his term of office. And this is ignoring the practical aspect, which is that if by some miracle the Democrats field him as their candidate, he carries a significantly higher risk of ceding control to the Republicans, who seem to be hell-bent on reversing any social progress made under Obama. And even if he gets in the odds are stacked against any of the more ambitious bills he attempts to pass.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Except that a) Communism which is what occured in the societ union is not the same as Socialism.
    b) All tax expenditure is essentially socialist.
    c) If you take any economic or political idea to its utter extreme or extremely corrupt its ideals, you get horrible results.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Okay, back to Sanders. First off it might be good to post another comment by Kasparov which further illustrates what he was talking about.

    "Yes, please take Scandinavia as an example! Implementing some socialistic elements AFTER becoming a wealthy capitalist economy only works as long as you don't choke off what made you wealthy to begin with in the process. Again, it's a luxury item that shouldn't be confused with what is really doing the work, as many do. And do not forget that nearly all of the countless 20th-century innovations and industries that made the rest of the developed world so efficient and comfortable came from America, and it wasn't a coincidence. As long as Europe had America taking risks, investing ambitiously, and yes, being "inequal," it had the luxury of benefiting from the results without making the same sacrifices. Who will be America's America?"

    I half-agree with this. I think part of the reason the United States puts out so many innovations is simply because it is very big. Also, being pro big-business is not the exact same as being pro-economy. However, I think part of the reason for the United States' economic power is its ability to create large businesses which generate staggering amounts of wealth and economic activity. Look, for instance, at how American companies are so dominant in technology, probably the single most important area in increasing future productivity. For that reason it's not entirely irrational to stick with what works ie. keeps it a superpower. A lot of what Sanders' says makes an infinite amount of sense to me as someone who grew up in a half-way social democracy, but through his policies and actions he strikes me more as an impassioned activist than someone with the ability to deal with the negative consequences of globalisation and the United States' economic model. One thing I can't get over is the $15 minimum wage he proposes. Raising the minimum wage is a policy that makes sense, but $15 is higher than the living wage in Manhattan. It would cause significantly higher unemployment, or at least the introduction of very creative types of work contracts that will completely screw the poorest out of reasonably stable employment. If he's going to let his idealism get in the way of common sense he won't accomplish anything in his term of office. And this is ignoring the practical aspect, which is that if by some miracle the Democrats field him as their candidate, he carries a significantly higher risk of ceding control to the Republicans, who seem to be hell-bent on reversing any social progress made under Obama. And even if he gets in the odds are stacked against any of the more ambitious bills he attempts to pass.
    PRSOM.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) "money buys influence" =/= "money buys democracy". there are laws to stop that. and if they are weak laws, then they ought to be strengthened.
    2) *sigh* companies are private entities so they can do what they want.
    Sigh. Such laws don't stop they got the very reason that our democracy is influenced heavily by big money interests:
    Logic.


    So companies can pay huge sums to the government and get favours? So we can buy legislation if we are rich enough? Great.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Sigh. Such laws don't stop they got the very reason that our democracy is influenced heavily by big money interests:
    Logic.
    ...what?

    So companies can pay huge sums to the government and get favours? So we can buy legislation if we are rich enough? Great.
    ...what?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    "I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd"

    - Garry Kasparov
    Yes, the real world socialism that we have seen was terrible, terrible.....terrible.

    Clearly, people need to freedom but also protection (from other citizens and the state itself). In a way government will always be in part about protecting the weak from the strong. I think this could be achieved (to a degree, but everything is always in degrees) within a capitalist system but not through neoliberalist policies - which are taking away freedoms and making war on the weak at home and elsewhere in the world.

    I think open media and freedom of speech would be part of the crux of any good system. These things are a large part of what is missing from modern capitalism; people are prevented from protecting themselves against the state.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 6, 2016
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.