Turn on thread page Beta

Socialism has never worked in any country and at any time in history watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    But would you support a political party that was capitalist, but at the same time had a policy of refusing corporate donations so that it worked to the needs of the public rather than to big business?
    Probably would take them into consideration but isn't quite hard to find pro-capitalist political party that wouldn't be okay with accepting funds from private businesses, well in this day and age anyway...

    I don't really like Capitalism or the New Right stance on the economy becausebecause it only seems to polarise the classes.. I advocate Benjamin Disraeli's ideas, creating one-nation and all that... I think he had it right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It has the potential to work very well, if done correctly, certainly better than capitalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn-er)
    Unpleasantly so.

    Che's diaries and his huge biography provide some revelations about the US government's power. I'd never actually realised that they were capable of wielding that much power and influencing other governments so drastically.

    Should just refer to the majority of developing countries as extensions of America.

    Exactly it's how we roll.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Socialism has never worked very well for one reason: instead of people getting equally rich, they got equally poor. This is because of a lack of resources. And I'll tell you what - the day the world becomes energy independent, socialism will become a bit more plausible. Socialism works great in areas such as healthcare, education and other basic social institutions. Without a tiny bit of socialism, you cant have a working society.

    However there are different degrees to which socialism can be applied. Personally I definitely disagree with socialism in today's circumstances. But in a better future, socialism might actually turn into something good for everyone.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    I'm referring to actually existing capitalism, ya know, the Reagan revolution, Thatcherism and all that. You can't have your free market cake and eat it, most of those in favour of "rolling back the state" were corporatists who just rolled back the bits they didn't like.
    Why have you made the exact same mistake you did last time? I'm not even going to do a short paragraph on it now because I said last time which aspect of my post I found important and instead you talked about the aspect I don't care about - its not what my point is about.

    I am aware you are referring to existing capitalism: thats why I said we have a mixed economy, don't tell me what I already know. I am trying to talk about the ideology of capitalim compared to socialism. So stop talking about our current economy, I am not talking about that.

    And for the record, I believe you that a lot of free-market thinkers were corrupt and has vested interests in their belief. But if they "rolled back the bits they didn't like" this means they kept some parts, which in turn means it wasn't a free-market they were advocating. So I can actually advocate the free-market and be different to these people: because I don't want to pick and choose it to suit me, I'm a bloody student! I'm not a wealthy businessman.

    So back to my point of about three posts ago - capitalism is the natural enemy of government because minimal/no government is required. In contrast socialism requires a strong and centralised government with a lot of people working for it to ensure all the nationalised industries run smoothly. In theory, then, politicians find it easier to find work under a socialist government than under a free-market government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XCRUSHESX)
    Yes he bloody has, I hate to really think how much power these businessmen have, I mean it really does make you feel a bit powerless, the political process seems to be out of the people's hand...

    The trustee model of representation is quite backwards in my eyes, how can you expect 654 MP's (i think) to really act on behalf of 60 million people.. It seems impractical which I think has furthered this lethargic nature of the electorate..

    Gosh I am going to miss A-level Politics lool
    I'm not from UK, so not sure what A-level politics is to be honest lol. Final years of HS?
    I hate the fact that he has that much power and he's a self-serving neo-con. He represents contemporary brainwashing to me.
    No I don't wear tin foil hats:p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reaver)
    I'm not from UK, so not sure what A-level politics is to be honest lol. Final years of HS?
    I hate the fact that he has that much power and he's a self-serving neo-con. He represents contemporary brainwashing to me.
    No I don't wear tin foil hats:p:
    loool, A-Levels are the qualifications normally gained from college for those aged 16-18 (mostly).

    Hmm, worst thing about Murdoch is that he has his family doing his bidding for him So there is no "well he will die and then things will change"
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by XCRUSHESX)
    Probably would take them into consideration but isn't quite hard to find pro-capitalist political party that wouldn't be okay with accepting funds from private businesses, well in this day and age anyway...

    I don't really like Capitalism or the New Right stance on the economy becausebecause it only seems to polarise the classes.. I advocate Benjamin Disraeli's ideas, creating one-nation and all that... I think he had it right
    The libertarian policy on donations to the party:

    "Donations

    The Libertarian Party opposes state funding of political parties—it's your money, and you should be able to choose who it goes to. Whilst other parties gain funding from unions and big business, we only accept donations from individual electors. Our priority is the British public, not pandering to the wishes of special interest groups."
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Why have you made the exact same mistake you did last time? I'm not even going to do a short paragraph on it now because I said last time which aspect of my post I found important and instead you talked about the aspect I don't care about - its not what my point is about.

    I am aware you are referring to existing capitalism: thats why I said we have a mixed economy, don't tell me what I already know. I am trying to talk about the ideology of capitalim compared to socialism. So stop talking about our current economy, I am not talking about that.

    And for the record, I believe you that a lot of free-market thinkers were corrupt and has vested interests in their belief. But if they "rolled back the bits they didn't like" this means they kept some parts, which in turn means it wasn't a free-market they were advocating. So I can actually advocate the free-market and be different to these people: because I don't want to pick and choose it to suit me, I'm a bloody student! I'm not a wealthy businessman.

    So back to my point of about three posts ago - capitalism is the natural enemy of government because minimal/no government is required. In contrast socialism requires a strong and centralised government with a lot of people working for it to ensure all the nationalised industries run smoothly. In theory, then, politicians find it easier to find work under a socialist government than under a free-market government.
    Well I'd argue that government is required to enforce private property rights, and many supporters of capitalism actually favour strong government with high levels of policing as a means to support private property. I believe that private property is a privilege granted by the state, and that it requires the state to protect and enforce it.

    Socialism by contrast, can be either statist or anti-statist. Obviously statist versions require the state to exist, but non-statist forms have existed both in pre-capitalist times and in the recent past. It's a myth that socialism requires the state.

    And to repudiate your other point, politicians usually require business approval to operate (even if we're only talking about favourable media coverage). Ergo politicians usually have to be pro-corporate and superficially free market to survive, at least in present circumstances.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PGtips92)
    What's your point?

    That communist states result in lower wages? Yehh...

    Of course it does, the majority of capital is controlled and dispersed by the goverment, people don't NEED money. Almost everything is public services.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    The libertarian policy on donations to the party:

    "Donations

    The Libertarian Party opposes state funding of political parties—it's your money, and you should be able to choose who it goes to. Whilst other parties gain funding from unions and big business, we only accept donations from individual electors. Our priority is the British public, not pandering to the wishes of special interest groups."
    Niiice, might have to look into this party loool
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Well I'd argue that government is required to enforce private property rights, and many supporters of capitalism actually favour strong government with high levels of policing as a means to support private property. I believe that private property is a privilege granted by the state, and that it requires the state to protect and enforce it.

    Socialism by contrast, can be either statist or anti-statist. Obviously statist versions require the state to exist, but non-statist forms have existed both in pre-capitalist times and in the recent past. It's a myth that socialism requires the state.

    And to repudiate your other point, politicians usually require business approval to operate (even if we're only talking about favourable media coverage). Ergo politicians usually have to be pro-corporate and superficially free market to survive, at least in present circumstances.
    Finally you're discussing ideology rather than our current government, you were making it sound as though I support republicans, democrats, labour and conservatives for a minute there.

    I'm personally not actually even an anarcho-capitalist myself, but some certainly do exist that really would not involve the state whatsoever. But I myself want property rights defined and protected, I want contracts enforced fairly, I want to ensure intimidation is never used, monetary policy should be centrally controlled and so on. So yes I take your point that even a libertarian wants some government involvement - but its far far far far far far (times a billion) less times more involvement than statist socialists want.

    But anti-statist socialism actually sounds quite interesting, could you explain that to me? When I use the term socialist I solely mean statist socialism, sorry if that wasn't clear.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Libertarian Socialism in Spain

    Libertarian Socialism in the Ukraine

    Government in Hungary following the 1956 revolution

    Chile under Salvador Allende

    Kibbutz in Israel


    It is worth noting that all of these, bar the last example, were crushed by force from external sources (or internal forces abetted by external ones) who were terrified that these forms of socialism would succeed. :yep:
    Uh... Allende's economy was falling apart :/ Socialism wasn't "succeeding" in Chile, but I'm not going to contend the other examples.

    I wish people would stop saying Cuba though. Cuba is basically a failed state run by a stalinist :/
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Uh... Allende's economy was falling apart :/ Socialism wasn't "succeeding" in Chile, but I'm not going to contend the other examples.

    I wish people would stop saying Cuba though. Cuba is basically a failed state run by a stalinist :/
    Allende's economy was falling apart because the the US was basically using every means at its disposal to make it fall apart. I thought that was self evident.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I'm personally not actually even an anarcho-capitalist myself, but some certainly do exist that really would not involve the state whatsoever. But I myself want property rights defined and protected, I want contracts enforced fairly, I want to ensure intimidation is never used, monetary policy should be centrally controlled and so on.
    Erm, what?
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Erm, what?
    Well I'm open minded to the government not being involved with things, obviously - but surely for there to be a real value of currency it needs to be controlled universally, and you can't really trust the private sector to not just print out tonnes of it? But persuade me, if you know more about it than I do ...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Allende's economy was falling apart because the the US was basically using every means at its disposal to make it fall apart. I thought that was self evident.
    Well, no, it was falling apart for the reason every centrally planned economy falls apart. When a state run economy begins to collapse, one out of two things happen: 1. liberalisation 2. authoritarianism. Fortunately in Chile you got a mix of both rather than just 2. The market placed restrictions on Pinochet that other dictators who ran centrally planned economies didn't have, but of course he was authoritarian...

    I think it's silly for anti-state Socialists to support State Socialist countries. They have a historical record of economically failing and then turning to tyranny (or doing both at the same time). The anti-property agenda isn't going to be fulfilled by transferring all property to one central body and giving it the physical power to extend its control for all time :/
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Finally you're discussing ideology rather than our current government, you were making it sound as though I support republicans, democrats, labour and conservatives for a minute there.

    I'm personally not actually even an anarcho-capitalist myself, but some certainly do exist that really would not involve the state whatsoever. But I myself want property rights defined and protected, I want contracts enforced fairly, I want to ensure intimidation is never used, monetary policy should be centrally controlled and so on. So yes I take your point that even a libertarian wants some government involvement - but its far far far far far far (times a billion) less times more involvement than statist socialists want.

    But anti-statist socialism actually sounds quite interesting, could you explain that to me? When I use the term socialist I solely mean statist socialism, sorry if that wasn't clear.
    Sorry, I consider discussions of ideology to be inseperable from historical circumstance, and the abuse of free market rhetoric amongst the business classes and political parties for the purpose of promoting corporatism is fairly noticeable when looking through US and UK history, that's why I mentioned it.

    Anti-statist socialism takes several forms, ranging from anarcho-communism which would involve a group sharing the results of productive labour on an equal basis in the absence of the state (Bakunin and Kropotkin's idea). To certain types which allow limited property rights (Proudhon being an example). They have had historical manifestations in both Spain and the Ukraine in the early 20th Century, I posted some links earlier.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rizzletastic)
    Of course it does, the majority of capital is controlled and dispersed by the goverment, people don't NEED money. Almost everything is public services.
    Ok it was foolish for me to talk about wages.

    But read this:
    In the 1950s, Cuba's economic development was on the top of Latin America and advanced even by European standards.[4][5][6][7][8][9] The economy has deteriorated, and incomes have fallen dramatically behind European countries. Starvation was observed after the loss of Soviet subsidies. Shortages and queues are rife. Wages are 17-30 U.S. dollars per month on top of overcrowded housing (three quarters built before 1957)[10] and some subsidized food.[11][12] Paramount issues have been state salaries failing to meet personal needs under the state rationing system chronically plagued with shortages. As the variety and quantity of available rationed goods declined, Cubans increasingly turned to the black market to obtain basic food, clothing, household, and health amenities. The informal sector is characterized by what many Cubans call sociolismo. Corruption is common.[13] Preferential treatment exists for those who are members of the Communist Party or who hold positions of power within the government.[14] Access to transportation, work, housing, university education and better health care are a function of status within the government or the Communist Party.[15]
    Wikipedia, 2nd paragraph.

    And Cuba is touted as the best example of a Socialist country.. Give me capitalism any day.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Sorry, I consider discussions of ideology to be inseperable from historical circumstance, and the abuse of free market rhetoric amongst the business classes and political parties for the purpose of promoting corporatism is fairly noticeable when looking through US and UK history, that's why I mentioned it.

    Anti-statist socialism takes several forms, ranging from anarcho-communism which would involve a group sharing the results of productive labour on an equal basis in the absence of the state (Bakunin and Kropotkin's idea). To certain types which allow limited property rights (Proudhon being an example). They have had historical manifestations in both Spain and the Ukraine in the early 20th Century, I posted some links earlier.
    But I don't support what happened in the USA or the UK, and neither do any true free-market thinkers. It's a bit insulting to be compared to those cases when you've never endorsed it.

    Do you think anti-state socialism is desirable or practical? In fact, what is it you actually support?
 
 
 

1,445

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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