Socialism does work

[Apech]

 

... I anticipate full agreement from my American friends who are so upset by the condition of their own country.

[Marblehead]

Well, first I would like to point out the rudeness of those who interupted the speaker but then I understand that this in normal over there.

 

It is my opinion that there are three areas of humanity where socialism would be, by far, the best system of operating a society.  Those are:

 

Medical Care

Education

Employment opportunity

 

Free housing in the USA has been a disaster.  A new multi-family building might last ten years before it is in total ruin.  People simply, in the most part, don't take care of things that they didn't have to work for to get.

 

All forms of welfare in the USA have been a disaster.  It only bleeds the resources of the nation and give back nothing in return.

 

Social anarchism could easily support socialism.  Individual anarchism would be against socialism.

 

But, Mr. Corbyn did present some very valid points that I would likely be unable to argue against.

[Chang]

It is indeed difficult to argue against the basic tenets of Socialism or indeed Liberalism.

 

Fortunately we do not need to argue, simply let them come to a position of power and it will soon be made clear why they are such a disaster.

 

I for one hope that Master Corbyn finds himself as leader of the Labour Party  with the old Socialist battle cry of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

[Apech]

@Marblehead,

 

That is the normal debating style in both the Oxford Union and the House of Commons.  The speaker can give way if challenged on a point of order or information.  Its not rude it's just the way it's done.

[Apech]

This guy is brilliant ... for anyone struggling with deciding exactly what socialism is (which is a problem for all Americans it seems, a point I have made before) ... you need to watch the whole thing by the way ...

 

Edited July 20, 2015 by Apech

[Jetsun]

It is indeed difficult to argue against the basic tenets of Socialism or indeed Liberalism.

 

Fortunately we do not need to argue, simply let them come to a position of power and it will soon be made clear why they are such a disaster.

 

I for one hope that Master Corbyn finds himself as leader of the Labour Party  with the old Socialist battle cry of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

 

Why are they likely to be such a disaster? most of the decent things about the UK were founded upon liberal principles, such as universal healthcare and education. Many Scandinavian countries are heavily influenced by Socialist and Liberal principles and by many methods of measurement they are some of the best places to live on the planet and don't look like falling into economic disaster any time soon.

 

Big business promotes the fear that such ideas are going to lead to economic disaster, but it is just scaremongering and a means to control people into being good obedient consumers. 

Edited July 20, 2015 by Jetsun

[Karl]

More crap from Corbyn. Now he has to argue the bits of socialism that do work.

 

 

Bastiat would have a field day with Corbyn, but in his esteemed absence I shall try to fill his shoes:

 

 

Firstly the NHS. We are stuck with it, it is a truism that it's helped everyone because there is no free market healthcare system to replace it. Even prior to the NHS protectionism was rife within the medical business. Practitioners were limited by the BMA and medical suppliers were pushing the state to provide patents and extended IP conditions for their products.

 

 

The U.S. Does not have a 'free market' medical system. The US government is heavily involved in the regulation, licensing and protectionism of the system. It has a crony, semi-state operated system which created ever higher cost burdens on the insurance companies. The government run FDA is involved in protectionism for the drug companies. It reaps billions to be fed into the state coffers-no doubt to be spent on war, surveillance, bailouts and other boondoggles. The FDA ensures that competition for the big pharma companies is set aside and that they cannot afford the fees demanded for years of 'research'. Insurance companies have to run their own version of the FDA in order to assess the suitability of the drugs the FDA has passed-many are rejected. Many more cheaper and effective drugs available in Europe are rejected by the FDA even though the insurance companies parallel testing centres would like to use them-the quicker their patients get better, the cheaper it is.

 

 

If you want to build a hospital in the U.S. You must obtain permission from the state. Again and again cheaper private community hospitals have their planning permission rejected in order to stifle competition.

 

 

There is no place for socialism. It's a promise that can never be fulfilled and its ideology requires coercive force to enact. The NHS is no 'free at the point of use' it is paid for by taxpayers who have their money taken at gun point. The use of force for anything except defence should be abhorred. Corbyn stands against war, he should not be such a hypocrite and realise that force cannot be countenanced for any ideology.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Karl

[Chang]

Why are they likely to be such a disaster? most of the decent things about the UK were founded upon liberal principles, such as universal healthcare and education. Many Scandinavian countries are heavily influenced by Socialist and Liberal principles and by many methods of measurement they are some of the best places to live on the planet and don't look like falling into economic disaster any time soon.

 

Big business promotes the fear that such ideas are going to lead to economic disaster, but it is just scaremongering and a means to control people into being good obedient consumers. 

 

Healthcare and education, the two great golden calfs of politicians.

 

The National health Service in the UK is, believe, the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese Red Army and the Indian Railway Service. It has become so big and unwieldy that it is bordering on being unmanageable. As may be expected in any socialist engineered enterprise it is top heavy with bureaucrats, to criticisize the NHS or cut its funding has become a means to political suicide.

 

Education in the UK has become a football bounced about by politicians and again this has been socialist led.

 

Socialists talk a good job but when it comes to practice they have the Midus touch in reverse.

[Karl]

Healthcare and education, the two great golden calfs of politicians.

 

The National health Service in the UK is, believe, the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese Red Army and the Indian Railway Service. It has become so big and unwieldy that it is bordering on being unmanageable. As may be expected in any socialist engineered enterprise it is top heavy with bureaucrats, to criticisize the NHS or cut its funding has become a means to political suicide.

 

Education in the UK has become a football bounced about by politicians and again this has been socialist led.

 

Socialists talk a good job but when it comes to practice they have the Midus touch in reverse.

What's more, without the little bit of free market capitalism that peeps through the layers of state socialised concrete is the only reason the NHS exists at all. As we saw in Russia, China, Venezuela, Argentina and every other country who despise capitalism and embrace socialism-their people suffer terrible poverty, health, education and it all ends in tears. Any objection to socialism is dealt with severely. Socialism and it's twin brother Fascism have murdered million and impoverished billions.

 

Anyone even dabbling with the idea that socialism produces any good should be in no doubt that they are supporting an evil ideology that works by creeping, plank by plank until it suffocates its supporters.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

Why are they likely to be such a disaster? most of the decent things about the UK were founded upon liberal principles, such as universal healthcare and education. Many Scandinavian countries are heavily influenced by Socialist and Liberal principles and by many methods of measurement they are some of the best places to live on the planet and don't look like falling into economic disaster any time soon.

 

Big business promotes the fear that such ideas are going to lead to economic disaster, but it is just scaremongering and a means to control people into being good obedient consumers. 

 

I wish people would stop calling it liberal. Bright, Cobden, Adam Smith et al would be turning in their graves.

 

Universal healthcare is a disaster, but universal state schooling is a pernicious destroyer of minds.

 

The Scandinavian models are misunderstood due to history and timescale. A country with a free market economy, that has avoided war can live very easily on the wealth this produced. However, eventually it becomes unsustainable and countries must begin to reverse their socialistic models. It is not true that countries are not capable of failing. Sweden was in serious difficulty in the 70/80s and had to cut its social programmes.

[Jetsun]

Healthcare and education, the two great golden calfs of politicians.

 

The National health Service in the UK is, believe, the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese Red Army and the Indian Railway Service. It has become so big and unwieldy that it is bordering on being unmanageable. As may be expected in any socialist engineered enterprise it is top heavy with bureaucrats, to criticisize the NHS or cut its funding has become a means to political suicide.

 

Education in the UK has become a football bounced about by politicians and again this has been socialist led.

 

Socialists talk a good job but when it comes to practice they have the Midus touch in reverse.

 

Compare both to the US which would you prefer?  Not that the NHS is perfect by any means but it is far better than a system set up for drugs companies to push illness creating drugs onto the population, which is the way the NHS is headed now it is starting to be sold off.

 

Look at what happened when the government sold of the railways to private companies, efficiencies didn't improve and the prices sky rocketed. The housing market isn't much better either. It is all just been set up and sold off so the rich get richer with no benefit to most ordinary people. Not that I advocate full Socialism but in some areas it is obviously a good thing.

 

The world is increasingly being dominated by profit driven companies with few moral considerations at all. The vast majority of the people in this world are shit upon by that system.

 

Most of the scaremongering over Socialist ideas is left over outdated conditioning from the Cold War times, it is mixed up with all sorts of fears over annihilation, all that old programming and social conditioning needs to swept away to get to the reality of the situation. 

Edited July 20, 2015 by Jetsun

[ralis]

What's more, without the little bit of free market capitalism that peeps through the layers of state socialised concrete is the only reason the NHS exists at all. As we saw in Russia, China, Venezuela, Argentina and every other country who despise capitalism and embrace socialism-their people suffer terrible poverty, health, education and it all ends in tears. Any objection to socialism is dealt with severely. Socialism and it's twin brother Fascism have murdered million and impoverished billions.

 

Anyone even dabbling with the idea that socialism produces any good should be in no doubt that they are supporting an evil ideology that works by creeping, plank by plank until it suffocates its supporters.

 

 

So called free markets are presuppositions from the works of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Von Mises and other classical liberal theorists. Such unfounded presuppositions are only an appeal to human greed, rugged individualism and selfishness. The basic premise is that if everyone acted in their own self interest; therefor markets would be absolutely efficient with no need for rules. However, the fanciful neoliberal notion of a fair/level playing field without governmental interference fails to consider the myriad variables regarding the behavior of individuals. 

[Chang]

Compare both to the US which would you prefer?  Not that the NHS is perfect by any means but it is far better than a system set up for drugs companies to push illness creating drugs onto the population, which is the way the NHS is headed now it is starting to be sold off.

 

Look at what happened when the government sold of the railways to private companies, efficiencies didn't improve and the prices sky rocketed. The housing market isn't much better either. It is all just been set up and sold off so the rich get richer with no benefit to most ordinary people. Not that I advocate full Socialism but in some areas it is obviously a good thing.

 

The world is increasingly being dominated by profit driven companies with few moral considerations at all. The vast majority of the people in this world are shit upon by that system.

 

Most of the scaremongering over Socialist ideas is left over outdated conditioning from the Cold War times, it is mixed up with all sorts of fears over annihilation, all that old programming and social conditioning needs to swept away to get to the reality of the situation. 

 

Not wanting full Socialism is akin to not wanting full cancer. It gives the impression that a little bit is OK. Sadly that is not the case. If you reside in the UK and don't want full Socialism you should simply vote Liberal. That way you will ensure a slightly more whiny version of the same thing.

[Karl]

Compare both to the US which would you prefer?  Not that the NHS is perfect by any means but it is far better than a system set up for drugs companies to push illness creating drugs onto the population, which is the way the NHS is headed now it is starting to be sold off.

 

Look at what happened when the government sold of the railways to private companies, efficiencies didn't improve and the prices sky rocketed. The housing market isn't much better either. It is all just been set up and sold off so the rich get richer with no benefit to most ordinary people. Not that I advocate full Socialism but in some areas it is obviously a good thing.

 

The world is increasingly being dominated by profit driven companies with few moral considerations at all. The vast majority of the people in this world are shit upon by that system.

 

Most of the scaremongering over Socialist ideas is left over outdated conditioning from the Cold War times, it is mixed up with all sorts of fears over annihilation, all that old programming and social conditioning needs to swept away to get to the reality of the situation. 

 

That's a false alternative. I would prefer neither, a free market healthcare system free of protectionism would be far, far better.

 

Railways improved despite it not being a free market and simply a state created franchise. Rail track is still state owned. If you look at the number of passengers prior to privatisation you will see they had dropped off a cliff. The trains were dirty, late and broken. People were deserting them for road transport.

 

Do you mean the private housing market funded by the state monopoly monetary system and the state planning authorities. Both of these have combined to create a bubble in housing. That's socialism planning and control at work, not the free market.

 

All companies are profit driven-even charitable and not for profit companies. It is the profit motive and it's downside losses-rarely considered as important by socialists-that allows us companies to judge if they are providing the right products, at the right prices, at the the right quality. However, today we have the interference of the state in all those markets for the purposes of giving advantage to a few special groups and freeing them from competition.

 

The ideas of socialism, like its twin, fascism, should not be swept away, they should be pinned up for all time as a warning never to adopt them. They are totalitarian bringers of tyranny and serfdom. They rely on the ignorance of the masses and are enticing to them, right up until the moment it's too late to object. Make no mistake, this ideology is the evil that the bible warned about. It seems the easy way, it masquerades as charity and good works, but it is none of those things. It is greed, power, authoritarianism, violence, chaos, pollution, destruction of resources and of human minds and bodies. It is literally hell on earth. Read some books on Russia from the inside and learn it first hand. Then go visit Venezuela with its 700% inflation rate and black market toilet paper. Then North Korea with its mind control and death to anyone who dares speak out against it.

 

[ralis]

That's a false alternative. I would prefer neither, a free market healthcare system free of protectionism would be far, far better. Railways improved despite it not being a free market and simply a state created franchise. Rail track is still state owned. If you look at the number of passengers prior to privatisation you will see they had dropped off a cliff. The trains were dirty, late and broken. People were deserting them for road transport. Do you mean the private housing market funded by the state monopoly monetary system and the state planning authorities. Both of these have combined to create a bubble in housing. That's socialism planning and control at work, not the free market. All companies are profit driven-even charitable and not for profit companies. It is the profit motive and it's downside losses-rarely considered as important by socialists-that allows us companies to judge if they are providing the right products, at the right prices, at the the right quality. However, today we have the interference of the state in all those markets for the purposes of giving advantage to a few special groups and freeing them from competition. The ideas of socialism, like its twin, fascism, should not be swept away, they should be pinned up for all time as a warning never to adopt them. They are totalitarian bringers of tyranny and serfdom. They rely on the ignorance of the masses and are enticing to them, right up until the moment it's too late to object. Make no mistake, this ideology is the evil that the bible warned about. It seems the easy way, it masquerades as charity and good works, but it is none of those things. It is greed, power, authoritarianism, violence, chaos, pollution, destruction of resources and of human minds and bodies. It is literally hell on earth. Read some books on Russia from the inside and learn it first hand. Then go visit Venezuela with its 700% inflation rate and black market toilet paper. Then North Korea with its mind control and death to anyone who dares speak out against it.

 

I have no idea what talking points you have been reading, but your narrative is not based on critical/rational analysis or an understanding of history. Fascism and socialism are not twins and your reference to the bible is suspect. Further, your analysis of human nature is amateurish at best.

Edited July 20, 2015 by ralis

[Chang]

 Read some books on Russia from the inside and learn it first hand. Then go visit Venezuela with its 700% inflation rate and black market toilet paper. Then North Korea with its mind control and death to anyone who dares speak out against it.

 

The problem is that those with a Left Wing Liberal mindset always believe that they will do better than the examples you have given. This is the real tragedy and it is virtually impossible to convince them otherwise. It should also be mentioned that when things do go wrong it is never their fault.

[Karl]

So called free markets are presuppositions from the works of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Von Mises and other classical liberal theorists. Such unfounded presuppositions are only an appeal to human greed, rugged individualism and selfishness. The basic premise is that if everyone acted in their own self interest; therefor markets would be absolutely efficient with no need for rules. However, the fanciful neoliberal notion of a fair/level playing field without governmental interference fails to consider the myriad variables regarding the behavior of individuals. 

 

Have you read Von Mises treatise human action ? I mean read the whole thing cover to cover not grazed over a wiki entry. Mises wasn't a free marketeer at all. His work is all philosophical and based around praxeology. It's a tough read, it answers every question with logical syllogism and precision. If you consider yourself to have that level of understanding-and you have to be pretty bright to do so-then you should have a bash at it.

 

Friedman was an idiot and espoused the monetarism (Neo Keynesian) of the Chicago school. Definitely not free market.

Hayek was better, but had some very odd notions. I wouldn't call him free market-more limited government minarchist.

 

Hmm human greed, rugged individualism and selfishness is more pyrotechnics than anything else. Judge what Mises says in human action for yourself and with an open mind. Humans will always be selfish, but your reading of the word selfish is incorrect. Selfish can also mean charitable giving, fairness, empathy, voluntary association, peace. We use our rational minds, we are not animals of the field, that means we can see the advantage in cooperative working, living and peace. Your reading of 'selfish' is your own judgement on yourself, it is your style of selfishness that is black.

 

 

[Karl]

I have no idea what talking points you have been reading, but your narrative is not based on critical/rational analysis or an understanding of history. Fascism and socialism are not twins and your reference to the bible is suspect. Further, your analysis of human nature is amateurish at best.

You have shown no aptitude for logical argument so it's pointless to take that path.

 

Fascism and socialism are cut from the same cloth, they differ only in method. If you are such a clever guy let's see you define socialism and fascism for us and then we may judge how close they are. Remember -genus and differentia- :-) let's see how well you do because you have been blowing hard about your incredible brilliance. It should be a doddle for you. I reckon 8 hours is sufficient to show us what you can do. I look forward to it.

 

Once you have it you will see why the bible reference is important.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Karl

[ralis]

Have you read Von Mises treatise human action ? I mean read the whole thing cover to cover not grazed over a wiki entry. Mises wasn't a free marketeer at all. His work is all philosophical and based around praxeology. It's a tough read, it answers every question with logical syllogism and precision. If you consider yourself to have that level of understanding-and you have to be pretty bright to do so-then you should have a bash at it. Friedman was an idiot and espoused the monetarism (Neo Keynesian) of the Chicago school. Definitely not free market. Hayek was better, but had some very odd notions. I wouldn't call him free market-more limited government minarchist. Hmm human greed, rugged individualism and selfishness is more pyrotechnics than anything else. Judge what Mises says in human action for yourself and with an open mind. Humans will always be selfish, but your reading of the word selfish is incorrect. Selfish can also mean charitable giving, fairness, empathy, voluntary association, peace. We use our rational minds, we are not animals of the field, that means we can see the advantage in cooperative working, living and peace. Your reading of 'selfish' is your own judgement on yourself, it is your style of selfishness that is black.

 

 

Your presuppositions are not founded on reason as you so want your readers to believe, but an ideology that somehow unfettered markets have absolute efficiency and fairness. There is not one instance in history where that particular ideology has worked. Your statement "selfishness that is black" is inappropriate and offensive. BTW, I always speak for ones that have no voice and are disenfranchised.

[ralis]

You have shown no aptitude for logical argument so it's pointless to take that path.

 

Fascism and socialism are cut from the same cloth, they differ only in method. If you are such a clever guy let's see you define socialism and fascism for us and then we may judge how close they are. Remember -genus and differentia- :-) let's see how well you do because you have been blowing hard about your incredible brilliance. It should be a doddle for you. I reckon 8 hours is sufficient to show us what you can do. I look forward to it.

 

Once you have it you will see why the bible reference is important.

 

To mix religion and economics is a major problem. Further, I have studied the history of fascism and have written extensively in another thread here on the forum. To throw out so called logic in the defense of a system that has never worked i.e, neoliberal economics is unfounded logic and arguments based on presuppositions and not reality.

[Chang]

Your presuppositions are not founded on reason as you so want your readers to believe, but an ideology that somehow unfettered markets have absolute efficiency and fairness. There is not one instance in history where that particular ideology has worked. Your statement "selfishness that is black" is inappropriate and offensive. BTW, I always speak for ones that have no voice and are disenfranchised.

 

This would suggest that Socialism is founded on reason. Take care for the earth shall shift beneath your feet.

[Marblehead]

More crap from Corbyn. Now he has to argue the bits of socialism that do work.

 

 

I "Liked" your post even though I don't agree with all of it.

 

Socialism can work in certain areas of societies but it requires a lot of devotion and fewer billionaires.

[ralis]

@Karl,

 

My posts regarding fascism. Linked are a few references regarding my reading. BTW, I am not a mental lightweight regarding this subject or any other topic I write on this forum. If you stoop to inappropriate content toward me, you will be reported to the mods. 

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/22292-is-the-west-slowly-descending-into-fascism/?hl=fascism

 

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Hofstadter/e/B000AP8JTE

 

http://www.amazon.com/Ian-Kershaw/e/B001ITX4WI

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=rise+and+fall+of+the+third+reich&sprefix=rise+and+fall%2Cstripbooks%2C210

Edited July 20, 2015 by ralis

[Karl]

Your presuppositions are not founded on reason as you so want your readers to believe, but an ideology that somehow unfettered markets have absolute efficiency and fairness. There is not one instance in history where that particular ideology has worked. Your statement "selfishness that is black" is inappropriate and offensive. BTW, I always speak for ones that have no voice and are disenfranchised.

 

Thou doth protesteth too much. If you cannot understand that selfishness is equally a force for good then what can I conclude? You only imply the bad. This is socialism. It is the ideology of the jealous and envious. If you really spoke for the disenfranchised you would realise that means freedom from tyranny. The right to exist without trespass in any form. That you don't is telling.

 

My work is founded on reality, nothing more. I don't have an 'ideology' that is again a socialistic argument. I have a praxeological truth that man acts. I need no more than that from which to understand the world. I don't need to measure every triangle in the world to know that Pythagoras theorem works. I do not cling to Hayek, Friedman or even Rothbard bless his heart Because I have no need to. I don't need to dispute Marx either. Reality is clear as a fresh spring.

 

 

[ralis]

Thou doth protesteth too much. If you cannot understand that selfishness is equally a force for good then what can I conclude? You only imply the bad. This is socialism. It is the ideology of the jealous and envious. If you really spoke for the disenfranchised you would realise that means freedom from tyranny. The right to exist without trespass in any form. That you don't is telling. My work is founded on reality, nothing more. I don't have an 'ideology' that is again a socialistic argument. I have a praxeological truth that man acts. I need no more than that from which to understand the world. I don't need to measure every triangle in the world to know that Pythagoras theorem works. I do not cling to Hayek, Friedman or even Rothbard bless his heart Because I have no need to. I don't need to dispute Marx either. Reality is clear as a fresh spring.

 

Pure capitalism/free markets are illusions and not based on logic or reality. State one instance where free markets have worked.