Ukraine

[french frank]

And in any case, it hardly exists anywhere today, even in the adulterated version represented by Cuba.

That was my point. Socialism hasn't been 'given a chance' in this country. I'm not sure why people voted for it in 1945 but deserted it by 1951 - in spite of what I would have thought some momentous social improvements - welfare, NHS …

[Joseph K]

And that justifies its continued existence and our acceptance of it?!

Depends what you mean by socialism. Aspects of it coexist with capitalism and in fact we have socialism i.e. the work of trade unions to thank for things like the weekend and the 8-hour work-day. Do you accept these things, Dave, or would you prefer to go back to the horrific days prior to the welfare state, labour rights, the NHS etc?

But these are all aspects that can be subsumed into a capitalist society. As for democracy, like Einstein I am sceptical it can truly exist in a capitalist society where oligarchs control most the media and have politicians - though not all - in their pockets. Moreover, we cannot talk about a democratic society when the means of production is privately owned, whether by shareholders or a state bureaucracy.

[Joseph K]

That was my point. Socialism hasn't been 'given a chance' in this country. I'm not sure why people voted for it in 1945 but deserted it by 1951 - in spite of what I would have thought some momentous social improvements - welfare, NHS …

IIRC, that was one time Labour got more votes than the Tories, but because of the distribution, didn't gain as many seats.

[Serial_Apologist]

That was my point. Socialism hasn't been 'given a chance' in this country. I'm not sure why people voted for it in 1945 but deserted it by 1951 - in spite of what I would have thought some momentous social improvements - welfare, NHS …

It was I think partly as a consequence of people's experience of socialism, so-called. My boss in a large industrial complex recalled the Attlee government calling on the trade union part of the social bargain to promulgate worker participation in the running of businesses, but was told that the job of trade unions was improving salaries and working conditions, not management, for which job top people should be recruited on top job salaries! This restricted "economism" - advocated as much by the Communist Party of Great Britain by the way as by the "Labour left" - would bequeath an understandable legacy of cynicism in working class quarters towards public ownership in general, which was well protrayed in some of the Ealing Comedies of the era, such as "Last Chance" (1951). The creation of the welfare state as an auxiliary adjunct to a more efficient private sector - among other things a healthier working class than had existed pre-war - and of nationalised industries run as paternalistically or top-heavily as private firms, were first factors in creating disillusionment. If socialism equated with an austerity equivalent to that understandable in wartime then they could not wait for the consumer society that was to come under a Tory government: MacMillan's "You've never had it so good". Secondly, the Attlee government meekly accepted the Soviet Threat position adopted in line with American thinking, as described earlier in the thread, and forked out heavily on the development of the atom bomb. Thirdly Labour under Attlee accepted for as long as possible the status quo regarding Britain hanging onto its colonies; it conducted no campaigns against strong racist threads within its own domain and thinking. Later the Tories proved more "liberal" with regards to decolonisation than Labour between 1945 and '51. Finally the main battle of the 1950s between Labour and the Conservatives revolved around the amount of council housing each was planning to build. Keynes's influence over postwar reconstruction procured a consensus model of mixed economics - one which would last until the mid-1970s, when the chickens of unsustainable consumerism came home to roost, and monetarism, first advocated for post Allende Chile in 1974 - which was really a return to the basics of capitalism - became the leading ideology of the Right, which it has now been for almost half a century.

[french frank]

IIRC, that was one time Labour got more votes than the Tories, but because of the distribution, didn't gain as many seats.

That's true: less that 250,000 votes separated the two parties with Labour a whisker ahead. The result in seats was the usual lottery of FPTP, but Labour were down a significant amount on their 1945 vote which I take to indicate loss of public support. I do find it difficult to understand why socialists - who one would have supposed to have social cooperation in their bones - have been opposed to PR and the possibility of sharing government with other parties. Is that right? or is it just Labour who are against coalitions?

Just digested Serial's post. All points well made, I'd say.

[Dave2002]

And in any case, it hardly exists anywhere today, even in the adulterated version represented by Cuba.

Cuba has a crazy society. There is a two level currency scheme. Not sure if it's similar to the currency schemes in some former communist countries such as Romania, where in the past it was only possible to buy luxury goods with so-called "hard currency" - and in special shops. Possibly Cuba is basically capitalist - with each person trying to survive by doing more than one job. However literacy is very high - but crazy situations might arise of someone with very high skills (for example a surgeon) also working in a coffee bar - because there might be more money in the coffee bar with tips from foreign tourists. At one time Cuba had industries which made a profit, and were effective, but for various reasons these collapsed, so that even products which should have brought revenue into the country - sugar, coffee, tobacco were so inexpertly managed that it became almost impossible to supply domestic demand. OK - that probably wasn't "socialism" - just as what we have here in the UK isn't some close approximation to an idealised "democracy".

[Frances_iom]

... currency schemes in some former communist countries such as Romania, where in the past it was only possible to buy luxury goods with so-called "hard currency" - and in special shops....

That applied in the Soviet Union during the 70s and 80s - I did quite a bit of shopping in the large one on the ground floor of the now demolished Intourist Hotel on the edge of Red Square - the official rate of exchange made shopping in normal shops completely infeasible even if you could find items eg the long treck out to the Melodya shop which never had what you wanted in stock.

[Dave2002]

That applied in the Soviet Union during the 70s and 80s - I did quite a bit of shopping in the large one on the ground floor of the now demolished Intourist Hotel on the edge of Red Square - the official rate of exchange made shopping in normal shops completely infeasible even if you could find items eg the long treck out to the Melodya shop which never had what you wanted in stock.

Clearly that was divisive, and probably tended to favour party members, plus also corruption. In some countries there was black market activity to obtain hard currency - illegal - with penalties if caught - but probably many people did it anyway - in order to "survive". Possibly many people worked on the legal side, and also on the illegal side - whenever it was most expedient.

[Frances_iom]

Clearly that was divisive, and probably tended to favour party members,...

They had their own even more special shops - the Berioska (little birch tree) shops were for tourists - yes tights, M&S Knickers etc were readily sold - you could be offered many things in exchange eg once a large catering tin of caviar! - of course it was divisive but do you think those in charge would put up with that available to the masses - crazy notion.

[RichardB]

the other - which 'goes without saying' - goes unsaid.

Does that mean that as far as your concerned it isn't permissible to criticise NATO's role without also criticising Putin's invasion? OK, here goes:

Putin's invasion of and continued attacks on Ukraine constitutes an inhuman, criminal and ill-advised act for which there is no reasonable excuse.
Putin's invasion of and continued attacks on Ukraine constitutes an inhuman, criminal and ill-advised act for which there is no reasonable excuse.
Putin's invasion of and continued attacks on Ukraine constitutes an inhuman, criminal and ill-advised act for which there is no reasonable excuse.
Putin's invasion of and continued attacks on Ukraine constitutes an inhuman, criminal and ill-advised act for which there is no reasonable excuse.
Putin's invasion of and continued attacks on Ukraine constitutes an inhuman, criminal and ill-advised act for which there is no reasonable excuse.
Putin's invasion of and continued attacks on Ukraine constitutes an inhuman, criminal and ill-advised act for which there is no reasonable excuse.

Can I criticise NATO another six times now please?

[french frank]

Does that mean that as far as your concerned it isn't permissible to criticise NATO's role without also criticising Putin's invasion?

No, that isn't what I meant. I daresay you understood the point I was making though

[Dave2002]

This article is an interesting commentary - https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...gainst-history

[EnemyoftheStoat]

This article is an interesting commentary - https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...gainst-history

That is very powerful, thank you Dave for posting the link.

[Serial_Apologist]

That is very powerful, thank you Dave for posting the link.

Indeed so.

[french frank]

Indeed so.

It is powerful, and I'm sure - or I'm willing to accept - that the reportage is accurate. But I am wary about such statements as Putin can't win (maybe he can't, but can Ukraine - or "we" - do any better?). I foresee total destruction for Ukraine, and the best chance they have is for Russians, particularly those (mothers of conscripts) whose own experience doesn't match what they're being told, to realise in time that they are being fed falsehoods.

I'm also intrigued as to why Russian separatists should want to be part of, or allied with, a state that behaves like Putin's Russia.