Is true socialism possible?

[Guest]

I'd be grateful NOT to be stalked and baited on this thread. Thank you.

In response to a comment by Calum elsewhere, I was thinking about the various tragic messes into which so many supposedly leftist regimes disintegrate. Several are listed here - it won't make happy reading for some, but those of all persuasions who are ready to accept reality will see the truths.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Leftwingmonsters.asp

So, we have chaos due to corruption and incompetence and sheer evil. Nothing surprising there - it's exactly the same with extreme right wing regimes.

But then if we look at South America today, we see a slightly different picture, perhaps, emerging. It's an area that I'm concerned with through my work at the moment, and am likely to be for some time, perhaps - particularly Chile.

Allende was never the monster that the US made him out to be, and whilst of course he had his faults, it's my view that he might have made a good job of things. History and luck (with the economy) was against him, and he could and should have done more to differentiate himself from Moscow influence, which some in the US legitimately and sincerely feared. Some, of course, simply used that fear as an excuse, as the reforms Allende made were hurting US companies, which had (and still have) far too large an influence on US policy, in part at least through the Jewish network. I'd be with Calum here on his anti-Kissinger stance! I've stood in front of Allende's statue, spoken to numerous Chileans about him, and have got a feeling that his legacy may only now be beginning to be felt. And my assessment is that it could well be a legacy for much good. The Socialism in Chile that exists now is, arguably, one of the few that feels at least half real. Time will tell.

If, in the end, a socialist government can succeed, bringing the bourgeoisie/middle classes to its fold and enabling real economic and social benefits for all, then will itin be a first? Or is it impossible, as Hoxha would have had it, to build socialism through democratic means, without a revolution? (Not that he was over-bothered, of course - but some of his writings are illuminating, if insincere).

[Flosshilde]

So, we have chaos due to corruption and incompetence and sheer evil. Nothing surprising there - it's exactly the same with extreme right wing regimes.

As usual the 'opposite' of socialism is seen a 'extreme right-wing regimes'. I would suggest that the real opposite, or obverse, is capitalism - which at the moment seems to have made a pretty effective job of creating chaos, mostly through incompetence & corruption/greed. So perhaps the question should also be asked - 'is capitalism that works for everybody possible?'


As for socialism, the problem is that as soon as it looks as if a socialist state might succeed the USA gets worried & starts to undermine it.

[Simon]

Capitalism is indeed liable to be undermined by incompetence and greed, but less likely, if one looks at the lessons of history, to lead to mass murder, gulags, political assassinations and violent revolution than extreme right or left wing regimes.

In that way, it can be said to have "worked". In terms of whether it can create a decent standard of living for everyone, the answer again is largely yes - cf most of Europe. Can it make everybody socially and economically equal? - which I suspect is what your question really meant - no, of course not. Nothing can do that. There will always be those who are better off and those who are worse off. What a decent society will try to do is to protect those who have the greatest disadvantages through no fault of their own. (Which should be what British conservatism does, whilst allowing those who try hard to succeed).

With reference to your last sentence, that has indeed on many occasions been true in the past. But the world has changed, and despite the potential threat of China - which mustn't be underestimated at least for the moment (they have even made progress in links with Antigua which in years past would have had the USA having kittens! (cf Russia/Cuba)) - the old cold war attitudes and the Soviet expansionism that caused such concern (not all unfounded either) have disappeared and there is little will in the USA at the moment for interference in South America - though there are concerns about Venezuela, if one looks around the internet.

[Richard Tarleton]

Simon, clicking on some of the buttons on the right, if these are the causes which "Discover the networks" regards as left wing, is it safe to assume that they are anti-peace, anti-civil liberties, anti-environmentalist, pro-Iraq War and zionist? I'm not familiar with this group.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

hmm careful with attributions of violence and its incidence ... we now have Pinker's book etc in which he shows that we have become on the whole more decent to each other ...


and speaking as a pragmatist i must disagree with a posing of your question; a 'true' socialism, would this be a non contingent true ideal? ... for me by definition such a thing is impossible; as might e. g. be a 'true' democracy .... and awful as Mao became, his socialism may still on pragmatic grounds be seen as successful in raising living standards and indeed participation in a form of democracy ......

[Simon]

It's a mixed bag, Richard. As with so many of these groupings of all persuasions, you have to sort the wheat from the chaff - the nutters from the rational. As you'll see, it's right wing, but it's not all insane right wing - especially some of the articles in the section I linked to, which are largely factual.

Your use of "anti-peace" is interesting. I don't think they are anti-peace - except for those evil few who profit in some way from war, or who are abnormally bigoted, most people would prefer peace - but they are, perhaps, anti some of the rather naive leftwing "peace" groups that spring up from time to time!

[jean]

Simon, clicking on some of the buttons on the right, if these are the causes which "Discover the networks" regards as left wing, is it safe to assume that they are anti-peace, anti-civil liberties, anti-environmentalist, pro-Iraq War and zionist? I'm not familiar with this group.

It's even stranger than that.

I'm not too surprised to learn that environmentalism is seen as left-wing, but I'm very surprised to learn the identity of one of its most dangerous champions:

News Corporation, controlled by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has candidly declared its aim to inculcate its viewing audience with environmentalist orthodoxy. News Corp promotes not only uncontroversial ideals such as energy conservation and pollution reduction, but also the scientifically dubious theory that human industrial activity and energy usage causes climate change...

[Flosshilde]

Simon, clicking on some of the buttons on the right, if these are the causes which "Discover the networks" regards as left wing, is it safe to assume that they are anti-peace, anti-civil liberties, anti-environmentalist, pro-Iraq War and zionist? I'm not familiar with this group.

This from the section 'Defining & understanding the left' (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/v...ry.asp?id=1217) -

As the perennial Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas once said: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Toward this deceitful end, the left co-opted, in the years following the Vietnam War, the name of “liberalism,” long honored in the West as the movement that had brought freedom, dignity, economic opportunity, and legal protections to millions of people who had been denied those advantages everywhere on the globe since the very dawn of history.

I think it's fairly clear what their agenda is.

[Thropplenoggin]

Is true Toryism possible?

Is true love possible?

Is true controversy possible?

Is true truth possible?

Is true Simon possible?

The possibilities are endless!

EDIT:

...I thought I would treat this thread with the contempt I felt it deserved. However, on further reflection, this thread is "flamebait", pure and simple, and should be locked.

[Simon]

Amazing indeed, Jean - I hadn't read that section, but then, hatred of Newscorp comes in many guises and from many places and for many reasons! - but if we could leave that to perhaps another discussion, and concentrate on socialism... (The only reason I noted that factual section on the worst of the left was as an illustration of how socialist ideals how so often become perverted...)

As regards my question Calum - I think you know that I meant a socialist state where the majority of the ideals of socialism were accepted, supported and used as the basis for a fair, decent and just society. A conservative, rational, centrist socialist state, ideally, where government was limited to the necessary functions of security and catching those that fall through the net. We are both pragmatists - and I'm very comfortable with the idea that in many modern societies you only need to jiggle with a few policies and bingo! - you're there in a really good system. But though I'm an optimist, I think a few other things may have to happen before that time comes, simple though it might seem.

As regards Prof Pinker - I have no evidence to argue agaist him and indeed, gut feeling would surely suggest that he's right anyway. Though I'm not quite sure of any great benefit that his rightness will have, as is so often the case with academic theories! I haven't read the book but I was aware of his thesis. I will look forward to playing the link you have kindly provided.

[Simon]

This from the section 'Defining & understanding the left' (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/v...ry.asp?id=1217) -

As the perennial Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas once said: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Toward this deceitful end, the left co-opted, in the years following the Vietnam War, the name of “liberalism,” long honored in the West as the movement that had brought freedom, dignity, economic opportunity, and legal protections to millions of people who had been denied those advantages everywhere on the globe since the very dawn of history.

I think it's fairly clear what their agenda is.

But what does "having an agenda" mean? If you dismiss everything and everyone who "has an agenda" then you will never read/listen to anyone. Everyone, when making any point, has an agenda, whether it's to sell something, promote an idea, gain a benefit, or whatever. I do, you do, th PM does, the Chief Rabbi does, Simon Rattle does.

So the fact that something/someone simply has an agenda, is, if I may suggest it, irrelevant. You may not agree with what you perceive as that agenda, but that's fine.

As regards the section you quote, is is undoubtedly true that many political organisations, of all colours and creeds, have used words and ideas to make their policies more prersentable to others - and they still do that, some more deviously than others and some more successfully than others and some more ruthlessly than others. I don't fully agree with the quote you use, but there is certainly some truth in it. And it's not a particularly new or amazing suggestion, either!

[scottycelt]

Is true Toryism possible?

Is true love possible?

Is true controversy possible?

Is true truth possible?

Is true Simon possible?

The possibilities are endless!

EDIT:

...I thought I would treat this thread with the contempt I felt it deserved. However, on further reflection, this thread is "flamebait", pure and simple, and should be locked.

Why .. ?

Seems a perfectly reasonable thread for sensible debate whatever anyone's particular 'agenda' ...

Surely only a totalitarian socialist opposed to freedom of expression could possibly object?

[amateur51]

Why .. ?

Seems a perfectly reasonable thread for sensible debate whatever anyone's particular 'agenda' ...

Surely only a totalitarian socialist opposed to freedom of expression could possibly object?

I hope that you're not attributing this to the OP's rubrik, scotty?

I'd be grateful NOT to be stalked and baited on this thread. Thank you.

[Simon]

Thank you Scotty, but this wasn't how I hoped the thread would develop and I have to say that I don't think your post was very helpful, despite, I'm sure, the intention being fair. It isn't only totalitarian socialists who don't like opposing views, you know - the right is just as guilty!

It is useful, IMO, to be able to discuss all kinds of ideas about political systems and theories in an amicable manner. On an MB most of whose members are of considerable intelligence and varied experience, it's a shame that this isn't more often possible.

It was a new year resolution to engage more placidly with others on here. I think I have started well, and am determined to keep it up.

This thread may yet get there, if those with interesting ideas and who are able to accept and assess differing views will only contribute more.

Edit. And, having now seen the latest post above, if strirrers with nothing else to say will keep out. <sigh>

[amateur51]

EDIT:

...I thought I would treat this thread with the contempt I felt it deserved. However, on further reflection, this thread is "flamebait", pure and simple, and should be locked.

I'd not come across that term before, Throppers but I think you've hit the nail on the head there