Is true socialism possible?

[Anna]

Depression, and the feeling of being surplus to requirements, together with stress and uncertainty, play a big part in general poor health in our kind of society.

Agreed and surely we need to look at the kind of society we have created and the reasons why poor health, obesity, depression and general malaise have come about when we really should be healthier and happier than ever before? Comparing life now with 100 years before - 1912 - life was hard but it seems people were hardier, thinner and happier. It was your lot and you got on with it.

The epidemic of child obesity and the subsequent timebomb of diabetes in teenages and young adults is quite frightening. I see today Labour are calling for Frosties and CoCo Pops to be banned to prevent this happening. The question that should be addressed is why parents are so stupid as to let their children become obese in the first place? Sorry, this is very offtopic

[Resurrection Man]

I suspect that competitiveness IS part of our make up, and may be something that helps various types of development.
The balance is hopelessly wrong though. Co operative effort is, in my experience (25 years working and selling for British Businesses) the main driver for business success. Without some element of competition, there may well, it is true. be a tendency towards inefficiencies
The real problems are manifold but 2 are :
1.Competition in many areas of business (and Economic life) is something of a myth. We have absurd structures that frequently allow big capital to drain cash from the public sector, for instance , in things like subsidies, whilst there is little real competiton beyond dubious contract awarding procedures.
2. Competition has become a mantra , in areas of life where it has no place whatsoever.Education is an easy example.

Humans are essentially cooperative beings. Look around you. Every moment of every day, we depend on our cooperative efforts. The moments when we start competing are all too often the bad moments.

Broadly speaking, I agree. Can you clarify what you mean by competition has no place in education? Do you mean exam grades? Getting into Uni? Or what?

[Resurrection Man]

.....
..... The question that should be addressed is why parents are so stupid as to let their children become obese in the first place? Sorry, this is very offtopic

Because many parents are simply that....stupid.

[MrGongGong]

Agreed and surely we need to look at the kind of society we have created and the reasons why poor health, obesity, depression and general malaise have come about when we really should be healthier and happier than ever before? Comparing life now with 100 years before - 1912 - life was hard but it seems people were hardier, thinner and happier. It was your lot and you got on with it.

as long as you didn't die in childbirth
had to work in unsafe conditions
didn't need antibiotics
weren't disabled


etc etc etc


but there is a point there ..........

[Serial_Apologist]

To say that human nature is competitive is tantamount to claiming it so in the light of past and present social and economic systems: a question of organisation - which of course is recognised in business models, most of which emphasise the indispensability of co-operation as much as extolling successful competition in the world beyond. As in war or threatened war, stress needs to be put on a putative enemy which must be kept in place or preferably exterminated in order to ensure our survival, in order for the co-operative gene to be triggered. Yet those urged to pull together have one eye on promotion, and indeed, in today's world, are expected to in order to get the job in the first place! The resultant personality model, seen either as a sign of human weakness or strength depending on how it is used and seen, is pulled in opposite directions, and thereby locked in a perpetuated childhood, where things were simpler, absolutes, this is mine and that is yours, and belongings and eventually property reinforce sense of self-worth, being prime indicators of status and the right to belong. That which governs civilised behaviour under this twisted view of ethics and morality would appear to be based as much on what one can get away with as the simple principles of reciprocity accepted in most if not all societies.

[teamsaint]

Broadly speaking, I agree. Can you clarify what you mean by competition has no place in education? Do you mean exam grades? Getting into Uni? Or what?

Clearly, there need to be ways of trying to determine what might be an appropriate or useful path for a person to follow through their education. We also need ways of describing (I think) how a person has learned or progressed.
But the (false) competitive element is built into the system from top to bottom. A simple example at the "top". Oxbridge freely admit that there are enough talented kids to fill their places several(perhaps many) times over. so access is rationed, when in a more cooperative system, capacity could be increased.

At the "bottom": League tables for KS1 and all the other stages Absurd. I don't know a single person involved in the system on the inside (and I know a lot) who thinks they have the remotest use. Teachers and schools are encouraged to compete, when they might more usefully share best practice, or experience .
This isn't an education thread, but just LOOK at what our competitive system achieves with a dozen years of compulsory education.

Competition in education is fostered by those likely to do well out of it...and we know who they are !

I am not the expert...but I know a few, and this guy is the tops !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9LelXa3U_I

He doesn't believe in competitive education.But our kids would thrive with him in charge.

[scottycelt]

Hmmm ... I just wish there had been no competition around when, as a skinny 7-stone weakling, I really fancied that gorgeously buxom Irene at the annual college dance.

Didn't notice much sign of mutual co-operation there, either from her or my so-called 'mates'.

[Serial_Apologist]

Co operative effort is, in my experience (25 years working and selling for British Businesses) the main driver for business success. Without some element of competition, there may well, it is true. be a tendency towards inefficiencies

What we may be talking about here is freeloaders.

Every society exerts peer group pressure; it is right that this should be so. It would be no different under a socialist system than that of today. What would though be different would be the removal of a process whereby "our" benefit always has to be at the expense of employees of inefficiently competing firms. Discussions within and across communities and workplaces through networks organised in the setting up of socialism would have decided what needed prioritising and how, given available technology and knowledge, work would be shared out. Modes of contribution, communication and input of ideas could be devised to motivate each and every person to contribute their ideas (Learning Through Landscapes was an exemplary model in the early days of the Community Forests), removing the conditions for alienation. Transparency would be encouraged by communities and workplaces electing managers who would not be on the grossly over-perked and salaried advantages of today's capitalists and would derive their motivation to lead by virtue of being elected rather than through inheritance or climbing the greasy pole. as well as from actually living in the same community to which they had something valuable to offer as most of the rest of humanity.

As I understand it, this is the straightforward basis of socialism.

[Lateralthinking1]

In announcing their opposition to sugar today, Labour have chosen to describe cereals as "children's cereals". That is how they have been described on Radio 4 and in the press. Cereals aren't children's cereals. They are cereals - but it is so typically Labour. It is like living in one world that everyone can recognise and then being told it is another just to suit the politicians' arguments.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

In announcing their opposition to sugar today, Labour have chosen to describe cereals as "children's cereals". That is how they have been described on Radio 4 and in the press. Cereals aren't children's cereals. They are cereals - but it is typically Labour. It is like living in one world that everyone recognises and then being told it is another to suit the politicians' arguments.

But there are cereals that are marketed with children in mind. These tend to be high sugar, high chocolate...

[MrGongGong]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9LelXa3U_I

He doesn't believe in competitive education.But our kids would thrive with him in charge.

Ken wrote a brilliant document for the government (in 1999)
"All our futures : Creativity, Culture & Education" which was promptly ignored

Sadly he went to the America

[Lateralthinking1]

But there are cereals that are marketed with children in mind. These tend to be high sugar, high chocolate...

Well, I eat Coco Pops occasionally and all men over the age of 40 have been proven to like jelly. Ice cream and ice lollies have pictures of cartoon animals on the packaging and no one calls it children's ice cream. I find the way they use language Orwellian.

I am very much against the idea that because some parents can't say "no" to them eating entire bars of chocolate, we all must have smaller chocolate bars. It is like being ruled by the kindergarten. MPs should require more of parents and themselves.

[Serial_Apologist]

Clearly, there need to be ways of trying to determine what might be an appropriate or useful path for a person to follow through their education.

Encouraging their little imaginations to envisage durable products rather than fashion lines that need wardrobe renewals in order to keep up with the Joneses; products that last and don't harm the environment; ways their minds can be developed so when the new dawn comes can put themselves up for election by popular vote to positions of leadership.

[Anna]

Well, I eat Coco Pops occasionally and all men over the age of 40 have been proven to like jelly. Ice cream and ice lollies have pictures of cartoon animals on the packaging and no one calls it children's ice cream. I find the way they use language Orwellian.

I am very much against this idea that because some parents can't say "no" to them eating entire bars of chocolate, we all must have childrens' chocolate bars. It is like being ruled by the kindergarten. MPs should require more of parents and themselves.

Exactly Lat, a Kindergarten Nanny is what sprung to mind when I read Labour's proposals. A Nanny State seeks to control, not educate.
Actually I bought a box of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes a couple of months ago, special offer at the CoOp. It was so disgustingly sweet and sickly I binned it in the food recycling box. I imagine there are now very fat worms in the Council compost heap

[Lateralthinking1]

Exactly Lat, a Kindergarten Nanny is what sprung to mind when I read Labour's proposals. A Nanny State seeks to control, not educate.
Actually I bought a box of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes a couple of months ago, special offer at the CoOp. It was so disgustingly sweet and sickly I binned it in the food recycling box. I imagine there are now very fat worms in the Council compost heap

This leads me to my main "if I had Michael Gove's job" point. I would like to see lifestyle as a core curriculum subject. This could incorporate several matters that are taught elsewhere but the main emphasis would be on encouraging students to consider their lives in all their future stages. Making plans, causes and consequences, that kind of thing - money, health, activity, ageing, etc. This would fundamentally move the emphasis in society away from the here and now, youth culture, etc. whatever is in the media.