Is true socialism possible?

[Thropplenoggin]

The debate is skewed from the off by highlighting "left wing monsters", mentioning that the "extreme right" can be a bit rotten at times (note: no link to their "monsters"), then seeming to conclude that humans are inherently corrupt/corruptible (the OP opts to wield the biblical term 'evil' here), which would thus seem to apply across the entire political spectrum. However, all this is geared towards a discussion of 'socialism', though given the inherent corruptibility of human nature, this term could be exchanged for the abstract noun of any political system/-ism.

I wonder why the OP has chosen to ignore the "left wing angels" - Clement Attlee, for instance. Given Simon's views, I do hope he has never had to make use of that most egregious socialist institution, the National Health Service.

[Simon]

The debate is skewed from the off by highlighting "left wing monsters", mentioning that the "extreme right" can be a bit rotten at times (note: no link to their "monsters"), then seeming to conclude that humans are inherently corrupt/corruptible (the OP opts to wield the biblical term 'evil' here), which would thus seem to apply across the entire political spectrum. However, all this is geared towards a discussion of 'socialism', though given the inherent corruptibility of human nature, this term could be exchanged for the abstract noun of any political system/-ism.

I wonder why the OP has chosen to ignore the "left wing angels" - Clement Attlee, for instance. Given Simon's views, I do hope he has never had to make use of that most egregious of socialist institutions, the National Health Service.

That's better. You've chosen to make some points, rather than an unfair comment. If I may, I'll address them.

1. The debate is about whether it might be possible to achieve a "truly" socialist state. If you want to start a thread about the possibilty of any other kind of state, or about any other -ism, then I'm sure nobody would object. But it is about socialism and therefore naturally skewed towards a discussion of socialist states. In fact, I specifically said: "In response to a comment by Calum elsewhere, I was thinking about the various tragic messes into which so many supposedly leftist regimes disintegrate."

2. I illustrated, by a link, how leftist regimes have been in charge of some truly awful things. There was absolutely no point using, for example, the Nazis, or Pinochet, or any other right-wing state as an example, because a) that would not have illustrated how left-wing states can disintegrate into chaos and murder and b) everybody knows and agrees how nasty Hitler was anyway.

2a. I didn't say the extreme right could be "a bit rotten at times". I stated, quite clearly: "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." Not much room for doubt there, surely?

3. Your suggestion that I conclude that humans are inherently corruptible isn't justified from the post, though I expect most of us are! But if I had concluded that, then it most certainly would apply across the political spectrum, simply and logically because humans are represented across the political spectrum.

4. There is nothing particularly biblical about "evil", just as there isn't about "good" - what better adjective can one use to describe these people? The terms good and evil are often used in all kinds of publications that deal with morality and behaviour.

5. It's true that I ignored Attlee. There were lots of good British socialists that I ignored. I can't get everyone into a post. But I did mention Allende, as the situation in South America, and in particular Chile, was fundamentally relevant to the thread that some of us were engaging in earlier, which was locked after a certain stalker's intervention therein against me. In addition, I've just come back from South America, so it's in the forefront of my thoughts at the moment. I didn't mention the situation in France, or any other place where socialist governments are in power in Europe, as it isn't really pertinent to how things might pan out in South America - where, as I said earlier, I see some hope of real change.

6. For the record, though I'm not quite sure how your comment is relevant, I do use the NHS from time to time. And I do think it was and is, largely, a wonderful institution.

[scottycelt]

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!

Which, is exactly the point I've made consistently on this forum, Simon ... much to the chagrin of others it would seem.

I make my own points on this forum ... whether others think these are particularly helpful or not in pursuit of their own 'agendas' is entirely up to them!

[ahinton]

The thread title has but four words; I would question all of them.

Anyway, in the light of what I've done as a musician, I know that I should shut up here and elsewhere, as I have achieved (and sought wilfully to achieve) nothing in terms of politicisation of any kind in so much as a demisemiquaver of what I've written; over to the rest of you, I'm afraid!...

[decantor]

Simon, you are working very hard in your thread for very little return. Most responders seem concerned only to question the validity or the wording of the original question. So where is the defence of even workaday socialism, let alone its apotheosis?

Capitalism, in giving free rein to human enterprise, is of course a potential nursery of gross inequality. But (it seems to me) socialism repudiates human nature, relying on the fantasy of a large-scale co-operative or the imposition of shackles (or low rewards) on high-fliers. Does it depend on state micro-management in all areas? I do hope some high-minded member of this forum will explain how it can best be put into practice for those of us with doubts.

The NHS is indeed a wonderful realisation of a socialist ideal, but it is bleeding the wealth-creators dry: modern medicine can work miracles, but it exacts a high price for its research, technology, and manpower. In a perfect world, how would the full-blooded socialists look to finance its ever-increasing demands?

[Beef Oven]

TEST MESSAGE: Gonna use this if it's all the same with you Thropp. Cheers!

[Simon]

Well, some return is better than none, dec!

You've of course hit an old nail on the head as regards the fantasy of socialism - but I think that nonetheless a kind of socialist state is possible. As I said, it only needs a few adjustments, and I don't think there is any need to micro-manage. Look at Britain - with more equitable tax laws and some adjustments to property laws, we aren't that far off. The poorest are (largely) looked after, nobody need be unhoused or hungry, and if we are ill we can be treated.

But if, by socialist, one means "all absolutely equal" - as I fear some do - then it's a non-starter. We aren't equal and that's that.

I'm often saddened by the stories from Africa. So many little states gained their independence over the years with such hopes of their peoples - and so many times they were then bled dry by corrupt dictators at best or murdered by lunatics at worst. What a great chance for a truly enlighted bunch of leaders to have made a massive difference... but they all succumbed. Well, nearly all. Botswana, however... now that's a better tale. Never been but would like to go.

[Beef Oven]

Well, some return is better than none, dec!

You've of course hit an old nail on the head as regards the fantasy of socialism - but I think that nonetheless a kind of socialist state is possible. As I said, it only needs a few adjustments, and I don't think there is any need to micro-manage. Look at Britain - with more equitable tax laws and some adjustments to property laws, we aren't that far off. The poorest are (largely) looked after, nobody need be unhoused or hungry, and if we are ill we can be treated.

But if, by socialist, one means "all absolutely equal" - as I fear some do - then it's a non-starter. We aren't equal and that's that.

I'm often saddened by the stories from Africa. So many little states gained their independence over the years with such hopes of their peoples - and so many times they were then bled dry by corrupt dictators at best or murdered by lunatics at worst. What a great chance for a truly enlighted bunch of leaders to have made a massive difference... but they all succumbed. Well, neraly all. Botswana, however... now that's a better tale. Never been but would like to go.

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but isn't a true socialist state something of an oxymoron within the Marxian scheme of things since , upon arrival of 'Utopia' the state would have long withered and died?

[Simon]

Pedantic maybe, but correct in one sense. But you know what I mean. So maybe better to say "socialist society" from henceforth...

[Beef Oven]

Pedantic maybe, but correct in one sense. But you know what I mean. So maybe better to say "socialist society" from henceforth...

Of course I know what you meant Simon, but I wanted to show what a smart-arse I am

[amateur51]

Look at Britain - with more equitable tax laws and some adjustments to property laws, we aren't that far off. The poorest are (largely) looked after, nobody need be unhoused or hungry, and if we are ill we can be treated.

How does your hunger assertion square with the rise in use of food banks?

http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects

How does your assertion about housing square with the latest data on street homelessness and family overcrowding?

http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/february_2012/street_homelessness_rises_by_23

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/15/bed-and-breakfast-families-crisis

From Joseph Rowntree Foundation's website:

* The proportion of children living in poverty has risen considerably in the last 30 years. In 1968 one in ten children lived in poverty (1.4 million children). By 1995 it was one in three (4.3 million children).

*The UK has proportionally more children in poverty than most rich countries.
All political parties have signed up to the goal of ending child poverty by 2020 and to the 2010 Child Poverty Act enshrining this in law.

*In 2010/11, 2.3 million children were living in poverty in the UK.
This is 1,100,000 children fewer than were in poverty in 1998, and the lowest level of children living in poverty since the mid 1980s. However to have met the target set by the previous government to halve child poverty by 2010, 600,000 fewer children would have needed to be in poverty by this date.
In addition to the human cost to families and children of allowing high levels of poverty to continue, our research estimates that child poverty costs £25 billion each year in costs to the Exchequer and reduced GDP.
Ending child poverty requires action in a wide range of policy areas including childcare; skills; the availability, quality and flexibility of jobs; families and parenting; and benefits and tax credits.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/work/workarea/child-poverty

[Beef Oven]

* The proportion of children living in poverty has risen considerably in the last 30 years. In 1968 one in ten children lived in poverty (1.4 million children). By 1995 it was one in three (4.3 million children).

Ah yes, poverty was still real poverty in 1968! I know, I was there

Maybe we should call it relative wealth these days

[Bryn]

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but isn't a true socialist state something of an oxymoron within the Marxian scheme of things since , upon arrival of 'Utopia' the state would have long withered and died?

Indeed. "Socialism" was seen by the Party of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin et al as a half-measures stage on the road to stateless "Communism". The so-called "Socialist states" have only ever got as far as state capitalism, have they not? Stateless capitalism still has the upper hand today, and what a mess that has created

I agree though with the contention that this thread was started without good intention.

[Beef Oven]

Indeed. "Socialism" was seen by the Party of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin et al as a half-measures stage on the road to stateless "Communism". The so-called "Socialist states" have only ever got as far as state capitalism, have they not? Stateless capitalism still has the upper hand today, and what a mess that has created

I agree though with the contention that this thread was started without good intention.

Spot on Bryn, but your contention that this thread was started without good intention scares me. Can we only start threads that are directly or indirectly intended to support the currently politically correct paradigm?

[Bryn]

Spot on Bryn, but your contention that this thread was started without good intention scares me. Can we only start threads that are directly or indirectly intended to support the currently politically correct paradigm?

No, it's just a matter of knowing the style of old. Of course, butter would not melt in the initiator's mouth. It's the old "Oh I am not trying to stir, it's just I found this big spoon and wondered what it was for".