Is true socialism possible?

[decantor]

(1) I am no Marxist, but I must point out that Karl was very focused on production and the means of production. So in his ideal state, funding a social health care system would not be a problem.

(2) Readers of the above (if they haven't fallen asleep) will be thinking 'Animal Farm', and musing on the greed and corruption hard-wired into homo sapiens (or in Orwell's case, pigs).

(3) What bothers me in such debates (and I'm a bear of very little brain) is that a CAPITALIST state which exhibits greed, corruption and inequality is never accused of hypocrisy, whereas a SOCIALIST state which exhibits greed, corruption and inequality is always accused of hypocrisy. Can someone explain please?

Bears of little brain, ardcarp, always add to the joy of life - and often to its understanding. Alas, I cannot aspire to such heights, but your words (not Wiki's!) intrigued me.

(1) Your little adverb, "so", linking the two propositions, needs more explanation. Medicine is a black hole for funding - if drugs were cheap, and doctors no better remunerated than labourers, there could still be a problem. What scale of resources can be poured into sustaining a life for a further month? How much should be spent on finding the remedy for each brand of cancer, or the reversal of aging? The issues are as much moral as financial, and I think a Marxist system would struggle as much as ours, however well-intentioned.

(2) I'm glad you mentioned Orwell. None of our resident socialists seem even to acknowledge the problem, being more concerned with castigating Simon for his 'monster' link in the OP. But the part of Orwell's message that always bothered me was that even the busily well-meaning hens and cows become less and less happy; and the hardest-working of the lot is axed lest his very loyalty become an embarrassment. I fear happiness may be elusive in a socialist system in the real world.

(3) Capitalism is founded on the greed instinct: it can hardly be accused of hypocrisy when greed prevails. Socialism hinges on co-operation, and so greed ('champagne socialism') is repugnant. Similarly, Christianity is supposed to be endlessly forgiving (the other cheek), and is reproached when it stands its ground on almost any issue. The difficulty for capitalism in the modern age is that it is about little else beyond greed: the Victorian capitalists displayed their philanthropy (for whatever self-regarding ends) in buildings and institutions, but there is no modern equivalent - no public works, no trickle-down, just unmitigated self-enrichment (pace John Lewis). We need more socialism, but its advocates are very coy over telling us how it might operate to the benefit of all in the global world of the 21st century. It's easy to snipe at existing deficiencies: what are the real alternatives when state cash is in short supply?

[Lateralthinking1]

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 it in be a first?

Since 2010, Chile has had a centre-right President, following two decades of centre-left policies. While political business has been conducted largely as would be expected, some of the centre-left policies have not been at all socialist and some of the centre-right policies have been very leftish. Pensions are largely private pensions and there is a wide range of personal finance products. While there were student riots in 2011, this picture of the past five presidents shows something of the spirit in politics there:



The website in the OP appears to be American. The Americans have a different concept of socialism than that of many and they tend to use the word "socialism" loosely. In a nutshell, many internationally merely oppose socialism but in the United States it is a bogeyman, rather as fascism is viewed here. So it really isn't comparing like with like and dialogue can suffer as a consequence.

I have a problem with the NHS being described as socialist. While it would be foolish to pretend that it resides outside the political framework, any depiction of it only as political waters down its raison d'etre on moral grounds. And very arguably, Labour never has been socialist even in the years after 1945. I was once admonished by a member of the Labour Party for saying it had been.

Like Serial-Apologist, I question the specific reference that has been made to the role of Jewish interests in the US policy. While there is no doubt about their existence, Christians, Muslims, Atheists and others clearly love it too so why make the distinction?

[Resurrection Man]

Just to follow up a couple of things here. There seems to be an unwritten and accepted assumption that the health service is subject to ever increasing demands.if so, why?

Very simple explanation. 1) The number of elderly is increasing at the moment...we all know that to be the case..they are alive now. Preventative health care may help FUTURE elderly people (I'll come back to that) but it can do nothing to help (or hardly nothing) todays elderly. The reason why the elderly are living longer is because modern medicine is able to pop more pills into them. That keeps them going longer until the next part of their ageing bodies breaks down or starts to collapse. Which then requires further medication, trips to the doctors, to hospital. This medication then interacts with existing medication which requires further intervention. There you have one increasing demand on the NHS and one that is going to increase for the foreseeable future.

2) Preventative health care isn't going to help those who refuse to take any notice of all the advice that they are given. I am thinking especially of the obese. That is another ticking timebomb.

It is nothing at all to do with drug companies 'taking a huge slice'. Bureaucratic costs could be down to our litigious society...brought or encouraged into being by the last Labour Government. That genie is out of the bottle, unfortunately.

[teamsaint]

Very simple explanation. 1) The number of elderly is increasing at the moment...we all know that to be the case..they are alive now. Preventative health care may help FUTURE elderly people (I'll come back to that) but it can do nothing to help (or hardly nothing) todays elderly. The reason why the elderly are living longer is because modern medicine is able to pop more pills into them. That keeps them going longer until the next part of their ageing bodies breaks down or starts to collapse. Which then requires further medication, trips to the doctors, to hospital. This medication then interacts with existing medication which requires further intervention. There you have one increasing demand on the NHS and one that is going to increase for the foreseeable future.

2) Preventative health care isn't going to help those who refuse to take any notice of all the advice that they are given. I am thinking especially of the obese. That is another ticking timebomb.

It is nothing at all to do with drug companies 'taking a huge slice'. Bureaucratic costs could be down to our litigious society...brought or encouraged into being by the last Labour Government. That genie is out of the bottle, unfortunately.

well this is probably the wrong place for a debate on NHS costs.But there is a VAST amount that could be done on preventative health care, in all age groups. There is also a vast amount that we could so outside the NHS to help prevent strain on the system. (EG better education on nutrition).
I think if we want to debate this in detail, it should be on another thread.

[scottycelt]

I agree that we need to define what we mean by 'socialist'. If the NHS is to be described thus then David Cameron, a strong supporter of the institution, is a 'socialist'. That is plainly absurd.

If we concentrate on its more extreme forms ... totalitarian socialism/communism ... then I cannot think of one example which hasn't either collapsed or had to come to terms in some way with 'capitalism' to survive . China is the current obvious huge example. It is still a totalitarian one-party state yet has now become a vital part of the world 'capitalist' system.

'Capitalism' itself takes many forms. Has largely 'centrist' Europe ( that adjective itself is a broad term) that much in common with the clearly more laissez-faire USA?

I've never been entirely clear how a pure communist system would work without rewarding hard-workers at the expense of their lazier counterparts. There is either incentives or 'the big stick'. Both have been employed in capitalist countries and I think most would agree that only one is likely to be successful. There is no reason to believe it would be different in an alternative system, and up until now it plainly hasn't been any different. Humans generally need incentives to work hard or they may as well skive. The sheep must be separated from the goats in order to reward success and discourage failure.

If and until any third way is found communist regimes will inevitably fold, or moderate their policies in an attempt to achieve efficient and productive economies.

[teamsaint]

I agree that we need to define what we mean by 'socialist'. If the NHS is to be described thus then David Cameron, a strong supporter of the institution, is a 'socialist'. That is plainly absurd.

If we concentrate on its more extreme forms ... totalitarian socialism/communism ... then I cannot think of one example which hasn't either collapsed or had to come to terms in some way with 'capitalism' to survive . China is the current obvious huge example. It is still a totalitarian one-party state yet has now become a vital part of the world 'capitalist' system.

'Capitalism' itself takes many forms. Has largely 'centrist' Europe ( that adjective itself is a broad term) that much in common with the clearly more laissez-faire USA?

I've never been entirely clear how a pure communist system would work without rewarding hard-workers at the expense of their lazier counterparts. There is either incentives or 'the big stick'. Both have been employed in capitalist countries and I think most would agree that only one is likely to be successful. There is no reason to believe it would be different in an alternative system, and up until now it plainly hasn't been any different. Humans generally need incentives to work hard or they may as well skive. The sheep must be separated from the goats in order to reward success and discourage failure.

If and until any third way is found communist regimes will inevitably fold, or moderate their policies in an attempt to achieve efficient and productive economies.

He is a strong supporter of privatising it.

[Lateralthinking1]

I've never been entirely clear how a pure communist system would work without rewarding hard-workers at the expense of their lazier counterparts.

Quite. But there is absolutely no correlation between hard work and wealth or income under neoconservatism either. The bloke who started with nothing, worked hard, and became a millionaire doesn't prove any theory. He is as random an example as any other!

[scottycelt]

Quite. But there is absolutely no correlation between hard work and wealth or income under neoconservatism either. The bloke who started with nothing, worked hard, and became a millionaire doesn't prove any theory. He is as random an example as any other!

That is true. I'm willing to bet there are many more poor hard-workers under capitalism than rich ones..

However, that does not mean that incentives and rewards don't work, merely that, under unreformed capitalism, these only go to the bosses and senior managers and not to the many, maybe even harder workers on the shopfloor!

I hold no brief for the evils of old-fashioned capitalism any more than communism.

[amateur51]

That is true. I'm willing to bet there are many more poor hard-workers under capitalism than rich ones..

However, that does not mean that incentives and rewards don't work, merely that, under unreformed capitalism, these only go to the bosses and senior managers and not to the many, maybe even harder workers on the shopfloor!

I hold no brief for the evils of old-fashioned capitalism any more than communism.

What news of new-fashioned capitalism, scotty?

Happy 2013 by the way

[scottycelt]

He is a strong supporter of privatising it.

No, he's not. I know of no leading politician in the UK (of any hue) who claims he/she wants the NHS privatised. As Tony Benn himself said if any tried there would be a peoples' revolution.

State control of the NHS is a non-issue in the UK, only the actual running of it is the subject of any predictable political controversy.

[amateur51]

No, he's not. I know of no leading politician in the UK (of any hue) who claims he/she wants the NHS privatised. As Tony Benn himself said if any tried there would be a peoples' revolution.

State control of the NHS is a non-issue in the UK, only the actual running of it is the subject of any predictable political controversy.

Of course they don't claim they're privatising the NHS, scotty (see your ref to Benn) but talk to many GPs and nurses and they will tell you tales to make your hair curl. It's happening alright.

[scottycelt]

What news of new-fashioned capitalism, scotty?

Happy 2013 by the way

All the best to you, amsey!

The Germans, for example, seem to have found the least bad of all systems when it it comes to efficiency alongside social fairness, ever since WWII. Reformed capitalism, if you like.

As I say simply the least bad so far, I'm sure the German system has its faults as well!

[amateur51]

All the best to you, amsey!

The Germans, for example, seem to have found the least bad of all systems when it it comes to efficiency alongside social fairness, ever since WWII. Reformed capitalism, if you like.

As I say simply the least bad so far, I'm sure the German system has its faults as well!

Well their reforms have stemmed from a unique base

[Resurrection Man]

well this is probably the wrong place for a debate on NHS costs.But there is a VAST amount that could be done on preventative health care, in all age groups. There is also a vast amount that we could so outside the NHS to help prevent strain on the system. (EG better education on nutrition).
I think if we want to debate this in detail, it should be on another thread.

Good idea. Would you like to go first? Maybe we could cut and paste the relevant bits from this thread to get it started ?

[teamsaint]

No, he's not. I know of no leading politician in the UK (of any hue) who claims he/she wants the NHS privatised. As Tony Benn himself said if any tried there would be a peoples' revolution.

State control of the NHS is a non-issue in the UK, only the actual running of it is the subject of any predictable political controversy.

So the current reforms aren't moving control (and budgets) away from government, and into the hands of private healthcare companies?

I don't recall this in the general election debates.