DS Forums

 
 

Socialism - Root of all evil?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19-12-2016, 14:26
Aristaeus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,201
I don't really get socialism.. Middle class luvvies bleating on about the working class whereas the WC think they are a bunch of silly arses and are more likely to vote UIKP. You can see it now in places like Stoke which used to be rock solid Labour. The combined Tory - UKIP vote is a lot higher than the Labour vote.
Generalisation there. I'm working class and socialist. Most socialists are not middle class—you just have to visit the Durham miner's gala to see that is nonsense.
Aristaeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 19-12-2016, 14:36
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,790
Someone mentioned South and North Korea earlier as examples of capitalism and socialism. Well the reality in South Korea is that the government used vast amounts of foreign aid to deliberately build up it's industries in a very managed way. It is one of the most successful examples of state planning (socialism) in modern history.
North Korea also receives vast amounts of foreign aid

But the reason that North Koreans are so pathetically poor is because socialism, as a system of economics, does not work

Most other countries discovered this years ago and abandoned it

Did you know, for instance, that today, China has more billionaires than the USA?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37640156
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 14:39
Pemblechook
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Wales..Near Chester, UK
Posts: 2,028
What makes you think all those who attend the Miners Gala are socialists? Many of them probably vote UKIP.
Pemblechook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 15:53
David_Elson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,011
You've got the quote wrong and misinterpreted what Marx meant. He wasn't talking about taking money or possessions from people.
No, I have not got the quote wrong as I wasn't trying to quote anyone specifically.

And yes, socialism is all about taking money from people. Please do explain how you think Marxism could possibly improve anything without stealing resources.

Was Marx some sort of leprechaun who had a magic money pot?
David_Elson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 17:02
TimCypher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,652
There seems to be a movement by some people to place extreme right wing authoritarian politics on the left of the spectrum.. I've frequently seen this on these forums with the BNP, and now there are some people trying to re-invent Hitler and the Nazis as some sort of communist / socialist / left wing grouping.

There is no ambiguity, socialism proposes that everyone is equal (and in failed socialist societies, some are more equal than others). The BNP, Nazis, right wingers etc propose the opposite, that people are not equal, whether that is on racist or sexist grounds.
Not really - socialism is more an economic theory that believes that economic forces should be owned and directed for the benefit of society, rather than for the benefit of any individual.

And that's also the core of Nazi economic thought, which is no coincidence as Nazism evolved out of socialist thought. I wouldn't quite equate the two in the way that we think of socialism and Nazism today, but they share a common ancestry.

Regards,

Cypher
TimCypher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 18:45
rusty123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 20,693
Was thinking the same myself. It is people who are evil not political systems. The thing about Socialism is that it tends to center power with a relatively small group of people who then (as is the way of people) to work to retain that power. There are also other problems with socialism but calling it evil is a bit over the top.
AFAIC socialism can be summed up as well meaning naivety, good in theory, but fails in practice because it can only work if everyone is like minded.
rusty123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 19:10
Thiswillbefun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,582
The left has traditionally been concerned with the worse off, the oppressed, the poor, minorities, the victimized etc. The left sought to bring these groups of people into the fold, and afford them the same treatment as everybody else. The Nazis were unquestionably opposed to such measures.

The Nazis are considered far-right because they aggressively and invariably opposed the very foundation of left-wing politics - treating people equally in a minimally hierarchical society, and seeking to include those that would otherwise be discriminated against.

It seems that the right wing are continuing to use social media to muddy the waters in an attempt to further their cause.

e.g "Hitler murdered millions, therefore Hitler was left-wing, therefore support the innocent cuddly far right."

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to fall for this again. But then again America's next President is Trump.

Remember the good old days when it was so easy. Hitler = Far Right = Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right
Thiswillbefun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 19:19
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
North Korea also receives vast amounts of foreign aid

But the reason that North Koreans are so pathetically poor is because socialism, as a system of economics, does not work

Most other countries discovered this years ago and abandoned it

Did you know, for instance, that today, China has more billionaires than the USA?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37640156
You clearly didn't read my post.

Can't wait for the downvote button to come in . . . . .
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 19:57
dave666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 1,251
An interesting article relating to the subject
http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-bu...alist-liberal/
dave666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 20:09
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,269
Very interesting, if you look at it as a prime example of total twaddle and utter rubbish. Seems to be part of this "post truth" movement in trying to make the extreme right more palatable.
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 20:56
Mesostim
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 42,514
Yes.,.. the internet is full of interesting articles...

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/...rical-Myth.htm
Mesostim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 05:40
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,038
The concept of equality of opportunity is attractive but it is difficult to achieve without a level playing field.

The problem is that the more intelligent will always be more successful.

The trick has to be to persuade the successful that they do not really need to earn at least 100 times more than the low paid.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 07:07
rusty123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 20,693
The concept of equality of opportunity is attractive but it is difficult to achieve without a level playing field.

The problem is that the more intelligent will always be more successful.

The trick has to be to persuade the successful that they do not really need to earn at least 100 times more than the low paid.
Best of luck redesigning the human animal.

For starters you'd need a world that didn't manufacture Ferraris, Rolex watches, luxury yachts, private jets/helicopters, shiny bling and any other high end item and a world where a five bedroomed detached on that new housing estate up the road was as big a house as you could get.

I don't "need" the material items I own but i'd upgrade them in a heartbeat given the chance. I'd love a big house in the country with a couple of hundred acres of land a shiny new car to drive and a couple of exotic holidays a year.
If those options didn't exist I couldn't want them.... but they do exist and I'd take full advantage of those opportunities given the choice and if people are being honest very few wouldn't do likewise.
rusty123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 08:11
NilSatisOptimum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 577
The mechinisms to hold systems to account is what fails, cheifly because the same personalities seek to control whatever system holds the power. Good example is Brexit the idiotic ministers politicians commentators with some media and heavy dose sheeple plebians against three judges, this is a good example of trying to dismantle a mechanism that holds account of those in power.
NilSatisOptimum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 09:06
MuTron1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 262
The concept of equality of opportunity is attractive but it is difficult to achieve without a level playing field.

The problem is that the more intelligent will always be more successful.

The trick has to be to persuade the successful that they do not really need to earn at least 100 times more than the low paid.
But that isn't actually true, there's plenty of very intelligent people who are in low to middling jobs, and plenty of people who aren't particularly intelligent at the top of the tree

The problem is actually that it is easier to be successful if you were born into success
MuTron1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 09:28
GibsonSG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
Seriously look back in history over the last 100 years or so and you will notice some of the worst people guilty of genocide and similar acts are from the left in the political spectrum.

Stalin, Chairman Mao, Kim dynasty, Hitler, Mussolini.

I know some will say Nazism is far right, however its base is on the far left. The Nazis believed in much the same economic policies as the Soviet Union, state owned industry and full employment. The only major difference was unification of the peasant class under communism, where as Nazism still adhered to a class structure where people knew their place in society.

If you look back to more recent events say in FYR and the genocide in Kosovo where Milošević was leader of the the Socialist Party of Serbia. The same man who committed such horrific war crimes against Albanian muslims. He had been a Communist most of his life till the fall of the USSR, he didn't even wander that far either when he founded his party.

My point I would pose is this, Left politics seems to be the instigator of so much war and strife over the last 100 years. You look at the atrocities from Armenia to as recent as Kosovo and they have been committed by left wing socialists.

If Socialism is such a good thing, why have so many millions of people died underneath it?
Maybe you should go and read the history of the rise of the Nazis before you make ridiculous comments like that.
GibsonSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 09:53
TimCypher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,652
But that isn't actually true, there's plenty of very intelligent people who are in low to middling jobs, and plenty of people who aren't particularly intelligent at the top of the tree

The problem is actually that it is easier to be successful if you were born into success
There's quite an interesting Brazilian drama on Netflix at the moment called '3%', which explores this issue. It basically depicts a futuristic dystopian society which has been organised pretty much entirely around eliminating any 'unfair' advantage that could be conferred through the success of one's parents.

Their solution was that anyone who is judged successful (which is defined as passing a State-run test called 'the process' at the age of 20) is sterilised. If they already had children before passing, they must leave them behind. That way, one can only ascend via one's merit alone.

It's a thoughtful piece, and well worth a look...

Regards,

Cypher
TimCypher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 11:54
Jim_McIntosh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
It's not left or right, it's authoritarianism mixed with a desire to expand and conquer, backed by a population who feel hard done by and willing to start marginalising members of that society, leading to human rights abuses that is the problem. You can get there from any side of the political spectrum. The state-heavy left directly takes control and you have corruption, nepotism and personality politics. The state-light right sells all for personal profit and simply manipulates through commercial and broadcasting means and private interests. Either route can become authoritarian, dupe their own people, invade countries under false pretences, or cover up abuses. Political stance isn't a moral indicator. At it's simplest, left or right is big state vs small state. You can get problems either way, or even from a mixed/ central position. If you have a corrupt government then they have all the tools they need to be corrupt in various ways, no matter the system, no matter the colour of rosette, and no matter their politics. That's the nature of authority and hierarchy. Who watches the watchmen? In a theoretical democracy the population do but of course there are ways around this through mass manipulation. Whatever check you put on power there will always be an element of trust as in a hierarchy the person at the top has all the tools they need, if they desire, to be corrupt and a degree of corruption is a guarantee when humans are involved.

Side note on Hitler. Many people on the right try to put him on the left. Many people on the left try to put him on the right. They are both missing the point I think. From my admittedly limited knowledge he doesn't seem like someone most interested in economic systems. I put him in the Genghis Khan category - an old style conqueror bent on claiming as much land, glory and power as possible for his country and to reflect back on him, rationalised through a bastardised interpretation of the Nietzche 'will to power' work, empowered through charisma, a tight rein on all around him, and historical circumstances. The political party or part of the spectrum they claim to be from is irrelevant as they are essentially throwbacks to the conquerors of old and dreams of world-spanning empires.

So socialism is one possible route to a political regime, willing to carry out genocide and human rights abuses and determined to claim land, power, wealth, and glory but it's not the only vehicle. It is just a system ultimately and presently it isn't even the prominent ideology in more than a handful of countries of the war-torn world(*) we live in.

(* It's actually probably not that war-torn relative to our history.)
Jim_McIntosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 13:29
Mr Oleo Strut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,311
One hates to quote Saint Margaret but socialists seem obsessed with dividing up the cake and hardly think about baking it in the first place.
Thatcher, that despicable dictator, reduced our country to the divided state it is now in. Without Socialism we would still be in the days of slums and the Victorian workhouses. Mrs May, for all her fine words, is an empty bag of wind, arrogance and greed.
Mr Oleo Strut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 13:52
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
There's a multitude of problems with Socialism which make it nice in theory but terrible in practice, but as others have mentioned it doesn't 'produce' evil. Evil Socialists throughout history needed to have that willingness to dominate and oppress from deep within. Regardless of the political facade they paraded behind.

If a framework exists in a certain time period for humans to do evil on a big scale (like Stalin), evil will be done. It's fortunately become extremely difficult in this modern age for power hungry people to do terrible things on a grand scale, certainly in most parts of the world at least.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 13:53
Steve9214
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
Socialism probably would work apart from one thing, it involves people.
A lot of "People" are scumbags who will climb over everyone else to get "one up" for themselves.

Religious sects are like this as well
Always the ones at the top lining their own nests with the "masses" oppressed or starving.

Capitalism works, simply because it assumes the scumbags will do what they are going to do.

Maybe in the future it will change so being nice and fair actually works, however until then - You cannot change people's baser instincts and urges.
Steve9214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 14:17
The Exiled Dub
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,045
Lets see how Socialism has fared over the past 60 years.

Lets take a country, split into 2 on the same day in 1953
Same history, same culture, similar resources and land areas
One chooses socialism, the other capitalism
Socialist Capitalist
Life expectancy 69 79
Income per head $1800 $32,400
GDP growth 0.8% 2.7%
Infant mortality 26.21 4.08
Executions 2007 to 2011 105 0

etc etc

You can check out how your socialist paradise is going here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/da...korea-compared

(I had spaced it out nicely for readability but unfortunately the spaces were all removed. Anyhow I'm sure you get the idea)
They didn't split on the same day in 1953. There were invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire in 1910, and liberated by the Allies in 1945. Except it wasn't liberation as the country was divided by the US and the USSR. The Soviets set up a miniature Soviet Union in the north, and the US set up a tinpot dictatorship with no money and army in the south. This made for a very weak country, which, when they declared independence in 1948, laid the seeds for the invasion by the north in June 1950. The resultant civil war, which killed up to 4 million, ensured that the south became a right wing military dictatorship, with a modicum of democracy, which lasted until 1987 when the clamours for full democracy became too loud to ignore. Hardly a bastion of capitalism. Today, however, South Korea is fully capitalist, but unfortunately, has the unhappiest people in the OECD, the highest suicide rate, and truly awful welfare provision, especially for the elderly. Hence the reason why you see very elderly people going around picking up cardboard desperately trying to earn some money.

It's a nice country, with lovely, warm friendly people, but if you aren't rich, their system stinks. Young Koreans apparently call their country 'Hell Joseon' (Joseon being the ancient name for Korea).
The Exiled Dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 23:04
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,038
Best of luck redesigning the human animal.

For starters you'd need a world that didn't manufacture Ferraris, Rolex watches, luxury yachts, private jets/helicopters, shiny bling and any other high end item and a world where a five bedroomed detached on that new housing estate up the road was as big a house as you could get.

I don't "need" the material items I own but i'd upgrade them in a heartbeat given the chance. I'd love a big house in the country with a couple of hundred acres of land a shiny new car to drive and a couple of exotic holidays a year.
If those options didn't exist I couldn't want them.... but they do exist and I'd take full advantage of those opportunities given the choice and if people are being honest very few wouldn't do likewise.
If these luxury items were manufactured in this country, jobs would be created.

Far better than just hoarding the money in forien bank accounts.

Back in the day many of the very very rich were also very generous. We don't seem to see it these days.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 00:37
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
The left has traditionally been concerned with the worse off, the oppressed, the poor, minorities, the victimized etc. The left sought to bring these groups of people into the fold, and afford them the same treatment as everybody else. The Nazis were unquestionably opposed to such measures.

The Nazis are considered far-right because they aggressively and invariably opposed the very foundation of left-wing politics - treating people equally in a minimally hierarchical society, and seeking to include those that would otherwise be discriminated against.

It seems that the right wing are continuing to use social media to muddy the waters in an attempt to further their cause.

e.g "Hitler murdered millions, therefore Hitler was left-wing, therefore support the innocent cuddly far right."

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to fall for this again. But then again America's next President is Trump.

Remember the good old days when it was so easy. Hitler = Far Right = Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right
No I don't think that's right. The left was traditionally about the class struggle. When feudalism was still around, and the poor couldn't even vote. All these other apparent oppressed groups were gradually added in later when most people's standard of living had risen and it was more difficult to recruit the poor working man. Especially since America in the 1950s had shown people who may have previously been classed as working class benefiting from consumerism and enjoying a better standard of living. Or at least it was presented that way.

You seem to be applying a modern day interpretation of left wing identity politics to a period in history where people and conditions were markedly different from today. Back then it was all about the class struggle.

You're even comparing Donald Trump to the far right. If anything Donald Trump is probably the most liberal Republican to become president, at least in living memory.
20 years ago he wouldn't be seen to be that far from Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.

In fact you seem to be looking at everything through a very modern far left lens where anything which was previously centrist is now probably deemed to be far right.

Whatever Hitler was, Nazism, national socialism as opposed to international socialism (Communism), was sold on left wing ideology and encouraging the workers to rebel against the system. Wherever a movement starts from, facism, socialism, communism, any collectivist movement tends to end up becoming an authoritarian regime which controls the very people it previously encouraged to jump on board. By then it hardly matters whether you call it left wing or right wing.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 00:41
NeverEnough
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,863
They didn't split on the same day in 1953. There were invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire in 1910, and liberated by the Allies in 1945. Except it wasn't liberation as the country was divided by the US and the USSR. The Soviets set up a miniature Soviet Union in the north, and the US set up a tinpot dictatorship with no money and army in the south. This made for a very weak country, which, when they declared independence in 1948, laid the seeds for the invasion by the north in June 1950. The resultant civil war, which killed up to 4 million, ensured that the south became a right wing military dictatorship, with a modicum of democracy, which lasted until 1987 when the clamours for full democracy became too loud to ignore. Hardly a bastion of capitalism. Today, however, South Korea is fully capitalist, but unfortunately, has the unhappiest people in the OECD, the highest suicide rate, and truly awful welfare provision, especially for the elderly. Hence the reason why you see very elderly people going around picking up cardboard desperately trying to earn some money.

It's a nice country, with lovely, warm friendly people, but if you aren't rich, their system stinks. Young Koreans apparently call their country 'Hell Joseon' (Joseon being the ancient name for Korea).
All that, and yet it's still 1000 times more preferable to life in the Socialist north.
NeverEnough is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:22.