The Postmodern Socialist

a reply to: solargeddon

You could ask what "socialism" actually is in the mind of the OP, and for some actual examples of it in the, you know, real world.

Perhaps you will get answers; no one else has.

From here, it looks like vapid evangelism and insipid sophistry ... but perhaps I am jaded.

originally posted by: solargeddon

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: solargeddon

It works in a liberal capitalist framework, not a socialist one. We can look at healthcare in socialist countries to see how they compare if you wish.

The countries you mentioned were communist, they are different by definition.

At this point you are arguing from a fringe perspective, your op states socialism doesn't work, I provided examples where it does, that's it, if you want to make yourself feel better you can argue the capitalist perspective, however as I already stated capitalism is what is seeking to undermine successes such as the NHS as it is trying to privatise them, however at that point you no longer have a socialist institution but a private one, which is why capitalism cannot genuinely claim responsibility for it in the first place.

The parties were communist, sure, but the way they wanted to achieve communism was through socialism.

You provided no example where socialism works by the very fact that you refuse to point at any socialist countries.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


We might not like it, but thems the breaks.

Technically one could argue capitalism as the mother of all wars, there is finite prosperity for the developed countries if the world were to become fully developed to its potential, which is why capitalisms days should be numbered, as it doesn't seek to equilibrate it seeks to conquer.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Socialism is ,in a simplified sense, the collective ownership of economic production and distribution.

The NHS is socialised provision of a good ( in this case healthcare). Nationalisation was the method by which it was done (mainly).

Just because it is not pure Socalism does not mean it's not a socialist policy.

I agree with your definition of socialism. I wish everyone could stick to that definition.

Doesn’t mean it is a socialist policy either.

Why not? Genuine question if healthcare is an economic good then how is state provision not a socialist policy?

I’m not an economist, but tax-payer funded services does not entail that the public owns the means of production and distribution. Marx himself was opposed to taxation.

True but the NHS is not only funded by taxation. It is universal, non means tested (with a few exceptions) and largely provide by state employees or those paid directly by the state. The assets are also mainly state owned.

If your argument is that state owned differs from collective ownership then possibly. However can't see a clear distinction between universal collective ownership and state ownership in a democracy.

State-owned And state run, sure, but so are many things. I’ve heard the argument that the army and the police are socialist on the same grounds.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: solargeddon

You could ask what "socialism" actually is in the mind of the OP, and for some actual examples of it in the, you know, real world.

Perhaps you will get answers; no one else has.

From here, it looks like vapid evangelism and insipid sophistry ... but perhaps I am jaded.

I can understand. As far as I can tell, the American Right-wing likes to use the anti-socialist rhetoric to poo poo certain policies. Though I think their fear of socialism is valid, I find their misuse equally as stupid and for the same reasons.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


The party which implemented the successes in the UK was socialist, at the time the country was predominantly socialist by definition as all policies implemented at that time were with a socialist slant.

Currently we are living in a predominantly capitalist country because the right represents capitalism.

You cannot undermine the success just because you want to play semantics.

Communist countries weren't implementing socialist policy, they were implementing communist policy, which is a twisted take on socialism.

I would argue socialism as the bridge between the two extreme ideologies communism on the left and capitalism on the right.

There are many people who try to say Corbyn is a Commie, he isn't he is a socialist.

Communism doesn't work we know this, capitalism implemented in its entirety doesn't work, socialism is the middle ground and has been successful.

You are never going to see my point of view as you are an ardent Conservative, you believe capitalism is the only way, or at the very least seek to denounce socialism because it doesn't fit with your personal bias.

So at this point is really is circles, I've made my argument, you cannot refute it, so you are trying to discredit from alternate perspectives, unfortunately for you this is the point where I bow out, as even faced with facts you still continue to make a play for your perspective where it really doesn't exist at this point, anyone reading this thread dependent on their political or moral bias will come down on your side or mine, nevertheless facts are facts and the success that Labour a socialist party with predominantly socialist values and policies has proven that social policy not only has a place but that it can stand the test of time.

Anything else at this point really isn't valid, as you wish to shift the goalposts ( a bit like my ex actually) there comes a point where I can do no more, I am not here to convince you....I don't think you could be, I merely wished to point out your OP as flawed because it failed to take into account where socialism has made a positive difference.

I can accept Capitalism as having made a positive impact, though I would argue it is unsustainable and is of limited value as it seeks to only serve a fraction of a population....why can't you build the bridge to see where socialism has made a positive difference?

Rhetorical by the way....I've got a life to get back to....toodles!

We have over 200 years of evidence suggesting Socialism has failed both in theory and in practice.

Completely wrong, most socialist countries have a good standard of living. It is the communist and dictatorship countries that people mislabel as socialist that have failed.

Perhaps worse than its failure is the destruction, the lost lives, the decades of stifled expression, art, innovation, and the tyranny and totalitarianism

You are describing America today where tens of millions of people are unable to afford to do anything in life other than watch TV because capitalist criminals have stolen all the money. There's lots of tyranny in America, most of it by capitalists.

a reply to: solargeddon

That’s historically inaccurate. Again, none of those countries were communist. Many were run by communist parties, but their economic and political framework was socialist, which is obvious by their explicit statement outlining this.

AND HAVING DECIDED to carry forward the triumphant Revolution of the Moncada and of the Granma of the Sierra and of Girón under the leadership of Fidel Castro, which sustained by the closest unity of all revolutionary forces and of the people won full national independence, established revolutionary power, carried out democratic changes, started the construction of socialism and, with the Communist Party at the forefront, continues this construction with the final objective of building a communist society;

Constitutio of Cuba

Article 24 The State strengthens the building of a socialist society with an advanced culture and ideology by promoting education in high ideals, ethics, general knowledge, discipline and the legal system, and by promoting the formulation and observance of rules of conduct and common pledges by various sections of the people in urban and rural areas. The State advocates the civic virtues of love of the motherland, of the people, of labour, of science and of socialism. It conducts education among the people in patriotism and collectivism, in internationalism and communism and in dialectical and historical materialism, to combat capitalist, feudal and other decadent ideas.

Constitution of China

I think we can agree that no true socialism, communism, or capitalism exists in the world, but that’s because they are ideologies.

Their ideology is socialism. Socialism is what they actively set out to do.

I think as a comparison. the UK is more Laissez-faire economically, and historically, which tends to be more capitalist. It is a constitutional monarchy, a free, parliamentary, liberal democracy, and it is in that tradition the NHS arisen. It is in that tradition we have human rights, freedom, innovation, wealth, high standards of living, and so on.

We should be proud of that.

a reply to: solargeddon

The system should be altered from is basic predatory premis,but it hasn't been thought of HOW to do so yet.
MAYBE the AI will fix it and NOT kill us all...NAH

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: scolai

Nope.

As I wrote, I can't be bothered to explain history and politics to someone who parrots a half understood load of bollocks that fits more neatly into his prejudice than it does into reality.

So you don't have anything to say? I mean, you can sit by and make idle threats about how much you know, but until you come up with something that can back up your sheer arrogance, I will not be intimidated by an argument that equates to "You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong." You did not attack the argument, just the character of the person making the argument.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese


I was going to explain some basic historical facts but I can't be bothered.

You carry on with your version. Have fun.

It's not "my version"... It is the truth... All the "wonderful socialist programs" left-wingers like you claim make countries better were implemented in NAZI Germany and in Mussolini's Italy. Mussolini was a lifelong socialist, but like Hitler, they invented a new branch of socialism known as fascism.

All this BS that socialist regimes are not militaristic, or authoritarian, or nationalistic is shown to be false by every socialist/communist regime that has ever existed. U.S.S.R., China, Vietnam, Cuba, Burma, Venezuela, etc, etc...

a reply to: CB328

You mean socialist countries like India?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: solargeddon

You could ask what "socialism" actually is in the mind of the OP, and for some actual examples of it in the, you know, real world.

Perhaps you will get answers; no one else has.

From here, it looks like vapid evangelism and insipid sophistry ... but perhaps I am jaded.

Rather it is people like you who have a false notion of what socialism truly is. You are so confused that you claim socialism gives individual freedom, and that rightwing = collectivism... When under socialism "the collective is more important than individualism" hence why truly socialist regimes turn authoritarian and oppress the individual, puting an "image" (just like you and other socialists in this website have) that will never be perfect in any of your minds because such utopias could never exist...

Everyone would have to be a socialist for your "socialist utopia" to work, and even then people would be oppressed and would be forced to conform to the "collective hive mind".

originally posted by: scolai

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: scolai

Nope.

As I wrote, I can't be bothered to explain history and politics to someone who parrots a half understood load of bollocks that fits more neatly into his prejudice than it does into reality.

So you don't have anything to say? I mean, you can sit by and make idle threats about how much you know, but until you come up with something that can back up your sheer arrogance, I will not be intimidated by an argument that equates to "You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong." You did not attack the argument, just the character of the person making the argument.

I could spent ten minutes composing a post explaining who the Nazis were in suitably accessible terms but you'd simply deny what I was saying.

You know its true.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese


I was going to explain some basic historical facts but I can't be bothered.

You carry on with your version. Have fun.

It's not "my version"... It is the truth... All the "wonderful socialist programs" left-wingers like you claim make countries better were implemented in NAZI Germany and in Mussolini's Italy. Mussolini was a lifelong socialist, but like Hitler, they invented a new branch of socialism known as fascism.

All this BS that socialist regimes are not militaristic, or authoritarian, or nationalistic is shown to be false by every socialist/communist regime that has ever existed. U.S.S.R., China, Vietnam, Cuba, Burma, Venezuela, etc, etc...

I'm not a left winger.

Neither were the Nazis.

I know its not covered on the History Channel, but find out how the Nazis worked hand in glove with industry and the Junkers.

I tend to object strongly to the socialists around me, I disagree with them on almost every issue possible, and yet when I read your posts like this one (the OP) I feel like arguing with YOU. It's wild how that happens!

It's just because it is so extreme and exagerrated.


The thing is, When I see people writing or speaking in english about "socialism" I don't know at first what they are talking about yet. Is it actually Communism they speak of, but have been confused by the popular american conservative rhetoric which confuses them?
Here in France they are two different parties.

On the other hand, I think I see it as some others do- a spectrum, between Free market capitalism and Communism is a wide array of recipes for a society to try out. It is a balance of Collective and Individual rights and responsibilities which seems to be most effective and constructive.
Either extreme is doomed to destruction.

I know a lot of socialists here, and your characterization of them is just plain FALSE. It makes me wonder if you are not trying to psychoanalyze people you do not even know!

Even I, who disagree and argue with them, and can even make a sneering frustrated insult about them in the car with my hubby when we leave the dinner party, can recognize that they have real humaine and relevant concerns. They are not stupid, but they often come from a family which has held onto the ethic system which proclaims power as corruptive, and that humans are interdependent.
These ideas are not false neither are they the absolute truth though.

Just deciding they are delusional idiots is a weak tactic and risks pushing them to grow more determined and numerous.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: solargeddon

Cheer up ...they announced they could make ANTIMATTER at cern ...joy

Just a few more grams of it and BOOM we won't be talking to each other anymore in these bodies at least.

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: cavtrooper7


We might not like it, but thems the breaks.

Technically one could argue capitalism as the mother of all wars, there is finite prosperity for the developed countries if the world were to become fully developed to its potential, which is why capitalisms days should be numbered, as it doesn't seek to equilibrate it seeks to conquer.

Also, Technically we can say that the mother of all wars will be when everyone finally understands whatever they package the lie as, we are being punked. When that happens it will look like the "Arab Spring" times 1000. It is starting to have that flavor in America. The antifa have put an exclamation point on the disconnect of the 'progressives' and the means the elite/shadow government/one worlder's will take to keep their power!!

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: scolai

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: scolai

Nope.

As I wrote, I can't be bothered to explain history and politics to someone who parrots a half understood load of bollocks that fits more neatly into his prejudice than it does into reality.

So you don't have anything to say? I mean, you can sit by and make idle threats about how much you know, but until you come up with something that can back up your sheer arrogance, I will not be intimidated by an argument that equates to "You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong." You did not attack the argument, just the character of the person making the argument.

I could spent ten minutes composing a post explaining who the Nazis were in suitably accessible terms but you'd simply deny what I was saying.

You know its true.

Give it a whirl I got some side money that says you CANT do that at all.

a reply to: Bluesma

I never wrote this to stimulate agreement.

Hopefully you tell them their “real and relevant concerns” have led to some of the worst conditions this world has ever seen.