The Postmodern Socialist

originally posted by: Bone75



You mean the famines that the Kulaks brought about?

That's what Stalin claimed, yes.

Just like so many people blame foreigners for all their woes.

It's always The Other.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Bone75



You mean the famines that the Kulaks brought about?

That's what Stalin claimed, yes.

So you don't believe that the Kulaks burned their farms and slaughtered their livestock as a form of protest?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Just like a liberal,trying to justify not having to work,being lazy and unproductive end result will show,why can't people takr responsibility for themselves? always whining with hand sticking out,a liberal gesture

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

look at capitalist societies and pretend things like taxes, universal healthcare, labour unions, public goods and services, welfare, standing armies, charity, are socialist in nature and practice, while not one these were born in any socialist society.

I don't know what country you live in but it certainly isn't the UK....if it weren't for socialism we wouldn't have these things.

Welfare....Labour

Universal healthcare....Labour

Public services....Labour

Unions....Labour

I'll give armies and charity to the Tories, seeing as they are self serving and a way to manipulate the wider population whilst falsely soothing their own conscience.

Oh and we can add education to Labour too, as they believe in ensuring everyone is given a fair crack of the whip.

I really don't think your thread adds anything to the debate when it doesn't take into consideration the differences between nations.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Bone75



You mean the famines that the Kulaks brought about?

That's what Stalin claimed, yes.

So you don't believe that the Kulaks burned their farms and slaughtered their livestock as a form of protest?

Not enough to generate a famine that killed eight million, no.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

Not enough to generate a famine that killed eight million, no.

Correct. The estimates are closer to six million.

a reply to: Bone75

You'll forgive me if I don't cut Stalin any slack.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: Bone75

You'll forgive me if I don't cut Stalin any slack.

Absolutely. I'm just making sure the Kulaks get their fair share of the blame. No one takes them into account when they're throwing death tolls around.

Probably because there are many more Kulaks here than Communists.

a reply to: solargeddon


Your universal health care employs more people for your tiny island than any other agency except maybe the Chinese military. Oh, sorry, it's the 5th biggest employer with 1.7 million employees. There are 65 million people in the UK.

Walmart and McDonald's for private companies may be bigger, but McDonald's is international, and Walmart is operating off a population of 350 million. The other state agencies you are competing against are Chinese and Indian with populations of 1.37 billion and 1.32 billion respectively, and you know the salaries and benefits of those employees aren't going to be anything like what the UK provides. There is also the US DoD, but even then, you are talking about a population of 350 million supporting that employee base.

Do you think it's operating at top efficiency with that many employees relative to the population of your island? And how much exactly are paying for all those salaries, pensions, etc., until those employees die? How much is that compared to what is actually being spent to keep you healthy?

How much of that goes to actual health care workers as opposed to bureaucrats whose only function is manage the system? And understand you are also paying likewise for them until they die?

And how much of that should be paying for your actual care?

And how many different taxes and fees aside from the obvious ones are you getting hit with on everything you buy everywhere, every day to keep all these people until they die?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If the banks were honest with those people the people would have known they couldn't afford it and probably wouldn't have taken it.

If people wanted to be HONEST.

They'd admit banks don't create money.

The STATE did and monopolizes it's value.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: solargeddon


Your universal health care employs more people for your tiny island than any other agency except maybe the Chinese military.

Do you think it's operating at top efficiency with that many employees relative to the population of your island? And how much exactly are paying for all those salaries, pensions, etc., until those employees die? How much is that compared to what is actually being spent to keep you healthy?

How much of that goes to actual health care workers as opposed to bureaucrats whose only function is manage the system? And understand you are also paying likewise for them until they die?

And how much of that should be paying for your actual care?

And how many different taxes and fees aside from the obvious ones are you getting hit with on everything you buy everywhere, every day to keep all these people until they die?

The UK pays less as a% of GDP than pretty much any comparable country.

Roughly half of what the US pays.

Value for money wise the NHS is outstanding.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Clearly, you and I have different definitions of the word "never". I wonder, are you going to admit that the reason things are no longer the way they were in the 1900's was thanks to Socialist policies? Or are you planning on glossing over that piece of history in your thread

Someone truly has glossed over history.

Because the only thing 'socialist' legislation did was the outlawing of private monopolies.

State monopolies are right as rain.

See medicare,medicaid, and social security, and the new kid on the block universal healthcare.

ALL STATE sanctioned monopolies.

Funny part is fiat currency still ends up in the same place.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: solargeddon


Your universal health care employs more people for your tiny island than any other agency except maybe the Chinese military.

Do you think it's operating at top efficiency with that many employees relative to the population of your island? And how much exactly are paying for all those salaries, pensions, etc., until those employees die? How much is that compared to what is actually being spent to keep you healthy?

How much of that goes to actual health care workers as opposed to bureaucrats whose only function is manage the system? And understand you are also paying likewise for them until they die?

And how much of that should be paying for your actual care?

And how many different taxes and fees aside from the obvious ones are you getting hit with on everything you buy everywhere, every day to keep all these people until they die?

The UK pays less as a% of GDP than pretty much any comparable country.

Roughly half of what the US pays.

Value for money wise the NHS is outstanding.

Value for the money.

OK, but I could say that the value for the money of a Chevy is outstanding, but that still doesn't make a Chevy as good as a Lexus.

Thing is that in your system, unless you are rich enough to afford to go outside the system entirely, you never have the option for the Lexus because your government does not provide it. If the Chevy won't take care of it, then you are SOL.

I get it. We have a similar situation with the public schools in the US.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: solargeddon


Your universal health care employs more people for your tiny island than any other agency except maybe the Chinese military.

Do you think it's operating at top efficiency with that many employees relative to the population of your island? And how much exactly are paying for all those salaries, pensions, etc., until those employees die? How much is that compared to what is actually being spent to keep you healthy?

How much of that goes to actual health care workers as opposed to bureaucrats whose only function is manage the system? And understand you are also paying likewise for them until they die?

And how much of that should be paying for your actual care?

And how many different taxes and fees aside from the obvious ones are you getting hit with on everything you buy everywhere, every day to keep all these people until they die?

The UK pays less as a% of GDP than pretty much any comparable country.

Roughly half of what the US pays.

Value for money wise the NHS is outstanding.

Value for the money.

OK, but I could say that the value for the money of a Chevy is outstanding, but that still doesn't make a Chevy as good as a Lexus.

Thing is that in your system, unless you are rich enough to afford to go outside the system entirely, you never have the option for the Lexus because your government does not provide it. If the Chevy won't take care of it, then you are SOL.

I get it. We have a similar situation with the public schools in the US.

NHS in the UK covers pretty much every facet of healthcare.

You can buy health insurance (or have it through work) if you want quicker treatment. It costs a fraction of what health insurance costs in the US.

Compare to the US where you need a good income to get any cover and medical bills are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcy.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

an example of a socialist policy would be collective farming.

...which has been proven to work.

Many times it led to famine, starving millions to death. In the case of Stalin it was weaponized.

Holodomor

Don't listen to the postmodern socialists. They'd prefer it if people didn't know the truth.

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

look at capitalist societies and pretend things like taxes, universal healthcare, labour unions, public goods and services, welfare, standing armies, charity, are socialist in nature and practice, while not one these were born in any socialist society.

I don't know what country you live in but it certainly isn't the UK....if it weren't for socialism we wouldn't have these things.

Welfare....Labour

Universal healthcare....Labour

Public services....Labour

Unions....Labour

I'll give armies and charity to the Tories, seeing as they are self serving and a way to manipulate the wider population whilst falsely soothing their own conscience.

Oh and we can add education to Labour too, as they believe in ensuring everyone is given a fair crack of the whip.

I really don't think your thread adds anything to the debate when it doesn't take into consideration the differences between nations.

Luckily the Labour Party under Blaire got rid of clause 4 of their charter.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

And there are no mega corporations and conglomerates, right? And this country isn't an oligarchy, right? And the disparity in wages is getting much better, right?

Not a socialist, but certainly I'm one that can see flaws in the capitalist system we have imposed here in this country.

No one is saying there aren't flaws in capitalism, only that they pale in comparison to those of socialism, feudalism, and so on.

Your OP was singing the praises of capitalism...not the flaws.

As for Oligarchy and disparity, one only has to look at the middle class...where as few as 30 years ago a single earner could afford to own a home, an automobile, and raise children. This isn't the case now, with both parents working in most homes.

I honestly don't see why some industries shouldn't be government controlled/owned. We might actually get something useful out of the government for once.

Which flaws? Capitalism has been puttering on quite nicely, to the chagrin of socialists.

a reply to: introvert

What you mean to say is that it can, but does not necessarily mean that it will. Self-reliance is only available to those that can work within the system to keep their heads above water. The rest are reliant upon the state. 

I think “can” is what you meant to say.

No, the rest are not reliant on the state. Charity is also available.

Again, what you mean to say is if they need it. If capitalism is allowed to go unchecked, and even if it's highly-regulated, it creates the need to use government resources, which is the collective wealth of the people, to care for the lowest among the society. Welfare capitalism, right? 

If capitalism in the US worked so well, why are half of it's people reliant upon the state? 

To cover for the flaws in a capitalism. 

“Unchecked capitalism”? That sounds like a socialist phrase to me. But there are many indexes of economic freedom available online, and the countries at the top have higher living standards than those at the bottom.

Two very bad examples. You cannot credit their success or failures to the system of choice alone. There are many other factors in play that will affect their ability to rebuild successful economies and societies. That includes resources, their allies, leadership, etc. 

As far as "just as flawed", that's just arguing an irrelevant point. What matters is to be honest enough to recognize their inherent flaws and find a way to work those flaws out. In the case of capitalism, it must rely on the collective wealth of the people to keep it alive, without eating itself from within. 

No they are perfect examples. It's just that you'd prefer to resort to sophistry to hide the facts, likely in a fit of cognitive dissonance.

The demonstrable facts are available. West and east germany used two very different systems. One collapsed, the other flourished. To dismiss that as a factor is what makes my point about arguing with postmodern socialists quite clear.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

And there are no mega corporations and conglomerates, right? And this country isn't an oligarchy, right? And the disparity in wages is getting much better, right?

Not a socialist, but certainly I'm one that can see flaws in the capitalist system we have imposed here in this country.

No one is saying there aren't flaws in capitalism, only that they pale in comparison to those of socialism, feudalism, and so on.

Your OP was singing the praises of capitalism...not the flaws.

As for Oligarchy and disparity, one only has to look at the middle class...where as few as 30 years ago a single earner could afford to own a home, an automobile, and raise children. This isn't the case now, with both parents working in most homes.

I honestly don't see why some industries shouldn't be government controlled/owned. We might actually get something useful out of the government for once.

I was singing the flaws of socialism, because the thread is about socialism, and the flaws is what every single socialist in this thread has dismissed as they went back to their crutch: criticism of capitalism. It's sophistry of a higher order.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Luckily the Labour Party under Blaire got rid of clause 4 of their charter.

Giving us another neo-liberal party with more in common with the Tories than with the working man.

Luckily, the Labour Party membership is taking its party back.