It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Postmodern Socialist

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You already replied that you knew it was flawed...Not really sure which side of the argument you are on...

I already pointed out some flaws in previous posts...which you actually responded to.


I said there were flaws, not that I knew it was flawed. Believe it or not there is a difference.

As for your points, I skipped them because this thread is about socialism, and didn't feel like responding to the deflection.




So you're acknowledging flaws and then in the same sentence saying that you don't know that it's flawed? What kind of logic is that?

That's like saying "I knew that 'A' exists, but I didn't know that 'A' actually existed."

I'm not trying to deflect...I think it's important that you defend capitalism...as your thread is about the failure of socialism as compared to capitalism. I don't think that's deflection, I think it's an important premise of your argument.


Yes As I said, “flawed” and “has some flaws” has different connotations. That’s what kind of logic that is. I was trying to state my meaning. Capitalism has some flaw; socialism is flawed. One connotes a blemish here and there; the other connotes a fundamental weakness.




posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I was not aware you aren't American; you have my apologies for implying that you were.

Yes, I'm aware of the world which is precisely why I asked question 2.

We've already traded our opinions of each others position in this issue; I was wondering if you had actual examples of what concerns you in that real wider world regarding "socialism" as defined in your OP.

Thanks though, carry on.


We can look at any socialist country, most of which have historically failed, and pick and choose from a wide variety of injustices and failures. Censorship is always rampant. Breadlines And food shortages. Religious persecution. We can talk about Polpot, Mao, Stalin, North Korea...The list goes on.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Pure socialism or capitolism are terrible.
They all must have some of the other blended in to function correctly.


Or something completely new. Thoughts from a modern political scientist which I find an interesting read ...




I have this idea that conservative parties, originally as well as today, often have this dilemma: they rely on an activist base that tends to be more extreme than the party leaders themselves. The question, then, is who has the upper hand in that relationship. If you have a strong conservative party, one that has what I call organizational firewalls that can mobilize voters and mobilize activists while allowing the leaders to keep control of the party, then democracy can be stable. But if you have a party that is weakly organized, and in some ways porous almost like a holding company of different groups and interests, where the leadership doesn't have a monopoly on financing and selection of candidates, then it's much more prone to radicalism.




A provocative point that I think comes out of this is that in order to have a stable national democracy, maybe political parties have to be organized in somewhat undemocratic ways.




Conservatives throughout history have had different ways of responding to that reoccurring dilemma. One way is, if you don't think you can compete, then you come up with ways of evading fair competition by essentially cheating or changing the rules. There's a clear distinction between those types of strategies, which are highly undemocratic, to ways that can actually facilitate democracy. That's finding issues to compete on. You may or may not like the stances they take on particular issues, they may even be racist or nationalistic or defending cultural values that you don't like, but at least they're playing the democratic game.




Let me leave you with something slightly more optimistic. Politics and economics go through cycles. There are always moments of crisis, and all we can hope for is to get through it without destroying the political system. After that, we can try to figure out more robust institutions for the next time around. But there's no permanent solution that will solve this once and for all. The alternative is to think that we're on this trajectory where the world is fundamentally different than it was in the past, and unless we come up with a way of solving the problems we face now, we're doomed. But actually the problems are not so different from previous eras. There's always a segment of the population that's very sympathetic to nondemocratic political parties, and when the economy's worse, that portion of the population grows. We've gotten through these crises before, and we can again.


www.washingtonpost.com...
edit on 19CDT02America/Chicago05020230 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

edit on 24-9-2017 by Whodathunkdatcheese because: Fat fingers



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


We can look at any socialist country, most of which have historically failed, and pick and choose from a wide variety of injustices and failures. Censorship is always rampant. Breadlines And food shortages. Religious persecution. We can talk about Polpot, Mao, Stalin, North Korea...The list goes on.



I'll bear that in mind when I go and see my NHS doctor on Wednesday.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


We can look at any socialist country, most of which have historically failed, and pick and choose from a wide variety of injustices and failures. Censorship is always rampant. Breadlines And food shortages. Religious persecution. We can talk about Polpot, Mao, Stalin, North Korea...The list goes on.



I'll bear that in mind when I go and see my NHS doctor on Wednesday.


Keep telling yourself it is a socialist policy, because telling yourself things is all you got.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


We can look at any socialist country, most of which have historically failed, and pick and choose from a wide variety of injustices and failures. Censorship is always rampant. Breadlines And food shortages. Religious persecution. We can talk about Polpot, Mao, Stalin, North Korea...The list goes on.



I'll bear that in mind when I go and see my NHS doctor on Wednesday.


Keep telling yourself it is a socialist policy, because telling yourself things is all you got.



In what way isn't the NHS a socialist policy?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


We can look at any socialist country, most of which have historically failed, and pick and choose from a wide variety of injustices and failures. Censorship is always rampant. Breadlines And food shortages. Religious persecution. We can talk about Polpot, Mao, Stalin, North Korea...The list goes on.



I'll bear that in mind when I go and see my NHS doctor on Wednesday.


Keep telling yourself it is a socialist policy, because telling yourself things is all you got.



In what way isn't the NHS a socialist policy?



Yes the NHS is a socialist policy, introduced by Labour.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I’m not well versed in the history of the NHS, but according to this paper:




This paper examines some of the key characteristics of a socialist health care system using the example of the British National Health Service (NHS). It has been claimed that the NHS has socialist principles, and represents an island of socialism in a capitalist sea. However, using historical analysis, this paper argues that while the NHS claims some socialist ends, they could never be fully achieved because of the lack of socialist means. The socialist mechanisms which were associated with earlier plans for a national health service such as salaried service, health centres, elected health authorities and divorcing private practice from the public service were discarded in negotiation. Moreover, even these would have achieved socialism merely in the sense of distributing health care, without any deeper transformation associated with doctor-patient relationships and prevention. In short, the NHS is more correctly seen as nationalised rather than socialised medicine, achieving the first three levels of a socialist health service identified here. It can be said to have socialist principles in the limited distributional sense and has some socialist means to achieve these. However, it lacks the stronger means to fully achieve its distributional goals, and is very distant from the third level of a radical transformation of health care.


Socialism and the British National Health Service



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: solargeddon

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


We can look at any socialist country, most of which have historically failed, and pick and choose from a wide variety of injustices and failures. Censorship is always rampant. Breadlines And food shortages. Religious persecution. We can talk about Polpot, Mao, Stalin, North Korea...The list goes on.



I'll bear that in mind when I go and see my NHS doctor on Wednesday.


Keep telling yourself it is a socialist policy, because telling yourself things is all you got.



In what way isn't the NHS a socialist policy?



Yes the NHS is a socialist policy, introduced by Labour.


What about the Labour Party’s Nuclear Weapons program. Is that socialist?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

I’m not well versed in the history of the NHS, but according to this paper:




This paper examines some of the key characteristics of a socialist health care system using the example of the British National Health Service (NHS). It has been claimed that the NHS has socialist principles, and represents an island of socialism in a capitalist sea. However, using historical analysis, this paper argues that while the NHS claims some socialist ends, they could never be fully achieved because of the lack of socialist means. The socialist mechanisms which were associated with earlier plans for a national health service such as salaried service, health centres, elected health authorities and divorcing private practice from the public service were discarded in negotiation. Moreover, even these would have achieved socialism merely in the sense of distributing health care, without any deeper transformation associated with doctor-patient relationships and prevention. In short, the NHS is more correctly seen as nationalised rather than socialised medicine, achieving the first three levels of a socialist health service identified here. It can be said to have socialist principles in the limited distributional sense and has some socialist means to achieve these. However, it lacks the stronger means to fully achieve its distributional goals, and is very distant from the third level of a radical transformation of health care.


Socialism and the British National Health Service



The foundation of the NHS was the near complete nationalisation of the entire healthcare industry. Not sure how you can get much more socialist than that.

Not read the paper but based on the abstract it seems to be suggesting that because there was some compromises made if wasn't pure Socalism.

By that standard there hasn't been a fully socialist system anywhere in the world.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: solargeddon

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.



Really...is that all you got?

I assume you aren't going to dispute my points, which I am glad given they are indeed factual, however I fail to see how your OP stands up if in the UK it was socialist policies which give us the benefits we have today.

Blair was a red Tory, more centre right than centre left, which again continues to dispel your mythical capitalist benefits.

Truth is capitalism like conservatism doesn't work for the many it only benefits the minority, which in turn hurts the minority eventually as the worse conditions get over time the more likely you are to be affected by the negative effects of the conservative policies you back in the first place.

Case in point...crime, more people get burgled when more people are left with less, worse still here in the UK they have privatised 80% of the probation service and it is still failing, in fact the private arm of the probation service is under some form of special measures because it puts profit before people, unlike the public arm which is working much better.

Capitalism doesn't make society better, it only looks that way to the people treading on the majority to access it.


Your assumption, as I made clear in the OP and reiterated a few times now, is that policies such as these were not socialist. Welfare, national healthcare, the nationalization of industry, and so on, are not “socialist policies”.



Yes they are socialist policies, they were implemented by Labour a socialist (centre left) party, the Tories are to the right and would never have introduced the NHS or any of the policies mentioned, I have studied sociology and at a time when we had a Conservative government, so I am not claiming victories for the left on a whim, this actually happen.

Nowadays the right wing capitalists want to privatise the NHS in a blatant fashion, they never wanted a nationalised health service to begin with and are not shy about privatising it off one chunk at a time.

I am struggling why you think the right can claim dibs on the policies I have mentioned as they were all implemented and conceived by the left.

Abolishing the 11+ and introducing comprehensives is a Labour thing, not a Tory one, in fact May wants to bring back grammar schools.

The welfare state was began by Labour off the back of the Beveridge report (who was liberal) Churchill may have implemented some of it as it was recommended but essentially it is a Labour victory as at the time the voters of the UK were smart enough to know Churchill couldn't be trusted given that he was a right wing austerity loving (well I'll let you fill in the rest).

None of the policies I mentioned in my post can be claimed as Tory victories, nor were they conceived by them, to say otherwise to my mind is pure nonsense.

When I studied sociology and to date there isn't one Tory policy which has stood the test of time and seeks to address everyone in the country for the better, they aren't responsible for any of what I have mentioned and whilst they may be able to claim limited success with reducing deficit they have grown our countries debt by far more than Labour could ever even imagine.

The Tories are a self serving liability, one which if the people of the UK ever engage their brain for long enough might just wake up and stop falling for their divide and conquer rhetoric.

There are no long term solutions with the Tories/ right wing/capitalists only more problems generated.

If you can provide the evidence which counters my assertions then I would be happy to view it, though I doubt its existence.

The one good thing to come out of studying sociology....I know which political party to vote for!
edit on 232017SundaypmSun, 24 Sep 2017 15:29:23 -05003America/Chicago242017 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

I’m not well versed in the history of the NHS, but according to this paper:




This paper examines some of the key characteristics of a socialist health care system using the example of the British National Health Service (NHS). It has been claimed that the NHS has socialist principles, and represents an island of socialism in a capitalist sea. However, using historical analysis, this paper argues that while the NHS claims some socialist ends, they could never be fully achieved because of the lack of socialist means. The socialist mechanisms which were associated with earlier plans for a national health service such as salaried service, health centres, elected health authorities and divorcing private practice from the public service were discarded in negotiation. Moreover, even these would have achieved socialism merely in the sense of distributing health care, without any deeper transformation associated with doctor-patient relationships and prevention. In short, the NHS is more correctly seen as nationalised rather than socialised medicine, achieving the first three levels of a socialist health service identified here. It can be said to have socialist principles in the limited distributional sense and has some socialist means to achieve these. However, it lacks the stronger means to fully achieve its distributional goals, and is very distant from the third level of a radical transformation of health care.


Socialism and the British National Health Service



The foundation of the NHS was the near complete nationalisation of the entire healthcare industry. Not sure how you can get much more socialist than that.

Not read the paper but based on the abstract it seems to be suggesting that because there was some compromises made if wasn't pure Socalism.

By that standard there hasn't been a fully socialist system anywhere in the world.


Yes, you can get a whole lot more Socialist than that ... Cuba, supposedly...



The only way to control the cost of healthcare and provide universal coverage is to eliminate for-profit, market-based healthcare. Take insurance companies completely out of the mix and bring medical device companies, the pharmaceuticals companies and hospitals chains under public control.


www.counterpunch.org...



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
Socialism has been redefined many times depending on many things. I suppose you could consider some things like roads and parks as a social program paid for by all in the interest of all. If that is someones definition of socialism and it stops there then I am ok with it.
My problem is that socialism is also in many cases interventionism. This means that they take from all for the interest of some. There are many examples of this. First example is corporate welfare - it does exist. Second example is geographical prioritizing - it does exist. Third example is class prioritizing. It does exist.

Another issue is that socialism by definition cannot exist without natural market conditions. That means risk as well as individual gains for those who are the best at what they do, or sometimes are just at the right place at the right time. Without people making money (symbolic item that is actually work plus production value) no socialist system can exist. This is why countries like Venezuela or the Soviet Union failed, they attempted to replace the nature of the market with the hand of man and central planning. Why? Well to make everything fair of course. But soon without any actual benefit to make the individual inspire to produce the product and work become nothing and then everything eventually becomes worthless.

I think that most who consider themselves socialist cannot stand for that alone. Because it is "unfair". And yet none of those same people would exclude themselves from any monetary advantage if it showered upon them. But it is truly hatred of nature and hatred of life that inspires most socialist. It is envy and just about every ugly human emotion possible that makes a person start demanding that everyone else take care of everyone else OR ELSE! And it will never end. People will clamor for this sort of thing as long as there are people. The best that can be done is to try to change the culture and the education system to make people understand that evil is not brought by the devil necessarily, but by individuals and groups of individuals answering initial bad decisions by more bad decisions. Never thinking past the moment but only about right now and what they want right now.
Roads and public services really do
Help the collective as long as it dues t do overboard. I find it ironic that many left leaning people criticize the spending of tax money on outrageous and unnecessary pork barrel projects yet have no problem with the redistribution of wealth from working citizens to others the State deems worthy, oh say like illegal immigrants who come here for services like medical care in hospitals like birthing and such or food stamps or feee public education or subsidized housing food stamps and leap(sp? Subsidized heating) zzz any ideas on this ?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: solargeddon

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


We can look at any socialist country, most of which have historically failed, and pick and choose from a wide variety of injustices and failures. Censorship is always rampant. Breadlines And food shortages. Religious persecution. We can talk about Polpot, Mao, Stalin, North Korea...The list goes on.



I'll bear that in mind when I go and see my NHS doctor on Wednesday.


Keep telling yourself it is a socialist policy, because telling yourself things is all you got.



In what way isn't the NHS a socialist policy?



Yes the NHS is a socialist policy, introduced by Labour.


What about the Labour Party’s Nuclear Weapons program. Is that socialist?




So when challenged on your own OP, you want to play games?

To be fair Corbyn doesn't want a nuclear deterrent, the country however does, as a leftie I can see why having one is prudent.

Doesn't undo all the good that has been achieved that runs counter to your OP does it.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

edit on 24-9-2017 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: solargeddon

I am very curious.
Do you want nukes for more UK autonomy or because of the underhanded crap we now know America has done?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: solargeddon

You were making the argument that because the NHS was a Labour policy, it was socialist. Now that I mention that Nuclear weapons program was a Labour Party initiative, it is no longer socialist. It’s weird how that works.



At a secret meeting in January 1947, Attlee and six cabinet ministers, including Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, decided to proceed with the development of Britain's nuclear weapons programme,[31] in opposition to the pacifist and anti-nuclear stances of a large element inside the Labour Party.


Labour Party



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: solargeddon

I am very curious.
Do you want nukes for more UK autonomy or because of the underhanded crap we now know America has done?




Oh I don't want more nukes, just a replen of the stock we have, not much point having a deterrent past its sell by date.

Nukes are a funny thing, we either all have them to mutually ensure they are never used (at least that is the plan) or we get rid of them all, though the latter option really can't be trusted, so nukes it is.

I don't think we need more just cos Lil' Kimmie wants to play, in fact the whole N Korea deal just looks like theatre for the masses if you ask me, as this name calling is just getting ridiculous, neither side can claim the moral high ground either.

To be fair to N Korea and other countries without nuclear capability, who died and said only nations such as the US and the UK et al could have a nuclear deterrent, surely every country should be able to develop its own weapons programme so as to deter violence.

But that's just me.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join