The Postmodern Socialist

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.

Nationalization is not socialist, by any means.

“Nationalization is to be distinguished from "socialization", which refers to the process of restructuring the economic framework, organizational structure, and institutions of an economy on a socialist basis. By contrast, nationalization does not necessarily imply social ownership and the restructuring of the economic system. By itself, nationalization has nothing to do with socialism, having been historically carried out for various different purposes under a wide variety of different political systems and economic systems.[3] However, nationalization is, in most cases, opposed by laissez faire capitalists as it is perceived as excessive government interference in, and control of, economic affairs of individual citizens.”

Nationalization

a reply to: solargeddon

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

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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

Hey if Labour came up with the Nukes then I'm happy, it would mean I am still very much politically aligned with them.

However you chose to change the subject, which didn't really make much sense to me, it looked like you couldn't dispute it, so you looked for another way to discredit socialism.

As I have said I am all for a nuke deterrent, only a fool wouldn't have one, whilst I applaud Corbyn's ideology it would make us sitting ducks.

To be fair as the right love their security, I am quite surprised that nuke policy wasn't conceived by them.

So that's another tick for socialism in my book.

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.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: solargeddon

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

I am perfectly cheery....anti matter you say, sounds good.

I think people forget the left isn't just this pacifist loving group, they are progressives and have teeth, fear of the unknown and treading carefully is a trait of the right.

I watched a fascinating Ted talk about where our political allegiances come from, you may have seen it.

I have touched upon it before on another thread but actually I am from a predominantly right wing thinking family, even my own mother couldn't bring herself to vote any further left than the Liberal Democrats.

a reply to: solargeddon

Socialism discredits itself. We can look at any socialist country and see why it is oppressive and awful. North Korea for instance? The Soviet Union? Pick one socialist country and we can see why it is horrible.

The historical facts are there for you to look at, if you wish to discuss them, any of them. But the fact that you have to look at western capitalist countries to argue for socialism is the height of irony in my books.

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.

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?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: solargeddon

Socialism discredits itself. We can look at any socialist country and see why it is oppressive and awful. North Korea for instance? The Soviet Union? Pick one socialist country and we can see why it is horrible.

The historical facts are there for you to look at, if you wish to discuss them, any of them. But the fact that you have to look at western capitalist countries to argue for socialism is the height of irony in my books.

Not really because it shows that it can work, all of these other countries you have mentioned are suppressed or were suppressed at sometime in their history, which to be fair suits the more developed nations such as the UK and US just fine, that is what capitalism does, it leaves people behind in order to allow the minority to thrive.

You made an op based around what a failure socialism was, I provided evidence to the contrary and which is still ongoing.

If the other nations you speak of began on the same footing they too may have just as much success with those policies.

The fact that they don't work everywhere is more a symptom of a sick society worldwide, where some peoples lives have been valued as worth more than others and for me that sickness is capitalism.

Not that there is anything viable to replace it, though it is interesting, as it has been banded around that we are living in a post capitalist world rather than a post social one.

Even more interesting Neo-liberalism was actually conceived by socialists, however it was co-opted by Thatcher and Regan and given a capitalist spin.

This may account for some of the countries you have mentioned failing too, when a socialist idea is twisted to suit a right wing ideology the result is often something rather disturbing.

a reply to: solargeddon

Not really ,what they more often forget is vets are REALLY not hoping to see war anytime.
We just like winning them.
HERE I just tell you how I THINK they'll react,not MY choices and some think it is.
Yes we are nationalists and NO,NATIONALISM in no way equates to "Nazi", unless one LIKES a strong right cross in the face.
OR it DOES until THEIR asses are under threat ,so WHATS with the disconnect?
I am aware of socialism it was an EASY Sociology class in college.
I am discarding any available socialist theory in favor of "Yes and when it fails, I MUST go fight maybe die and clean it up, while the hippies form Antifa, for the legitimized SAINTHOOD of Che Guevara and Hillarys loss is avenged...

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.

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.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


But socialism is something that will always fail when it strangles its host. lol

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: solargeddon

Not really ,what they more often forget is vets are REALLY not hoping to see war anytime.
We just like winning them.
HERE I just tell you how I THINK they'll react,not MY choices and some think it is.
Yes we are nationalists and NO,NATIONALISM in no way equates to "Nazi", unless one LIKES a strong right cross in the face.
OR it DOES until THEIR asses are under threat ,so WHATS with the disconnect?
I am aware of socialism it was an EASY Sociology class in college.
I am discarding any available socialist theory in favor of "Yes and when it fails, I MUST go fight maybe die and clean it up, while the hippies form Antifa, for the legitimized SAINTHOOD of Che Guevara and Hillarys loss is avenged...

Yeah I'm thinking it will be a very bad day if nukes ever truly were used, I really don't think anyone is really that stupid (famous last words), if nuclear weaponry had never been developed there would be no need for a deterrent.

That said the chances are something equally as horrific would have been developed instead and indeed may still be one day.

Humans are great at coming up with new ways to destroy each other, it's not what I wan to see, though it is what humans are compelled to do.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


But socialism is something that will always fail when it strangles its host. lol

So does unbridled capitalism.

Thus, most long-standing economies adopt a mixed approach. As we have, as all of Western Europe does, etc.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


But socialism is something that will always fail when it strangles its host. lol

I think that’‘s their goal all along. As we can see, the lengths some will go to to justify socialism is insane.

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.

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.

a reply to: solargeddon

We both stopped a potential launches to save the other side,I know.
But I can't count on level thinking OR hope,if the wrong culture doesn't understand ,and functions off of semantics and emotions,absent of factual education or pragmatism.
They'll be used as tools .laborers ,grow old and THEN hell,because optimism is aLOUSY retirement without a bank account.
THANK S ROTHCHILD...(creep).

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


But socialism is something that will always fail when it strangles its host. lol

I think that’‘s their goal all along. As we can see, the lengths some will go to to justify socialism is insane.

At this stage it isn't justifying socialism, it is more trying to understand why you have such a twisted perception from my perspective.

Presently I would argue the insanity is all yours.