What does socialism mean?

[butchersapron]

How convenient.

 

[nino_savatte]

I find it odd, not to mention, breathtakingly arrogant, that a certain poster hasn't even managed to give his pov on socialism. Instead, he has spent his time on this thread behaving like the wee bully that he is. Perhaps that's because he really doesn't have a pov or he knows that his definition is equally as personal as mine...not that he would admit it, it's not in his nature. He is never wrong but insists that anyone who dares display a scintilla of free thought is either crazy or deserves to be harassed by him and his mates.

Proper discussion is practically impossible when there are dodgy vanguardists with workerist tendencies throwing their weight about. In that respect, they share a great deal with the mindset of the Randist: they're always right and you're just plain 'evil'.

 

[october_lost]

Zombie thread. It's the dis-embodiment of 'death drive'.

Is the thread worth reading?

 

[butchersapron]

Yep, some good stuff on first few pages.

 

[Demosthenes]

Politics is the decision-making process with which we decide how what we produce is divided amongst us. Socialism is one political brand of that decision-making process, that ensures production and division is for human need rather than ruling class profits. Communism carries on the above, but without the need for a state. In my humble and succinct opinion.

Sounds about right to me.

 

[mk12]

Is the thread worth reading?

Ignore nino savette's posts and yes, it is quite interesting.

 

[nino_savatte]

Your contributions on this thread have been....well, pretty crap on the whole and you have the brass neck to say that? I think I hit the nail on the head earlier on in the thread. Your post proves my point.

Ignore nino savette's posts and yes, it is quite interesting.

So this thread wasn't originally about an open discussion on the nature of socialism and that was fairly clear from the outset - as it followed on from some comments made on another thread about socialism - that it was only ever going to go one way.

If this thread is so interesting, perhaps you would be so kind as to point out some of the highlights - eh?

Oh and it would seem that you have a serious problem with reading too. I'd seek remedial help if I were you.

 

[nino_savatte]

Arising from another thread here are two takes on what socialism might be; they are meant as a starting point for some debate over what the S word really could/should/does mean:

1.

So what are some of the main features of socialism?

Social justice
Equality
Homes
Jobs
A free health service (and certainly one that is free of the notions of the internal market or simulated markets which prevent proper delivery of service - in other words, targets have become more important that patient care. That isn't socialist).
Education for all
A properly integrated publicly owned public transport system
Publicly-owned utilities​

2.

Socialism needs to be able to address questions of material provision, it needs to be thorough going in its commitment to democracy, it needs to be able to accommodate notions of both individual and collective responsibility and it needs to get to grips with challenges of environmental sustainability.​

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Let's go back to this OP, what does it tell us? What is the thread starter trying to say here? This is really nothing but a comparison between something that I said and what he said by way of reply. But unpacking it, I see something else here: the subtext that socialism is 'dead' and only one political organisation has the solutions.

So, this is nothing but more silly sectarian point-scoring...willy waving, if you will.

 

[butchersapron]

You're losing your mind geno.

 

[becky p]

If this thread is so interesting, perhaps you would be so kind as to point out some of the highlights - eh?

So how come you bumped the thread? And why have you made so many posts on it?

The truth is its yet another thread that you have taken off into your usual tangent of look at me i'm so much better than the rest of you.

Your idea of Socialism seems to consist almost entirely of insulting as many people as you can.
You sad man.

 

[derf]

So what are some of the main features of socialism?

Social justice
Equality
Homes
Jobs

The problem with socialism is that it requires all to believe in the system for it to work. People are not equal and no matter how much you redisribute the cash there will always be some bugger with an angle to make more than the others and another total bastard out to be brother number 1.

Face it, people are not equal and never will be so socialists are wasting their time.
That's not to say that all of the ideals in socialism are bad. I believe that all should have the chance of free education to give all the same chance to be the best that they can but also see no problem with those that have money using it to help their kids the best they can.
As for homes. Fine idea but some will also abuse the system.
When it comes to jobs the idea is great but there is always a bunch of lazy bastards who think they have the right to do what they like at work. See the British car industry in the 1970s and 80s if you want to know what I mean.

The problem with the semi socialism that we have in the UK is that it promotes the rights of the individual but fails to make them understand their responabilities.

 

[nino_savatte]

So the solution? Get with the programme - as Eisenhower said. Embrace greed and selfishness. FFS.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ah, the silly wee shitehawks are back. How auld are you lot? Still in school? Don't they teach you lot anything?

 

[CyberRose]

Face it, people are not equal and never will be so socialists are wasting their time.

I think the "equality" means equality of opportunity, rather than everyone being zombie robot replicants of each other!

That means everyone should have the same chances and opportunities to education, health, vital services etc etc rather than those with more wealth having more access to these areas. After that it's up to the individual to make what they will with those opportunities (altho I'm no expert on political theory, and many people on here think they are, so it's quite possible one will be along any second to tell me I'm wrong and/or call me a cunt)

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The problem with socialism is that it requires all to believe in the system for it to work. People are not equal and no matter how much you redisribute the cash there will always be some bugger with an angle to make more than the others and another total bastard out to be brother number 1.

Face it, people are not equal and never will be so socialists are wasting their time.
That's not to say that all of the ideals in socialism are bad. I believe that all should have the chance of free education to give all the same chance to be the best that they can but also see no problem with those that have money using it to help their kids the best they can.
As for homes. Fine idea but some will also abuse the system.
When it comes to jobs the idea is great but there is always a bunch of lazy bastards who think they have the right to do what they like at work. See the British car industry in the 1970s and 80s if you want to know what I mean.

The problem with the semi socialism that we have in the UK is that it promotes the rights of the individual but fails to make them understand their responabilities.

I'm not so sure that socialism demands that we all believe in it; rather it requires that enough of us actively respect each other as being of equal worth (which also means that we think we are worth something). Being of equal worth does not mean being the same; it is simply a recognition that we are all part of the same human race gang. The active part of this socialism is in our collective decision making over what is needed to defend and promote that understanding of equal worth, followed by our actions to put those decisions into practice.

The sort of things we might initially agree on would be the familiar ones of free access to universal health care, free access to education, guaranteed safe and suitable accommodation. Obviously when we move on to talk about guarantees regarding income levels (whether in cash or services), then the debate becomes more heated , the decisions more contentious and the actions needed to put them in place, much tougher.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

You have still avoided my central question, Louis; why is this thread on this forum when it really ought to be in the History and Philosophy forum? The reply that you gave me wasn't satisfactory. Furthermore, the rationale behind this thread is glaringly obvious, though I suspect you don't have the honesty or the decency to give me a straightforward answer.

According to the IWCA website, "Socialism has failed". Yet here you are asking the question "what does socialism mean"? That's a wee bit contradictory - don't you think?

I was right: this is all about scoring points and nothing else. Why else would anyone start a thread with a title like "What does socialism mean"? It's quite vague...then of course, socialism has been around a lot longer than Marx's scientific socialism...but I guess that never occurred to either you or the IWCA.

Now go and wash your floor.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You have still avoided my central question, Louis; why is this thread on this forum when it really ought to be in the History and Philosophy forum? The reply that you gave me wasn't satisfactory.

You not liking my answer and it being unsatisfactory are not the same thing. For those who missed it, here's my original answer. Make what you will of Nino's response.

The real purpose [of this thread] is to dig into what we mean when we talk about socialism, so that hopefully debates involving the S word can be a little better informed and a little more informative.
​

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

You not liking my answer and it being unsatisfactory are not the same thing. For those who missed it, here's my original answer. Make what you will of Nino's response.

The real purpose [of this thread] is to dig into what we mean when we talk about socialism, so that hopefully debates involving the S word can be a little better informed and a little more informative.
​

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Talk about deliberately missing the point. Where did I say that I "didn't like your response"? I said that it was "not satisfactory". Not quite the same thing but it would seem that you've just joined up a few dots in your head, rather than reply to me in an honest fashion. But the real purpose behind this reply is to continue the smear job that was begun by your fellow travellers. This is evidenced by "Make what you will of Nino's response". For such an intelligent and erudite individual, you don't half behave like a spoilt brat.

You still haven't grasped the fact that constructing a single definition for the word "socialism" isn't possible, though I suspect, you think otherwise. Yopu also failed to deal with my point about the IIWCA's view of socialism and the patent lack of historical support for their position. As I said earlier, socialism was around before Marx...perhaps you'd like to disagree with that.

This thread belongs in Philosophy and History. But I suspect that if you had put it there, you'd have bitten off more than you could chew.

Now go and wash your kitchen floor...though I suspect there isn't much of it left.

 

[butchersapron]

Nino's relentless 'war on humanity' contunues apace.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You still haven't grasped the fact that constructing a single definition for the word "socialism" isn't possible, though I suspect, you think otherwise.

Where have I ever called for a single defintion of socialism? The point of this thread isn't to arrive at an answer (singular) but to explore the terrain (plural).

Cheers - Louis (when Adam delve and Eve span who was then the gentleman) MacNeice

p.s. I'm off to play in the snow with the kids now, then away for a few days in Herefordshire before they go back to school, but please feel free to continue putting me straight in my absence.

 

[nino_savatte]

Where have I ever called for a single defintion of socialism? The point of this thread isn't to arrive at an answer (singular) but to explore the terrain (plural).

Cheers - Louis (when Adam delve and Eve span who was then the gentleman) MacNeice

p.s. I'm off to play in the snow with the kids now, then away for a few days in Herefordshire before they go back to school, but please feel free to continue putting me straight in my absence.

You posed the question "What does socialism mean"? Your reason for strating this thread was pretty obvious as it followed on from another thread but you appear to be having trouble admitting that. "Exploring the terrain" is a convenient way of ducking my question. Nice try. I also raised the point about the IWCA's declaration that "socialism has failed" you avoided that too. Oh and "terrain" is not "plural", you used the word here in the singular.

If your attitude is going to be one of oneupmanship, then don't come back. Get lost in the virtual snow with your virtual kids.

ETA: What snow?

 

[butchersapron]

You posed the question "What does socialism mean"? Your reason for strating this thread was pretty obvious as it followed on from another thread but you appear to be having trouble admitting that. "Exploring the terrain" is a convenient way of ducking my question. Nice try. I also raised the point about the IWCA's declaration that "socialism has failed" you avoided that too. Oh and "terrain" is not "plural", you used the word here in the singular.

If your attitude is going to be one of oneupmanship, then don't come back. Get lost in the virtual snow with your virtual kids.

Wishing death on a poster's children is pretty nasty tbh nino.

 

[nino_savatte]

I wonder why butchersapron hasn't provided us with his definition of socialism? I think the answer is obvious.

 

[butchersapron]

Nino, when you put a poster on ignore you're not supposed to spend the next 24 hours reading and obsessing over their posts.

 

[nino_savatte]

I wonder why butchersapron feels the need to make up the contents of my posts in his head? Why does he feel the need to read things that aren't there? Is it because he's a smear artist? A cheap pointscoring hypocrite who has no interest in anything other than 'winning' at all costs?

Pitoyable.

 

[butchersapron]

I wonder why butchersapron feels the need to make up the contents of my posts in his head? Why does he feel the need to read things that aren't there? Is it because he's a smear artist? A cheap pointscoring hypocrite who has no interest in anything other than 'winning' at all costs?

Pitoyable.

Totally.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The problem with socialism is that it requires all to believe in the system for it to work. People are not equal and no matter how much you redisribute the cash there will always be some bugger with an angle to make more than the others and another total bastard out to be brother number 1.

Face it, people are not equal and never will be so socialists are wasting their time.
That's not to say that all of the ideals in socialism are bad. I believe that all should have the chance of free education to give all the same chance to be the best that they can but also see no problem with those that have money using it to help their kids the best they can.
As for homes. Fine idea but some will also abuse the system.
When it comes to jobs the idea is great but there is always a bunch of lazy bastards who think they have the right to do what they like at work. See the British car industry in the 1970s and 80s if you want to know what I mean.

The problem with the semi socialism that we have in the UK is that it promotes the rights of the individual but fails to make them understand their responabilities.

Thats the major problem with socialism IMO it doesn't take into account human nature. You can ride roughshod over this nature but to do so means you have to have a repressive society.

 

[nino_savatte]

Thats the major problem with socialism IMO it doesn't take into account human nature. You can ride roughshod over this nature but to do so means you have to have a repressive society.

I must disagree with that assessment; real socialism does take into account human nature, whereas the current form of capitalism doesn't. it prefers to see people as "irrational beings who act in their own self-interest". The cult of selfishness, which began under Thatcher is mostly responsible for the disintegration of the societal fabric of this country. Thatcher once said "there is no such thing as society, just families and individuals".

 

[butchersapron]

It doesn't - not unless you take human nature as it's been manifested in a society that rewards greed and the worst sort of individualism as being how things have always been and always have been. But to do this is to discard the core of our human capabilities, what makes us human -the power to adapt to different conditions and change ourselves and those conditions in the process.

 

[nino_savatte]

Maybe I'll start a thread titled "What does capitalism mean"?