What does socialism mean?

[KeyboardJockey]

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".

Disagree. You will always get explotative shits its just the explotative shits wear a different badge under socialism.

Agree with your comment about Thatcher though.

 

[nino_savatte]

Disagree. You will always get explotative shits its just the explotative shits wear a different badge under socialism.

.

Which really doesn't mean anything. You've obviously got some serious problems with the word "socialism" and you've been rather quick to pronounce it dead. But one gets the distinct impression that your idea of socialism is rooted in the state socialist projects of Eastern Europe.

 

[Blagsta]

Disagree. You will always get explotative shits its just the explotative shits wear a different badge under socialism.

Agree with your comment about Thatcher though.

I think there will always be exploitative people, yes. Which is why a system which minimises the harm they can do rather than rewards it, might be a good idea.

 

[Zeppo]

Keyboard et al -maybe start a thread "what is human nature?" I would be rich if I had a pound for every -well capitalism its human nature innit.

Human nature is not some spiritual happening. Take a nursery - all the childen seem happy -they are not racist, capitalist hungry, bigots.
They may turn out this way but there is society and a life of hits and misses which shapes them on the way.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

IF ANYTHING, keyboard jockey, what Butchers has pointed to is human nature. (Though as butchers eludes the whole of human nature is much too diverse and contradictory to be pigeonholed into a narrow description.)

 

[nosos]

I think there will always be exploitative people, yes. Which is why a system which minimises the harm they can do rather than rewards it, might be a good idea.

If you don't trust people with power then, logically, you ought to support its decentralisation and dispersment. I say this to every conservative twat who says my politics are utopian and they never have an intelligent come back.

 

[derf]

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)

Sorry I took a while to reply to you.

I'm fine with all having a chance to be educated but that must not stop those who have greater resources using that advantage to get the best for their offspring.
All kids are not the same and some will always do better in school than others so a streamed school system is the only way to ensure that the best can be done for all.
The same goes for heath care. I'm in a country where the poor have no chance to get medical help and I've seen people die of health problems that would be non fatal in the UK including my wife's mother but while I agree and like the idea of free care being available to all I don't see any reason why you should not decide to spend your money on better care if you have the spare cash to do so.

If there is to be a ceiling on what is available to someone regardless of if they have greater funds we would all be driving about in Ford escorts without fluffy dice as they would be banned as an anti social display of individuality or wealth.

Added - For those that were wondering why I didn't help my wife's mother it was that her diabetes was too far gone to save her when I arrived here and found out just how ill she was. She lasted three weeks before her heart gave out.

 

[derf]

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

Sorry I took a while to reply to you.

I'm fine with all having a chance to be educated but that must not stop those who have greater resources using that advantage to get the best for their offspring.
All kids are not the same and some will always do better in school than others so a streamed school system is the only way to ensure that the best can be done for all.
The same goes for heath care. I'm in a country where the poor have no chance to get medical help and I've seen people die of health problems that would be non fatal in the UK including my wife's mother but while I agree and like the idea of free care being available to all I don't see any reason why you should not decide to spend your money on better care if you have the spare cash to do so.

If there is to be a ceiling on what is available to someone regardless of if they have greater funds we would all be driving about in Ford escorts without fluffy dice as they would be banned as an anti social display of individuality or wealth.

Added - For those that were wondering why I didn't help my wife's mother it was that her diabetes was too far gone to save her when I arrived here and found out just how ill she was. She lasted three weeks before her heart gave out.