You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There seems to be a good few people on here who would describe themselves as socialist, I'm interested to hear what that looks like in practice. When I hear people talk about socialism and redistribution of wealth etc my blood runs cold. My mind automatically goes to soviet russia, china, mass starvation and authoritarian regimes. I wonder if this is an unfair characterisation and if I'm perhaps conflating socialism with communism.
There's plenty of problems with capitalism but I'm unconvinced that the answer is socialism. People often seem to point to the Scandinavian countries as good examples but to me they appear to be predominately capitalist countries just with a higher emphasis on social welfare.
There was a link on here a while ago to the politics joe podcast where a lady who's name I forget was talking about this kind of stuff. She said a lot of nice sounding words but the only real world examples of her ideas in practice were an ex mining town in Wales and an aerospace company. To me her ideas sounded more libertarian than socialist but perhaps I misunderstood.
So to the socialists out there, what does the utopia look like?
When capitalism is organised for the benefit of society, whereas the Tories organise society of the benefit of capitalism.
We have a mix of capitalism and socialism. That mix should be changed so that no one goes without medical treatment, food, housing, just so that others can be richer than anyone really need be.
For me it's simply that the country's assets and infrastructure are used to benefit its citizens, also looking after those who are inevitably left behind, which currently is quite a large proportion of the population due to some poor policy making over the last fourteen years.
When I hear people talk about socialism and redistribution of wealth etc my blood runs cold. My mind automatically goes to soviet russia, china
They are/were more dictatorships than anything else. Basically all forms of society are part of the same circle and whatever flavour you choose can end with a crazy man (usually with a moustache and/or dodgy hair) taking control and refusing to leave office.
Kelvin and catfood sum it up quite nicely. For me it would be having things like medical care, infrastructure, public transportation etc not run for profit but for the benefit of all. A universal basic income so that nobody lives in poverty. An end to the ‘living wage’ because it really isn’t and replacement with a proper liveable wage. No more zero hours contracts and more rights for workers. Stop looking at economic growth as a measure of success because it’s not sustainable in the long run. No such thing as a billionaire because it’s obscene.
“Money implies poverty.”
So if we can just move to a post-scarcity interstellar civilisation like The Culture then that would do me 👍
Free quinoa and buckwheat for everyone !!
Things like free education and healthcare for everyone, regardless of their bank balance are socialism. I'm guessing they don't make your blood run cold? For me its looking out for the most vulnerable in society and generally organising things for the benefit of citizens not shareholders. No such thing as a utopia, a mix of ethical capitalism and social justice is what I'd like to see, but with a few more checks and balances on the capitalism bit.
Edit to add, I'd like to see our success as a nation measured by our health, well-being and general 'happiness' (or 'contentedness' if that's too hard to define). Not solely by GDP and economic growth.
We are capable of housing, feeding and clothing ourselves, that we don't do these things is because one fella wants to have more money than the other fella. when society understands that capitalism isn't morally neutral and actually makes positive steps to re-draw the balance is when we get to have a socialist utopia.
I wonder if this is an unfair characterisation and if I’m perhaps conflating socialism with communism.
No, you're conflating it with authoritarianism.
Free sausage rolls and pies for everyone !!
Ftfy
That everyone is safe and secure which includes food security and a large enough affordable home with security of tenure. That there is good access to education and health facilities including libraries and leisure centres free at the point of delivery.
This is the thing I was trying to get at, nothing mentioned above is what I would consider 'true' socialism to mean.
If were were to consider it as a sliding scale with something like soviet russia at one end and the USA at the other it seems most 'socialists' are arguing we should move a little bit more to the soviet side for the benefit of all. This seems a perfectly reasonable argument to me, perhaps socialism has a PR problem.
It doesn't have to be called a socialist utopia, it would be a normal utopia, all equal, everyone sharing and working together for the greater good, etc, etc, but as i've said many times, it's brilliant on paper, it just falls apart because people are the issue that means it'll never come true, that's why we have what we have, and it kind of works.
I forgot to put in a fair days work for a fair days pay which is embarassing. Also I would say Ì'm à social democrat.
Soviet Russia was not socialist.
Socialism means that the production and exchange of the society is owned and distributed by the society as opposed to by private ownership.
Star Trek is a socialist society for instance
Socialism is in theory a great system. However it falls down in practice for a number of reasons, one of which is that people simply aren’t equal.
For me, One Nation Conservatism, properly implemented, seems a more pragmatic way of achieving a society where all are looked after. Ironically at the moment the Labour Party are far closer to this viewpoint than the Tories.
That’s the thing with socialism. It’s a fantastic theory or good thought exercise. Totally falls apart when it meets reality though. Every attempt, that I’m aware of, has ended up with an authoritarian regime. That’s not at all what it is supposed to be aboutZ Capitalism is screwed too. It’s basically a massive pyramid scheme. No idea what the answer is tbh.
Star Trek is a socialist society for instance
I find it very interesting that you should make that point Nick. It has always been obvious to me that we tend to have this deep inherent belief that any advanced society, be it in the distant future or from a distant planet, is likely to be socialist/communist.
You are the first person who I am aware of that has made this connection with an orderly advanced society of the future as portrayed in popular science fiction.
Edit: BTW there is nothing in Star Trek, as far as I am aware, which provides evidence that is "a socialist society", as you claim. That presumably just an assumption on your part.
A lot of sci-fi is more dystopian from what I’ve read. Star Trek and The Culture from Ian M Banks novels are the only socialist-like ones that spring to mind. Could just be my taste in sci-fi.
As has been pointed out, the limit to the utopia is human nature and its instincts.
A system, whether left or right leaning, needs to build safeguards against them without totally destroying individual initiative and "progress". As that in itself is affecting the satisfaction of basic needs trying to be satisfied.
There are many of those instrincts to channel. Greed, fear, envy, anger etc...
It's quite complex and I fear that moderate centrist(ish) solutions are losing against rising populisms, either from the right or the left as we think less and less critically as a species.
"Every attempt, that I’m aware of, has ended up with an authoritarian regime."
France had a Socialist-Communist government in the early 1980s. It failed to realise socialism in France but didn't end up with an authoritarian regimes. There are plenty of places that attempted socialism and it didn't end up with those regimes turning authoritarian. Although there were a couple of examples of Socialist governments being replaced by authoritarian regimes (Chile, Burkina Faso...).
We'd all have better looking teeth than at the present.
Free quinoa and buckwheat for everyone !!
<Crocodile Dundee> "Well you could eat that shit" </ Crocodile Dundee>
Using the power of the state to fix the mess that Neolibralism has caused for a start.
It's pretty clear marketising utilities is total a catastrophe by way of example.
I think it's possible to have really good state investment, infrastructure and services and have a thriving private sector. In fact the private sector needs it.
But first you'd have to teach Richard Tice all this because he believes the Tories and Labour are both socialist parties. Lmfao.
The UK tends to drawdown on socialism in a time of crisis - it's just a simple point of logic that we don't have to wait for a crisis to do things better.
Socialism would be great if they paid for it from sources where there are obscene amounts of wealth sloshing about.
The people in charge either don't want to, or are unable to get their hands on this though (don't think Labour will be any different), so they just hammer the people in the middle, the easy targets who have a 'bit more' to take.
I'd go so far as to say I'm a communist. But I'm a pragmatic communist - it's clearly the best way to run a society but people are awful so it won't work. It hasn't worked in the past because the people in charge were authoritarian dictators, not because communism is bad.
We're going to have to get more socialist. As AI and robots improve there aren't going to be enough jobs to go around. We'll have to start paying people to exist, and providing what everyone needs for free (healthcare, education, a way to get around, maybe even a roof and food). That kind of automated, caring society is my utopia. Fully automated luxury communism even.
It won't happen, because people are awful and some will want more than their fair share.
France had a Socialist-Communist government in the early 1980s
Apologies but it's not because a party calls itself "Parti Socialiste" that it's a socialist party in the Marxist sense of the term.
Mitterand was certainly not a collectivist.
Yes he had 3 Ministers from the PC but that only lasted a year or so as expected. It was just a predictable trick to get elected and wind Marchais up for comedy value 😂.
He did nationalise a few trinkets yes but that was posturing. France was and remained a market driven economy even from May 1981.
He even ended up with Tapie in his government 😂
You'll also struggle to find more of a centrist than Jacques Delors (Finance Minister in May 81), who just past away.
Star Trek is a socialist society for instance
Not wholly. Star Trek (and Banks) portrays a post-scarcity society. With unlimited free energy, any member of the society can have almost anything they want. Therefore money loses all value as everyone has their needs met. There is no need for the socialist redistribution of wealth because everyone already has the things that wealth is needed for.
There is no socialism or capitalism.
ernielynchFull Member
Star Trek is a socialist society for instance
I find it very interesting that you should make that point Nick. It has always been obvious to me that we tend to have this deep inherent belief that any advanced society, be it in the distant future or from a distant planet, is likely to be socialist/communist.You are the first person who I am aware of that has made this connection with an orderly advanced society of the future as portrayed in popular science fiction.
Edit: BTW there is nothing in Star Trek, as far as I am aware, which provides evidence that is “a socialist society”, as you claim. That presumably just an assumption on your part.
Dune seems to be a feudal society roughly akin to medieval Europe.
starwars, the Wild West or at least the fictional pop culture vision of it
if I summed up a lot of future/space sci-fi it would be utopian on the surface but with a large fringe or underclass either being left behind or directly exploited in order to create that utopia. Where our main character either is from, or explores these areas.
never really got in to Star Trek (seen a few of the films and a handful of episodes) but my understanding is it is a “post scarcity” world. People living in the federation have plentiful food and housing provided for them. Some of them join the space-navy for reasons unclear. Then visit other planets outside of the federation and see how oddly they live; get murdered by space baddies; and other assorted dangerous hijinks. When they could just sit at home and watch space-Netflix for their entire lives.
“Every attempt, that I’m aware of, has ended up with an authoritarian regime.”
In the case of Chile, that was because the CIA backed the Pinochet coup to overthrow the democratically elected Marxist government.
A quick glance at any local facebook group or the daily mail comments page will show all but the most idealistic that socialism can now only commence through a benign dictatorship.
The Star Trek and Culture models seem like a natural socialist end game. If the fictional worlds had a more capitalist bent space MuskBezos would’ve stolen all the replicators and turned them in to a subscription model. Ensuring they break if you try to load third party software.
We pretty much already live in a post-scarcity world. It’s just that a select few (including us lot on here) hoover up all the resources.
“It has always seemed strange to me… The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.”
This quote from Steinbeck epitomises to me the sad reality that socialism is a glorious idea condemned to failure.
Depends on your definition of success. If you’re an utter bastard of a human being then you’ve automatically failed in my eyes. We need a shift in how we view success and our general attitudes to ownership and consumption. We’re ****ed if it doesn’t happen and it will take people with those ‘failure’ characteristics to get us there.
This shit is depressing. I’m going back to my dog thread 😂
It would look much like Tuletubby world, but without some Nazi making you go to bed when you don't want to:
"Apologies but it’s not because a party calls itself “Parti Socialiste” that it’s a socialist party in the Marxist sense of the term."
This is one of those "no true Scotsman" arguments: it wasn't really Socialist and they didn't really attempt to achieve socialism. But the history shows differently, there was an attempt, it was a failure, and it didn't degenerate into an authoritarian regime.
https://jacobin.com/2021/02/french-socialism-francois-mitterrand
“Apologies but it’s not because a party calls itself “Parti Socialiste” that it’s a socialist party in the Marxist sense of the term.”
This is one of those “no true Scotsman” arguments: it wasn’t really Socialist and they didn’t really attempt to achieve socialism. But the history shows differently, there was an attempt, it was a failure, and it didn’t degenerate into an authoritarian regime.
https://jacobin.com/2021/02/french-socialism-francois-mitterrand/blockquote >
That article confirms what I was saying. The word "socialist" in Parti Socialiste has nothing to do with Marxist socialism/collectism. The French Parti Socialist has always been the alter ego of the Labour Party, despite Mitterand's half baked experiment.It's not an argument, but a mere semantic clarification.
Totally falls apart when it meets reality though.
On the other hand, if capitalism is so good, how come it needs socialism to bail it out every decade or so?
People often seem to point to the Scandinavian countries as good examples but to me they appear to be predominately capitalist countries just with a higher emphasis on social welfare.
Social Democracy.
To my mind a country should be run/managed/ administrated/ruled (choose your own) for the benefit of the population. I have no problem with capitalism as a monetary model (let's face it we are all a bit/lot capitalist - nicer house/car/bike etc.) but measures need to be in place to protect the population as a whole, not just to benefit a small section.
Capitalism is awful but works really well for a small number of people. The same sort that **** up genuine attempts at socialism. The greedy who think the rules don’t apply. Hence why it forever goes around in circles.
Hell
OP - how would you define ' socialism' and 'socialist'?
It's always helpful to be clear about what you're asking.
With unlimited free energy, any member of the society can have almost anything they want. Therefore money loses all value as everyone has their needs met. There is no need for the socialist redistribution of wealth because everyone already has the things that wealth is needed for.
There is no socialism or capitalism.
So the world in Star Trek is communist! Sounds reasonable to me. But why would an extraordinarily popular American movie/TV franchise depict an idealistic future world as communist?
Although the most important question of all is why hasn't it provoked outrage for glorifying communism?
To answer my own question there is imo an inherent if subconscious belief of the superiority of communism over other social orders.
It (capitalism) bounces back pretty well on its own. If enough people feel they benefit from the system then it keeps going. If socialism is so great why do so few people vote for it?
The problem with socialism for most people is the extent to which it seeks to interfere with people’s lives. If you are at the bottom of society they may feel like a price worth paying, but for a significant portion of society, the perception that capitalism works well enough even it it is imperfect, is the reason why socialism has been in retreat for decades.
Capitalism isn’t exactly doing well at the moment.
Yes. At the moment. It goes in cycles.
Yet even in this particular moment there doesn’t seem to be a countrywide outcry for a socialist future.
Dogs. Where do they stand in all this?
The problem with socialism for most people is the extent to which it seeks to interfere with people’s lives.
The problem is a cursory look at the most strong advocates of "capitalism" also show a strong habit of messing around with peoples lives. If you want petty rule heaven just go the USA and deal with the local housing associations or dare to walk somewhere.
but for a significant portion of society, the perception that capitalism works well enough even it it is imperfect
Aside from it doesnt work well. Countries which have gone for unrestrained capitalism have failed just as severely as the communist dictatorships. Mixed economies are the most successful by far although admittedly they are under pressure at the moment by those who want unrestrained capitalism.
Aside from it doesnt work well. Countries which have gone for unrestrained capitalism have failed just as severely as the communist dictatorships
To be clear here, I am not advocating unrestrained capitalism, I’m not advocating anything at all in fact. Part of the problem is what people seek to define as ‘socialism’ & seeing as the op is talking about a ‘socialist utopia’ I’m kinda assuming that in this context we are talking about a full blown socialist state. That would be one governed by :
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
lot of assumptions there. I think ye olde definition of socialism as espoused by Marx has changed somewhat for most people. Quite well outlined in the first few posts of this thread. The original ideal can’t apply to countries like ours. We no longer produce anything to take control of.
Capitalism is definitely in trouble. The US, the paragon of capitalism ain’t looking too rosy. ImI believe a broadly socialist democracy would be best. One where people and planet over profit are the key goals. Never going to happen in my lifetime though.
Dogs. Where do they stand in all this?
Anywhere other than restaurants or on chairs I think. I’d take a benevolent dictatorship ruled by a Labrador.
I'd go for a border collie - always bringing everyone together although you might get nipped if you're slow
A quick glance at any local facebook group or the daily mail comments page will show all but the most idealistic that socialism can now only commence through a benign dictatorship.
aren’t most of the comments in the daily mail comments the work of (hostile) state funded bots and trolls? Their aim is to stop us being content and to create divisions in society.
I’d take a benevolent dictatorship ruled by a Labrador.
but could you trust a Labrador to share the food?
" I’d take a benevolent dictatorship ruled by a Labrador."
Too easily bribed...
I’d take a benevolent dictatorship ruled by a Labrador.
It’s a fact that Labs are genetically predisposed to need to keep eating, so long as there’s a plate in front of them with food in, they’ll let everyone else do whatever the hell they want!
People often seem to point to the Scandinavian countries as good examples but to me they appear to be predominately capitalist countries just with a higher emphasis on social welfare.
They aren't socialist, they are liberal with regulated capitalism and welfare safety nets. The core idea of socialism is that the means of production should be communally owned - if you accept private ownership of capital, you are not a socialist.
Socialism is monocausal, or one-dimensional (as all ideologies are). Humans are seen as creative beings and being alienated from the means of production is seen as the cause of all injustice. The problem is that the true socialist economies all failed because the world is much more complex than monocausal models can account for. The democracies abandoned socialism in favour of regulated capitalism and the non-democratic socialist countries either adopted liberal democratic systems or became increasingly autocratic and ended up as economic basket cases.
So what we have now (illustrated by this thread) are people who have forgotten what socialism actually means and are really just liberals who favour regulation of markets and welfare safety nets, but assume that anyone who isn't a free-market fundamentalist is a socialist. Politically, it's a terrible mistake - people who actually remember how badly socialism turned out do not want to return to those days, even though they probably agree with the actual policies that today's faux-socialists actually want.
Socialism, when done right in a democratic way, can help balance the economy and social welfare, like in Scandinavia, without meaning everything is owned by the government.
What people are referring to is a Social Democratic country rather than out and out socialism.
What it would look like is equality would be better, lots of things would be provided to all as basic things for living and disparity between wages would be much smaller.
That only works if everyone wants that which is the problem. The theory is that once people were living in the society they would see it as better but that is difficult to sell to people who have lived under capitalism all their lives and were born into a selfish and greedy society.
It is the opposite of what the tories want yet there are a lot of tory thinking people so how do you get them to be part of it or do you just kill them off (see the dictator comments!)
There seems to be a good few people on here who would describe themselves as socialist
They may describe themselves as such but only one stwer is to my knowledge. Most of the rest are centerists .
Socialism, when done right in a democratic way, can help balance the economy and social welfare, like in Scandinavia, without meaning everything is owned by the government.
The definition of socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Scandinavia is not socialist, it's capitalist, the means of production is privately owned.
Free sausage rolls and pies for everyone !!
Binnerism?
To me, socialism would mean mostly co-operative form of business. Every participant in a business owns an equal share of it, and has an equal say in running said business, and an equal share of the profits.
And co-operatives have a long history of working well in the real world, even when having to operate together with pure capitalist systems. In my country the largest groceries chain is a coop, with millions of members, my bank is a co-operative, as is my insurance company.
Owning an equal share of the business also gives people incentive to work for the good of the business - in co-operatives shareholder profit is not the driving force, but a coop exists to produce goods or services that the members / owners need, and the excess profits are shared equally between all members. No one can come and say "I own 51% of the shares so I call all the shots".
In my dream society, co-operatives would be the only legal form for companies. No limited-liability corporations where the profit motive (aka cancer - limitless growth in a limited space) runs things. And a co-op is also not "publicly owned" - people are free to start their own together, for whatever they need done. They are collectively owned and democratic. Just yesterday I voted in an election of my groceries coop ("S-ryhmä" in Finland - 2.4 million members, consisting of 19 regional co-operatives, sales 46% of total in the sector) to select the people to run it.
In todays society, we do not really have democracy, because businesses are outside of the democratic process. They are in function dictatorships, where the largest owners have all the say, and where it is normal to not consider much anything besides bringing in as much money as possible to shareholders, overriding all social and environmental concerns. And workers have no say in how things are done.
As others have pointed out, there are lots of different definitions of socialism in play here and it's even become a pejorative term for some.
I say we should forget about the idea of capitalism v socialism and instead concentrate on creating a fairer, more equal society by whatever means works best.
I'm a big fan of John Rawls on this and I think his difference principle is particularly relevant here and now.
Roughly speaking it states that all differences in wealth and income, all social and economic inequalities, should work for the good of the least favoured in society.
It seems to me that as a society the UK took some pretty big steps in the right direction on this but that in recent years (particularly with all the austerity and public sector cuts) we've been moving the other way, back towards a system that benefits the most advantaged over the least.
As an example, consider the differences between an affluent family and a less affluent one both of whom have a child with an identified educational need. There's never been a time when both of those children would have had equal opportunities but 20 years ago the differences between their experiences and opportunities would have been less as the public sector services which the less affluent family relied upon were far better funded and staffed.
The definition of socialism is the public ownership of the means of production.
Not quite. The definition says that there should be public ownership or regulation of production.
Italics for emphasis.
I think that the last 40 years have shown that unregulated production (free-market economics) to also be problematic, such as inequality in the economy, public transport, the water utilities, energy production etc.
To me it seems that there is almost no area of the economy that doesn’t benefit us all better by at least being somewhat regulated.
As for what the Socialist Utopia looks like, almost any other Western European country, where the quality of life for most people seems to be better than ours.
perhaps socialism has a PR problem
It definitely does, more so in the US than here (although the Tories & Daily Mail etc. do keep trying to demonise it). In the US the right-wing media (owned by billionaires) has convinced a large swathe of the population that socialism means the government taking all your money and giving it to immigrants or drug addicts. It's a bid sad that for the vast majority of them it would actually improve their lives.
So the world in Star Trek is communist!
There’s always been loads of debate about the politics in Star Trek, and the general consensus is that Marxist Communism is the closest model. To each according to his needs, from each according to their ability seems to match Trek pretty closely. Anarchists don’t seem to like it on account of Starfleet being a quasi-military dictatorship but then if they didn’t exist earth would be overrun by the Klingons or Romulans so maybe the political theorists of the trek world concluded that anarchist pacifism wasn’t a good idea. Interesting also how different alien societies have different politics. The Ferengi are cutthroat capitalists living by the rules of acquisition. The Vulcans are something of a scientific/engineering dictatorship who prize cultural purity (like China I guess), and the Klingons power crazed militarists like the wartime Japanese. I also never got my head around the interstellar economics of Star Trek. They have a currency in the form of Latinum but it’s not clear how they trade with other civilisations.
As for what the Socialist Utopia looks like, almost any other Western European country, where the quality of life for most people seems to be better than ours.
I think we need to be careful about this sort of assumption. Other countries are better in some ways and worse in others. The grass isn't always greener.
Having said that, I had an interesting discussion recently with a French friend who lives in Scotland. He was raging about the roads being dug up and poorly re-laid by a private broadband company. The improved broadband was a paid for service from which they would obviously profit but the disruption was shared by all and the inevitable road repairs would be paid for by the council. He seemed to think things would be different in France and I have to say I share his anger at this sort of private profit, public cost system we have in the UK.
Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is a good example. The government made a positive intervention to legislate that the natural resources of the country should be for the benefit of the many not the few. Currently nearing two trillion dollars, will realistically never run out and will benefit every member of Norwegian society for the foreseeable future and is enshrined in law.
vs Selling BP to the highest bidder and using the cash within an electoral cycle.
It's worth remembering that Marx wasn't the first to espouse socialism, or attempt to define it. For example Robert Owen (the cooperative movement).
mint tea because all proper tea is theft
lower case post, anything else involves Capitalism; timba, ernielynch and tjagain are off to a good start 🙂
Socialism is complete fantasy and has never been a success anywhere ever. I have noticed that they're very good at spending other peoples money, but rarely generate any.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best we have at the moment.
I have noticed that they’re very good at spending other peoples money, but rarely generate any.
Don’t even know where to start. Please explain how capitalists ‘generate’ money.
in the US "socialism" mean not going bankrupt if you get seriously ill as that'd be a curtailment of freedom.
I'd personally not get too bothered about semantics, but if you want, we can talk about socialist principles of say giving all kids a fair chance.
Sounds easy but has implications for childcare and child poverty, parenting, education standards and whether to have a two tier system for the wealthy, rules on inheritance etc etc. All these things lead to policy decisions and implementation challenges - the how you do it - and sooo much opportunity for argument. And unlikely to be absolutes, lots of fuzzy lines
So yeah, socialist principles -> neoliberal centrism on the politics threads.
Dogs are not very interested in redistribution.
it’s the best we have at the moment.
So we just need to wait?
The last labour govt wasn't perfect in many ways but large parts of the vision were quite decent IMO.
Those with memories longer than a goldfish might remember the minimum wage (that the tories screamed would destroy the economy) and an NHS that actually worked for the most part. Sure Start is another initiative that was in the news recently (because its gutting by the tories had provably done so much harm). I could go on, but those with closed minds wouldn't listen anyway.
Of course they could have done more, and iraq blah blah PFI waffle blether. As I said, it wasn't all perfect, or even good. But it was certainly better than what went before, and unimaginably better than what came after.
Socialism is complete fantasy and has never been a success anywhere ever. I have noticed that they’re very good at spending other peoples money, but rarely generate any.
Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we have at the moment.
One huge reason why Socialism hasn't worked in a lot of places (South/Central America) is because the US (capitalists) directly intervened and overthrew democratically elected left leaning governments and replaced them with right wing capitalist authoritarians because they didn't want Socialism to succeed.
It's funny that when people say capitalism is the best we have at the moment, they completely ignore the fact that at the current moment, capitalism doesn't work. The only reason it keeps going is because the ruling classes capitalise the profits, but socialise the losses - see 2008 financial crisis, every time a private rail company goes bankrupt and gets a bailout from the government, energy company bailouts etc etc. If they were true capitalists, they'd let those companies fail because that's what the free market determined.
Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we have at the moment.
Yes, because the search for endless growth to further enrich a very small number of already insanely wealthy people is going so well for the planet. I can't even begin to imagine a better option.
I've voting Labrador before it's all too late.