The main problem with socialism (whatever that means to you) or any other social structure i.e capitalism, totalitarianism, anarchy etc. Is that the valves of each individual are relative, what you care about, what I care about, what a Chinese billionaire cares about are all relative. Fitting everyone or even a majority of people (and their values) into one of these social structures is perhaps an impossible task.
For example in a socialist society I would be required to use my time helping other people with less means than myself, that's not something I want to do, and yet I would likely be forced to. (yes I am aware that this happens in almost every social structure, that is not the point though.) Likewise in a capitalist society people with less means than the (1%) may often be resentful (wish for a fair distribution of wealth) to those wealthy people (not entirely unreasonable), although having said that if everyone felt that way then they wouldn't have all that wealth in the first place.
The point I am trying to make is the best social structure is relative, for me it's probably libertarianism, although I doubt it would be the best for everyone of course. _________________ She's dead, wrapped in plastic.
Justice is not a frivolous thing, Simpson. It has little if anything to do with a disobedient whale.
The main problem with socialism (whatever that means to you) or any other social structure i.e capitalism, totalitarianism, anarchy etc. Is that the valves of each individual are relative, what you care about, what I care about, what a Chinese billionaire cares about are all relative. Fitting everyone or even a majority of people (and their values) into one of these social structures is perhaps an impossible task.
For example in a socialist society I would be required to use my time helping other people with less means than myself, that's not something I want to do, and yet I would likely be forced to. (yes I am aware that this happens in almost every social structure, that is not the point though.) Likewise in a capitalist society people with less means than the (1%) may often be resentful (wish for a fair distribution of wealth) to those wealthy people (not entirely unreasonable), although having said that if everyone felt that way then they wouldn't have all that wealth in the first place.
The point I am trying to make is the best social structure is relative, for me it's probably libertarianism, although I doubt it would be the best for everyone of course.
Yeah, obviously there are those of us who aren't interested in helping those less fortunate than ourselves. However, I've seen plenty of surveys that suggest a correlation between a societies happiness and the level of equality within it, and that doesn't just apply to the have-nots.
Personally, I'm extremely grateful for the fact that I live in a country which has a national health service and there are voluntary charity workers who have been willing to assist me with certain issues I've faced over the last sixteen months which have prevented me from working. Although there is another side to this, in that I am no longer entitled to financial support from a system I've been paying into for the last twenty plus years which is a little bit frustrating.
I agree with this to a large extent, although I am significantly further to the left. Obviously the idea that we should be "clothed and fed by the state" sounds ridiculous when you take it to mean a 1984-style "everyone wears grey overalls, on Tuesdays you'll eat bangers and mash" set-in-stone regime, but I'm certainly not against a large-scale takeover of private corporations (not all, but certain select types of business) and subsequent public employment with a strict, fairly equal wage system (i.e. everyone earns somewhere between £25,000 and £50,000 per year (these are totally hypothetical rough figures thrown in to support a vague sketch of an idea put into complete layman's terms, so please don't think I'm actually this naive), and nobody earns wages on either side of that threshold). If one of the things that comes with that is the idea that each family gets a certain amount of money to spend of food or clothing, then so be it. This also hopefully won't (in my admittedly ill thought out, vague sketch of a utopian vision) "scare off" massive multinationals - if the public demand for their product is there, there is no reason not to import certain goods to be made available to the public. If this makes me "nuts" then fair enough, although as I stated in my original post I am now far too mellow and disenfranchised with the far left to truly fight for this. It's just something I believe would benefit society. Like you, I'm all for a fairer mixed market economy. But my idea of a fair mixed market economy is about 75-80% public (that is, proportion of people dependent on public sector work). I imagine yours would be closer to 30-35% (although I'm loathe to assume what you actually want, I'm just basing this on the talk of moderate lefties I know). Anyway, with a bit of convincing you'll come around. Either that, or you'll be up against the wall with the rest of the dissidents*.
*only joking.
Yeah it seems you're much more left than me. I struggle to imagine our country where only 20-25% of jobs are in the private sector, I just don't see how this would work or what benefits this would bring, it's not like public sector workers are significantly better off than private sector workers as it is anyway. I'd rather have a thriving yet regulated private sector, there's plenty of labour regulation to improve conditions in the private sector; minimum wage, holiday pay, maternity leave to name a few and if you wanted to introduce regulation to tackle discepancy in pay then you could do that in the private sector also. I might support the idea of strengthening these regulations but I don't see how just bringing more industries into public sector ownership really solves anything that can't be solved by simply further regulating the existing private sector.
What industries would you nationalise anyway? I think the idea of nationalising/renationalising public services isn't a bad idea, the railways or energy providers for example, but that's only a small proportion of our economy. Considering most of our economy is services based I don't see how it would be a good idea, or even possible, to have such a large proportion of our workforce in the public sector.
I'm all for a discussion on whether certain industries should be publicly or privately owned based on the merits of each case but I wouldn't want to give a percentage that should be publicly/privately employed as I don't think it's that important. IMO certain industries should always be public sector, certain industries should always be private sector and there's a few things in the middle who you could argue one way or another.
Out of interest, where do you stand on the EU and in particular the single market? It's often a contentious issue for the left, and I think relevant to the discussion. _________________ Shut up mate you're boring!
Yeah it seems you're much more left than me. I struggle to imagine our country where only 20-25% of jobs are in the private sector, I just don't see how this would work or what benefits this would bring, it's not like public sector workers are significantly better off than private sector workers as it is anyway. I'd rather have a thriving yet regulated private sector, there's plenty of labour regulation to improve conditions in the private sector; minimum wage, holiday pay, maternity leave to name a few and if you wanted to introduce regulation to tackle discepancy in pay then you could do that in the private sector also. I might support the idea of strengthening these regulations but I don't see how just bringing more industries into public sector ownership really solves anything that can't be solved by simply further regulating the existing private sector.
What industries would you nationalise anyway? I think the idea of nationalising/renationalising public services isn't a bad idea, the railways or energy providers for example, but that's only a small proportion of our economy. Considering most of our economy is services based I don't see how it would be a good idea, or even possible, to have such a large proportion of our workforce in the public sector.
I'm all for a discussion on whether certain industries should be publicly or privately owned based on the merits of each case but I wouldn't want to give a percentage that should be publicly/privately employed as I don't think it's that important. IMO certain industries should always be public sector, certain industries should always be private sector and there's a few things in the middle who you could argue one way or another.
Out of interest, where do you stand on the EU and in particular the single market? It's often a contentious issue for the left, and I think relevant to the discussion.
First and foremost is the nationalisation of the banks and insurance companies. I know the Bank of England sets interest rates, and therefore it's not as though it's a completely deregulated private industry, but I think a singular central bank and insurance company is the first step to a fairer society - I understand that most people (reasonably) have come to blame the over-reliance on and over-indulgence of central banks (the Bank of England, Federal Reserve) for the economic meltdown, which is the logical conclusion. However, I see it less as a problem with the concept of a central bank who set interest rates and more as a wider problem with the current cultural hegemony and the subsequent amount of caution shown by the people (governments included) towards the ruling classes (high-level bankers), and I believe that in a fairer, more equal society in which the people have faith in the system and in which there's a large majority of public sector dependence that a central bank would work, and would be the best way forward (1). I'd nationalise all public transport, all energy providers, all building companies, phone and internet providers, and large parts of the retail industry (taken on a case by case basis - as I said in my original response, I see no reason not to have large, publicly owned retail stores who import from multinationals based on public demand). I'd make sure that there was no private education (admittedly not a huge chunk of the market anyway), no private healthcare (again, not a huge chunk of the market) and I'd promote/enforce wide-scale nationalised farming (again, it may not appear a pressing issue, but in the break-up and equal redistribution of land you could create massive nationalised farms, thus creating numerous jobs and providing far more food without the need to import). It's impossible to be of this opinion and not be used to being labelled naive, and I understand the scale of nationalisation I have outlined above is pretty damn implausible in the forseeable future - that's the charge often levelled at socialists. It's not a short term goal or a perfect outcome (or even remotely realistic), but I do believe it would go a long way to creating a fairer society.
As far as the EU goes, you're totally right in saying it's a contentious issue. I mean, I don't see a reason in which a Britain largely dependent on the public sector shouldn't remain a part of the EU. It offers easy and well-regulated avenues for import and export, and the chance for people here who would be disenfranchised with the idea of a wage cap to fuck off elsewhere, to put it politely. I'm sure there are plenty within the EU for whom the offer of at least, say, £25,000 per year would be highly tempting, and I genuinely don't think we'd have any issue with either finding enough people to work, or in finding enough work for the people. However, I also have a very huge distrust of the Tories, and I find I am naturally inclined to disagree with anything they say, even when it appears entirely reasonable. I may have described myself as a pragmatic socialist previously, but in order to believe in any political extreme you have to be able to suspend reason to some extent. It makes me a lesser person, but I really do have trouble agreeing with the Tories even when I know I should. But, either way, I'm pro-European Union. I know a lot of commie mates who aren't, and it's another issue that prevents any unity within the hard left in this country. However, I see it as a case of once we get our house in order, then we can discuss the EU. If France were to tilt significantly to the left, as it appeared they would after the election results (although admittedly it hasn't come to fruition), you wouldn't expect them to leave the EU, but then they're reliant on the euro as currency. As far as what I've outlined above, it doesn't matter what currency we use, although I'd certainly be wary of sharing a currency with capitalist countries.
However, everything I have said above (and in this thread so far) is an extreme version of what I believe, and it would take a far more motivated version of myself to continually argue or fight for its' implementation. To be honest, I'd be fairly happy at this point with a centre-left Labour government willing to create a few more public sector jobs. I mean, it'd be an improvement on what we currently have.
(1) I know the greed of people hinders this idea massively. I've not put a huge amount of thought into any of this for two or three years, and am trying (and failing, for the large part) to articulate ideas that I've lost a lot of passion to see put into action. I also don't have an answer to the inevitable "but people are greedy" argument. That's where socialism has fallen down in the past, and it's only blind faith that stops me from believing the same will happen again. I get the hypocrisy, don't worry.
First and foremost is the nationalisation of the banks and insurance companies. I know the Bank of England sets interest rates, and therefore it's not as though it's a completely deregulated private industry, but I think a singular central bank and insurance company is the first step to a fairer society - I understand that most people (reasonably) have come to blame the over-reliance on and over-indulgence of central banks (the Bank of England, Federal Reserve) for the economic meltdown, which is the logical conclusion. However, I see it less as a problem with the concept of a central bank who set interest rates and more as a wider problem with the current cultural hegemony and the subsequent amount of caution shown by the people (governments included) towards the ruling classes (high-level bankers), and I believe that in a fairer, more equal society in which the people have faith in the system and in which there's a large majority of public sector dependence that a central bank would work, and would be the best way forward (1). I'd nationalise all public transport, all energy providers, all building companies, phone and internet providers, and large parts of the retail industry (taken on a case by case basis - as I said in my original response, I see no reason not to have large, publicly owned retail stores who import from multinationals based on public demand). I'd make sure that there was no private education (admittedly not a huge chunk of the market anyway), no private healthcare (again, not a huge chunk of the market) and I'd promote/enforce wide-scale nationalised farming (again, it may not appear a pressing issue, but in the break-up and equal redistribution of land you could create massive nationalised farms, thus creating numerous jobs and providing far more food without the need to import). It's impossible to be of this opinion and not be used to being labelled naive, and I understand the scale of nationalisation I have outlined above is pretty damn implausible in the forseeable future - that's the charge often levelled at socialists. It's not a short term goal or a perfect outcome (or even remotely realistic), but I do believe it would go a long way to creating a fairer society.
I'm not oppsed to the idea of a state bank which can offer mortgages and such but I'd be wary of nationalising all banking, I mean like it or not financial services are huge for the UK economy, you'd be wiping out billions of pounds of tax there straightaway. I'd definitely stop the Bank Of England being independant of government as it is now, I think it's absurd that people with no democratic authority decide such important policy, I'd let the chancellor be in charge of the BOE and be responsible for it's desisions because currently there's no accountability.
I still don't see how half of those things you mentioned would be better off being publicly owned, how a public retail company be able to offer a better service than the private sector? I'd say there's a strong case for nationalising industries who provide an essential service to the public, like transport or energy providers, but I can't get my head around how public ownership of any of the retail or most of the service industry would help the public at all.
lethalnezzle wrote:
As far as the EU goes, you're totally right in saying it's a contentious issue. I mean, I don't see a reason in which a Britain largely dependent on the public sector shouldn't remain a part of the EU. It offers easy and well-regulated avenues for import and export, and the chance for people here who would be disenfranchised with the idea of a wage cap to fuck off elsewhere, to put it politely. I'm sure there are plenty within the EU for whom the offer of at least, say, £25,000 per year would be highly tempting, and I genuinely don't think we'd have any issue with either finding enough people to work, or in finding enough work for the people. However, I also have a very huge distrust of the Tories, and I find I am naturally inclined to disagree with anything they say, even when it appears entirely reasonable. I may have described myself as a pragmatic socialist previously, but in order to believe in any political extreme you have to be able to suspend reason to some extent. It makes me a lesser person, but I really do have trouble agreeing with the Tories even when I know I should. But, either way, I'm pro-European Union. I know a lot of commie mates who aren't, and it's another issue that prevents any unity within the hard left in this country. However, I see it as a case of once we get our house in order, then we can discuss the EU. If France were to tilt significantly to the left, as it appeared they would after the election results (although admittedly it hasn't come to fruition), you wouldn't expect them to leave the EU, but then they're reliant on the euro as currency. As far as what I've outlined above, it doesn't matter what currency we use, although I'd certainly be wary of sharing a currency with capitalist countries.
Yeah I though most hardcore lefties were against the single market and saw it as a block against socialism. Considering you have free trade between independant nations the theory is that it creates a race to the bottom with employment law and working conditions as the countries are competing with each other for business competitiveness. I only don't mind the free market because Britain is probably the most right wing country in it, if I was French I'd probably think that the likes of the UK's and Germany's relatively liberal economics and weaker employment legislation was forcing the country to the right.
Hmm I know what you mean about being biased, I try to be as cynical about Labour and the LibDems as I do about the Tories though, that seems to work. I almost think I like David Cameron sometimes though, on some topics he does make a lot of sense even though he is a slime. _________________ Shut up mate you're boring!
I still don't see how half of those things you mentioned would be better off being publicly owned, how a public retail company be able to offer a better service than the private sector? I'd say there's a strong case for nationalising industries who provide an essential service to the public, like transport or energy providers, but I can't get my head around how public ownership of any of the retail or most of the service industry would help the public at all.
I get why people don't see any point in nationalising the retail industry, but the argument for doing so is based on the fact that the more people within public sector work, the more you can regulate the wage structure and try and keep people on as equal wages as possible. If you left the retail industry entirely private, you'd see fluctuating wages, and particularly large wages at the top of the ladder, creating a sense of inequality and, subsequently, envy. The other option is to keep a public retail industry and create a law which says, "You cannot pay your workers less than £x or more than £y", but I wouldn't trust private, business-minded industries to stick to these guidelines, or even remain open for that matter. The idea is that as many people as possible need earn within a certain, solid guideline amount, and leaving the retail industry private creates problems within the upper echelons of that industry, in which people would no doubt be earning ten and twenty times as much as the lowest paid public sector workers who you need to keep on side. The only way to keep the public on side in a socialist society is to have transparent proof that nobody is earning significantly more than everybody else. So whilst it may seem a bit pointless economically, and even impractical to set up, it's all about proving to everybody that no-one should be earning more than they need - it will piss of the greedy amongst us, but it should keep the vast majority happy. Then the prime minister (or counsel, or the head(s) of whatever leadership structure you have in place) could say, quite sincerely, that we are indeed "all in it together".
I subscribe to the Gramsci school of thought whereby the working classes need to educate themselves in order to gain a greater understanding of the evils of capitalism
THIS THIS THIS! Education is key. _________________
I get why people don't see any point in nationalising the retail industry, but the argument for doing so is based on the fact that the more people within public sector work, the more you can regulate the wage structure and try and keep people on as equal wages as possible. If you left the retail industry entirely private, you'd see fluctuating wages, and particularly large wages at the top of the ladder, creating a sense of inequality and, subsequently, envy. The other option is to keep a public retail industry and create a law which says, "You cannot pay your workers less than £x or more than £y", but I wouldn't trust private, business-minded industries to stick to these guidelines, or even remain open for that matter. The idea is that as many people as possible need earn within a certain, solid guideline amount, and leaving the retail industry private creates problems within the upper echelons of that industry, in which people would no doubt be earning ten and twenty times as much as the lowest paid public sector workers who you need to keep on side. The only way to keep the public on side in a socialist society is to have transparent proof that nobody is earning significantly more than everybody else. So whilst it may seem a bit pointless economically, and even impractical to set up, it's all about proving to everybody that no-one should be earning more than they need - it will piss of the greedy amongst us, but it should keep the vast majority happy. Then the prime minister (or counsel, or the head(s) of whatever leadership structure you have in place) could say, quite sincerely, that we are indeed "all in it together".
I just don't think the retail industry, or most other industries, would be able to survive as publicly owned companies if they're competing with the private sector. I mean if you're talking about shops which only serve domestic customers then maybe, but only if you disallow privately owned retail businesses which seems a little crazy. And then if you think about companies who export, the UK's car industry for example, it would disappear overnight if you tried to nationalise it, they're either multinational companies to begin with who would just move operations abroad or they'd just be made so uncompetitive in the international market (coming back to the single market question and free trade in general) that they'd just collapse.
As for people at the top of an organisation getting paid significantly more, it doesn't really bother me as long as the people at the bottom of the organisation are getting treated well. I mean if you wanted you could significantly raise the minimum wage and change the balance of the tax system so that the lowest paid workers are massively better off, all without needing to nationalise anything. Anyway, we're not going to agree here I don't think _________________ Shut up mate you're boring!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
