Socialism, Should we give it another try?

I have concluded that, despite the stated unconcern about definitions, we are talking about different things when we use the term, "socialism".

After rereading his posts, I conclude that Einherjar uses the word mostly in reference to the social democrat policies of the Scandinavian states - capitalism with significant government ownership of some assets; substantial social welfare programs and the high taxes that go with it; regulated labor markets; and some degree of government involvement in directing the investment of capital resources - all within a democratic system. To varying degrees these are the policies currently advocated by the European political parties that label themselves as Socialist. Nimh makes that point as well.

I have no quarrel with these policies and don't think their presence has (or should have) any influence in our relations with countries or political leaders who advocate them. (see Walter's comment). These things merely represent the different choices democratic nations make for their internal governance. We have already noted the cultural, physical, and historical differences that have influenced these choices in Western Europe generally, Scandinavia, and the United States. I believe these differences are easily attributable to the different circumstances each nation/region faces.

However I do note that the ?'socialism' of Tony Blair is very different from the ?'socialism' of Harold Wilson, just as the ?'socialism' of President Mitterand was quite unlike that which was advocated by his own party before he was elected and by his French socialist predecessors. Even Western European ?'socialism' has evolved a good deal in the last fifty years, moving substantially towards less central planning of the economies, less public ownership of capital, and even slightly less participation by organized labor unions in the management of the economic enterprises. These changes were motivated by the economic sclerosis and loss of personal freedom attendant to these programs, carried to excess. The example of the effects of Margaret Thatcher's transformation of the British economy tells the tale quite well. (While she is reviled by her European critics, few of them appear to advocate a return to the policies which preceded her and which she undid.

I do believe the relatively mild forms of socialism currently practiced in Europe generally, and in Scandinavia particularly increase the difficulty these countries will face in adapting to (1) the demographic changes now underway throughout Europe (and the developed world); (2) the increased mobility of populations and attendant pressures for immigration; and (3) the increased economic competition from rapidly developing economies in Asia and the forces of globalization generally. Competition and globalization are combining with demographic shifts to challenge the Western countries' economic & political systems in new ways. Overall I believe the American model, (though in this regard it is an accidental result of our particular circumstances), is better suited for the challenges ahead than those currently in use in Europe. We shall see

0 Replies

good post, i agree

0 Replies

'The class war is over', declared Tony Blair at a Labour's conference some time ago [can't find the source for that]. 'The 21st century will not be about the battle between capitalism and socialism, but between the forces of progress and the forces of conservatism'.

I've attended a couple of Labour meetings, know some leading Labour members personally (from council/county councellars over MP up to a minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I've noticed that the difference between the basis (= 'normal' members up to councillers) and those "on the top" is much greater than e.g. in Germany.

Generally, I do think (and belive from own eyewitness and listening) that of all (central) European Socialist parties the Scandinavian are the most 'socialistic' ones, closely followed by the British.
The Germans don't really know, where they stand (quite similar to the British), and the French are conservatives with a different prefix.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
I tend to want to lable people and movements what they lable themselves.

So do I. That was my point. Yes, "The adherents of communism had this term clearly defined", in their theoretic handbooks, as the future end result/goal of the development of a socialist society of their brand. However, that did not stop them from founding parties across Europe called "Communist Party" - not, mostly, "Socialist Party". Note that the ruling party in the Soviet Union was, yes, the "Communist Party of the Soviet Union" (KPSS).

Communists are those who called themselves communists, sure, "I would tend to stick with that", too. Throughout most of Europe and most of the twentieth century, that has meant that "communists" - ie, those who organised in and voted for Communist parties - were those who were loyal to the Soviet Union and the Soviet model. Whereas most Socialist parties across free Europe did *not* profess any loyalty to or even affinity with the Soviet model.

Then I shall adopt that terminology when conversing with you.

I probably won't pick up the gauntlet if someone insists on a different definition though, I tend to be more entusiastic about ideas than lables.

Quote:

Einherjar wrote:
Arguments over definitions are useless, and I will adapt to whichever terminology is preffered by those with whom I am discussing.

And as someone from a socialist family and with strong socialist affinities, I will continue to speak up against anyone who equates socialism with communism, or who defines socialism as the system practiced in the Soviet Union.

You go right ahead.

And by the way, I'm something of a socialist myself. (by nimhs definition)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

We differ on the most fundamental level.

I value freedom much more highly than the merits of (forcibly) removing the homeless from the streets to government subsidized basic housing in poor neighborhoods.

Where in the world did "(forcibly)" come from?

georgeob1 wrote:

I doubt your ability (or anyone else's either) to plan and operate a system of subsidies and incentives, such as you describe, that will truly achieve its intended purpose without being corrupted by the excessive power given to those who operate it. History reveals numerous examples of this and, more importantly, no counterexamples.

I didn't know a system similar to what I envision had ever been implemented. The system I envision would be very simple, and I think it should work. Anyway, I think a similar effect can be accomplished by keeping collectively owned capital in banks.

georgeob1 wrote:

I know of no successful application of an economic system based in public ownership of capital, anywhere in the world, at any time in history. Ultimately force and coercion are required to make the system work even at a low level. Freedom and private ownership and enterprise have beaten command economies and tyranny in every encounter.

I know of no attemts to create a market economy based on collectively owned capital, do you?

georgeob1 wrote:

The measures you propose for education would make the state the effective parent of all children. This is not particularly new. Sparta tried it and Plato advocated it. Neither was the highest achievement of classical Greece. Mankind is not perfectible. Those who undertake to try this end up as tyrants.

What meassures did I propose again, let me see. Oh, a well funded public school without vouchers. And the problem is?

I propose nothing like the spartan system.

georgeob1 wrote:

The contrast between the social theories of the Soviets and the ghastly actions they took to put and keep their dysfunctional system in place was so stark, that I think no reasonable person could advocate repeating it. Even in the earliest days Lenin was blithely willing to proceed with the , "Elimination of the irreconcilables",.as he termed the murder of those who resisted or wouldn't go along.

I have never advocated dictatorship and political repression, which seems to be what you are attacking here.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Where in the world did "(forcibly)" come from?

George won't like it:

from Middle French, force + -ible :wink:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

What always puzzles me in these days is that certain US-Americans have such a high opinion about e.g. Tony Blair and such a low of e.g. Gerhard Schröder:

Tony Blair is the leader of the major democratic socialist party in Britain since the early 20th century.

A propos of this: if any of you with some prior ties/affinities/interest in the twentieth century's socialist and communist intrigues is in for a laff, then please do read this article:

Who are you calling an old Trot?

It's funny. What happened, apparently, is that firebrand leftie The Independent journalist Robert Fisk rhetorically called Jack Straw, the now-tough-line New Labour Foreign Secretary (who made his name adopting the harshest rhetorics on crime any Labour politician ever engaged in and now fiercely defends Blair's pro-US, pro-Iraq war position), "that old Trot".

Ouch. Jack Straw, let it be known, was not ever a Trotskyite, as he immediately and empassionately wrote in a letter to The Independent editors. In fact, he "was first taught to spot a Trot at 50 yards" as a 19-year-old lad in 1965 "by Mr. Bert Ramelson, Yorkshire industrial organiser of the Communist Party". Ah yes, Bert Ramelson - the most influential communist in Britain - not a Trotskyite, indeed, but rather an unrepentant Stalinist, "whose faith survived even the discovery in 1956 that his sister had spent 20 years in a Soviet Labour camp". And Jack Straw's mentor in vigilance against Trotskyite deviances, apparently.

In what, it seems, became a whole correspondence between Straw and The Independent correspondents, Straw proceeded to entertainingly revive all the anachonistic formulas of that bitter inter-Communist feud of back then, once again lambasting Trotskyites for "revanchism, false consciousness, and objectively counter-revolutionary tendencies." Just so you know. He quoted Lenin about it and all - "fortunately, the Foreign Office library still has Lenin's complete works ..."

Titillated, The Independent quickly takes the opportunity to do a little mapping of Blair's New Labour stalwarts, those pioneers of the reformist Third Way ideology that was to leave all continental socialdemocratic parties looking like they were stuck in Chernenko's Politburo.

Just so you know: Gordon Brown, perennial "crown prince" of New Labour? Former Trotskyite. Peter Mandelson, European Commissioner? Former Communist, led a delegation to Cuba. John Reid, Secratary of State for Health? Former Communist. David Blunkett, Home Secretary? Former leader of the Sheffield City Council when it was known as "the socialist republic of South Yorkshire". Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for Education? Former President of Communist-steered student organisation. Alan Milburn, Labour's election planner? In Trotskyite days, manager of a socialist bookstore. Margaret Hodge, Minister for Children? "Former leader of Islington Council where she had a bust of Lenin installed in the town hall."

Dennis MacShane, minister for Europe, Paul Boateng, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Trevor Phillips, CRE chairman, Alan Johnson, Work and Pensions Secretary - all once part of what The Independent, tongue-in-cheek, dubs the "Stalinist wing" and the "Trotskyite wing". Hell, the New Labour Cabinet probably has more former Communists than the Yanukovich election campaign ... Razz

But - it seems they all get along perfectly fine when they now gather around the Cabinet table to devise yet another way to break down the welfare state ;-)

0 Replies

Just to be annoying, i thought i'd point out that the Etruscans (more properly known as Tuscans) lived in Etruria . . . just to be annoying . . . maybe it's my Hernican ancestors . . .

0 Replies

Many of you that are against communism and regurgetate facts thrown at you from conservative americain press have no idea of what you talk of. Have you ever been to Cuba... for most of you the answer will be no, and why is that , it is because the supposed land of the free has placed an embargo on cuba and forced a halt of all flights to cuba leaving all those with the will to vistit no possible way. I've been to Cuba and some other "third world countries" and what I saw in Cuba was far better that the dominican where people live in boxes. Everyone in cuba has a place to live and rations to maintain a healthy life style. Those who criticize with no real knowledge should stop talking.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

GeneralTsao wrote:
And I tend to define "successful" as allowing all citizens freedom to rise to any [..] financial level they so choose, un- or minimally-impeded by their own government.

Heh.

Thats kinda like defining a "successful" capitalist government as one that accords each citizen the state-provided guarantee of work, a living wage and decent working conditions ...

GeneralTsao wrote:
I would also like case histories of which great inventions came about (or were made practical or efficient) under socialist regimes. For instance, vacuum cleaners, automobiles, airplanes, the microchip and computers, ..

Well, if we're going to fall into the trap of talking about the communist Soviet states when the topic was socialism, then this would be the one score where apologists of those states would have something to come up with ... I mean, they were the first in space (Sputnik, Laika) and all that ...

Correction, the Germans were the first in space, sent a V2 up there.

0 Replies

hornetguy wrote:

Correction, the Germans were the first in space, sent a V2 up there.

I'm quite sure nobody fitted a german in that V2.

0 Replies

Perhaps James would like to live in the Cuban Socialist paradise. (He might even find someone to improve his English grammar.) Castro will die soon. There will be a struggle for power among brother and deputies, but the rotten regime will quickly fall. A flood of Cuban émigrés will return from Florida seeking lost property and new economic opportunity. However the Cuban people, thoroughly enervated by a generation of totalitarian socialism, will sit back, watch, and wait for their share - of very little indeed. Cuba will again become the pawn of her own criminal class and an adult playground for foreigners.

0 Replies

Quote:

The contrast between the social theories of the Soviets and the ghastly actions they took to put and keep their dysfunctional system in place was so stark, that I think no reasonable person could advocate repeating it. Even in the earliest days Lenin was blithely willing to proceed with the , "Elimination of the irreconcilables",.as he termed the murder of those who resisted or wouldn't go along.

The phrase "Elimination of the irreconcilables" caught my attention and reminded me of this story, which could, I suppose, be entitled "Elimination of the helpless".

Quote:

Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A hospital in the Netherlands ?- the first nation to permit euthanasia ?- recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives ?- a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.

Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.

Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican (news - web sites) have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.

"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.

"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."

According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.

Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people.

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.

Source

0 Replies

Personally I think, that if a person is terminally ill, and has no ability to choose whether he wants to live or die, and there is no family member objecting in anyway, that euthanization is fine. Why make the person suffer, especially if the have free will and ask to be killed in a painless way so that suffering may end.

0 Replies

I don't really understand, what euthanasia has to do with socialism, ignorant that I am.

0 Replies

Walter - absolutely nothing, except that when I first read this story, the country in which it's happening jumped out at me.

A Socialist country that is totally against the death penalty (or so I've heard), the Dutch think Americans are inhumane in putting convicted criminals to death.

Allowing euthanasia for babies, the retarded and the elderly is ok, though.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

A Socialist country that is totally against the death penalty (or so I've heard), the Dutch think Americans are inhumane in putting convicted criminals to death.

Allowing euthanasia for babies, the retarded and the elderly is ok, though.

Obviously, JustWonder, you don't follow what is called "International News"/"International Politics":

Quote:

head of government: Prime Minister Jan Peter BALKENENDE (since 22 July 2002) and Deputy Prime Ministers Gerrit ZALM (since 27 May 2003) and Thom DE GRAAF (since 27 May 2003)
[...]
elections: First Chamber - last held 25 May 2003 (next to be held NA May 2007); Second Chamber - last held 22 January 2003 (next to be held NA January 2007)
election results: First Chamber - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - CDA 23, PvdA 19, VVD 15, Green Party 5, Socialist Party 4, D66 3, other 6; Second Chamber - percent of vote by party - CDA 28.6%, PvdA 27.3%, VVD 12.9%, Socialist Party 6.3%, List Pim Fortuyn 5.7%, Green Party 5.1%, D66 4.1%; seats by party - CDA 44, PvdA 42, VVD 28, Socialist Party 9, List Pim Fortuyn 8, Green Party 8, D66 6, other 5
[...]
Political parties and leaders:
Christian Democratic Appeal or CDA [Maxime Jacques Marcel VERHAGEN]; Christian Union Party [Andre ROUVOET]; Democrats 66 or D66 [Boris DITTRICH]; Green Party [Femke HALSEMA]; Labor Party or PvdA [Wouter BOS]; List Pim Fortuyn [Mat HERBEN]; People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (Liberal) or VVD [Jozias VAN AARTSEN]; Socialist Party [Jan MARIJNISSEN]; a host of minor parties

from the CIA World Factbook

JustWonders wrote:

A Socialist country that is totally against the death penalty (or so I've heard), the Dutch think Americans are inhumane in putting convicted criminals to death.

Could you name one (European) conservative country, which is pro-death penalty?

JustWonders wrote:

I taught 5th grade last year and the year before. They rocked my world.

(on another thread)

I sincerely hope, not 'Politics' or similar!

0 Replies

Killing people who have the ability to live (criminals given death penalty) and people who are suffering or in the case of babies who will live a life of suffering, if the parents agree that they would rather kill their child now then put it through a lfie of suffering, why not let them do that. It should be their choice.

0 Replies

Until what age would you have this right of parents to kill their offspring continue? At what point do you believe the state should consider or attempt to defend the survival interest of the child?

0 Replies

I would say within 6 months after birth, set a definite limit, if they know for sure its borne with a horrible defections or is terminally ill babies. My view is just try and prevent suffering, and if an adult who is suffering wants to do kill theirself with medical assistance, i dont think its the states decision.

0 Replies

Socialism, Should we give it another try?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know