Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Socialism/communism has demonstrated a lack of ability to feed people. Mainly due to states having control rather than markets.
Killing millions of people is a human trait not one of a political persuasion. Although between mao and Stalin they’re winning.
Neither Mao nor Stalin presided over societies in which the working class were in control. Ergo they were not socialist. Unless you have incontrovertible evidence that they were socialist societies?
Neither Mao nor Stalin presided over societies in which the working class were in control. Ergo they were not socialist. Unless you have incontrovertible evidence that they were socialist societies?
Has there ever been such a society? Or could there ever be?
Define socialism....
I found this
noun
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.
Which basically says the state run everything. State control has failed to work. Stalin and Mao may not have represented the workers very well but they were the state.
Socialism, communism, what is there not to like in theory? Reality is the problem. It is human nature, indeed, nature in general, to put yourself, your family and those you connect with first. If you are expected, contrary to these feelings, to work to fund others with who you feel no connection, no sympathy, you a) are going to make less effort or b) find other ways to serve yourself. Why communist states have a) always failed economically and b) always been corrupt.
Has there ever been such a society? Or could there ever be?
Define socialism....
I found this
noun
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.
Which basically says the state run everything. State control has failed to work. Stalin and Mao may not have represented the workers very well but they were the state.
The community as a whole and the state are not equivalent. It seems to me extraordinary that anyone could think so. State control is not a necessary feature of socialism. And according to your definition it can only be a feature of socialism where the community as a whole is in control of the state. Which clearly was not the case under Mao or Stalin, who were dictators.
Socialism, communism, what is there not to like in theory? Reality is the problem. It is human nature, indeed, nature in general, to put yourself, your family and those you connect with first. If you are expected, contrary to these feelings, to work to fund others with who you feel no connection, no sympathy, you a) are going to make less effort or b) find other ways to serve yourself. Why communist states have a) always failed economically and b) always been corrupt.
That’s not quite what I was saying.
I’ll summarise my view... state control is not as good as the free market in determining the price of goods and therefore, by extrapolation, the production and distribution of said goods.
Socialism, communism, what is there not to like in theory? Reality is the problem. It is human nature, indeed, nature in general, to put yourself, your family and those you connect with first. If you are expected, contrary to these feelings, to work to fund others with who you feel no connection, no sympathy, you a) are going to make less effort or b) find other ways to serve yourself. Why communist states have a) always failed economically and b) always been corrupt.
Then why are people willing to die for their country? That doesn't seen to fit with your idea of human nature.
Comment