A peaceful thread about Socialism

[Teasmaid]

Picking up from the car crash of the Russell Brand thread, there was some debate over Socialism, and what it actually means. Obviously the dictionary definition pertains to public ownership, but aside from that there are massive grey areas. I would consider myself a fairly staunch socialist. I believe that a society has a duty to look after those who are needy, and treat people fairly. I'm always being labelled a Commie, which is far from the truth, as I'm massively liberal.

 

Having said that, since setting up a business 4 years ago, and having attempted to put my Socialist principles into effect in the workplace, I am feeling quite demoralised at the moment as looking after the staff sometimes means having the piss taken. I definitely feel slightly less inclined to make sacrifices for the benefit of the masses than I did a few years back. I've got out now, but I can see how people could end up turning into a bitter Tory. 

 

So the purpose of the thread is to discuss "What is Socialism, and what does it mean to you?" (I've got loads more to say, but I didn't want to begin with a long post.)

[Section_31]

I think the famous phrase 'from each according to his ability, to each according to their need' is what I view socialism as, beyond that I think it's a very broad church.

 

My mate used to attend socialist workers party meetings and some of their ideas sounded pretty horrific, forcibly nationalising the top 50 FTSE companies for example? I think healthcare, education and utilities should be national though as they belong to everyone.

 

For me, if you want a good example of what I think socialism should be then look no further than the post war Labour government. Free health care for all, house building programmes, infrastructure imvestment, benefits for those who need it, pensions. There was also a healthy dose of national pride involved, with later projects like Concorde under Tony Benn.

 

It's ironic that the people who do most of the moaning in this country, the Daily Mail foot soldiers, are the ageing baby boomers with their nicely appreciating houses, two false hips and final salary pension schemes, the people who have benefited most from 'socialism', been cared for and protected by 'the community' pulling together all their lives, are now quite happy to see us go back to a survival of the fittest culture where tbe law of the jungle reigns.

[stringvest]

I think the famous phrase 'from each according to his ability, to each according to their need' is what I view socialism as, beyond that I think it's a very broad church.

 

My mate used to attend socialist workers party meetings and some of their ideas sounded pretty horrific, forcibly nationalising the top 50 FTSE companies for example? I think healthcare, education and utilities should be national though as they belong to everyone.

 

For me, if you want a good example of what I think socialism should be then look no further than the post war Labour government. Free health care for all, house building programmes, infrastructure imvestment, benefits for those who need it, pensions. There was also a healthy dose of national pride involved, with later projects like Concorde under Tony Benn.

 

It's ironic that the people who do most of the moaning in this country, the Daily Mail foot soldiers, are the ageing baby boomers with their nicely appreciating houses, two false hips and final salary pension schemes, the people who have benefited most from 'socialism', been cared for and protected by 'the community' pulling together all their lives, are now quite happy to see us go back to a survival of the fittest culture where tbe law of the jungle reigns.

 

Agree with all of that Mark.  Healthcare, Education, Utilities, Transport, Landline and landline broadband.  When the beige revolution comes, they're all being purloined by the state.  

[Champ]

They've pretty much got them as it is.

 

And the postal service

[Moo]

It's ironic that the people who do most of the moaning in this country, the Daily Mail foot soldiers, are the ageing baby boomers with their nicely appreciating houses, two false hips and final salary pension schemes, the people who have benefited most from 'socialism', been cared for and protected by 'the community' pulling together all their lives, are now quite happy to see us go back to a survival of the fittest culture where tbe law of the jungle reigns.

I don't know if it's a peculiar British thing but it's noticeable in this country that once a working class person reaches a certain level of success, or perceived success, they like to promote themselves to middle class, and with that comes a less socialist outlook. It's some kind of inferiority complex I think, that it should even matter how they are perceived, and it allows them the comfort of looking down on others.

[Strontium]

Socialism is about greater equality of outcomes. Very much a system that believes the ends justify the means, and all too frequently the means involve expanding the size of the state, and the attendant loss of individual liberty that a larger state entails.

 

Surely all societies have a duty of care to the people who live within them. Things like healthcare, pensions, housing and so on are by no means exclusive to socialism. Socialism has no monopoly on a social conscience, however much socialists might like to think otherwise.

[stringvest]

Socialism is about greater equality of outcomes. Very much a system that believes the ends justify the means, and all too frequently the means involve expanding the size of the state, and the attendant loss of individual liberty that a larger state entails.

 

Surely all societies have a duty of care to the people who live within them. Things like healthcare, pensions, housing and so on are by no means exclusive to socialism. Socialism has no monopoly on a social conscience, however much socialists might like to think otherwise.

 

They require a bigger state than the coalition has earmarked to provide and administer those services though Stronts.  Liberalism isn't going to provide them.  So socialism is pretty much the only game in town if you want your society cared for.  

[VladimirIlyich]

Socialism is about greater equality of outcomes. Very much a system that believes the ends justify the means, and all too frequently the means involve expanding the size of the state, and the attendant loss of individual liberty that a larger state entails.

 

Surely all societies have a duty of care to the people who live within them. Things like healthcare, pensions, housing and so on are by no means exclusive to socialism. Socialism has no monopoly on a social conscience, however much socialists might like to think otherwise.

Not true.

Providing people with enough to live fairly,ie a living wage and not just a wage actually unburdens the state and allows for greater and better use of taxes and dues collected.

We have now,and have had for about the last 20 years or so,a system were people are working and still having to claim benefits too,thereby giving unscrupulous employers the best of both worlds and burdening the state while avoiding doing their bit too.

This is simply uneconomic and highly corrosive for the country as a whole.

 

[melons]

 I am feeling quite demoralised at the moment as looking after the staff sometimes means having the piss taken. I definitely feel slightly less inclined to make sacrifices for the benefit of the masses than I did a few years back. 

To be fair, I'd be having a month off on the sick every year if i worked for you. Right now i'd give up one of my kids (the youngest daughter) for the perks you offered your staff. 

 

 

For me socialism means no-one doing without, that doesn't mean that all should have the 42" flat screen ect in every room of the house, it means that there is enough. There is enough that no-one goes without access to adequate provision, such as food, heat, healthcare. It means those with the ability to contribute for a more equal society do so. That's not saying tax the middle class to buggery, it's ensuring corporations stop taking the piss more than anything. 

[Gnasher]

For me Socialism should start by swinging every person with a conservative tendency from the nearest lampost. Then we take it from there.

[William Morris]

It's no surprise when people adopt their own version of Socialism when the Labour party isn't even a Socialist party and, much of the population of the biggest, most influential and important country in the democratic, western world, doesn't recognise the difference between Socialism and Communism.

The right wing establishment in this and other western countries have done a great job of marginalising Socialism and making it look almost defunct, to the point where there is no real Socialist alternative any more.

And imagine if a new genuinely left wing party was formed, one which was let's say, as far to the left as UKIP is to the right.

It would be mocked and ridiculed and in the unlikely event of it ever becoming a threat, would be demonised by the vast majority of the media in order to destroy it. Which would mark a stark contrast to the way UKIP was received as being some sort of major party of opposition before it even had any MPs, Euro MPs or even councillors at one stage.

And being William Morris, I know about such matters as I was ridiculed, demonised and even threatened with arrest myself for daring to try and get people interested in Socialism.

 

Oh and just in case anyone hasn't already done so, they should make a point of reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists which will explain a thing or two on all matters regarding Socialism, as well as making it clear that even today, all these years later, some things never change.

[Carvalho Diablo]

Be excellent to each other.

 

[KopOut]

I would argue that having a central banking / commercial banking based monetory policy, as most countries have now, is actually having a socialist setup at the heart of a free market economy.

 

Current monetory policy, INCLUDING QE is socialist in that it is a heavily discounted monopoly on NEW MONEY. Rather than allowing multiple regional currencies to stand or fall in free market conditions - issued by local bodies - governments give commercial banks the exclusive right to lend new money into a given economy. Thats not capitalism at all, it's state controlled monetory policy. Which is why the world now runs on debt.

 

Honestly, if the billions of QE pounds and dollars were simply put in everyone's personal bank accounts, the result would be far more effective.

 

[Moo]

Honestly, if the billions of QE pounds and dollars were simply put in everyone's personal bank accounts, the result would be far more effective.

But it's not, so it makes your point far less effective.

[Section_31]

I don't think you need a strong state for socialism to flourish, you just need people to realise there's more to be gained by working together of their own free will than there is apart.

 

We paint our societies as being based purely on self determination, but of course they're not, as even the most neo liberal banker is protected by an army and a police, served by paramedics and train guards, has his bins emptied etc.

 

State collectivism is all well and good when he wants it, but not when he wants to keep his taxes it would seem.

 

I have no problem with someone like that owning a sports car, none at all, which is how the argument is often deliberately misrepresented, what I do have a problem with is when he takes part in endeavours which weaken the state, put other people out of work en mass, or otherwise put his own material happiness above the ability of others to stay warm in a freezing house or put shoes on their kids' feet.

 

You don't need a state to enforce that, you need a philosophy. Look at the way the Japanese queued in silence for hours for water following the tsunami, then compare that with the recent black Friday embarrassment where people were getting their throats stood on for the sake of a pair of Kenwood speakers.

 

That's not about that state, it's about values, values which come through the media, pop culture, from politicians.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'm the kind of "Socialist" that revolutionary Socialists hate.  I'd like the current system (politics, the economy, cultural values, etc.) to be radically overhauled and reformed.  But I don't want a violent revolution.  I want step-by-step reform.  For example, right now the majority of people in this country would be happy to see the nationalisation of utilities and rail; a reversal of the privatisation of healthcare and education; higher taxes for the highest paid; a living wage; more affordable housing; reform (or abolition) of the House of Lords; etc.  There is a lot that a left-leaning government could implement to widespread support.  It wouldn't yet be Socialism, but it would be a step in the right direction.  Once those things have been achieved, why not test the national mood, to see if there's an appetite for more progressive measures?

[kemskem]

I'm the kind of "Socialist" that revolutionary Socialists hate.  I'd like the current system (politics, the economy, cultural values, etc.) to be radically overhauled and reformed.  But I don't want a violent revolution.  I want step-by-step reform.  For example, right now the majority of people in this country would be happy to see the nationalisation of utilities and rail; a reversal of the privatisation of healthcare and education; higher taxes for the highest paid; a living wage; more affordable housing; reform (or abolition) of the House of Lords; etc.  There is a lot that a left-leaning government could implement to widespread support.  It wouldn't yet be Socialism, but it would be a step in the right direction.  Once those things have been achieved, why not test the national mood, to see if there's an appetite for more progressive measures?

i personally think being told to give up half of your hard earned or more (through income tax, council tax and the rest) is immoral. If I was going to give more to the needy I'd rather give to charity than to a wasteful government. 40% income tax at the higher rate is about right.

[Jairzinho]

I think we could do with more tax brackets.

 

Somebody on £15m a year should be taxed at a higher rate than someone on 150k.

[RJ Fan club]

It's all a sop until we get rid of monarchy.

 

It's a fucking joke that in the 21st century we have a system where there are people born with that level of power, influence and ultimately wealth at everybody's expense.

 

I have no problem with those who achieve more developing more power, wealth and influence. Meritocracy is fine, but I refuse to accept anybody should be born 'better' than me or anybody else.

 

We can't really have a parliament or a serious political system with reform and betterment of social standards for everybody else, when they swear allegiance to a head of state placed by birth right.

 

If anyone thinks they don't have power and influence your very badly mistaken. If anything it appears to have lurched since that jug eared cunt is readying himself and Lizzy got pulled into the Scottish question.

 

I'm not sure I know what my full thoughts are about socialism, but I do and would advocate those with the ability to pay, to oay more and according to need. I'm not sure is stretch as far as some on state intervention though.

[Teasmaid]

Some really interesting responses, and it shows there's no true modern definition of 'socialism' these days.

 

I have no problem with someone like that owning a sports car, none at all, which is how the argument is often deliberately misrepresented, what I do have a problem with is when he takes part in endeavours which weaken the state, put other people out of work en mass, or otherwise put his own material happiness above the ability of others to stay warm in a freezing house or put shoes on their kids' feet.

That sums it up for me. When we started the business, it was my priority that we took care of our staff. For the first 3 years we barely broke even, invested everything we had, worked ridiculously long hours, 7 days a week, and took minimal (often no) wages. I worked out that over that period, mr SKI and I probably worked for about 2 quid an hour. We were stressed and exhausted, and talked about throwing it in loads of times. The only thing that kept us going was that we had 60+ full-time employees who we're depending on us. Despite all that, we really do go out of our way for our staff. Even our 16 year old apprentices, who we could legally pay £82 a week to, are all on living wage. They get private healthcare, pensions, and much more holidays, sick pay etc than the legal minimum. As a start-up business, this crippled us, but we did without to treat them right. Aside from the usual perks, we've always tried to foster a culture whereby the staff can always turn to us when they need to. We've lent them money when they've been in trouble, interest-free, and let them repay it a bit each month out of their wages. We always tell them that family comes first, and if their kids are ill, their Mum's had a stroke, or whatever the crisis, they go home and don't come back till they're able. All on full pay. I send them flowers if they've had a shitty week, just little things that show them they're valued.

 

Anyway, the tipping point for me was when a member of staff came and told us she was in a pickle. She had a leaky roof that she couldn't afford to get fixed and was being sued by her next door neighbour for damage to their property. She'd tried to get a loan but couldn't, so could we lend her the money for a new roof? Mr SKI agreed, even though it was the 3rd big loan she'd had from us, and lent her the money. The following week she put in a holiday request for 2 weeks off to go to the Caribbean. I was fuming. We'd stretched to a week in Devon for our family holiday, me and my husband drive the oldest, shittest cars in the company. It just showed me that no matter what you do for people, they always want more. Some of their attitudes stink. When I've asked for a response to a really important email only to be told "I didn't notice it till gone 5 o'clock on Friday, so I'm not prepared to reply till 9am Monday because my weekend's my own" I feel like saying "We're both working 100 hours a week for fuck all so you've got the benefit of a job, and a weekend off, and if you couldn't spare 2 minutes of that you can fuck off". Of course, I don't say that, it's not their problem. As my husband always tells me, we pay them to do a job, not to be grateful. I still think it's a 2 way street.

[stringvest]

Honestly, if the billions of QE pounds and dollars were simply put in everyone's personal bank accounts, the result would be far more effective.

 

If it had been invested in housing, education and infrastructure, this country would be in a massively better state, and the tax coffers would be full to bursting.

[Spy Bee]

Some really interesting responses, and it shows there's no true modern definition of 'socialism' these days.

 

 

That sums it up for me. When we started the business, it was my priority that we took care of our staff. For the first 3 years we barely broke even, invested everything we had, worked ridiculously long hours, 7 days a week, and took minimal (often no) wages. I worked out that over that period, mr SKI and I probably worked for about 2 quid an hour. We were stressed and exhausted, and talked about throwing it in loads of times. The only thing that kept us going was that we had 60+ full-time employees who we're depending on us. Despite all that, we really do go out of our way for our staff. Even our 16 year old apprentices, who we could legally pay £82 a week to, are all on living wage. They get private healthcare, pensions, and much more holidays, sick pay etc than the legal minimum. As a start-up business, this crippled us, but we did without to treat them right. Aside from the usual perks, we've always tried to foster a culture whereby the staff can always turn to us when they need to. We've lent them money when they've been in trouble, interest-free, and let them repay it a bit each month out of their wages. We always tell them that family comes first, and if their kids are ill, their Mum's had a stroke, or whatever the crisis, they go home and don't come back till they're able. All on full pay. I send them flowers if they've had a shitty week, just little things that show them they're valued.

 

Anyway, the tipping point for me was when a member of staff came and told us she was in a pickle. She had a leaky roof that she couldn't afford to get fixed and was being sued by her next door neighbour for damage to their property. She'd tried to get a loan but couldn't, so could we lend her the money for a new roof? Mr SKI agreed, even though it was the 3rd big loan she'd had from us, and lent her the money. The following week she put in a holiday request for 2 weeks off to go to the Caribbean. I was fuming. We'd stretched to a week in Devon for our family holiday, me and my husband drive the oldest, shittest cars in the company. It just showed me that no matter what you do for people, they always want more. Some of their attitudes stink. When I've asked for a response to a really important email only to be told "I didn't notice it till gone 5 o'clock on Friday, so I'm not prepared to reply till 9am Monday because my weekend's my own" I feel like saying "We're both working 100 hours a week for fuck all so you've got the benefit of a job, and a weekend off, and if you couldn't spare 2 minutes of that you can fuck off". Of course, I don't say that, it's not their problem. As my husband always tells me, we pay them to do a job, not to be grateful. I still think it's a 2 way street.

Herzberg nailed it with his hygiene factors. You give, they take, they expect.

[melons]

i personally think being told to give up half of your hard earned or more (through income tax, council tax and the rest) is immoral. If I was going to give more to the needy I'd rather give to charity than to a wasteful government. 40% income tax at the higher rate is about right.

 

Hard earned? Seriously? Many of those in the higher income bracket are there because of who they know, not what they know. I reckon that young lad working his bollocks off in the factory paying him minimum wage is hard earned, not the banker in the city sat at a desk bringing down the economy but smiling at the thought of the nice shiney BMW he's buying out of the fat cat bonus he's about to get. 

 

Too right they should be paying more than the current rates. Though i agree with Jairzinho, there should be more brackets and those on the higher incomes again should be on a higher rate than the previous thresholds. airzinho

[Jairzinho]

Hard earned? Seriously? Many of those in the higher income bracket are there because of who they know, not what they know. I reckon that young lad working his bollocks off in the factory paying him minimum wage is hard earned, not the banker in the city sat at a desk bringing down the economy but smiling at the thought of the nice shiney BMW he's buying out of the fat cat bonus he's about to get. 

 

Too right they should be paying more than the current rates. Though i agree with Jairzinho, there should be more brackets and those on the higher incomes again should be on a higher rate than the previous thresholds. airzinho

 

And I agree with your disagreement of the notion that everyone earning big money has done so through hard work. 

 

It's hard to know what the rates would have to be at to adequately provide every single person in the country a life of dignity. We lose literally hundreds of billions a year due to loopholes exploited by rich individuals and major corporations. If we started beating these people to death, sorry, I mean put them in jail, it may act as a sufficient deterrent, so that maybe a 40% or 45% top rate of tax would be fine.

 

The actual numbers 40%/50%/60% aren't the most important thing, it's the attitudes. If society continues to be run for and by a very small collection of rich bellends then it barely matters which arbitrary figures are plucked out and then used as propaganda by the government. For example, Labour could get in at the next election, put it back up to 50%, yet whilst they take donations from Lakshmi Mittal and David Sainsbury you can guess the direction society will take. We need to entirely remove the influence of money in politics. We need a democracy. 65% of the country wants to renationalise energy and the railways, 0% of the major parties do.

[VladimirIlyich]

Some really interesting responses, and it shows there's no true modern definition of 'socialism' these days.

 

 

That sums it up for me. When we started the business, it was my priority that we took care of our staff. For the first 3 years we barely broke even, invested everything we had, worked ridiculously long hours, 7 days a week, and took minimal (often no) wages. I worked out that over that period, mr SKI and I probably worked for about 2 quid an hour. We were stressed and exhausted, and talked about throwing it in loads of times. The only thing that kept us going was that we had 60+ full-time employees who we're depending on us. Despite all that, we really do go out of our way for our staff. Even our 16 year old apprentices, who we could legally pay £82 a week to, are all on living wage. They get private healthcare, pensions, and much more holidays, sick pay etc than the legal minimum. As a start-up business, this crippled us, but we did without to treat them right. Aside from the usual perks, we've always tried to foster a culture whereby the staff can always turn to us when they need to. We've lent them money when they've been in trouble, interest-free, and let them repay it a bit each month out of their wages. We always tell them that family comes first, and if their kids are ill, their Mum's had a stroke, or whatever the crisis, they go home and don't come back till they're able. All on full pay. I send them flowers if they've had a shitty week, just little things that show them they're valued.

 

Anyway, the tipping point for me was when a member of staff came and told us she was in a pickle. She had a leaky roof that she couldn't afford to get fixed and was being sued by her next door neighbour for damage to their property. She'd tried to get a loan but couldn't, so could we lend her the money for a new roof? Mr SKI agreed, even though it was the 3rd big loan she'd had from us, and lent her the money. The following week she put in a holiday request for 2 weeks off to go to the Caribbean. I was fuming. We'd stretched to a week in Devon for our family holiday, me and my husband drive the oldest, shittest cars in the company. It just showed me that no matter what you do for people, they always want more. Some of their attitudes stink. When I've asked for a response to a really important email only to be told "I didn't notice it till gone 5 o'clock on Friday, so I'm not prepared to reply till 9am Monday because my weekend's my own" I feel like saying "We're both working 100 hours a week for fuck all so you've got the benefit of a job, and a weekend off, and if you couldn't spare 2 minutes of that you can fuck off". Of course, I don't say that, it's not their problem. As my husband always tells me, we pay them to do a job, not to be grateful. I still think it's a 2 way street.

This is just human nature,to some at least and you had every right to tell this scrounger to do one in these circumstances. After two loans I suspect the warning signs were there.