‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party

[enginetorque]

‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party

really........................

[Opinionated]

‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party

really........................

No, the Labour Party, a once proud socialist party, who now resemble a right of centre mess with an unelected leader. Neither democratic or socialist as far as I can tell!

[LA]

New Labour is an economic and social disaster.
Even though Old Labour was an economically disastrous party, at least they believed in something.

[enginetorque]

New Labour is an economic and social disaster.
Even though Old Labour was an economically disastrous party, at least they believed in something.

No question - they believed in socialism - trouble is that socialism, laudible as as a notion for theorists, doesn't 'work' does it ?

Communism is socialism at the extreme end of that scale - all gone - failed - even China is 'Capitalist' with its economy now!

We need a viable opposition but Labour is finished - in another generation or two the party will be history!

[LA]

No question - they believed in socialism - trouble is that socialism, laudible as as a notion for theorists, doesn't 'work' does it ?

Communism is socialism at the extreme end of that scale - all gone - failed - even China is 'Capitalist' with its economy now!

We need a viable opposition but Labour is finished - in another generation or two the party will be history!

I agree.
It forces equality. Anything that involving force crumbles!

However, I personally prefer Communism to Socialism for one reason.
Socialism breeds an underclass who leach off everyone else.
Communism culls this underclass.

To receive help from the system you must be in the system.

[Kiwi 1691]

No question - they believed in socialism - trouble is that socialism, laudible as as a notion for theorists, doesn't 'work' does it ?

Communism is socialism at the extreme end of that scale - all gone - failed - even China is 'Capitalist' with its economy now!

We need a viable opposition but Labour is finished - in another generation or two the party will be history!

I enjoyed reading that, your ignorance rivals Flash's. I had a good laugh.

Whats laudable about socialism, I am in a socialist state. The recession has had a muted effect on NZ. I do not know a single person who has been affected by it. Our nation is recovering very fast (unlike many others). There are many very successful socialist nations around.

Communism is an idea of Utopia created by Karl Marx. Yes a failed idea, but many ideas are not successful.

As you pointed out that communism is an extreme form of Socialism. lets look at the opposite, Unregulated capitalism. Completely unregulated capitalism does not work either. As many have said "power corrupts" and in unregulated capitalism there are few govt rules and regulations to stop them.

China has been a capitalist state effectively since MAO died. Like the USSR was only a communist state until the "civil War" (ironic name for an invasion).


Yet again, I laugh at your ignorance.

[Kiwi 1691]

However, I personally prefer Communism to Socialism for one reason.
Socialism breeds an underclass who leach off everyone else.
Communism culls this underclass.

To receive help from the system you must be in the system.

Yet, again more ignorance.

The underclasses are generally small in socialist societies.

Take NZ for an example, the working for families programme to use tax credits to help working families on low incomes or with large families. It has worked so well that the recently elected right wing govt supports it.

Now lets look at the US.

The wealthiest state in the world, and yet there is much poverty. The govt dose not do enough as they believe that helping them is socialist, and as we all know the influential American Right in their ignorance sees socialism as evil. The American right may be diminishing, but it has many powerful lobby groups.

[enginetorque]

I agree.
It forces equality. Anything that involving force crumbles!

However, I personally prefer Communism to Socialism for one reason.
Socialism breeds an underclass who leach off everyone else.
Communism culls this underclass.

To receive help from the system you must be in the system.

Oh very four legs good - two legs bad.............!


Communism failed - what else do you need to know - the lessons of history are not difficult to glean?

Humans are simply 'not like that' - end of!

[enginetorque]

I enjoyed reading that, your ignorance rivals Flash's. I had a good laugh.

Whats laudable about socialism, I am in a socialist state. The recession has had a muted effect on NZ. I do not know a single person who has been affected by it. Our nation is recovering very fast (unlike many others). There are many very successful socialist nations around.

Communism is an idea of Utopia created by Karl Marx. Yes a failed idea, but many ideas are not successful.

As you pointed out that communism is an extreme form of Socialism. lets look at the opposite, Unregulated capitalism. Completely unregulated capitalism does not work either. As many have said "power corrupts" and in unregulated capitalism there are few govt rules and regulations to stop them.

China has been a capitalist state effectively since MAO died. Like the USSR was only a communist state until the "civil War" (ironic name for an invasion).


Yet again, I laugh at your ignorance.

I fear you seek Nirvana - you'll be a long time looking!

[enginetorque]

PS - NOBODY'S ignorance rivals Flash's (on here anyway)! :Cool:

[Kiwi 1691]

PS - NOBODY'S ignorance rivals Flash's (on here anyway)! :Cool:

Owned Flash

[Kiwi 1691]

I fear you seek Nirvana - you'll be a long time looking!

If only

I was correcting your view on socialism.

[LA]

Yet, again more ignorance.

The underclasses are generally small in socialist societies.

Take NZ for an example, the working for families programme to use tax credits to help working families on low incomes or with large families. It has worked so well that the recently elected right wing govt supports it.

Now lets look at the US.

The wealthiest state in the world, and yet there is much poverty. The govt dose not do enough as they believe that helping them is socialist, and as we all know the influential American Right in their ignorance sees socialism as evil. The American right may be diminishing, but it has many powerful lobby groups.

You say more ignorance then you state that there is an underclass.

So, like I said, Socialism breeds an underclass - You just admitted that.

Don't call my post ignorant when you just support it...

Oh very four legs good - two legs bad.............!


Communism failed - what else do you need to know - the lessons of history are not difficult to glean?

Humans are simply 'not like that' - end of!

Did I say I liked communism? no
Did I say communism was successful? no

I compared communism to socialism; two ideologies I dislike, and came to the conclusion I prefer communism out of the two for one reason.

Try reading the post.

[Kiwi 1691]

You say more ignorance then you state that there is an underclass.

So, like I said, Socialism breeds an underclass - You just admitted that.

Don't call my post ignorant when you just support it...

I did not say that socialism breeds an underclass, I said that the underclass (underprivileged or poverty stricken by western standards).

Is generally smaller because a socialist gov is generally more willing to introduce programs to help lift people out of the classification of underprivileged.

There are underprivileged in all societies, not just socialist ones.

That us very different from what you said, your ability to understand clear statements seems to be lacking recently.

So my statement on your ignorance stays.

[LA]

I did not say that socialism breeds an underclass, I said that the underclass (underprivileged or poverty stricken by western standards).

Is generally smaller because a socialist gov is generally more willing to introduce programs to help lift people out of the classification of underprivileged.

There are underprivileged in all societies, not just socialist ones.

That us very different from what you said, your ability to understand clear statements seems to be lacking recently.

So my statement on your ignorance stays.

So any society has an underclass... meaning a socialist society has an underclass meaning either way, I am still right in saying what I said...

In practise socialism does not pick people up and help them.
People become lazy and realise they can earn more doing absolutely nothing than they can working.

So they leach off the state.

[Expounder]

Gordon Brown's Statesman of the year award.


US foundation names Gordon Brown world statesman of the year | Politics | guardian.co.uk

[JAMC]

My 2 pence;

Socialism vs Communism:
Communism is the revolutionary method, socialism is the goal of that method and other methods e.g. democratic socialism.

The end goal in all scenarios, revolutionary or not, is the establishment of a classless society attained through common ownership.

What you're discussing isn't socialism, it's the redistributive policies of centrist parties that have retained the 'socialist' tag from more radical times. More specifically, you're discussing the failure of such policies.

Labour for example are not socialist in the pure sense (Clause IV was their socialist declaration, removed in 1995), but their policy of spending tax revenues in a redistributive manner on benefits or tax credits has, as LA points out, created an underclass locked in depencency of this policy. In creating a new underclass (or expanding an existing one depending on how you view it) Labour's policy cannot be described as socialist in either it's intent (redistributive measures are merely transient, and not a genuine convergence of classes) or it's outcome (creating a new underclass runs utterly contrary to the underlying principle of 'true' socialism).

Neither the capitalist or the.... let's call it "Blairite way" attain socialist ends because in every case the result has been social stratification and class dependence. The only difference between the two is that in Blair's version the state (tax system) acts as a proxy between the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

[JAMC]

No question - they believed in socialism - trouble is that socialism, laudible as as a notion for theorists, doesn't 'work' does it ?

Depends what you think it is supposed to accomplish. If you hold the communist countries of the 20th century up to a capitalist criteria of success, then yes they fail miserably. If you look at why those countries became communist in the first place, then it's a different story.

[angelcountry]

Lovely gil, what a role model.

[enginetorque]

Depends what you think it is supposed to accomplish. If you hold the communist countries of the 20th century up to a capitalist criteria of success, then yes they fail miserably. If you look at why those countries became communist in the first place, then it's a different story.

Point me to a 'successful' communist state/country/society ?

[Kiwi 1691]

Point me to a 'successful' communist state/country/society ?

Did you even read JAMC's post

Depends what you think it is supposed to accomplish. If you hold the communist countries of the 20th century up to a capitalist criteria of success, then yes they fail miserably. If you look at why those countries became communist in the first place, then it's a different story.

Think about most communist states, before the revolution very poor peasant based societies. Where a very small minority holds all the wealth and power.

Communism is an attempt at a Utopia, where everyone is equal and no-one is poor.



So the point of his post was that they are very successful when compared to their state before revolution.

[enginetorque]

Did you even read JAMC's post



Think about most communist states, before the revolution very poor peasant based societies. Where a very small minority holds all the wealth and power.

Communism is an attempt at a Utopia, where everyone is equal and no-one is poor.



So the point of his post was that they are very successful when compared to their state before revolution.

Yes I read it - I just thought it completely missed 'the bleedin' obvious !

[enginetorque]

Depends what you think it is supposed to accomplish. If you hold the communist countries of the 20th century up to a capitalist criteria of success, then yes they fail miserably. If you look at why those countries became communist in the first place, then it's a different story.

No this is muddle headed wooley thinking at best - you're saying that if you have leprosy then a really bad dose of the flu is jolly nice pro-rata!

[Expounder]

Point me to a 'successful' communist state/country/society ?

The sorry fact is that any communist/socialist society that was formed out of revolution against the suppression of the mass of the population by the elite has never had the chance to prove whether it could be successful or not.

From it's formation every state that has tried the experiment has been under attack from within and outside by reactionary forces from the word Go.

No communist/socialist state has ever had the luxury of developing and honing the experiment without powerful hostile forces forcing it to spend a large proportion of it's GDP on defending the country against invasion, blockade and inside foreign instigated subversion, forcing it to enforce security measures it would have not needed to take had had it been left to it's own designs.

I have no idea whether a Communist/socialist state could be successful as one has never been given the opportunity to develop independently without external and internal threats. I don't think we have ever witnessed a "genuine" communist/socialist state for this reason. What we have seen so far are besieged so called "communist/socialist" states under attack economically or militarily.

It would be interesting if the experiment of a socialist state could be allowed to run it's course trading on equal terms with the rest of the world without the threat to it's existence.

I imagine although basic socialist principles would apply, there is no reason why democracy could not flourish within these principles.

While Western democracy boasts of it's freedom, it's still run by elites and establishments who control industry and fiance and interpret that freedom, and also have the last word when it comes to its application.

As a footnote for the pedantics I do understand the difference between socialism and communism, in theory the former comes before the latter I used the communist/socialist term as many "socialist" countries are referred to as communist.

[angelcountry]

Point me to a 'successful' communist state/country/society ?

I am totally lost paddy!

[Expounder]

I am totally lost paddy!

Be jesus I think engine's lost as well

[enginetorque]

The sorry fact is that any communist/socialist society that was formed out of revolution against the suppression of the mass of the population by the elite has never had the chance to prove whether it could be successful or not.

From it's formation every state that has tried the experiment has been under attack from within and outside by reactionary forces from the word Go.

No communist/socialist state has ever had the luxury of developing and honing the experiment without powerful hostile forces forcing it to spend a large proportion of it's GDP on defending the country against invasion, blockade and inside foreign instigated subversion, forcing it to enforce security measures it would have not needed to take had had it been left to it's own designs.

I have no idea whether a Communist/socialist state could be successful as one has never been given the opportunity to develop independently without external and internal threats. I don't think we have ever witnessed a "genuine" communist/socialist state for this reason. What we have seen so far are besieged so called "communist/socialist" states under attack economically or militarily.

It would be interesting if the experiment of a socialist state could be allowed to run it's course trading on equal terms with the rest of the world without the threat to it's existence.

I imagine although basic socialist principles would apply, there is no reason why democracy could not flourish within these principles.

While Western democracy boasts of it's freedom, it's still run by elites and establishments who control industry and fiance and interpret that freedom, and also have the last word when it comes to its application.

As a footnote for the pedantics I do understand the difference between socialism and communism, in theory the former comes before the latter I used the communist/socialist term as many "socialist" countries are referred to as communist.

Your 'mooted experiment' would fall at the first hurdle - individual thinkers may fall into your experiment willingly - but en masse - we humans just aren't like that.

Humanity evolved on selfish survivalist instints - the weak go under - only the fittest survive - or that's how it was when we hunted and foraged for food!

Communism can never 'work' long term - even if you start with 100% like minds, as soon as the next generation of offspring are born into your sect or cult - whatever you call it - the thing will fall to pieces!

Shame - nice idea - can never work!

[LA]

Your 'mooted experiment' would fall at the first hurdle - individual thinkers may fall into your experiment willingly - but en masse - we humans just aren't like that.

Humanity evolved on selfish survivalist instints - the weak go under - only the fittest survive - or that's how it was when we hunted and foraged for food!

Communism can never 'work' long term - even if you start with 100% like minds, as soon as the next generation of offspring are born into your sect or cult - whatever you call it - the thing will fall to pieces!

Shame - nice idea - can never work!

Social Darwinism

[enginetorque]

Social Darwinism

Well absolutely - couldn't have put it more succinctly

[Expounder]

Your 'mooted experiment' would fall at the first hurdle - individual thinkers may fall into your experiment willingly - but en masse - we humans just aren't like that.

Humanity evolved on selfish survivalist instints - the weak go under - only the fittest survive - or that's how it was when we hunted and foraged for food!

Communism can never 'work' long term - even if you start with 100% like minds, as soon as the next generation of offspring are born into your sect or cult - whatever you call it - the thing will fall to pieces!

Shame - nice idea - can never work!

You may be right, but until such a social experiment is left to run it's course unhindered we shall never know.

You are of course in your post describing laissez-faire [unfettered capitalism.] Your description is more in tune with the kind if society that flash, Pauli and Tantal advocate which to some extent has existed in the US and other capitalist countries for many years due to the power of the state and it's wealth creating capacity being concentrated in the hands of a few oligarchs.


I think you're right, communism is unlikely to be attainable, it was only the theoretical next step, a logical progression in Marx's theory. However socialism which I have already pointed out was never given the chance to flower as the oligarchs and ruling establishments saw it as a threat to their domination of society and they made damn sure that it was never given a chance to develop.

A typical example is Cuba. a small country 90 miles off the coast of Florida who's survival depended of the export of some raw materials and cigars. who people under the leadership of Fidel Castro who threw out the Mafia and the crooked American politicians who used the country as a casino and brothel.

What threat was this Island to the US? Militarily none,but ideologically a major threat , an experiment was about to take place on America's doorstep that could have possible major repercussions on the American psyche given an uninterrupted and free run to develop.

The American answer to this tiny Island's attempt at social equality and it's minuscule nationalised "industry" was an immediate total world wide enforced trade embargo, [ sanctions on any country trading with the US who traded with Cuba],numerous attempts to assassinate Castro attempt at invasion[repelled only because Castro had the support of the Cuban people].

Why did the US do this? Because of the fear of the ideological threat. If the American elite were so sure of the superiority of their system why did they did they go to such lengths to ensure the Cuban experiment never got off the ground? They followed Winston's Churchill's motto "strangle it at birth"