Socialism

[D1988]

yeah. my inlaws and sister in law's old dentist quit and now they can't find anyone taking nhs patients. way to go NHS!

And for a minute or two, I actually wondered why the yanks thought we had bad teeth.

I am seriously considering going to the private dentist that my parents use, mostly because I am paranoid something serious happens with my teeth. But thats going to add another bunch of money on to my monthly bills I have to pay, and on apprentice wages it isn't all that easy.

[straightXed]

I'm totally agreeing with Dusty on this one. I've had enough experiences in my family alone to realise how bad the NHS really can be.

And Ed mentioned NHS dentists, there is now only 1 NHS dentis near me, it opened not so long ago and it's books were full up in a few days, people queued on the telephone line for 2 hours to get through and register with them. I have no dentist right now and haven't done for probably close to 2 years. This is just one minor example of my NHS related experiences and this is probabaly the least shocking one.

Just so you know there should be somewhere near you that can give you emergency treatment (contact NHS direct for details on where) but you are only permitted one emergency, after that visit its up to you to find a dentist or suffer with whatever you have bothering you. Or of course pay for private treatment but that kind of defeats the idea of paying money to support the NHS.

[force majeure]

I probably know better than you lot when it comes to the nhs.
having visited it frequently as a child, and with my dad working there and all..

but didn't this start off as a debate about socialism?

the main idea behind which is that wealth, property, influence and decision making should be controlled by the wider community and distributed accordingly. (including the destruction of set "class" lines.)

and also that the workers own the means of production. (facilitating them to make their own decision as a collective without any self-appointed leader - completely autonomous, with complete control over thier workplace.) Instead of simply using a process of collective bargaining, (as used in the capitalist model.)


and to answer all the nay-sayers.
the socialist model has been proven to be truely successfull.
no, not in cuba. but in ancient Athens. (implimented roughly 500 B.C.)

however, the term "socialist" is used very loosely in our society.
most "socialist" organisations have appointed leaders, (generally just out to make themselves look as if they're sympathetic to the workers pleas, while simultaneously silencing any dissent within thier ranks, in order to put THEMSELVES - not the people they claim to represent - into a position of more power.)

And thus: dont follow what most people say socialism is. most of them are simply back-stabbing middle-class monotanous b*stards trying to make themselves out to be better people than they actually are so that they can climb higher up the social ladder.

and: END RANT.

i suggest you check out the democracy of ancient athens, the best read i can guide you to would be:
"Every cook can govern.." by C.L.R. James (available from bewick editions. (Detroit, MI))


I hope this has been of some use.

[xsecx]

I probably know better than you lot when it comes to the nhs.
having visited it frequently as a child, and with my dad working there and all..

but didn't this start off as a debate about socialism?

the main idea behind which is that wealth, property, influence and decision making should be controlled by the wider community and distributed accordingly. (including the destruction of set "class" lines.)

and also that the workers own the means of production. (facilitating them to make their own decision as a collective without any self-appointed leader - completely autonomous, with complete control over thier workplace.) Instead of simply using a process of collective bargaining, (as used in the capitalist model.)


and to answer all the nay-sayers.
the socialist model has been proven to be truely successfull.
no, not in cuba. but in ancient Athens. (implimented roughly 500 B.C.)

however, the term "socialist" is used very loosely in our society.
most "socialist" organisations have appointed leaders, (generally just out to make themselves look as if they're sympathetic to the workers pleas, while simultaneously silencing any dissent within thier ranks, in order to put THEMSELVES - not the people they claim to represent - into a position of more power.)

And thus: dont follow what most people say socialism is. most of them are simply back-stabbing middle-class monotanous b*stards trying to make themselves out to be better people than they actually are so that they can climb higher up the social ladder.

and: END RANT.

i suggest you check out the democracy of ancient athens, the best read i can guide you to would be:
"Every cook can govern.." by C.L.R. James (available from bewick editions. (Detroit, MI))


I hope this has been of some use.

using an example from 2500 years ago isn't really relevant.

[xGriffox]

using an example from 2500 years ago isn't really relevant.

i'm not arguing for socialism, but why isn't it relevant?

[xsecx]

i'm not arguing for socialism, but why isn't it relevant?

because the world is a vastly different place than it was 2500 years ago, so if that's the most recent example of it "working" then it's a lot harder to make the statement that it would/could work in the world today. It's like saying that a functional example of anarchy was prehistoric man. Time and context matter in terms of socio-economic systems.

[xGriffox]

because the world is a vastly different place than it was 2500 years ago, so if that's the most recent example of it "working" then it's a lot harder to make the statement that it would/could work in the world today. It's like saying that a functional example of anarchy was prehistoric man. Time and context matter in terms of socio-economic systems.

simply because times change it doesn't mean lessons can't be taught from the past. I fail to see how because something happened 2500 years ago it becomes entirely irrelevant as a valid means of societal organization. You are correct, time and context matter in terms of socio-economic systems, so tell me, why is it that such a system could be worked out 2500 years ago and not today?

[mouseman004]

simply because times change it doesn't mean lessons can't be taught from the past. I fail to see how because something happened 2500 years ago it becomes entirely irrelevant as a valid means of societal organization. You are correct, time and context matter in terms of socio-economic systems, so tell me, why is it that such a system could be worked out 2500 years ago and not today?

If it worked so well, it would still exist.

[xGriffox]

If it worked so well, it would still exist.

This is a blanket statement which holds little validity. Something can work outrageously well only to one day be squashed by a world empire. (keep in mind i am not supporting socialism here, i am merely arguing a point)

[mouseman004]

This is a blanket statement which holds little validity. Something can work outrageously well only to one day be squashed by a world empire. (keep in mind i am not supporting socialism here, i am merely arguing a point)

Its not really a blanket statement. If socialism was proven to work well, and worked outrageously well, there would be examples of it that would have existed between 500 BC and 2008 AD because if it was such a good system, others would probably have used it. However in that time, systems which worked better were discovered or created, hence the reason socialism has not succesfully existed since ancient athens.

[xsecx]

Its not really a blanket statement. If socialism was proven to work well, and worked outrageously well, there would be examples of it that would have existed between 500 BC and 2008 AD because if it was such a good system, others would probably have used it. However in that time, systems which worked better were discovered or created, hence the reason socialism has not succesfully existed since ancient athens.

and we have a winner.

[force majeure]

Its not really a blanket statement. If socialism was proven to work well, and worked outrageously well, there would be examples of it that would have existed between 500 BC and 2008 AD because if it was such a good system, others would probably have used it. However in that time, systems which worked better were discovered or created, hence the reason socialism has not succesfully existed since ancient athens.

it was not that better systems were created, but more powerful systems.
the basic reason why the athenian system failed was more to do with the freedom it allowed its opposers to have.
the athenians fought the roman and persian empires as well as those who opposed them in thier own state.
they fought everyone untill they were eventually overpowered.

ancient greece remains the greatest producer of great astronomers, mathmaticians, poets, playwrites and philosophers (including ones who opposed it - freely, i should add,) the world has ever seen, despite the fact that athens had a population about 100 times smaller that most modern cities.

but again.
beside the point.
we're not supposed to be talking about why it succceeded or failed.
simply the ideas and concepts of socialism.

(by the way, i am not a socialist.)

[xsecx]

it was not that better systems were created, but more powerful systems.
the basic reason why the athenian system failed was more to do with the freedom it allowed its opposers to have.
the athenians fought the roman and persian empires as well as those who opposed them in thier own state.
they fought everyone untill they were eventually overpowered.

ancient greece remains the greatest producer of great astronomers, mathmaticians, poets, playwrites and philosophers (including ones who opposed it - freely, i should add,) the world has ever seen, despite the fact that athens had a population about 100 times smaller that most modern cities.

but again.
beside the point.
we're not supposed to be talking about why it succceeded or failed.
simply the ideas and concepts of socialism.

(by the way, i am not a socialist.)

how can you talk about the ideas of something without discussing it's application? What's the point? I also think your statement that ancient greece produced the greatest anythings at this point is a romanticized overstatement.

[mouseman004]

it was not that better systems were created, but more powerful systems.
the basic reason why the athenian system failed was more to do with the freedom it allowed its opposers to have.
the athenians fought the roman and persian empires as well as those who opposed them in thier own state.
they fought everyone untill they were eventually overpowered.

ancient greece remains the greatest producer of great astronomers, mathmaticians, poets, playwrites and philosophers (including ones who opposed it - freely, i should add,) the world has ever seen, despite the fact that athens had a population about 100 times smaller that most modern cities.

but again.
beside the point.
we're not supposed to be talking about why it succceeded or failed.
simply the ideas and concepts of socialism.

(by the way, i am not a socialist.)

My point is that if it was such a good system then it should have been a powerful system itself. If it worked so well, then there shouldn't have been an oppourtunity for more powerful systems to overtake it.

And I am not really sure what your trying to prove by explaining the great thinkers that came out of Athens. That has little or nothing to do with the idea of socialism. Ghandi came out of India during British imperial rule. Does that mean that British Imperial rule was good for India?

[force majeure]

My point is that if it was such a good system then it should have been a powerful system itself. If it worked so well, then there shouldn't have been an oppourtunity for more powerful systems to overtake it.

And I am not really sure what your trying to prove by explaining the great thinkers that came out of Athens. That has little or nothing to do with the idea of socialism. Ghandi came out of India during British imperial rule. Does that mean that British Imperial rule was good for India?

to be frank,
there are quite afew indians who believe that it in fact, was.

my point is that it was a more powerful system - proportionally. the other systems simply had overwhelming man-power.

and the other point was that the autonomy of the society meant that the standard of education was raised for all people, not just a certain group. this, coupled with the workers owning the means of production make possible all sorts of advancements in society, technology etc.