Socialism as form of government

[Shaitan]

Hahaha, the British Labour party are socialists, hahahaha....

Oh I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

The same applies to our SPD in Germany. Maybe the base members of the parties are different but since the SPD is governing our country they are the same as our conservatives (CDU).

Shaitan

[Al Khalifah]

In that case we are exactly the same. The 'Old Labour' members of the Labour party are radically different to the 'New Labour' members who are running the party and the country at the moment.

[Marcellus]

Hahaha, the British Labour party are socialists, hahahaha....

Oh I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

My thoughts exactly

[Stefan the Berserker]

http://www.socialistinternational.or...ish/europe.htm

France Socialist Party, PS
Germany Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD
Great Britain The Labour Party

Albania Social Democratic Party, PSD
Albania Socialist Party of Albania, SPA
Andorra Social Democratic Party of Andorra, PS
Armenia ARF Armenian Socialist Party
Austria Social Democratic Party of Austria, SPÖ
Belgium Socialist Party, PS
Belgium Socialist Party, SPA
Bosnia and Herzegovina Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina, SDP BiH
Bulgaria Bulgarian Social Democrats
Bulgaria Bulgarian Socialist Party, BSP
Croatia Social Democratic Party, SDP
Cyprus Movement of Social Democrats EDEK
Czech Republic Czech Social Democratic Party, CSSD
Denmark Social Democratic Party
Estonia Estonian Social Democratic Party
Finland Finnish Social Democratic Party, SDP
France Socialist Party, PS
Germany Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD
Great Britain The Labour Party
Greece Panhellenic Socialist Movement, PASOK
Hungary Hungarian Social Democratic Party, MSzDP
Hungary Hungarian Socialist Party, MSzP
Iceland Social Democratic Party
Ireland The Labour Party
Italy Democrats of the Left, DS
Italy Italian Democratic Socialists, SDI
Latvia Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party, LSDSP
Lithuania Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, LSDP
Luxembourg Luxembourg Socialist Workers' Party, LSAP/POSL
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, SDUM
Malta Malta Labour Party
Netherlands Labour Party, PvdA
Northern Ireland Social Democratic and Labour Party, SDLP
Norway Norwegian Labour Party, DNA
Poland Democratic Left Alliance, SLD
Poland Union of Labour, UP
Portugal Socialist Party, PS
Romania Social Democratic Party, PSD
San Marino Party of Socialists and Democrats
Serbia and Montenegro Social Democratic Party of Montenegro, SDPM
Slovakia SMER-Social Democracy
Slovenia Social Democrats, SD
Spain Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, PSOE
Sweden Swedish Social Democratic Party, SAP
Switzerland Social Democratic Party of Switzerland
Turkey Republican People's Party, CHP

Check it up. You know what "Democrathic Socialism" means? Politics beeing based on Soldarity as major value.

The Socialist International has this Name since the 19th Century.

[Stefan the Berserker]

I think the reason why you laugh is that many Communist Parties also call themselves "Socialists". But that is a wrong impression.

[Ronin]

an organization that had António Guterres as it´s main secretary for a bunch of years can´t really hold much water with me.....the guy is absolutelly spineless, and was one of the worse prime-ministers my country has had in the last years....

tipical example of Guterres in office:

step one- in response to the alarmingly high road-accident rate here in portugal, the maximum allowed achool level in the driver´s blood is dropped from 0.5 grams for litter to 0.2 grams for litter, stronger fines are enforced..(i actually applauded this one....it was the right move).

step two - over the next 2 weeks a bunch of wine and spirits merchants and producers lobbies go apesh*t over the change.....stating that it would reduce their profits and put their businesses in danger(no reference made to the people wrapping their cars around lamp-posts after consuming said spirits)

step three - New government directive....."errrr....forget everything then....we´re going back to 0.5"

i lost all respect for the man that day......the guy resign from his position as prime minister the next year....and was still the secretary general of the socialist international for 2 MORE YEARS!!!!

[JAG]

Hahaha, the British Labour party are socialists, hahahaha....

Oh I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

They are socialists - at least social democrats.

The biggest sign of a socialist govt is normally the redistribution of wealth - this Labour govt has redistributed more wealth from rich to poor than any govt since the early 70's. That is also despite arriving into office after 18 years of redistribution the other way...

[Lazul]

hmm well the Social Democrats in sweden counts as rightwingers in many ways.

[PanzerJaeger]

Socialism in all its form is a dangerous ideology that should be countered at all times.

It not only endangers the wealth and economy of nations, but the cultural makeup as well.

Socialism breeds dependency, irresponsibility, and laziness and threatens those that are successful with taxes and laws aimed at social engineering.

As Europe becomes more socialist you will see unemployment rise, economies stagnate, and an ever increasingly entrenched class system.

[Goofball]

They are socialists - at least social democrats.

The biggest sign of a socialist govt is normally the redistribution of wealth - this Labour govt has redistributed more wealth from rich to poor than any govt since the early 70's. That is also despite arriving into office after 18 years of redistribution the other way...

You say that like it's a good thing.

Yuck.

My favorite Churchill quote:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Actually, I like that so much I think I'll siggy it for a while. Sorry Panzer, you're out...

[JAG]

the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

The quote is bollocks because the second part is wrong. If you believe creating a situation where everyone in a society lives in a humane and decent existence, is misery then I have to completely disagree and I think most people would. There is no reason that the huge wealth our nations create HAS to be held in the hands of an elite few. I think that creates misery.

As for you PJ - oh you are a laugh, blah blah blah.

[Goofball]

There is no reason that the huge wealth our nations create HAS to be held in the hands of an elite few. I think that creates misery.

Depends. I personally believe that wealth should be in the hands of those who have worked to earn it. Socialists believe that just by virtue of having been shot out of a vagina and then mastering the difficult skill of breathing, that they have a right to as equal a share of wealth as everybody else, whether they have done anything to earn it or not (and in most cases, "not").

Every year, roughly 35% of my income gets "redistributed" to those who have done nothing to earn it. I don't mind it going to those who are truly in need, but some people clearly are just too damned lazy to do for themselves, and they drive me crazy.

When I was younger, I worked as a bank teller. At that time, on the last Wednesday of the month the provincial government issued social assistance (read: welfare) cheques and as a bank teller I stood there and shelled out cash to the assistance recipients cashing their cheques all day. It was a pretty small town and out of the doors of the bank, you could see which way people were headed with their "windfalls" to begin spending. Now, it never bothered me to see a single mother cash her welfare cheque and go straight accross the street to the grocery store to buy food for her babies. That seemed like a justifiable use of my tax dollars. However, to the right of the bank was a bingo hall, and to the left was a strip bar. I can not even count the amount of childless, seemingly able-bodied couples who would come into the bank, cash their "pay-cheques" (as they liked to refer to them), then walk out of the branch with a pocket full of my tax dollars, wherupon the female would turn right, and the male would turn left.

That not only creates misery, it creates fury.

[Marcellus]

As Europe becomes more socialist you will see...an ever increasingly entrenched class system.

How does redistributing wealth entrench class systems, which are usually based on wealth?

[PanzerJaeger]

There is no reason that the huge wealth our nations create HAS to be held in the hands of an elite few. I think that creates misery.

What you fail to realize JAG is that that huge wealth would quickly disappear with increased socialist policies.

Some people and some industries must have wealth to create jobs and drive the economy.

How does redistributing wealth entrench class systems, which are usually based on wealth?

Socialism stifles social mobility and the desire to get ahead, as a socialist tax system punishes success.

[JAG]

Socialism stifles social mobility and the desire to get ahead, as a socialist tax system punishes success.

Ho hohohoh! Never laughed so much in my life. I think you get get the facts of social mobility before you go around stating outrageous claims like that. Check out who is near the top - in fact I think it is at the top - of the least social mobility in a country. Then check out who has the most... Cross reference that with policies undertaken in the domestic countries and bingo you get humiliated.

Increased socialist policies will evidently mean an altered free market, but that doesn't mean there cannot be wealth created and GDP growth. In fact in many countries after a socialist govt is elected GDP stays at exactly the same trend levels. Where has a modern socialist government turned a country into such a drastic state as you attempt to illustrate? The facts show that there is nothing in your populist claim about socialists making 'wealth disappear'.

Socialist governments do generally realise that you cannot suddenly take money from the rich and give it to the poor direct, as it doesn't work in the modern climate, that is why it is gradual, secret if you like. Over here people don't know about Labours socialist policies through lack of media attention and intentional shunning of them, but they are there making peoples life better - and the country is growing GDP wise faster than it ever has before, more consistently than it has before. That is after a minimum wage and vast increases in public spending on public owned institutions.

Just because there are rich people who create business' and jobs, it doesn't mean some people have to live in poverty, misery and hardship, simply because they are born into a situation with less chances. There is not justification for that, you can scream about rich people being 'needed' all you like, the reality is poor people are not desirable for a country such as mine and yours which creates such huge wealth.

Goof, there will of course be those in a system who take advantage of it. But the question is not whether you have a welfare system and redistribution or not, but how is it best to get those who are able to work into work and those who need welfare support the money instead. But I think we are missing the point, welfare although redistribution, of course, is not the main way of redistributing income, and increasingly by socialist governments it is the least preferred way of redistribution, for exactly the problem you point out.

When Thatcher drastically cut back the welfare support over here in the 80's, thousands of needy people suffered, but it is true many people who could work but didn't, also got jobs. What Labour do now is use the cut backs Thatcher made in the basic welfare to not only get people into work but also increase redistribution of wealth. This redistribution comes from work. Obviously there is the minimum wage, but what Labours main policy is tax credits - if you start working after not having worked for a long time (due to many reasons, a baby, no qualifications, not bothering etc) the government not only lets you keep all your wage packet if you are on a low income job, but it bumps up your earnings in benefits to give you an incentive to work, stay in work and be an active member of society. This means that you not only get off the problem you state and get people into work, but you have the desired effect of helping those - single mothers etc - who need help the most. I don't see a problem with that, that is a good system which helps those and gives more to those who need it most and doesn't hurt the economy at all, in fact it benefits it.

On top of those there is the extra benefits those at the bottom get through the brilliant sure start centres the government has set up - helping single mothers with child help and providing information hubs for those who often don't get all the critical information http://www.surestart.gov.uk/ - and the new deal also set up by this Labour govt - http://www.newdeal.gov.uk/ - which also helps those at the bottom of society gain qualifications or training they missed etc. Even if these don't look like it - they are redistributive measures, they give money and chances to gain more money to those who didn't have it before. Using tax money to set up brilliant schemes which help those who really need help and bringing everyone into society and the economy. It is win, win - and it is the new direction of the left in Europe I am sure, it also works. I don't know Goof, why you cannot think these kinds of ideas and schemes good ideas, sure a few people might still take advantage of it, but is that a reason to stop the vast majority for which this offers a huge lifeline to? I don't think so. You clearly have strong feelings on the subject as a result of the direct experience of some of the failings a system like this can hold - but that doesn't mean it is all bad.

Another scheme introduced over here involves the government part buying key workers - like nurses - houses with them, so they can get on to the property ladder where they could not have before. Again I fail to see how tax payers money, here helping those near the bottom of society help themselves and the whole of society, is a bad thing. It works, it is fair and just and creates equality in the long run - it just illustrates how PJ's view of socialist govt's smash bang whallop approach is so outdated.

Schemes elsewhere such as allowing workers of a company to gain significant proportions of shares in the company, also works, is fair and I fail to see a problem with it.

[Devastatin Dave]

Thanks Goofball for my new sig... Flying welfare babies launching out of a vagina is a great description. Thanks

[Byzantine Prince]

Depends. I personally believe that wealth should be in the hands of those who have worked to earn it. Socialists believe that just by virtue of having been shot out of a vagina and then mastering the difficult skill of breathing, that they have a right to as equal a share of wealth as everybody else, whether they have done anything to earn it or not (and in most cases, "not").

Wow, that is a very naive explanation. You don't have to work hard to earn, who told you that? You *can* work all your life in a mine and not have a peny when you retire even if you are frugal, and you *can* start a company and have other people work while you count the money because you *own* the company. You don't have to work at all to make money. Usually it all depends on what you do.

I'm glad Dave here enjoyed it.

PS. I don't agree with just any redistribution of wealth, but I do agree with providing free health care, and high pensions to everyone and help to single parent families.

[Meneldil]

Never heard of the "working poors" heh ? Or for that matter, of the "wealthy bastards that screw up everything they do, fire thousand of people, hire chinese workers and earn the money".

[Al Khalifah]

help to single parent families.

What about equally poor two parent families? Why should a family be targetted for wealth re-distribution purely because they could not hold their relationship together?

[JAG]

What about equally poor two parent families? Why should a family be targetted for wealth re-distribution purely because they could not hold their relationship together?

I was using the single parent example because normally that is what people have in their mind when they talk about those in disadvantaged situations. Of course poor families from all backgrounds and types, etc, are covered. Thanks to this Labour government. Socialist Labour govt*

[thrashaholic]

They are socialists - at least social democrats.

The biggest sign of a socialist govt is normally the redistribution of wealth - this Labour govt has redistributed more wealth from rich to poor than any govt since the early 70's. That is also despite arriving into office after 18 years of redistribution the other way...

...and yet the class divide wealth-wise is greater now, under Labour, than it ever has been before.

and the country is growing GDP wise faster than it ever has before

incorrect, last year growth was at roughly 3%, under the tories in 1988 growth was at 4.5%.

Our growth rates aren't high enough to cover Gordon Brown's increased spending and borrowing. He has been running a budget deficit at an economic peak, which is a very bad move. Borrowed money has to be paid back and because growth will very likely not be as Gordon Brown so optimistically forcasted, we will see tax rises, most likely for the middle classes.

[Ser Clegane]

As several patrons expressed theit interest that the discussion about Socialism should be continued, I carved out the relevant posts (i.e., the ones that were discussing socialism as a form of government as such) from the "Socialist International" thread to make a new thread that would allow a hopefully civilised discussion.

Enjoy the discussion

[Franconicus]

Hooray!
Thank you very much, Ser!

Before starting the discussion can we find an agreement what Socialism is?

[Al Khalifah]

You *can* work all your life in a mine and not have a peny when you retire even if you are frugal, and you *can* start a company and have other people work while you count the money because you *own* the company. You don't have to work at all to make money.

Yes but surely by starting a company you are taking an enourmous financial risk. For every new company that starts and is sucesful, there are probably another two where the company fails and the owner(s) end up with nothing and back to square one. In the early days, the directors of small companies will normally work obscene hours a week because they know that their livelihoods are on the line and they are determined not to let their project fail. People who start companies are visionaries with ideas and it only follows that people who start sucessful companies have good ideas that are beneficial to progress.
These people bolster the economy as well. All employees of a company are essentially taking a share of the profits from the owners idea in exchange for their labour. If there were no companies, people would just work for themselves, in which case you'd have a country similar to the dark ages of subsistance farmers and craftsmen. In such a world, you wouldn't have your employee rights, national health service etc.


P.S Clegane you're a hero. One day they'll be naming streets after you.

[Lazul]

Since humans by nature are egoistical in a very negative way and are all corrupt in their Ego, socialism wouldnt be viewed as someting possitve.

Since humans look up to those that have wealth by the millions and have the "phatest" car and so on socialism will never work.
Some might argue that people just want to be happy and that moeny isnt a big part of it. Bullshit, people need money to be happy since we will capitalistic world were money is what takes you somewhere in society.

I might argu thou that friends are more important, but since people are so damn narrow-minded and completly stupid nobody wants to be friend with a homeless bum. Some of you might argue that you would, but you would only say so couse it sounds like the right thing to say.

Now, since socialism means that wealth are spread out to everyone more or less that would mean, if we installa a socialist system in the world the Western Europe and North America would loose alot of its wealth since we no longer will be able to "rape" the rest of the world in the all goody goody imperialistic way.

To make a better future tho, with less international conflict we need to install a socialistic world order but it would take a long long time before we can all reap the benefits of it.
And since we are all so damn shortsighted and cant plan for the future that will never happen.

...lets all have a beer

[Franconicus]

Socialism in all its form is a dangerous ideology that should be countered at all times.

This is very general. Could you go more in detail? There are so manyx forms of S, radical and moderate and I'd like to know why you ban all.

It not only endangers the wealth and economy of nations, but the cultural makeup as well.

Let me assume that NOT SOCIALISM IN ALL ITS FORMS = PURE CAPITALISM, I mean the Manchaster kind Adam Smith wanted to have, it may create a lot of wealth. I agree. But the wealth will concentrate to a small part of the poulation. You may say that is good, but I would not call it wealth of nation if it just belongs to let's say 10%. There is an obvious disadv. 90% of the people will not be happy. They may not even have enough to live. So the political system will be very instable and the society very violent. (crime, riots,...)

Socialism breeds dependency, irresponsibility, and laziness and threatens those that are successful with taxes and laws aimed at social engineering.

How? Capitalism creates dependencies. In pure capitalism most of the workers live like slaves, maybe worse. The ideas of Marx did not become so popular because he was such an excellent writer. It was because many people were suffering.

As Europe becomes more socialist you will see unemployment rise, economies stagnate, and an ever increasingly entrenched class system.

You think that Europe is getting more socialist
That is a good one. Germany is becoming more and more unsocial. It was a Social society in the beginning of the 70ies. It has lost ever since. Rest of Europe is similar.

[Franconicus]

Since humans by nature are egoistical in a very negative way and are all corrupt in their Ego, socialism wouldnt be viewed as someting possitve.

Is that true? How does it come that you have such a bad picture?

[Al Khalifah]

But the wealth will concentrate to a small part of the poulation. You may say that is good, but I would not call it wealth of nation if it just belongs to let's say 10%. There is an obvious disadv. 90% of the people will not be happy. They may not even have enough to live.

90% of the wealth of the United States is controlled by 5% of the population, yet the people are still for the most part happy.

[Franconicus]

P.S Clegane you're a hero. One day they'll be naming streets after you.

We should give him an -ism. Cleganeism or Serism

[Lazul]

Is that true? How does it come that you have such a bad picture?

hmm well, just watch the news every hour on the TV and youll see what humans do to each other on a regular basis.
Live in a big city and see how anti-social people can become in an urban enviroment.
The world system that we live in shapes us into egotistical commercially mad parasistes of this world with no other goal in life then gain wealth and spend it to regain it and so it goes on.
Watch the commercials on tv... get in shape! eat right! use this shampo! buy this new mobilephone (with 90% useless features) and so on and so on.
Bombard the human being with fear every day and she will enter a state of constant consumption.

By nature I ment, the current natural state we are in. We can ofcourse change the natural behavior and shape the human being into something better.