Can someone be 'rich' and still have socialist principles?

[Up_Tilt_390]

China is an interesting one. You say it's capitalist but it's definitely not free market. The country gives the impression of a command economy, but with the aim of running itself as a business where the rest of the world are the customers, rather than trying to be an internally self-sufficient socialist utopia. It's amassed so much wealth this way that Chinese investors are buying up buy-to-let property all over the world (even in Basingstoke! )

Is it capitalist? China is not a free market. Most of the businesses are nominally state-owned. Half the population still works in subsistence farming. It still very much has a command economy.

Is it socialist? China's businesses work for profit, and the managerial class retain most of the money through high wages.

China certainly strikes as an interesting one given the information provided. Some argue that China's pretty much created it's own system, but I'd say that China is either trying to slowly transisition from socialism to capitalism, or even vice versa. Apparently, to achieve communism through socialism, you need to start with capitalism. China actually has special economic areas where capitalism runs free, but if a lot of businesses are state-owned then it's very close to socialism. China is quite a funny yet interesting one I must say.

It's why I asked. Is it successful? Is it communist/socialist? Goes to show that there isn't a definitve answer to "what is socialism".

I think that would strongly depend on everyone's personal definition of 'success'..

Success is where a desired aim or goal is achieved as we all know, and since an economic system should provide for the people of it's respective country, I suppose you could call a political and economic system successful if it manages to provide for it's in group without harming it's out group, in which case...

Socialism: Fails because it doesn't strictly have an out group to begin with. It could be considered to be the bosses of companies and such, but often times it will just bring them back down to the level of the workers. It tries to bring as many into it's in group from it's out group until there isn't an out group left. In regards to the in group, the system becomes too bogged down in it's own bureaucracy when all the workers of the workforce or the politicians of the state are can't make fast decisions when needed such as during a crisis, and it also has no safeguards against it's own bureaucracy from becoming corrupt. With economics it more often leaves countries and it's people poorer (ie. Venzuela, Cuba, Soviet Union etc.), so it doesn't really provide for it's in group very well either.

Communism: Fails for the same reasons as socialism, except it would rather kill the bosses instead of demote them to co-owner along with the rest of the workforce.

Nazism/Fascism: Fails, and it's a no-brainer really. It violates human rights of it's out group, though more through social than economic policies. Not a lot of explaining needed. Economically it might work (not sure about that) but socially it fails because of it's human rights violations. With it's in group, well if the state has total control over everything there won't be a lot of things the in-group can do (ie. run a business and such) unless it is through a black market, but in order to keep order the state will need to use spies, CCTV, and everything else to the point of being a police state just to ensure the state keeps control. If the state owns everything, the same problems with socialism come into play when the state loses money. When Venezuela lost oil revenue, it hit everything else really hard. So with human rights violations of it's out group and great restrictions on the personal freedoms of it's in group, it couldn't be considered successful.

Capitalism: Fails when it is unregulated, because the private business are usually free to do whatever they want, and included with that is the freedom to violate or even remove worker's rights, such as very long agonising hours, very little if any pay, poor safety conditions and so on, and eventually the business is driven by nothing but profit with no concern for it's workers, because if the bosses have power to do whatever they want, just like the state with socialism they will likely be corrupted and violate worker rights. HOWEVER, if there are regulations set by the government that say a worker must have good safety conditions and a decent pay within their contracted hours, along with freedom to choose to work overtime and/or get paid for involuntary overtime, then it can work for it's in group because businesses still thrive, employees still get paid, and those not involved don't get harmed by it. There will be failure, and inevitably there will be social and wealth inequality, but such is human meritocracy really.

If you have a different idea on what makes a system successful, you are free to provide your own explanations provided they are put across in a decent manner and with respect. Sorry for the long post, but I had a few points to address here.

 

[Bromley boy]

A dictionary can never be more than a snapshot of a language at a particular point in time (though historical dictionaries can record changes over period of time). But language is a constantly changing phenomenon and the recorded definition of a word does not set things in stone for all time: meanings can and do change considerably and sometimes quite sharply. The great strength of the OED is its giving of examples of real usage of the words it includes, so that we can see a context for everything and see how the editors' definitions are arrived at. But the editors would be the very last people to try to argue that their definitions have "pinned down" those words for good.

Yes agreed. A snapshot of meaning at a given time is a good way of putting it - and that is useful for resolving a discussion about what that meaning is, at a given point in time.

That’s not to say the meaning wont change in the future, of course.

 

[SilentGrade]

In regards to the in group, the system becomes too bogged down in it's own bureaucracy when all the workers of the workforce or the politicians of the state are can't make fast decisions when needed such as during a crisis, and it also has no safeguards against it's own bureaucracy from becoming corrupt.

You've not actually explained how this happens. In what way does a socialist system preclude making a fast decision in any way? Having a hierarchy of decision makers, some of whom may have different opinions is not an exclusively socialist concept. If anything it happens to have existed, and indeed continues to exist, in every political and economic system to have ever been conceived.

Further in what way does a socialist system prevent any safeguards against corruption? If anything most early socialist texts and writings advocated having a system implemented to recall officials acting in such ways.
Corruption is a human factor that exists entirely outside of an economic system...

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Because under a socialist system, a workforce company will be ran by the whole workforce, and contrary to what you have said, there is no hierarchy in decision making under this system, instead it's a collectivist system where the workers would have equal ownership of the company and either band together into a council or have their own council elected to make all of the decisions of the company with input from the electorate. So rather than having one qualified manager to make decisions on what would be best for the company, we have a democratic system where you have many disagreements, and because everyone in the workforce owns a part of the company, it has to be a collective decision. Not everyone is qualified to lead, and as with every democracy things are slowed down and amended, and in a time of crisis it can be a serious problem, especially if the company is on the brink of bankruptcy.

But in order to enforce this collective self-rule, there needs to be a body to ensure every worker gets a say in the democratic process and make sure nobody is trying to sell their ownership of a company to another worker, or that nobody is being appointed as a single leader because the workforce feels they'd be most effective, otherwise the socialist order will collapse. This enforcement will inevitably fall onto the state, and the state will need the power to enforce this collectivist ruling and ensure there is no hierarchy in decision making. But unfortunately, there is no safeguarding to ensure that the state doesn't abuse this power, and though texts may advocate for corrupt officials being recalled, whose going to do this? What if the country's ruler likes this guy? He doesn't have to dismiss him, after all he's the leader, he can do what he wants. Even if there's no single leader and there is instead collective rule, the same problems of things being bogged down in bureaucracy come back, and if it goes on too long in a time of economic crisis, the country will suffer massively.

 

[EM2]

The title of the thread refers to 'socialist principles', not to 'all socialist principles'.

 

[AlterEgo]

But in order to enforce this collective self-rule, there needs to be a body to ensure every worker gets a say in the democratic process and make sure nobody is trying to sell their ownership of a company to another worker, or that nobody is being appointed as a single leader because the workforce feels they'd be most effective, otherwise the socialist order will collapse. This enforcement will inevitably fall onto the state, and the state will need the power to enforce this collectivist ruling and ensure there is no hierarchy in decision making. But unfortunately, there is no safeguarding to ensure that the state doesn't abuse this power.

So socialism *doesn’t* function on the goodwill of people, as you claimed, and does indeed require bureaucracy and compulsion to both instigate and maintain the socialist order. Right?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So socialism *doesn’t* function on the goodwill of people, as you claimed, and does indeed require bureaucracy and compulsion to both instigate and maintain the socialist order. Right?

Perhaps I ought to amend the original statement to refer to democratic socialism which would rely on the goodwill of the people to keep voting in socialists governments in order to keep it going for the socialist idea of the greater good rather than choose a different path and destroy the socialist order. But otherwise... oh boy this will come back to bite me... yes (ironically this the first thing we've agreed on).

The title of the thread refers to 'socialist principles', not to 'all socialist principles'.

In fairness, I didn't come up with the title, it was chosen as the best title by the mods when it was split from a previous thread. It was kind of inevitable that the discussion would plunge into the general topic of socialism anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Because under a socialist system, a workforce company will be ran by the whole workforce, and contrary to what you have said, there is no hierarchy in decision making under this system, instead it's a collectivist system where the workers would have equal ownership of the company and either band together into a council or have their own council elected to make all of the decisions of the company with input from the electorate. So rather than having one qualified manager to make decisions on what would be best for the company, we have a democratic system where you have many disagreements, and because everyone in the workforce owns a part of the company, it has to be a collective decision. Not everyone is qualified to lead, and as with every democracy things are slowed down and amended, and in a time of crisis it can be a serious problem, especially if the company is on the brink of bankruptcy. But in order to enforce this collective self-rule, there needs to be a body to ensure every worker gets a say in the democratic process and make sure nobody is trying to sell their ownership of a company to another worker, or that nobody is being appointed as a single leader because the workforce feels they'd be most effective, otherwise the socialist order will collapse.

Why am I suddenly reminded of the book called "Animal Farm" and unfolding events that took place in it.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Why am I suddenly reminded of the book called "Animal Farm" and unfolding events that took place in it.

Quite ironic when you consider that George Orwell was a democratic socialist himself. Although I must ask, have you actually read the book? If so, is it a good read and would you recommend it?

 

[Butts]

In my view the biggest hurdle to the UK becoming a more progressive Society is not the Rich or the Poor but those in the middle who make up the vast proportion of the populace.

A lot of them espouse concern for the less fortunate but this does not extend to their wallets as demonstrated in the results of numerous UK Elections and the Policies adopted by successive Governments. To make any measured change in the quality of life of those at the bottom this is where the real money is to be found.

Everyone expects those earning more than them should make the sacrifice - millionaires are easy scapegoats unless they happen to be premiership footballers, musicians or actors for some reason.

Until we acknowledge everyone in the middle will have to pay more nothing will will ever change substantially.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Quite ironic when you consider that George Orwell was a democratic socialist himself. Although I must ask, have you actually read the book? If so, is it a good read and would you recommend it?

May I be so bold as to remind you that I am 72 years of age and read this book very, very, many years ago and have seen events unfold over the years in relation to the story being told in the said book. I have always had the feeling that this book was indeed worthy of recommendation.

 

[DarloRich]

Quite ironic when you consider that George Orwell was a democratic socialist himself. Although I must ask, have you actually read the book? If so, is it a good read and would you recommend it?

you have never read it?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

May I be so bold as to remind you that I am 72 years of age and read this book very, very, many years ago and have seen events unfold over the years in relation to the story being told in the said book. I have always had the feeling that this book was indeed worthy of recommendation.

Thanks for the recommendation. I imagine your life experience combined with the knowledge gained from the book has helped you form a structured and informed opinion on the topic of socialism/communism. Also, I didn't actually know you were 72, so dare I say it was bold of you to actually tell me for the first time .

you have never read it?

Dare I say that I haven't, Darlo. I knew part of the premise, but I really ought to give it a read one day. Thanks to Paul Sidorczuk's recommendations, I think I'll definitely pick it up one day. Maybe it's time I widened my range of books even despite the fact I don't read a great deal of them.

 

[DarloRich]

Dare I say that I haven't, Darlo. I knew part of the premise, but I really ought to give it a read one day. Thanks to Paul Sidorczuk's recommendations, I think I'll definitely pick it up one day. Maybe it's time I widened my range of books even despite the fact I don't read a great deal of them.

I am surprised. It is one of the classics of the 20th century. It is well worth a read. Also have a look at 1984, The Road to Wigan Pier & Homage to Catalonia. All very different and all very powerful.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I am surprised. It is one of the classics of the 20th century. It is well worth a read. Also have a look at 1984, The Road to Wigan Pier & Homage to Catalonia. All very different and all very powerful.

Thanks for the recommendations, Darlo. I do like a few good classic books. So much that I’m willing to bet most of my generation don’t really know the name Rudyard Kipling and I’m one of few.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for the recommendations, Darlo. I do like a few good classic books. So much that I’m willing to bet most of my generation don’t really know the name Rudyard Kipling and I’m one of few.

I bet anyone who has been anywhere near (Cub) Scouting probably does - and that's a fairly large proportion of 8 to 11ish year olds.

(For those not in the know, the Cub Scout age group is themed on the Jungle Book and has I think been since it was founded)

 

[Domh245]

I bet anyone who has been anywhere near (Cub) Scouting probably does - and that's a fairly large proportion of 8 to 11ish year olds.

(For those not in the know, the Cub Scout age group is themed on the Jungle Book)

Snap! I was about to mention that I was aware of Rudyard Kipling through scouting, and I think I'm only a couple of years younger than Up_Tilt_390, but I suppose that more people would associate The Jungle Book with Disney than Kipling.

I don't think you could necessarily say that anyone who's been near Scouting will recognise the name though - from experience only a small proportion of them had learnt about the Cubs/Jungle Book connection and fewer about who wrote it! I would also think that describing the amount of people who'd been involved with Cubs as a "fairly large proportion" would be overdoing it slightly. Certainly at my old group numbers were never massive (~20) given that it was located next to a primary school, and from what I've heard numbers have been gradually going down of late.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I bet anyone who has been anywhere near (Cub) Scouting probably does - and that's a fairly large proportion of 8 to 11ish year olds.

(For those not in the know, the Cub Scout age group is themed on the Jungle Book and has I think been since it was founded)

Hmm, I’d did not know that. I always though that most people (even a few adults) think The Jungle Book is the property of Disney, which it isn’t (though their two films based on the story, along with original characters such as Louie are Disney material). It seems more people know Kipling than I thought. Not that it’s a bad thing, in fact I believe Kipling’s stories are better than the films.

Snap! I was about to mention that I was aware of Rudyard Kipling through scouting, and I think I'm only a couple of years younger than Up_Tilt_390, but I suppose that more people would associate The Jungle Book with Disney than Kipling.

I agree with your point on Disney. Also, you being a couple of years younger than me? Wow, I never usually expect from a lot of people on the forums. I imagined a good majority of people are older than me. I need to widen my social circles.

 

[Domh245]

Also, you being a couple of years younger than me? Wow, I never usually expect from a lot of people on the forums. I imagined a good majority of people are older than me. I need to widen my social circles.

I seem to remember you saying that you were early 20s, so it's based on that - I may be completely wrong though. FWIW, there are quite a few young people knocking around on the forum as you can see in this thread, although unfortunately the 20-29 is a very well populated segment, so it's difficult to know if those in it are older or younger than you (unless you are right at one end or the other!)

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I seem to remember you saying that you were early 20s, so it's based on that - I may be completely wrong though. FWIW, there are quite a few young people knocking around on the forum as you can see in this thread, although unfortunately the 20-29 is a very well populated segment.

I saw this thread, but I just didn’t vote in it. You’re not entirely wrong, I’m about a quarter of a way through 21, though I’m not exactly like that mentally nor do I do typical activities of a young man (ie. the usual Friday night of getting drunk). Not that I’m the only one who doesn’t, but it is what is expected of a young male isn’t it?

 

[Domh245]

Not that I’m the only one who doesn’t, but it is what is expected of a young male isn’t it?

I don't think there are nearly as many young people going out and drinking, whatever night of the week. I'm certainly not a massive fan of going out and getting drunk, although I'll quite happily have a beer with certain meals at home. It's getting a bit off topic though!

 

[lyndhurst25]

Something I heard on radio many years go:

Difference between a rich socialist and a rich capitalist.

The socialist will pay £250,000 for a car and be happy paying taxes for a road to drive it on.

The capitalist will pay £250,000 for the car, add £10,000 of extras and complain about potholes.

That reminds me of a bloke I know: true-blue capitalist, hates paying tax, £1m in the bank, £750k house. Problem is that the house, along with other mansions, is on an unadopted road. Of course, many of the wealthy householders are too tight to pay their bit towards the upkeep of the road, so it's full of pot holes, the street lights don't work and consequently crime is a problem. He even had to sell his Ferrari because he couldn't drive it home without scraping the bottom due to the road surface being so bad. That's an allegory for the benefits of socialism over capitalism if ever I heard one.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I don't think there are nearly as many young people going out and drinking, whatever night of the week. I'm certainly not a massive fan of going out and getting drunk, although I'll quite happily have a beer with certain meals at home. It's getting a bit off topic though!

I don’t even like alcohol mate. I just wouldn’t drink even if I wanted one.

That reminds me of a bloke I know: true-blue capitalist, hates paying tax, £1m in the bank, £750k house. Problem is that the house, along with other mansions, is on an unadopted road. Of course, many of the wealthy householders are too tight to pay their bit towards the upkeep of the road, so it's full of pot holes, the street lights don't work and consequently crime is a problem. He even had to sell his Ferrari because he couldn't drive it home without scraping the bottom due to the road surface being so bad. That's an allegory for the benefits of socialism over capitalism if ever I heard one.

Taxation and subsidising isn’t exclusive to socialism. It just usually has taxation higher. Not every capitalist is one of those “tax is theft” type people, though with the guy you described I can’t imagine many other things to call him. Tax is the price for public service really. I hardly think tax subsidies are a good way to try and describe the benefits of socialism over capitalism (if there many).

 

[Domh245]

I don’t even like alcohol mate. I just wouldn’t drink even if I wanted one.

That's fair enough. My sister is teetotal, to the extent that she would refuse to eat anything that has an alcoholic beverage involved in cooking (eg Sherry in gravy, or wine in a sauce, etc) - despite explanations that all the alcohol evaporates during the cooking! If nothing else, it saves her a whole load of money!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

That's fair enough. My sister is teetotal, to the extent that she would refuse to eat anything that has an alcoholic beverage involved in cooking (eg Sherry in gravy, or wine in a sauce, etc) - despite explanations that all the alcohol evaporates during the cooking! If nothing else, it saves her a whole load of money!

Now saving money I can get behind

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That reminds me of a bloke I know: true-blue capitalist, hates paying tax, £1m in the bank, £750k house. Problem is that the house, along with other mansions, is on an unadopted road. Of course, many of the wealthy householders are too tight to pay their bit towards the upkeep of the road, so it's full of pot holes, the street lights don't work and consequently crime is a problem. He even had to sell his Ferrari because he couldn't drive it home without scraping the bottom due to the road surface being so bad. That's an allegory for the benefits of socialism over capitalism if ever I heard one.

Are you actually saying that the solicitors who acted for the sale of the properties where a search would have revealed the unadopted road situation that applied there would not have brought this fact to the attention of their clients. The same would apply to an unadopted road in what some would describe as "a poor area" so the point you endeavoured to make about the benefits of socialism over capitalism is somewhat meaningless and more a criticism of the solicitors who were acting on behalf of their clients.

 

[Bromley boy]

Are you actually saying that the solicitors who acted for the sale of the properties where a search would have revealed the unadopted road situation that applied there would not have brought this fact to the attention of their clients. The same would apply to an unadopted road in what some would describe as "a poor area" so the point you endeavoured to make about the benefits of socialism over capitalism is somewhat meaningless and more a criticism of the solicitors who were acting on behalf of their clients.

You’d have thought the property’s location on an unadopted road would have been obvious upon viewing, prior to purchase.

I’d have thought the major risk the buyer’s solicitors would have brought to his attention would be the possibility of the road being adopted by the local authority, with residents being liable for the associated costs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You’d have thought the property’s location on an unadopted road would have been obvious upon viewing, prior to purchase.

I’d have thought the major risk the buyer’s solicitors would have brought to his attention would be the possibility of the road being adopted by the local authority, with residents being liable for the associated costs.

Both you and I are fully aware of the responsibilities of an acting solicitor in matters of the purchase of the properties involved and whilst they are in an employed situation until the sale of the said properties reach the final stage of completion, they are being paid by their clients to fully ensure full knowledge of any relevant facts are brought to the attention of their clients and then to take any legal conversations with solicitors acting for the other parties on behalf of their clients.

 

[Bromley boy]

Both you and I are fully aware of the responsibilities of an acting solicitor in matters of the purchase of the properties involved and whilst they are in an employed situation until the sale of the said properties reach the final stage of completion, they are being paid by their clients to fully ensure full knowledge of any relevant facts are brought to the attention of their clients and then to take any legal conversations with solicitors acting for the other parties on behalf of their clients.

You’re quite right that it would most likely be professionally negligent of the solicitors not to bring this fact to the buyer’s attention. Although this fact would usually be obvious on viewing, I suppose it might not be if the road was well maintained.

I believe indemnity insurance is available to cover the potential costs of future adoption.

 

[Bromley boy]

Thanks for the recommendations, Darlo. I do like a few good classic books. So much that I’m willing to bet most of my generation don’t really know the name Rudyard Kipling and I’m one of few.

Read 1984 and Animal Farm and you’ll be a man, my son.