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

Up_Tilt_390 · 16 Jan 2018

Bletchleyite said:
Social democracy is just one part of socialism. It's a continuum. I think you are taking it to mean pure communism, which is only one possible level of it.

What are the levels of socialism that you speak of?

RailUK Forums

GusB · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
What are the levels of socialism that you speak of?

You tell us - you're the one that's ranting against it. Have you done any research?

Up_Tilt_390 · 16 Jan 2018

GusB said:
You tell us - you're the one that's ranting against it. Have you done any research?

I have done research, and I am not the one claiming there to be different levels of socialism, instead I have provided the definition and working with that. The user I quoted made the claim that there were different levels of socialism, therefore it is on them to explain if I ask them to elaborate. Have you ever been in a proper debate before? If you have then you'd know that it's down to one making the claims to back them up.

Up_Tilt_390 · 16 Jan 2018

Arctic Troll said:
But it's the same of all political systems, even the most balanced and neutral social democracies.

I trust that the government will let me vote when they say they will. I also trust that the government won't gerrymander the electoral boundaries to engineer the result that they want. But if, to choose a random example completely at random, they set up an "Electoral Commission" to change boundaries and give that Electoral Commission guidelines that result in blatant gerrymandering, what can I do about it?

Corruption is a virtue of all governments, Arctic Troll. I dare say it would be foolish to completely 100% trust the government to provide you with an impartial electoral commission. But like with the Queen's power, there is likely a scenario where it wouldn't be in the interest of a government to be so dodgy (bit like how the Queen could theocretically chose to dissolve Parliament at any time and act against convention of only doing so when the Parliament would ask her to dissolve it, but it would be a very stupid thing to do because it would be the end of them).

EM2 · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
What are the levels of socialism that you speak of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

Up_Tilt_390 · 16 Jan 2018

Looking at the Wikipedia list, it seems a few of them claim to be socialist while completely rejecting it's principles. Both libertarian socialism and social democracy are listed as types of socialism even despite the fact that both of them reject the concept of the means of production being owned by the workers/state, the basic definition of socialism, but instead opt for the capitalist free market system instead. How can any political movement or ideology claim to be anything when it rejects the basic principles?

I don't advocate for the oppression of certain people and the censorship of other opinions while calling myself a liberal, and it's like saying democratically electing your government is another form of fascist dictatorships. In fact even that makes more sense, because some people just think that you're getting to pick your dictators. But regardless, it seems the article is just listing systems that have a few stems from socialism but are their own systems in their own right. Wikipedia does usually give lots of information in it's articles.

Tetchytyke · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
both of them reject the concept of the means of production being owned by the workers/state, the basic definition of socialism, but instead opt for the capitalist free market system instead.

The ownership of the means of production relates to ownership, not what type of economy that it operates within. The best example is the co-operative movement, where the workers own the means of production but operate within a (free) market economy. An example of this would be the John Lewis Partnership. Waitrose is owned by the workers for the workers. Socialism is not about whether it is fair or unfair to make profit, more about who gets to walk off with the profit at the end of the day.

A planned economy is different. You can have a planned economy without it being owned by the workers. The railways are an example of this: the Government plans what trains run, where they run, and how much is charged for tickets to use them, but the ownership is private. The workers don't keep the profits.

Up_Tilt_390 · 16 Jan 2018

Arctic Troll said:
The ownership of the means of production relates to ownership, not what type of economy that it operates within. The best example is the co-operative movement, where the workers own the means of production but operate within a (free) market economy. An example of this would be the John Lewis Partnership. Waitrose is owned by the workers for the workers. Socialism is not about whether it is fair or unfair to make profit, more about who gets to walk off with the profit at the end of the day.

Looking up the John Lewis Group on Wikipedia, it is listed a Public Limited Company in which profits are held in trust for employees. It also has a Chairman though, who usually heads the Board of Directors, which means that it has owners and bosses. I am somewhat confused because I can’t see what makes John Lewis especially unique in comparison to other Public companies that allow employees to purchase shares on the stock market and receive profits from the company? Unless I have had a major misunderstanding (which given my condition isn’t uncommon) then it doesn’t sound remarkably different.

A planned economy is different. You can have a planned economy without it being owned by the workers. The railways are an example of this: the Government plans what trains run, where they run, and how much is charged for tickets to use them, but the ownership is private. The workers don't keep the profits.

Yeah, and we both know just how well the railways are run. Private-Public hybrids like the railways are not inefficient at all... right?

Bletchleyite · 16 Jan 2018

Interesting there, I'd say the UK was centrist, having balanced aspects of both, but the European/Scandinavian social democracies were further left i.e. a bit more socialist.

Up_Tilt_390 · 16 Jan 2018

Bletchleyite said:
Interesting there, I'd say the UK was centrist, having balanced aspects of both, but the European/Scandinavian social democracies were further left i.e. a bit more socialist.

Rather a slight balance than just one whole pure unregulated system really.

AlterEgo · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
Yes it does. It expects people to be altruistic and be willing to give up a lot of their money for the greater good so they can properly redistribute the wealth. It also doesn't have any safe guards against it's own bureaucracy nor against the state abusing all the power it is given under the system. It's reliant completely on faith of good people to all go along with it, but in reality not everyone wants to go along with it.

No it doesn’t. What are you on about?

Socialism relies on heavy taxation, which is an enforced way of making people contribute. Also, in general, the government oversees all means of production within a planned or heavily regulated economy. Socialist governments are therefore large beasts, as the government must regulate heavily to ensure compliance. Socialism demands compliance to ensure it works. It is not based whatsoever on the good nature of people, and indeed it is a system which seeks to heavily regulate or reduce the desires of greed or overconsumption which are part of human nature. In socialist governments, the state will heavily penalise you for not complying with the ideals of the government. Your business can be fined by a regulator, you might end up in jail, your business may find the products it sells being subject to price controls, your business may be confiscated or compulsorily purchased as a state asset for example.

This is completely different to libertarianism, which generally seeks to divorce government from the means of production, making it smaller, and relying on individual liberty and freedom of enterprise to make society work. Libertarians often look to a free and unrestricted market as a way of self-regulation.

AlterEgo · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
I have done research, and I am not the one claiming there to be different levels of socialism, instead I have provided the definition and working with that.

Basically you’ve looked up the dictionary definition, yeah?

The user I quoted made the claim that there were different levels of socialism, therefore it is on them to explain if I ask them to elaborate.

But this is basic stuff. Socialism is a political ideology and it is not something you can simply define from a dictionary or point to a rule book. Another poster quite reasonably stated that socialism is a continuum. It is. At the extreme is communism. At the other extreme, as it melts into the centre ground, is social democracy or social liberalism.

Hugo Chavez was a socialist.
Tony Benn was a socialist.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist.
James Connolly was a socialist.
My dad is a socialist.

None of these people are quite like the other and they all have very different interpretations of what “socialism” should be.

They didn’t look it up in a dictionary and then confirm exactly to the definition it gave them.

Have you ever been in a proper debate before?

Have you?

AlterEgo · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
Looking up the John Lewis Group on Wikipedia, it is listed a Public Limited Company in which profits are held in trust for employees. It also has a Chairman though, who usually heads the Board of Directors, which means that it has owners and bosses. I am somewhat confused because I can’t see what makes John Lewis especially unique in comparison to other Public companies that allow employees to purchase shares on the stock market and receive profits from the company?

John Lewis is a partnership. Each employee is a partner.

Employee partners in the JLP do not buy shares in the company and cannot sell their stake either. They are partners by default. It is not too dissimilar to a cooperative.

Up_Tilt_390 · 16 Jan 2018

AlterEgo said:
Basically you’ve looked up the dictionary definition, yeah?

But this is basic stuff. Socialism is a political ideology and it is not something you can simply define from a dictionary or point to a rule book. Another poster quite reasonably stated that socialism is a continuum. It is. At the extreme is communism. At the other extreme, as it melts into the centre ground, is social democracy or social liberalism.

Hugo Chavez was a socialist.
Tony Benn was a socialist.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist.
James Connolly was a socialist.
My dad is a socialist.

None of these people are quite like the other and they all have very different interpretations of what “socialism” should be.

They didn’t look it up in a dictionary and then confirm exactly to the definition it gave them.

I've looked up more than the dictionary definition of socialism. I have also found out that it was implemented in several countries throughout the world, and it does not matter what happened, it only succeeded in making everyone except the state poor and even lead to famines and starvation. People in Venezuela are now dying and eating their pets, and they have such a poor quality of life while their leaders enjoy the food they have. In Cuba, Fidel Castro (Jeremy Corbyn's champion of social justice) had millions while the average wage for everyone else was just $25 a month. And all the socialists have to say for themselves is "not real socialism".

The only person who had any major power of the people you listed was Hugo Chavez, whose policies meant that a great deal of Venezuela's means of production were seized by his government, so he fits the definition. By your logic, maybe someone can choose to be a Nazi but decide instead that blacks are the superior master race, not Aryans, because they have different interpretations of what being a Nazi should be. In fact why not go further and say that your idea of being a Nazi is no master race and instead fighting for social justice? I mean clearly that person has a different interpretation of what being a Nazi should be right?

But realistically, it doesn't matter if you are a Nazi deciding that even Jews were the master race/ethnicity etc., the fact of the matter is, the common ideology of Nazism is the belief in a master race, just like the common ideology of Socialism being the means of production being owned by the state. I am sorry, but you can't call yourself a socialist if you don't follow it's basic principle, just like how you can't call yourself a Nazi if you fight for race equality, or call yourself a feminist if you're against women having equal rights.

Doesn't matter if you have your own interpretation, the words have their meanings, and if they were really so subjective then there's no point in a dictionary. If you really can have your own interpretation of words though, then I am a politician. Doesn't matter if the definition given is a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office, because my own personal interpretation of a politician is someone who simply engages in debates on the internet with people he doesn't even know. Where does it stop if you give just one word a free pass?

Have you?

I've been in many debates. I'm in one now, and I have been in many before. Not just here, but in the real world with family, friends, and even fellow peers back in schooldays.

Tetchytyke · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
I can’t see what makes John Lewis especially unique in comparison to other Public companies that allow employees to purchase shares on the stock market and receive profits from the company?

John Lewis partners do not buy shares in the company, they are beneficiaries of the trust that owns the company for as long as they work for it. And they are not passive beneficiaries either: the articles of association of the John Lewis Partnership give all partners a voice in the company. The partners can, ultimately, vote for the Chairman and Board of Directors to be removed from office. And when it comes to bonuses, every partner gets the same percentage of their salary as a bonus (those who earn more get more, but the percentage is the same whether it's 10% of £1 or 10% of £100,000.)

It isn't a co-operative, but it operates in a similar way. Shares cannot be bought and sold. It is very different to the share sale schemes operated, with varying degrees of success, by some other large companies.

The point is that workers' collectives can and do operate very successfully in a market economy.

Bletchleyite · 16 Jan 2018

Arctic Troll said:
The point is that workers' collectives can and do operate very successfully in a market economy.

There are quite a lot of smaller ones too such as the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative which seems to do reasonably for itself, though it no longer seems to manufacture its own bicycles, which is a shame as they were quite good.

The Co-op, of course, is a customer co-operative rather than a worker's co-operative. While the Co-operative Bank, er, isn't really any more due to some spectacular (and spectacularly obvious to anyone who knew anything about them at all) errors made in the 2000s which caused it to almost collapse.

There are all sorts of models out there.

Bromley boy · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
I can’t see what makes John Lewis especially unique in comparison to other Public companies that allow employees to purchase shares on the stock market and receive profits from the company? Unless I have had a major misunderstanding (which given my condition isn’t uncommon) then it doesn’t sound remarkably different.

It’s a public limited company but isn’t publically traded, so you cannot ring a stock broker and ask to buy shares in John Lewis plc.

AlterEgo said:
John Lewis is a partnership. Each employee is a partner.

Employee partners in the JLP do not buy shares in the company and cannot sell their stake either. They are partners by default. It is not too dissimilar to a cooperative.

Although you can be forgiven for thinking that, given that it’s called the John Lewis Partnership, it’s actually structured as a plc owned by a trust of which the employees are beneficiaries. This is a very different animal to a true partnership which is essentially a contract between individuals operating together in business by which they can all be bound.

I imagine they call employees “partners” to reinforce the cooperative image.

AlterEgo · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
I've looked up more than the dictionary definition of socialism. I have also found out that it was implemented in several countries throughout the world, and it does not matter what happened, it only succeeded in making everyone except the state poor and even lead to famines and starvation.

This isn’t entirely correct. Broadly it is a very bad ideology and in my view not particularly successful at delivering human happiness, but there are a very few cases where it has worked better than some capitalist or liberal countries.

In the case of most socialist countries, socialism often took root and was only able to be successful at becoming the state ideology due to internal suppression, coercion, or a cult of personality. Thus, I refer to my earlier point that socialism does not rely on the goodwill of people to implement but rather for it to flourish it must be governed onto people, be benign or aggressive means.

And all the socialists have to say for themselves is "not real socialism".

Which socialists?

In any case, why do you think they say “it’s not real socialism”? Do these people perhaps look at the socialism in those countries and realise it’s not really what they believe in, which might be something a bit different?

What would James Connolly think of Venezuela?

By your logic, maybe someone can choose to be a Nazi but decide instead that blacks are the superior master race, not Aryans, because they have different interpretations of what being a Nazi should be. In fact why not go further and say that your idea of being a Nazi is no master race and instead fighting for social justice? I mean clearly that person has a different interpretation of what being a Nazi should be right?

No, the logic is that not all Nazis would be exactly the same and they would not all fit into a neat box. People might become Nazis for different reasons, and they might expect different things from Nazism. Sure, there is something that binds all Nazis but Goebbels and Speer and Mengele were all different and I would expect that they all represented different interpretations of that ideology. (They’re still all nasty, but all ideologies are a continuum. So are religions)

I am sorry, but you can't call yourself a socialist if you don't follow it's basic principle

People disagree about what the basic principle of socialism is.

People also disagree about what it means to be a Christian. You or I might say you’d have to be believe in Jesus as Lord, but other people might say the core principle of Christianity is in doing unto others as you would have done to yourself. Others still would say the core principle is mercy. Others submission. And so on.

Doesn't matter if you have your own interpretation, the words have their meanings, and if they were really so subjective then there's no point in a dictionary.

A dictionary is a quick reference book for people to look up words they don’t understand.

A dictionary is not compiled to be invoked in debating. Someone who invokes a dictionary as a debating tactic and then tries to use it as a convenient arbiter for all future discussion would strike me as someone inexperienced in actually debating. It is not an ultimate arbiter. It is a reference book compiled by people. There are words in the dictionary no longer used, and there are words used which are not in the dictionary.

If you really can have your own interpretation of words though, then I am a politician. Doesn't matter if the definition given is a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office, because my own personal interpretation of a politician is someone who simply engages in debates on the internet with people he doesn't even know.

You could quite reasonably say that “everyone is a politician” in quite a few contexts. There are many contexts where you could describe someone as a politician without them holding or even running for office. I’ve often said “everyone’s a philosopher”.

Where does it stop if you give just one word a free pass?

It doesn’t. Language is fluid. So is socialism. So are a great many other things.

I've been in many debates. I'm in one now

You aren’t. General Discussion is not a proper debate. Internet discussion can be very tedious at times as there is a tendency for posters, with the luxury of time and anonymity, to submit facts or evidence which suit their own argument. This is often to the detriment of the discussion at large because this evidence is often forthcoming only when someone poses a challenge. The poster then goes away on Google and searches for a tidbit that proves them right, but doesn’t actually research the topic to gain a full picture.

Imagine the Oxford Union, but after every sentence uttered, the other party scampers to the library for an hour.

507021 · 16 Jan 2018

I think so, yes. I have a friend who is quite well off after receiving her inheritance from her late grandmother, but she still votes Labour. If I ever come into a large amount of money in the future (very doubtful, but you never know!), I would still remain a member of the Labour Party.

trash80 · 16 Jan 2018

Arctic Troll said:
John Lewis partners do not buy shares in the company, they are beneficiaries of the trust that owns the company for as long as they work for it. And they are not passive beneficiaries either: the articles of association of the John Lewis Partnership give all partners a voice in the company. The partners can, ultimately, vote for the Chairman and Board of Directors to be removed from office. And when it comes to bonuses, every partner gets the same percentage of their salary as a bonus (those who earn more get more, but the percentage is the same whether it's 10% of £1 or 10% of £100,000.)

Another benefit of being a JL partner is the pretty decent discount you get in the stores, also available to the partners' spouses...

Up_Tilt_390 · 16 Jan 2018

AlterEgo said:
This isn’t entirely correct. Broadly it is a very bad ideology and in my view not particularly successful at delivering human happiness, but there are a very few cases where it has worked better than some capitalist or liberal countries.

Where has it worked better? If you can actually give me a correct example of where socialism worked better than capitalism and liberalism you will have already done what few if any socialists have ever done before ( for the record I am not calling you a socialist there).

In the case of most socialist countries, socialism often took root and was only able to be successful at becoming the state ideology due to internal suppression, coercion, or a cult of personality. Thus, I refer to my earlier point that socialism does not rely on the goodwill of people to implement but rather for it to flourish it must be governed onto people, be benign or aggressive means.

Hence why many are wary about Jeremy Corbyn because of his cult of personality followers known as Momentum. It doesn't matter how they get in even, because socialism's most extreme form (communism) gets in through violent revolutions, yet the results always end up the same.

Which socialists?

A great deal of them. I know someone who goes as far to even say it's never properly been tried before. It's usually one or the other, but really it's always true socialism unless it fails to them. Some of them even have YouTube channels trying to explain why Venezuela was never socialist.

In any case, why do you think they say “it’s not real socialism”? Do these people perhaps look at the socialism in those countries and realise it’s not really what they believe in, which might be something a bit different?

I don't see why anyone would have a problem identifying as something else if they find out that their previously claimed ideology isn't what they thought it was.

What would James Connolly think of Venezuela?

Don't know a great deal about him, but if he's anything like Jeremy Corbyn, he'd think it was a utopian socialist paradise. If he was like Diane Abbot he'd think that Hugo Chavez did nothing wrong, just like how Diane thought Chairman Mao did more good than harm. If he's not like them he might one of those in denial about it, use foreign scapegoating as a reason why it failed, or blame the drop in oil prices despite countries like Canada, Norway and the UAE not ending up on the brink of collapse.

No, the logic is that not all Nazis would be exactly the same and they would not all fit into a neat box. People might become Nazis for different reasons, and they might expect different things from Nazism. Sure, there is something that binds all Nazis but Goebbels and Speer and Mengele were all different and I would expect that they all represented different interpretations of that ideology. (They’re still all nasty, but all ideologies are a continuum. So are religions)

But the basic thing that binds any true Nazis together is the belief in a master race, whether or not they would agree to which race was the superior one.

People disagree about what the basic principle of socialism is.

Then I don't see how they can expect anyone to get behind them when they are all so split over what socialism basically stands for.

People also disagree about what it means to be a Christian. You or I might say you’d have to be believe in Jesus as Lord, but other people might say the core principle of Christianity is in doing unto others as you would have done to yourself. Others still would say the core principle is mercy. Others submission. And so on.

I would argue that being a true Christian meant that you read, worship, and accept the Bible as the word of god, and therefore your way of life and as your doctrine, and by that logic a lot of western Christians couldn't be considered true Christian because a lot of them now accept evolution despite what the bible says, and there's probably even some gay Christians despite homosexuality being a blasphemous act. I've never been particularly religious myself, because I find it's basic idea hard to believe.

A dictionary is a quick reference book for people to look up words they don’t understand.

But sometimes those words don't mean what they say and can be interpreted differently if you wish to interpret them differently (ie. the definition of socialism) right?

A dictionary is not compiled to be invoked in debating. Someone who invokes a dictionary as a debating tactic and then tries to use it as a convenient arbiter for all future discussion would strike me as someone inexperienced in actually debating. It is not an ultimate arbiter. It is a reference book compiled by people. There are words in the dictionary no longer used, and there are words used which are not in the dictionary.

Fine, I won't argue with you on that one.

You could quite reasonably say that “everyone is a politician” in quite a few contexts. There are many contexts where you could describe someone as a politician without them holding or even running for office. I’ve often said “everyone’s a philosopher”.

Considering the only philosphy I know of is the idea of "someone for everyone", I am not enjoying being a philosopher so far.

You aren’t. General Discussion is not a proper debate. Internet discussion can be very tedious at times as there is a tendency for posters, with the luxury of time and anonymity, to submit facts or evidence which suit their own argument. This is often to the detriment of the discussion at large because this evidence is often forthcoming only when someone poses a challenge. The poster then goes away on Google and searches for a tidbit that proves them right, but doesn’t actually research the topic to gain a full picture.

Imagine the Oxford Union, but after every sentence uttered, the other party scampers to the library for an hour.

But surely I can have my own interpretation of what a debate truly is? After all...

It doesn’t. Language is fluid. So is socialism. So are a great many other things.

Regardless, at least with the Oxford Union you know you're getting into a debate. I wasn't meaning to start a thread on socialism, it just happened when we gradually went off on a tangent with the Virgin Trains Daily Mail thread.

Bromley boy · 16 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
If he was like Diane Abbot he'd think that Hugo Chavez did nothing wrong, just like how Diane thought Chairman Mao did more good than harm.

She’s a truly ghastly woman. Racist, incompetent and above all a hypocrite - sent her own offspring to a private school after moaning about selective schools.

That’s socialism for you. Do as I say not as I do, all are equal, but some are more equal than others. etc.

Bromley boy · 16 Jan 2018

AlterEgo said:
A dictionary is not compiled to be invoked in debating. Someone who invokes a dictionary as a debating tactic and then tries to use it as a convenient arbiter for all future discussion would strike me as someone inexperienced in actually debating. It is not an ultimate arbiter. It is a reference book compiled by people. There are words in the dictionary no longer used, and there are words used which are not in the dictionary.

Dictionary references can be useful in settling a discussion about the “ordinary meaning” of a word. Reference the recent discussion on censorship. If the discussion turns to exactly what the ordinary meaning of a word is (or isn’t) it’s as good a source as any to resolve a dispute.

Indeed I can recall seeing legal documents referencing OED definitions in order to resolve ambiguity about the meaning of a word.

You are quite right that language evolves and changes over time and words may be added or deleted from the dictionary as appropropriate.

Tetchytyke · 17 Jan 2018

Bromley boy said:
Although you can be forgiven for thinking that, given that it’s called the John Lewis Partnership, it’s actually structured as a plc owned by a trust of which the employees are beneficiaries.

Very true, they are beneficiaries of the trust that owns the PLC that owns the department store. I believed (but may well be wrong) that this came about because it wasn't originally set up in this way, with it only changing after the death of their founder, and because the share capital is high enough for PLC status to be required. The Co-Operative Bank is a PLC despite (at least until their financial problems) being a co-operative.

Bromley boy said:
Dictionary references can be useful in settling a discussion about the “ordinary meaning” of a word.

I think we all know what the ordinary meaning of the word socialist is. And yes, dictionaries are a useful starting point when resolving a dispute about what a word means.

However complex political thoughts and ideologies cannot, and should not, be reduced to the dictionary definition. A dictionary definition is a starting point of a philospohical discussion, not the ending point. People who see the world in black and white, shall we say, may not understand this and may seek certainty where there is none.

As for "successful" socialist and communist countries, does China count? Genuine question.

ChiefPlanner · 17 Jan 2018

Clement Attlee - implementor of the Welfare State - came form a comfortable , semi-upper class background in Putney - qualified as a barrister (where he could have stayed for life I am sure) , but spent a large part of his life to welfare and social work , then became an able Deputy to Churchill and delivered the Beveridge Report.

So yes - a true socialist - unlike certain other , more recent Labour MP's.

nlogax · 17 Jan 2018

Arctic Troll said:
As for "successful" socialist and communist countries, does China count? Genuine question.

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

Up_Tilt_390 · 17 Jan 2018

Arctic Troll said:
As for "successful" socialist and communist countries, does China count? Genuine question.

China pretty much started to abandon communism/socialism in the late 1970s and then slowly became one of the most capitalist nations in the world. It gave people the chance to come out of poverty, and most Chinese people feel that they’re better off under this system, according the Pew Recearch Center. So no, I would not say socialism has been a success given that they chose to abandon it.

ChiefPlanner said:
Clement Attlee - implementor of the Welfare State - came form a comfortable , semi-upper class background in Putney - qualified as a barrister (where he could have stayed for life I am sure) , but spent a large part of his life to welfare and social work , then became an able Deputy to Churchill and delivered the Beveridge Report.

So yes - a true socialist - unlike certain other , more recent Labour MP's.

Funnily enough, I would regard Attlee as the best peacetime Prime Minister of the UK, and in my opinion just the best PM in general terms.

The Attlee Administration was pretty much the closest thing to successful socialism, but then it was only around for six years and was more of a foundation for rebuilding the economy since Britain was bankrupt after the war. Had it continued further I think there would’ve been the usual downwards turn. Time varies from country to country try due to different economic structure, but it happens eventually.

NSEFAN · 17 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
China pretty much started to abandon communism/socialism in the late 1970s and then slowly became one of the most capitalist nations in the world. It gave people the chance to come out of poverty, and most Chinese people feel that they’re better off under this system, according the Pew Recearch Center (which I shall link later when I get back on a computer). So no, I would not say socialism has been a success given that they chose to abandon it.

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! :lol:

)

Senex · 17 Jan 2018

Bromley boy said:
Dictionary references can be useful in settling a discussion about the “ordinary meaning” of a word. Reference the recent discussion on censorship. If the discussion turns to exactly what the ordinary meaning of a word is (or isn’t) it’s as good a source as any to resolve a dispute.

Indeed I can recall seeing legal documents referencing OED definitions in order to resolve ambiguity about the meaning of a word.

You are quite right that language evolves and changes over time and words may be added or deleted from the dictionary as appropropriate.

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.

Tetchytyke · 17 Jan 2018

Up_Tilt_390 said:
China pretty much started to abandon communism/socialism in the late 1970s and then slowly became one of the most capitalist nations in the world.

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.

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".

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

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member