• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,417
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
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.

Here we note the age difference of you and I who have 72 years "under the belt" so to say. Rudyard Kipling was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1907 and was also a poet of some note. He was born in India of English parents and one of his better-known poems was that of "Gunga Din" which he wrote in 1890. That date was only some 33 years after the date of the Indian Mutiny of 1857. You might care to read about the events that occurred in that event.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
Oh how I've longed to go from being a boy to a man :D

That was intended as a humorous Rudyard Kipling “If” reference rather than an implication that you aren’t already a man - just to ensure you picked that up!
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
Here we note the age difference of you and I who have 72 years "under the belt" so to say. Rudyard Kipling was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1907 and was also a poet of some note. He was born in India of English parents and one of his better-known poems was that of "Gunga Din" which he wrote in 1890. That date was only some 33 years after the date of the Indian Mutiny of 1857. You might care to read about the events that occurred in that event.

Perhaps I ought to read about the Indian Mutiny some time, along with looking up the Gunga Din poem. I actually didn't realise that Kipling received a Nobel Prize, but really he deserved it. As much as I like the 1967 and 2016 adaptations of The Jungle Book, Kipling's work, in my opinion, is superior to both films and is sadly overshadowed by them. It's partly why I look forward to Warner Bros' take on the Mowgli stories. Even outside of the Mowgli stories like Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and the White Seal still stand out. Now the Gunga Din I didn't know about, so perhaps I ought to have a read or at least look into it one day.

That was intended as a humorous Rudyard Kipling “If” reference rather than an implication that you aren’t already a man - just to ensure you picked that up!

I actually didn't get the reference I'm afraid. Yet another Kipling story I am unfamiliar with. Maybe I need to read a few of them along with 1984 and Animal Farm before I can call myself a man :p
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
I actually didn't get the reference I'm afraid. Yet another Kipling story I am unfamiliar with. Maybe I need to read a few of them along with 1984 and Animal Farm before I can call myself a man :p

If is a poem and can be read in a matter of moments.

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_if.htm

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none
too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
If you can't be bothered reading them, the films are available on YouTube (though I can't vouch for their faithfulness to the books).

I’d strongly recommend reading the books themselves, rather than watching the films, for anyone who wants to understand let alone truly appreciate these works of art for what they are.

These books are some of the most important pieces of writing the 20th century produced.

Maybe I’m getting old, but trying to sum up such brilliant 20th century prose in films seems depressingly 21st century!
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,417
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
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.

I have emboldened the final extract part of your posting and would draw a comparison to the post-World War Two period in the Warsaw Pact countries, East Germany with its Stasi being a most notable example to quote in this respect.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,610
Location
Elginshire
I have emboldened the final extract part of your posting and would draw a comparison to the post-World War Two period in the Warsaw Pact countries, East Germany with its Stasi being a most notable example to quote in this respect.
The Stasi would be rubbing their hands with glee if they had just some of the technology that our current state employs to monitor its citizens! CCTV everywhere, automatic numberplate recognition, biometrics... I cannot open a new bank account or get a new job without either applying for a passport, or swapping my paper driving licence for a photographic one. Authoritarianism isn't the sole preserve of "socialist" governments.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,417
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The Stasi would be rubbing their hands with glee if they had just some of the technology that our current state employs to monitor its citizens! CCTV everywhere, automatic numberplate recognition, biometrics... I cannot open a new bank account or get a new job without either applying for a passport, or swapping my paper driving licence for a photographic one. Authoritarianism isn't the sole preserve of "socialist" governments.

Are you also under the same depth of personal circumstance monitoring with the employment of the same Stasi methodology that the citizens of the East Germany lived under? Are you enjoying more personal freedom of choice than those East German citizens?
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
I have emboldened the final extract part of your posting and would draw a comparison to the post-World War Two period in the Warsaw Pact countries, East Germany with its Stasi being a most notable example to quote in this respect.

Poor Poland just didn’t catch a break for so many years. But considering that the Stasi is regarded as the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies, I can only imagine much worse intrusion if they had all of today’s technology. Secret police is what you always end up with under both systems of fascism and socialism so the system doesn’t fall apart. Such parallels I must say.

Authoritarianism isn't the sole preserve of "socialist" governments.

No, that’s true, it isn’t. But unlike what we have now, socialism requires there to be an authoritarian government in order to ensure the system stays in order. You hear some people say that it was never socialism because of the authoritarian governments, but in reality a tyrannical authoritarian state is an inevitablity. The amount of power given to the state is enough to corrupt an individual. It is a human trait to be imperfect. But even if you have someone totally incorruptible given the power of a socialist dictator (the kind of person socialists indirectly say are needed when they say it was just the wrong people in power), they will be able to look carefully and realise that the system isn’t working and cannot be enforced properly without violating personal freedoms, and so they will do the right thing and stop socialism.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,610
Location
Elginshire
Are you also under the same depth of personal circumstance monitoring with the employment of the same Stasi methodology that the citizens of the East Germany lived under? Are you enjoying more personal freedom of choice than those East German citizens?
Am I under the same personal circumstance monitoring? I don't know - I wouldn't have thought that my views and daily activities would be enough to trigger any interest by the authorities, and I don't disagree that I have more personal freedom of choice, but the legislation and technology is already in place if one day the government decided to go "rogue".
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
The Stasi would be rubbing their hands with glee if they had just some of the technology that our current state employs to monitor its citizens! CCTV everywhere, automatic numberplate recognition, biometrics... I cannot open a new bank account or get a new job without either applying for a passport, or swapping my paper driving licence for a photographic one. Authoritarianism isn't the sole preserve of "socialist" governments.
I am quite happy with all of the above given what use the current (and past) government makes of it.

I will be far less happy if/when Corbyn, or more correctly McDonnell, gets in power, and finds the machinery for his type of regime installed and ready to go.
 

lyndhurst25

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,413
I am quite happy with all of the above given what use the current (and past) government makes of it.

I will be far less happy if/when Corbyn, or more correctly McDonnell, gets in power, and finds the machinery for his type of regime installed and ready to go.

That's the problem with willingly giving up civil liberties because you trust the current government not to abuse its new powers. It's not the current government that you need to worry about: it's all possible future governments.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
That's the problem with willingly giving up civil liberties because you trust the current government not to abuse its new powers. It's not the current government that you need to worry about: it's all possible future governments.
Fair enough, but I take a more sanguine view that giving moderate governments the tools they need to do their job. within reason, will ensure their survival.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,551
Location
UK
I'm struggling to understand the viewpoint that a socialist system necessitates an authoritarian government? There are numerous countries which manage to create functional social democracies, those in Scandinavia are commonly cited.
 

lyndhurst25

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,413
I'm struggling to understand the viewpoint that a socialist system necessitates an authoritarian government? There are numerous countries which manage to create functional social democracies, those in Scandinavia are commonly cited.

It's a recurring scare story put about by the right. Winston Churchill made a speech in 1945 warning that a Labour win in the upcoming general election would result in the Attlee government setting up a British version of the Gestapo. Instead we got the NHS, welfare state and British Railways.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
I'm struggling to understand the viewpoint that a socialist system necessitates an authoritarian government? There are numerous countries which manage to create functional social democracies, those in Scandinavia are commonly cited.

Because there needs to be someone to ensure and enforce the collectivist ways of the workplace and society, otherwise the whole system falls apart. I have explained this in more detail earlier in the thread.

As mentioned before too, Scandaniavian countries are social democracies, as you have just stated, but they are NOT socialist. There is no social ownership of the means of production, therefore it isn’t socialist. Social democracy, to give a short description, seeks to embrace capitalism with a few regulations and a welfare state. This is not socialism.

It's a recurring scare story put about by the right.

If it's such a scare story, why has pretty much every socialist country had the state being given increased power in order to implement the system and ensure socialist rule stayed in place, which eventually leads to a totalitarian government? (ie. the Soviet Union).
 
Last edited:

lyndhurst25

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,413
There are varying degrees of what people call "socialism".

State ownership of all businesses and a centrally planned economy e.g. USSR. i.e communism.
State ownership of essential public services and strategic industries, citizens' rights to housing/healthcare/welfare e.g. post war Attlee government.
Well funded public services available to all, some of them provided by private companies e.g. New Labour.

And it doesn't have to be the state that does the owning. The Co-Op is most definitely a socialist organization. I don't see them ensuring that there is someone to enforce the collectivist ways of the workplace and society. Damn pinko commies trying to take over the country with their dividend cards, ethical chocolate and meal deals!
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
There are varying degrees of what people call "socialism".

State ownership of all businesses and a centrally planned economy e.g. USSR. i.e communism.
State ownership of essential public services and strategic industries, citizens' rights to housing/healthcare/welfare e.g. post war Attlee government.
Well funded public services available to all, some of them provided by private companies e.g. New Labour.

And it doesn't have to be the state that does the owning. The Co-Op is most definitely a socialist organization. I don't see them ensuring that there is someone to enforce the collectivist ways of the workplace and society. Damn pinko commies trying to take over the country with their dividend cards, ethical chocolate and meal deals!

It doesn't matter how many varying degrees of socialism there are, they all united by social ownership. It's not that hard to understand: no social ownership of means of production = no socialism. The second one you described is very much in line with Social Democracy, which is not socialism, it is capitalism with varying levels of regulations. Attlee may have implemented more socialist policies than what is the norm for even that system, and even called himself a democratic socialist, but that doesn't strictly mean that a country nor the system is socialist The third one isn't even remotely socialist, it's just the state competing with private companies, which is very much happening now under Britian's capitalist system.

I am sorry if I sound like I'm losing my cool at this point, but is this all that the defenders of socialism can do? Try to extend the name of the ideology to try and make it sound more successful than it actually is by including systems with policies that embrace capitalism and reject the basic principle of social ownership which is the grounded foundation of socialism? That's not how it works! I honestly don't see a problem with someone deciding that they are not a socialist because the ideology isn't what they thought. When socialism wasn't what I thought, I stopped calling myself a socialist. When I found that classical British Liberalism and the Liberal Party (not the Lib Dems) had views more in line with mine, I started calling myself a liberal, I didn't try and claim it was socialism because of any similar policies.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top