Revolutionary Socialism a good idea for Victorian Britian?

[Solaris]

Revolutionary Socialism a good idea for Victorian Britain?

A problem I often encounter here when trying to argue with you lot to become socialists, is that it just is not necessary, as very few of us now live in poverty and that Marxist principles cannot apply to today's society with such different methods of production.

So here's a question to debate.

Should a Working class person in Victorian Britain (roughly between 1840's-1890s for the time period we're going to debate) have supported a Socialist Revolution with the aim of implementing Marxist doctrine.
Here are some quotes from a channel 4 page I found about Victorian Britain.

Thousands of little children, both male and female, but principally female, from seven to 14 years of age, are daily compelled to labour from six o'clock in the morning to seven in the evening, with only – Britons, blush when you read it! – with only 30 minutes allowed for eating and recreation.

the 1851 Census records that 1,296,000 people are employed in the textile industries, 572,000 in metal manufacture and 394,000 in mining. As factory workers, they become servants of machines and subject to the relentless discipline of mechanisation. They have to clock-in to and clock-off from work and, while in the factory, are under the authority of the master or overseer.

s Sir John Simon, a pioneer of public health, says in 1854: 'It is no uncommon thing, in a room of 12 feet [3.7 metres] square or less, to find three or five families staying together.'

During the 19th century, much of the food consumed by the working classes is adulterated by foreign substances, contaminated by chemicals or fouled by animal and human excrement

In Victorian times, women aren't allowed to vote, and so there are no women in Parliament

We can see that life at that time was terrible for working class people in the cities, who provided the labour that the success of the rich was based upon. It is a prime example of what damage capitalism can do if allowed free reign. Now, should the people have other throw the state, taken back the produce of their own labour from the rich, and created a society where everyone works together and the wealth is shared equally. A society summed so beautifully by:

'From each according to ability, to each according to need'

I would say, yes.

 

[Polaris]

Revolutionary Socialism killed millions of people all over the world. I say NO.

Revolutionary socialism is an ideology that supports establishing socialism through violent revolution, instead of through democratic elections and the existing political institutions.

 

[Solaris]

Revolutionary Socialism killed millions of people all over the world. I say NO.

Tell me, what Millions did revolutionary socialism kill?

Stalin, was a socialist by name only, Soviet Russia was a failed socialist uprising, Lenin himself admitted that it would fail if the revolution did not spread throughout the world. It didn't and the soviet union became dominated an authoritarian elite and was far more 'state capitalist' than socialist. By this I mean, that although the state ran everything in a socialist like manner, it was for the profit of the elite at the top, rather than for distribution amongst everyone. The country was run like a business.

Edit: To Polaris's point, yes a Socialist revolution would very probably be violent. Had a socialist party became large enough to a threat to the establishment, which would be near enough impossible anyway, as for quite a while only men who owned a lot of land could vote. At the time the political system could not represent the people, and was not democratic. The only way to potentially save the millions who were suffering from extreme poverty was revolution, and those who would stand in the way of such an action and rallied behind the rich, would have to be killed or removed.

 

[Solaris]

And who would specify who has what abilities and what they're needs are.

People elected by universal suffrage from an educated people.

 

[Solaris]

An adjective, it's not really necessary, I just threw it in.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It's so strange but ... I'm comfortable with Britain having a communism.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I don't like communism. Socialism could work, but it couldn't be full on socialism. It'd be have to be something like Democratic Socialism.

 

[repiV]

The advances of the Victorian era and the industrial revolution are directly responsible for the lifestyle we enjoy today. No doubt the world would be very different today without that influence. They made sacrifices in order to revolutionise the lives of later generations and change the face of civilisation forever.
So...no.

 

[Solaris]

The advances of the Victorian era and the industrial revolution are directly responsible for the lifestyle we enjoy today. No doubt the world would be very different today without that influence. They made sacrifices in order to revolutionise the lives of later generations and change the face of civilisation forever.
So...no.

It's okay that millions had to live miserable lives in poverty and watch their children die before their eyes of malnutrition and deasease becuase; becuase of that you can have an i-pod?

 

[repiV]

It's okay that millions had to live miserable lives in poverty and watch their children die before their eyes of malnutrition and deasease becuase; becuase of that you can have an i-pod?

Your flippant comment demonstrates that you don't really grasp the impact of the industrial revolution, including the massively inflated life expectancy that goes along with it. Since your entire argument here comes down to life-threatening poverty - well, thanks to the industrial revolution, that doesn't happen very often anymore.

 

[DeusExMachina]

It's okay that millions had to live miserable lives in poverty and watch their children die before their eyes of malnutrition and deasease becuase; becuase of that you can have an i-pod?

That doesn't even make sense. No one's saying its okay. He was saying that the SACRIFICES they made have brought on a better world for today.

 

[Solaris]

That doesn't even make sense. No one's saying its okay. He was saying that the SACRIFICES they made have brought on a better world for today.

No he's saying they shouldn't have revolted so we could enjoy what we do today.

You know, the idustrial revolution would have still happened under socialism. No socialists wanted rid of the machines, they just wanted control of the tools of production (ie. The machines in the mills ect.).

 

[repiV]

No, the industrial revolution would not still have happened under socialism. Socialism = stagnation. There is no getting around that.
What is it with you and revolutions anyway? Kind of like the woman that spends her life pursuing the fairytale wedding but not caring about the relationship, it sounds like you're more interested in some glorious revolution as told by Hollywood than what it would actually accomplish.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I gotta agree with him Solaris. You're a good guy, but you seem too caught up in the "glory" that comes with revolution and not the consequences and reprecussions of what comes with it. You only see it as something positive when it can very likely and easily become something negative.

 

[repiV]

I gotta agree with him Solaris. You're a good guy, but you seem too caught up in the "glory" that comes with revolution and not the consequences and reprecussions of what comes with it. You only see it as something positive when it can very likely and easily become something negative.

He is a good guy. He's also an intelligent guy. I just put it down to baseless youthful idealism.
He'll be a conservative one day, betcha 100 bucks.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Well I don't wanna say a revolution wouldn't be a bad idea per se, just not a communist/socialist one. The world superpowers need a wake up call and America and Europe haven't had a good one since the 1960s.

 

[repiV]

That's the problem - everyone has a different idea of what a good revolution would be. The idea of the "people's revolution" is pure fantasy - "the people" are not some united group that need to break free from their oppressors or some shit.
That's why we have democracy.

 

[kirovman]

I've said before that Stalin did implement a lot of socialist economics, such as collectivised farming, centralised command economy and nationalised industries. Hence, he could be called a Socialist.

His only major deviation from Marx's doctrines was that he thought a socialist revolution was possible within one country, whereas Marx argued that it had to be an international thing.

However this country has had a lot of socialist implementations in recent history (e.g. Clement Atlee's government), which were a reactions to Victorian style conditions. But I don't like too much socialism in society, it tries to artificially cull competitiveness, and encourages laziness. Just look at the welfare state. It's a nice safety net to have, but a lot of people take it for a ride.
Competitiveness is important in society. Let's put it this way: In an exam do you think "I've got to do better than everyone else"
or "Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone got an A?"

Also, I don't like the command economy, you'd have a lot of black markets springing up in reaction to that.

 

[Solaris]

No, the industrial revolution would not still have happened under socialism. Socialism = stagnation. There is no getting around that.
What is it with you and revolutions anyway? Kind of like the woman that spends her life pursuing the fairytale wedding but not caring about the relationship, it sounds like you're more interested in some glorious revolution as told by Hollywood than what it would actually accomplish.

I would beg to differ. I think if you have a society, where people are essentcially paid to do higher education as a job then we are going to encourage alot more people to go, creating a more educated workforce. Then, rewards could be offered to scientists that say, if they create a machine that helps society quite a bit, then they can retire early on full pension and do what they want.

It's why I picked the Victorian timezone over this one to be honest, the tools were really there to make enough food for everyone, whilst at the time, everyone worked on these tools, yet most people were literally starving, near to death. Life was a complete misery, yet the rich had all the luxuries in surplus, like the mayour in 'A christmas carol' who has 40 cooks cook his Christmas dinner, whilst most of his townsfolk are starving.

I don't see, at all, what bad could have come from a socialist revolution in the Victorian Era. Life was just so terrible, with such hard work with so little reward for the people. If the wealth was fairly distributed, and the people owned the tools of production, there could have been an abundance of food for everyone.

I don't know how familier with Marxism you guys are, but why wouldn't you think appling it to the Victorian era would be a bad thing?

I'm creating this line of argument, so we can develop it, hopefully into:

"well, if you agree it can be succesfully applied to society 100 years ago, why not now? whats different? How could we succesfully apply it?"
Don't answer that now, we've got to conclude the original point first.

Edit; kirkovman,

I've said before that Stalin did implement a lot of socialist economics, such as collectivised farming, centralised command economy and nationalised industries. Hence, he could be called a Socialist.

His only major deviation from Marx's doctrines was that he thought a socialist revolution was possible within one country, whereas Marx argued that it had to be an international thing.

Sure, he collected the wealth in a socialist manner. But it certainly wasn't distributed in a marxist fashion.

 

[repiV]

I would beg to differ. I think if you have a society, where people are essentcially paid to do higher education as a job then we are going to encourage alot more people to go, creating a more educated workforce.

Bleeding the economy dry for no good reason.

Then, rewards could be offered to scientists that say, if they create a machine that helps society quite a bit, then they can retire early on full pension and do what they want.

What if they don't want to retire early? And what could they possibly do with the tiny amount of money they would have to live on?
Also, it makes very little sense to get rid of society's best assets like that. Society needs to be holding on to such people for as long as possible and getting as much out of them as it can, not encouraging them to retire when they realise a fraction of their potential.

It's why I picked the Victorian timezone over this one to be honest, the tools were really there to make enough food for everyone, whilst at the time, everyone worked on these tools, yet most people were literally starving, near to death. Life was a complete misery, yet the rich had all the luxuries in surplus, like the mayour in 'A christmas carol' who has 40 cooks cook his Christmas dinner, whilst most of his townsfolk are starving.

So why would you need a "socialist revolution"?
What's wrong with the evolution of society into something akin to what we have today - a kinder, gentler capitalism?
(Too kind and gentle if you ask me, but that's not overly relevant).

I don't see, at all, what bad could have come from a socialist revolution in the Victorian Era. Life was just so terrible, with such hard work with so little reward for the people. If the wealth was fairly distributed, and the people owned the tools of production, there could have been an abundance of food for everyone.

What bad? Assuming the lack of other industrial revolutions elsewhere, modern life as we know it would not exist. Industrialisation is a bigger leap forward for civilisation than all other advances in recorded history combined. The world will never be the same again. We have advanced more in the past 150 years than in the preceeding 5000.

I don't know how familier with Marxism you guys are, but why wouldn't you think appling it to the Victorian era would be a bad thing?

See above...

I'm creating this line of argument, so we can develop it, hopefully into:

"well, if you agree it can be succesfully applied to society 100 years ago, why not now? whats different? How could we succesfully apply it?"
Don't answer that now, we've got to conclude the original point first.

Edit; kirkovman,
Sure, he collected the wealth in a socialist manner. But it certainly wasn't distributed in a marxist fashion.

 

[Polaris]

Tell me, what Millions did revolutionary socialism kill?

Millions during Red revolution, collectivizations and famines in Russia, tens of millions dead in China, approximately 1.7 million people in Cambodia (btw 21% of the country's population).

All countries who started with this radical form of socialism failed.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Lets not live in lala-land by thinking there was no poverty, dying abused kids or whatnot before the industrial revolution.
What the industrial revolution did was organize it to mass-produce stuff for the "rich folks" but indirectly increase a countries wealth...
It is indeed because of the industrial revolution, along with colonialism that Europe got its giant-leep forward compared to other continents, with its wealth skyrocketing, and poverty decreasing.
When we switched that to socialist states, many countries actually managed to run due to the enormous head start created many years ago. Slowly but surely a socialist state becomes too expensive, and the "head start" starts fading away, as ancient colonial and industrial wealth runs dry. New more capitalistic governments then need to overthrow many socialist rules in order for the country to be able to self-sustain.
Imo if Victorian Britain would have changed to a socialist state, it would have been a short-road of reduced poverty, which would have then ended in mass depths and overall poverty in the long-run, since the country couldn't pay for itself anymore and the competition would definately also contribute to this.

You already see it happening in socialist Holland, the governments depths are skyrocketing, and society, even though still extremely rich, is burning on the head-start created long ago.
How long will our socialist state prevail? Since already I see more and more socialist rules being "reversed" to cut costs.
Ask any economist who can look in long-term wealth, how well socialism works.

Though, all in all my perfect world would be a good blend. Socialism, but to a certain degree.
Capitalism, to ensure enough wealth to be able to pay for the socialist rules in place.

 

[repiV]

Lets not live in lala-land by thinking there was no poverty, dying abused kids or whatnot before the industrial revolution.
What the industrial revolution did was organize it to mass-produce stuff for the "rich folks" but indirectly increase a countries wealth...
It is indeed because of the industrial revolution, along with colonialism that Europe got its giant-leep forward compared to other continents, with its wealth skyrocketing, and poverty decreasing.
When we switched that to socialist states, many countries actually managed to run due to the enormous head start created many years ago. Slowly but surely a socialist state becomes too expensive, and the "head start" starts fading away, as ancient colonial and industrial wealth runs dry. New more capitalistic governments then need to overthrow many socialist rules in order for the country to be able to self-sustain.
Imo if Victorian Britain would have changed to a socialist state, it would have been a short-road of reduced poverty, which would have then ended in mass depths and overall poverty in the long-run, since the country couldn't pay for itself anymore and the competition would definately also contribute to this.

You already see it happening in socialist Holland, the governments depths are skyrocketing, and society, even though still extremely rich, is burning on the head-start created long ago.
How long will our socialist state prevail? Since already I see more and more socialist rules being "reversed" to cut costs.
Ask any economist who can look in long-term wealth, how well socialism works.

Though, all in all my perfect world would be a good blend. Socialism, but to a certain degree.
Capitalism, to ensure enough wealth to be able to pay for the socialist rules in place.

Well said. Socialism vs capitalism more often than not is a battle between idealism and realism.

 

[theotherguy]

It really depends on the level of socialism.

Socialism on a moderate scale (ie, socialist healthcare, welfare, social security, etc.) like that which is found in scandanavia is actually quite wildly successful.

Like most forms of government, it must be blended with others to form something truly good. Pure capitalism (I'm talking voting with money, corporate police, corporate military, corporate political leaders, etc.) would be absolutley awful and would result in extreme seperation from the rich and poor. Pure socialism (ie, communism) is also quite terrible because it results in wealth being spread so thin that nobody has enough to stay alive, except of course for the political elite.

Therefore the perfect economic system lies in the middle, in a sort of democratic socialist or welfare-state economy. The government must be used to help the people and regulate the economy where needed, incase the private sector becomes too greedy and too powerful, and corporations must be relied on to produce tangible economic gains for the economy, and keep the economy moving.

The government shouldn't be a driving force in the economy so much as it has to be a funnel, chanelling the growth of the economy into useful and benificial areas, and helping those left out in the cold by rapid economic growth.

 

[15357]

If it does become a Socialism, then on to the frontlines! Liberate England!

 

[Solaris]

Bleeding the economy dry for no good reason.

Not at all, it would encourage people to seek further education. A more educated workforce can only be a good thing. Besides, it would hardly bleed the country dry, undersocialism, we could overproduce very easilly with no risk

What if they don't want to retire early?

The wouldn't have to.

And what could they possibly do with the tiny amount of money they would have to live on?

They would stay on full wage.

Also, it makes very little sense to get rid of society's best assets like that. Society needs to be holding on to such people for as long as possible and getting as much out of them as it can, not encouraging them to retire when they realise a fraction of their potential.

Most scienists like their jobs and the best stay at science till they die.

So why would you need a "socialist revolution"?
What's wrong with the evolution of society into something akin to what we have today - a kinder, gentler capitalism?
(Too kind and gentle if you ask me, but that's not overly relevant).

At the time, I don't think you could persuade a socialist (sure things are shitty now, but in 150years everything will be fine, you'll see.

What bad? Assuming the lack of other industrial revolutions elsewhere, modern life as we know it would not exist. Industrialisation is a bigger leap forward for civilisation than all other advances in recorded history combined. The world will never be the same again. We have advanced more in the past 150 years than in the preceeding 5000.

Industrialisation would be massively helpful to a socialist country, it allows more efficient production of goods.

Millions during Red revolution,

In Russia?

collectivizations and famines in Russia, tens of millions dead in China, approximately 1.7 million people in Cambodia (btw 21% of the country's population).

You can't blame the failings of the Soviet Union on communism. Right from the word go, it was immediately attacked on all fronts by capitalist countries, it couldn't trade and lacked many resources.

 

[ComradeBadger]

No, for the simple reason that it creates a closed society in which progress isn't desireable.

Communism would not advance the economy at all, and would infact cause stagnation, and ultimately, worse conditions for all.

 

[theotherguy]

No, for the simple reason that it creates a closed society in which progress isn't desireable.

Communism would not advance the economy at all, and would infact cause stagnation, and ultimately, worse conditions for all.

Precisely. People work half-heartedly when they know they reap no greater benifits from their efforts if they strived towards greater things.

In spite of the great way communism seems to work on paper, human nature ultimatley gets in the way. People want tangible monetary gratification for doing "better" at their jobs than the next guy. Upward mobility and free choice in the economy are essential for economic growth, because otherwise nobody has any reason to advance the interests of the nation besides the government itself...and propaganda is not as great a motivator as a high-paying job and fancy luxury goods are.

 

[Pax]

I believe I speak for all of us if I post the following

CLICK HERE

- Pax

 

[clarky003]

No, for the simple reason that it creates a closed society in which progress isn't desireable.

Communism would not advance the economy at all, and would infact cause stagnation, and ultimately, worse conditions for all.

In the present world yes, but if people had a unifying purpose this most likely would not be so, at the moment we are all hell bent on personally aquiring material through wealth.

If some event on an essentially global scale where to change our present condition as a society such as not having to depend on limited resources, and subsequently being able to have collective gain from exploring the universe with a stable global platform to start that from, or something along those lines.

In that cenario I believe there is grounds for socialisim to be very feasable and highly desireable.

Unless people want to continue being selfish pricks for the whole of their lives , but I'd like to think we are better than that and that there are more important things to do as a species.

 

[kirovman]

But there's always going to be the element of competition, followed by reward.

Nobody wants to work all their life for nothing.

I'm not saying materialism is good (I personally do not like it), but people seem to need a way to quantify achievement in real terms.

 

[DaMaN]

Note to the reader: forewarned is four-armed

First of all, this just started as a stating of my opinions on socialism and capitalism. Then I kept typing and it ended up being more of a capitalism rant, with an interesting study I found at the bottom. Enjoy! I guess...

---

Miscellaneous thought #1


Capitalism seems to isolate people quite directly. There's nothing wrong with a little competition, but when simple competition for "who has the best car" gets in the way of other people's lives, social society breaks down.

Are you more likely to give your neighbor a cup of sugar if he can then take that sugar, sell it, make a profit, and get more money than you while at the same time making you poorer?


In a purely capitalistic society, the benefits of capitalism must only be avaliable to the top minority. If the pleasures of "elitist life" (cars, mansions, boats, personal planes, etc) were avaliable to a majority of people, then there would be no competition to achieve these "wealth" items, and the driving force behind capitalism would be gone. The desire for "wealth" and the desire to compete are what makes capitalism work. Once a market becomes saturated with a product, that product is no longer making a profit, and hence, the seller of the product starts loosing their gained "wealth". This means that in order for sellers to stay "wealthy", they must constantly be changing their product, or making their product perishable, which can have negative consequences. (there are two other ways to keep a market unsaturated, see below)

For example, if a toy company makes a spinning top and reaps a profit from it for a while, until the market becomes saturated, and the company goes out of buisiness - everybody has a top so nobody's buying one. Now, the company can solve their own dillema by 2 ways: changing their product so that now it comes in four different colours (thus quadrupling their potential market), or by making the top break after spinning it ten times (thus making their potential market "refresh" itself every so often). Since there are a finite number of ways they can change their product while still retaining desirability, eventually they will go along the second route and design their top so that another one must be bought after ten spins. This means that product quality will tend to go down.

There are only two other ways of ensuring that the market does not become saturated, the first is by making it so that your product is constantly improving. Take computers for example. Computer speed has generally been doubling every 18 months, which means that every 18 months, the saturated computer market will now be unsaturated by the introduction of a faster computer. While this has been doing quite well for the computer industry, there are limits on how fast computers can go. (Or, more accurately, there's a limit to how fast we can push an electron through a tube). So, the computer manufacturers must still resort to one of the first two options (variety or breaking). And therefore, even though capitalism will initially drive research with great speed, once that research is exhausted, the market built on that research becomes saturated, and the sellers of that market go out of buisiness.

The second alternative way of ensuring your market is not saturated is by bombing it to hell, forcing the market members to go out and buy everything all over again.

---

Miscellaneous thought #2 (which is tied in with MT#1)

Now, Capitalism starts becoming a real problem when "wealth" no longer consists of merely money. Since capitalism has a tendancy to decrease product reliability, other things will get substituted with products: When "wealth" becomes "being able to live above the poverty line", that means that the majority of people will be below the poverty line, which in turn means that the majority of people will be suffering. And if the majority of people are suffering, the majority of people will be unhappy with the current system, and the majority of people will want that system to change to one that lets them live (socialism, for example).

And hence, it would seem to be that as capitalism becomes more and more aggravated, and more and more competitive, the majority of people will probably rise up and overpower the wealthy by sheer force of numbers and have bloody revolutions all over the place. :thumbs:

Or the poor will die off and humanity with it...

---

---

Miscellaneous thought #3

Speaking of socialism, an interesting thing I found while browsing this big wide system of tubes was Guarenteed minimum income - basically a system whereby the government would guarentee you enough income to live on, regardless whether or not you do any work. Now, it might seem at first glance that this would make people very lazy and that they wouldn't do anything. However, studies proved that people were just as productive (if not more so) when they had a guarenteed income:

A little-known experiment in guaranteed income took place in Dauphin, Man. Canada in the 1970s:

Under the guaranteed annual income program, every resident of Dauphin was ensured a minimum income ranging from about $11,000 to $17,000 in today's dollars, depending on family size.

The program, funded by the provincial and federal governments, was run by a group of academics at the University of Winnipeg. Although the program was well publicized in the city of Dauphin, the test site was only known by the code name "River City" to people outside the community.

"There was a certain amount of fear in the 1970s that very generous social programs might encourage people not to work. Researchers found that that was not, in fact, the case," economics professor Evelyn Forget told CBC News.

"The only people who tended not to work quite so hard were students in high school. In fact, one of the things we expect to find is that adolescents stayed in high school a little longer and graduated. We expect to find traces of that difference even now."

Sounds good to me, I wish the Canadian government had gone with it...

 

[Ome_Vince]

You see, i think a capitalistic society with some socialist rules is the perfect society.
The examples you posted are merely a "what if a society was 100% capitalistic", and the examples/posts i gave earlier are a "what if society is socialist", since thats where the topic was about -> what is Victorian Britain turned to a socialist state.

As i said, i have no doubt in society being much better with amazing socialist rules, its just that it doesn't work in the long run financially (and thats if the finance was there in the beginning). Plane and simple, nobody can pay for it.
Right not 80% of the world has paid/is still paying for the other 20% (the west) to live in the wealth we live today.
This allows us to create socialist states where we can guarantee income (like we have in Holland -> everybody gets social welfare money if they're unemployed).
It works pretty good, and nobody is complaining... until... the money starts running dry...

Forgetting our own past for a second, (trying not to repeat what i posted earlier ), take a look at the enormous booming economies of China and India.
Both countries "exploit" the poor, and are in fact in a "capitalistic state, compared to the Victorian age in Britain or anywhere else in Europe back then".
Note the growing economies are growing rapidly and they're taking great economical strength (over the backs of many many many poor civilians, even children).
This all until the worker no longer takes the abuse, and socialism starts showing its face.
Economy stagnates, growth goes down, and eventually society becomes too expensive.
There are a number of factors that always add up, lower birthrate due to wealth add to the mix.

500 years of colonial exploiting, industrial revolution, has landed Europe being able to fund 80-100 years of socialism. You already see many rules being revoked, people becoming unhappy, everything becomes too expensive, population growth is small, etc.
Pretty soon society will naturally flip to (not back to extortion) but a bit more capitalism, until it finds a good balance... i hope.

In the end, socialism would be teh pwn,... but the wealth is not there, not for all nations, and only for a small group of lucky few, for a short period of time

 

[Flyingdebris]

I'm sure everyone who's seen my posts knows where i stand on communism vs capitalism. But i'm going to throw my .02 in anyway.

The problem with socialism and communism IMO is that your force people to work through the government or they won't get what they want or need. "Do you want to find a better source for what you want? tough, there isn't one, just the government." Competition breeds growth. Variety can be a strength. Bogging everything down in beauracracy and red tape in the name of helping everyone helps no one.

Its nice to believe that people can unite and work together for a common goal, but that sort of stuff doesn not happen in day to day events. I want to choose my own goals. I want to follow my own ideals. I want the freedom to choose the goods and services and not have the unpleasant task of dealing with the government whenever i want to do or buy anything.

 

[15357]

When has socialism been a good idea, anywhere?

 

[Solaris]

When has socialism been a good idea, anywhere?

When your children are starving to death and working 12 hour days while their boss eats off a silver table.

 

[kirovman]

A silver table? :O Wow I really want one of those.

 

[15357]

When your children are starving to death and working 12 hour days while their boss eats off a silver table.

Nothing wrong with that actually. If someone has teh money to eat off a silver table then it's their right to do so.

 

[kirovman]

Or in Asia, eating off people's naked bodies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3641777.stm

 

[repiV]

Not at all, it would encourage people to seek further education. A more educated workforce can only be a good thing. Besides, it would hardly bleed the country dry, undersocialism, we could overproduce very easilly with no risk

Of course it would bleed the economy dry. Paying everyone a wage to produce absolutely no wealth and gain an education that will in most cases be worth very little? WTF?
Too many people go to university already. There should be 5-10% of the population going to university, not 50%. It's just not necessary, and all it does is increase unemployment and economic stagnation due to employers asking for degrees as a minimum for no other reason except everyone has one. This forces more people to go to uni just to be able to enter the job market, not because they need or want that education - hence reducing their productive lives by three or four years.
How pointless.

The wouldn't have to.They would stay on full wage.

Yes, and their full wage would be next to nothing, since there would be very little to pay them with. You hate poverty so much? Congratulations, under your system EVERYONE would be in poverty.

Most scienists like their jobs and the best stay at science till they die.
At the time, I don't think you could persuade a socialist (sure things are shitty now, but in 150years everything will be fine, you'll see.
Industrialisation would be massively helpful to a socialist country, it allows more efficient production of goods.

So...you're saying they should be allowed to retire early, but now you're countering by saying that they like their jobs and stay at them until they die?
So, uh, where's the reward for their work again?

In Russia?You can't blame the failings of the Soviet Union on communism. Right from the word go, it was immediately attacked on all fronts by capitalist countries, it couldn't trade and lacked many resources.

Good.