The Enigma Of Socialism

[Khandro]

What is its appeal? Are its supporters ignorant of world history, or of even current politics? In the USSR, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Venezuela it has led variously to the suppression of free speech, the imprisonment of dissidents, state-sanctioned mass murder and widespread starvation - as witnessed recently by the President of Venezuela telling the people not to be squeamish about eating their rabbits.

So what began as a dream of equality ends up with you having to eat your pets!

With all previous attempts at Socialism having patently failed, why did nearly 13 million of the population vote for Jeremy Corbyn last June, are they unaware of the suffering and misery which Socialism has unleashed on the world?

[scooping]

As Churchill said: "Capitalism is the worst of all possible systems - apart from all the others".

[Zacs-Master]

Socialism doesn't have a monopoly on poverty and misery, you're right. But it does have the stigma of it being virtually a guaranteed outcome of its system.

It is a basic human trait to want to have more, which is why it never works, unless that desire is suppressed through a totalitarian regime. But this generally falls apart too.

[Kromovaracun]

//Using Attlee is a joke - because whatever his government's achievements he lasted one term.//

Doesn't matter because

a) I was using him as an example of the kind of socialist Corbynites think Corbyn is, ideologically speaking

b) There is more to losing an election than one's ideas.

[Kromovaracun]

Also his policies were unanimously adopted by his opponents in much the way that Thatcher's were after 1990

[scooping]

It's not unfair at all to use Attlee as an example. The Left do it all the time.

[jno]

scooping, it was democracy, not capitalism, he was talking about.

[jno]

those who think Blair imitated Thatcher (which certainly wasn't the opinion of Tories at the time) should remember how Cameron imitated Blair.

[scooping]

I'm a Tory but suggest you reed a little more about Clem. He was a thoroughly honourable man. He acheived a lot. He had more decency in one of his little fingers than Corbyn and his thugs.

[Kromovaracun]

Even the arch Conservative Peter Hitchens has said that Corbyn has set an example for being civil to his opponents (even if Momentum have not, though one of the key problems with Corbyn is that he does not seem able to control Momentum at all).

[jim360]

What I mean is that Attlee's failure in 1950 was not a failure of socialism, as far as I can see. Besides, many of the achievements of that government shape the country even today, do they not? The NHS is of that time, and of that government (no matter how much Tories try to take credit for it), as is much of the modern Welfare State.

It's also worth pointing out that Attlee's loss in 1951 owes much to the vagaries of FPTP voting. Labour that year polled almost 14 million votes, their most ever, and still ended up losing 20 seats.

[ichkeria]

"It is a basic human trait to want to have more, which is why it never works, unless that desire is suppressed through a totalitarian regime. But this generally falls apart too. "

The argument as to whether it works or not is not really relevant, odd as it may sound, to the "question", which is I think disingenuous.
It is very easy to see why people vote for x or y in British elections, and in the case of last June's election, has nothing to do with knowingly defying the inevitability of Stalinism :-)

[scooping]

Jim: the usual cry. Blame FPTP for the Tories beating Attlee. But you don't blame FPTP for electing him...

[ichkeria]

Also, comparisons between Attlee's government and repressive socialist states is pretty unfair. It was Attlee's government, largely through the vision of Ernest Bevin, which drove our collaboration in the setting up of NATO.

[Old_Geezer]

Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. In the best system to aim for, socialism allows sufficient capitalism to benefit the society, but prevents a free-for-all abuse of others by ensuring the laws create framework keeping it in check. Some things are disallowed, and sufficient taxes are paid so wealth (mainly created by the workers and simply facilitated, or often merely already in existence and attracted to and by the management) is more fairly distributed within society.

[jim360]

Scooping: why would I blame FPTP for electing Attlee when, by any measure, 1945 would have seen him thrash Churchill?

And anyway I'm not blaming FPTP exactly, but it has to be acknowledged as a significant factor. But 1951 didn't see the Labour party lose popular support, so there is no sense in which the socialist experiment of the late 1940s was seen by the public as a failure.

[Khandro]

I have limited knowledge of UK factories, the only one I have visited is Honda at Swindon. A Japanese company came to the UK, built an astonishing factory producing excellent cars, employing, directly and indirectly thousand of people who are well looked after, and they pay all the taxes demanded of them.
Under the Socialism espoused by Corbyn, the factory, (which would never have been built, of course) would be taken over by the work force and would be - if you're lucky - soon be producing the equivalent of Trabants in dire circumstances.

But instead of steering the conversation, as the left is doing, towards the paucity of choice (which isn't true) why not answer the question. why did you vote for him?

[jim360]

I explained why I voted "for" Labour before the election -- several times. I can retrieve those posts for you if I like. But certainly a significant factor in giving my vote to Labour was because I saw it as the best chance I had to simultaneously hurt both the chances of May running away with a landslide election and reduce the level of support for the SNP, voting as I was in an Edinburgh constituency. Both of those came as far higher factors than any particular support for Corbyn and his vision, and it seemed to me anyway that the chances of him actually winning the election were rather low.

I know for a fact I'm not the only Labour voter from 2017 to have done so for tactical considerations rather than actual support for Labour. I don't know exactly how many people switched to Labour as a sort of protest vote or tactical vote, but I imagine it to have been rather an important factor in explaining their surge.

[Old_Geezer]

All political affiliations have to accept the times change and move with them. The bigger question is whether you treat those who worked in the factory, creating the added value, with contempt and simply force change through and let those workers fend however they can, or whether you move at a reasonable pace ensuring your nation's citizens are treated well.

One should only end up making Trabants if one's nation fails to create the industry oneself, and allows other countries to invest here and cream off the wealth created. One should consider encouraging that only when desperate for help.

[jim360]

Incidentally scooping, if you've read my previous shots against FPTP you should see that I've explained on numerous occasions that I hate it as a system in principle, not because it allows the Tories to win from time to time. For example, in 2015 I was sad to see so much UKIP support, but even sadder to see that it counted for absolutely nothing in Parliament, and have said so here numerous times. Also, one of the worst-ever election results from an FPTP point of view was probably 1983 in which Labour got a ridiculously disproportionate representation in Parliament, only just edging out the SDP/Libs but getting almost 10 times as many seats. The other problem with FPTP, the seat boundaries themselves*, is something that typically benefits Labour. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that I am so partisan in my criticism of our voting system.

*As an aside, there's a case in the US Supreme Court on the subject of gerrymandering, and I was considering posting about that nearer the time it is debated there, so I'll save further electoral system rants for that thread.

[Chris38]

The most charitable thing one can say about today`s socialists is that they represent the triumph of hope over experience. The Labour party now includes many very nasty people indeed- total nutters.