What Does It Take For A Socialist/communist To Become A Capitalist?

[naomi24]

Chatting with an old friend, a life-long Union man, who’s always claimed to espouse the Marxist philosophy of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, but on this occasion, talking about people having to sell their property to pay for care in old age, somehow that seemed to have gone by the board. “I want my kids to have what I’ve worked for”, he said with some passion. Hmmmm……

Your thoughts?

[woofgang]

wow, I never ever came across that pixie. If the council were paying, then people had to be unsafe in their own homes to be given council funded residential care. If it was only a need for stuff like shopping and cleaning then the council wouldn’t fund, even if the person was housebound, there had to be a personal care element. Of course if you pay for the whole thing yourself then you can live where you like.

[woofgang]

yep, I have just checked, Hampshire will only contribute towards your residential care if you are assessed as needing residential care. If extra care at home will meet your needs then Hampshire will not contribute to funding res care

[pixie374]

Nobody needs to be- not for residential. People are paid for that have moved there for the company. You can even get direct payments while you are living in a care home to spend on clubs.

[woofgang]

well all I can say is not in Hampshire!

[ToraToraTora]

there are very few actual socialists, most of think they are but when it comes to examples like the OP they soon show up not to be. Socialism is essentially a doctrine based on "the masses, except me!" concept. It seems a romantic and fair concept until it is brought to bear then suddenly aspects of it frighten the devotees to death. Inheritance is a prime example. Logically a socialist should be happy to cede all wealth back to the state on death but in reality they'd make Ghengis Khan look like a pacifist in a fight over a torn fiver!

[Garaman]

I think it takes assets. The idea of everyone sharing the wealth is attractive if you don't have any, but less so once you start to accumulate any yourself.

[ToraToraTora]

Yep, as TGL famously said, the problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other peoples money.

[andy-hughes]

I have always seen the Marxist philosophy as unarguable - as a philosophy.

However, when you try to implement it in the real world, the simple concept of human nature takes over, and the philosophy becomes redundant.

Everyone would love for everyone to have what they need, no argument there, but in terms of providing it from the individual, then the individual simply wants to hold onto what they have - which is as basic a part of human nature as the desire to less fortunate.

The two are fundamentally incompatible - if they were not, Jeremy Corbyn would walk down the road and invite the first homeless person he saw to move into the spare room in his large house.

[ToraToraTora]

yes Andy, yet we still get proponents of socialism when, if they thought about it for a nano second they'd realise the flawed nature of the whole premise, basically socialism requires that human nature be changed, QED it cannot work.

[douglas9401]

Promotion from shop floor worker to supervisor or foreman used to do it.
These days, at least among politicians, when they start to bring in the big bucks and begin their collections of art, books or whatever, the old ways seem less attractive.

The working class can kiss my....etc.

[ToraToraTora]

reminds me of Scargill, claiming his full salary whilst driving the miners over a cliff.

[Garaman]

//...basically socialism requires that human nature be changed, QED it cannot work.///

I agree with that, TTT, but the same is true of capitalism. The bosses would take all the money and leave the workers with little given the chance, because that is human nature. Ergo you have to settle for something between the two, which is of course what we do.

[Old_Geezer]

My thoughts are that unlike some areas of the world, in the UK socialism and communism aren't considered synonymous. Socialism allows for controlled capitalism within limits. The lines are blurred and where they are drawn are for discussion.

[Theland]

Rather than have it taken by the few?
In the socialist world he would not care, but we are not there yet, so he has to play by the capitalist rules no matter how abhorrent. You sound smug.

[Old_Geezer]

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” does not imply give and give and give until you have nothing of your own left. Maybe that misunderstanding is why you haven't embraced the concept. It is about giving your required fair share to cover society's bills and help one's fellow citizens who are in need. It is about the more you have, the larger your fair contribution is. But what remains is yours to pass to whomever you wish. Health care is a need, which UK society claims is "free" as required because taxes cover it. Except in old age it seems.