Soldato
By the way, I haven't forgotten I owe you that diatribe on the virtues of extreme capitalism. It's just it's a large topic and when I did have a bit of free time it was in my ban week.
Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.
By the way, I haven't forgotten I owe you that diatribe on the virtues of extreme capitalism. It's just it's a large topic and when I did have a bit of free time it was in my ban week.
The problem is that Socialism is an intellectual concept. It sounds great on paper and when discussed by smart, educated (And typically, middle class) sociology students in university common room bars.
(Back in my days, late 70's, the STEM students were pretty much all Tory, and with a fair few NF thrown in for good measure!)
But in the real world it flies against basic human nature.
To have any hope of working as a practical system, it requires that all members of society are willing to suppress their basic natures and go along with it.
This doesn't happen and as a consequence a high level of authoritarianism (Right up to the mass slaughter of those who are unwilling to "Get with the program") is inevitable in any society that attempts to implement it.
In addition, Socialist utopias are inveitabally really rather contrived.
For your homework, I recommend the most influential book that nobody has ever hear of.
"Looking Backward" by Edward Bellemy. p1888.
It seems to be largly forgotten today, but in the late 19th century. "Looking Backward" achieved a status and influence comparable to "Das Kapital"!
The road towards every increasing socialism is inherently linked to tyranny. Capitalism is not immune from decent into tyrnany either but socialism guarantees a lurch towards totalitarian rule as it progresses.
As socialism is the communal (in practice state) ownership of the means of production and distribution it means that a society can start off down the socialist path with the goverment consensually purchasing private industries but as the socialism progresses the state will run out of money to buy more industries and/or it will find itself competing with new private industry startups in the industries it has invested in (with goverment run industry all too often being woefully inefficient) and so the govement must rely on banning private enterprise (in effect saying that a person does not have control of their own labour) and /or prohibiting private industries and seizing their assets.
Such actions are by their very nature require a totalitarian state.
By the way, I haven't forgotten I owe you that diatribe on the virtues of extreme capitalism. It's just it's a large topic and when I did have a bit of free time it was in my ban week.
Ha, thanks and no problem — I think a lot of people (myself included) wanted to say what you said to get a holiday.
Agreed. In theory, it (arguably) has some merit but it ultimately requires the suspension of human nature to succeed and as such, always fails in practice.
Interesting thanks, I'll check it out.
Soldato
Another book to read would be Ludwig von Mises Socialism.
It is probably the most damning account of socialism. I've got it to read but have 20 plus books to get through before it is scheduled.
The human nature to possess and to own undoes all what Socialism claims. It also taking it a step further shows why you end up with gulags and political prisoners.
It is probably the most damning account of socialism. I've got it to read but have 20 plus books to get through before it is scheduled.
The human nature to possess and to own undoes all what Socialism claims. It also taking it a step further shows why you end up with gulags and political prisoners.
The problem is trying to brute force past human nature usually with a good dose of end justifies the means thrown in there when you get towards the more extremes.
It is a subtle point that is often misunderstood with Corbyn - he cares about society as the institution - he would happily sacrifice every person within society to further the institution of society but some believe he actually cares about the social issues they face at a personal level.
Ultimately we need to strive as a civilisation to find balance to the equality rather than trying to brute force it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
I've seen people say this before, and yet I've never seen a quote to back it up.
Soldato
Yes, it's like the people who miss the obvious connotation with the communism question: If you had to kill 20,000,000 more people to get your utopia would you do it? Those of low brainpower always answer yes.
The same is true of a similar person saying they would revoke the second amendment in the US.
Soldato
How about not responding to a nuclear strike?
Sacrifice everything because its not what he wants
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
The thing with nukes is that they are pointless, hence mutually assured destruction.
Probably the worst thing mankind has ever weaponized.
Probably the worst thing mankind has ever weaponized.
Soldato
Oh I quite agree, but it is in many respects that deterrent that safeguards your/our way(s) of life.
He is prepared to sacrifice 60m. I may still defend him once or twice here and there but he would never have my vote.
Soldato
Non-retaliation is a supportable position. If half of humanity and its civilisation is going to be destroyed, one can argue that not taking the rest of it with you is a positive. I mean, you're dead anyway so you can't gain anything from annihilating everyone else. I guess a short period of petty satisfaction if you're so inclined, but otherwise all you're doing is taking a huge number of innocent people with you.
Now, saying that you would never retaliate kind of destroys the utility of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, but that's a quite different argument.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
It's not sacrificing 60m though, we'd already be dead. It's killing millions of other innocent people somewhere else.
Soldato
That is the point though harmony
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
Well h4rm0ny said it better than me.
I think most people will agree but it is an example that he won't make a personal sacrifice of ideology for the good of the country. That lack of pragmatism, that he would weaken the security of the country at the risk of the population of the whole country, is dangerous when mixed with radical socialist thinking.
EDIT: I actually agree with the general sentiment - I could get behind the general theme if he espoused actively working towards a future where nuclear weapons wouldn't be needed even if that is unlikely to be accomplished in our life time. Personally I find Corbyn frustrating as if he could mix pragmatism with his thinking I think he could have been one of the most significant politicians of this era.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yes but the point is with saying we will retaliate we save us all.
Corbyn is clueless here and clearly doesn't understand basic game theory or doesn't care.
Its the same story as when he said he would guarantee the position of EU nationals in the UK post brexit without any indication that there would definitely be a reciprocal arrangements in place for UK citizens in the EU.
He may think he's operating on a point of principle when he says things like this but good leaders (for thoose being lead by them) aren't heavily agreeable people who just give other parties concessions up front.
And I any event I don't believe he's objectively a moral man as he was happy to repeat a call for private property to be seized and occupied in response to a local if tragic issue.
In summary like a lot of despots in waiting he is willing to put aside logic and due processes in the pursuit of ideology.
Are you aware that there hasn't been a war between any major powers since the advent of nuclear weapons? It's like the idea of nuclear weapons is scary to you, so you want them banning, while ignoring the evidence that they have actually kept the peace so have saved countless lives.