Socialism - The responsibility of the wealthy? (FAO 8Pack)

[Mannginger]

I have just read a comment on a different thread by 8Pack and I find it difficult to reconcile.

8Pack said:

A true Socialist does not believe in sloth. In either the upper or lower classes. You must work for what you achieve. Therefore, it is encumbert upon the upper class to prove their worth, rather than waste their inheritence on mere fripperies and desires. It must enhance our Nations wealth creation. Unfortunately this is now lost, and they invest instead in the wealth of other Nations who are paid much, much less for the same work. Then, they blame the Unions and society collapses

Now I'll come right out and say that I'm not a big believer in Socialism as a political or economic ideal. However I am interested in the thoughts behind these comments - they intrigued me.

8Pack said:

A true Socialist does not believe in sloth. In either the upper or lower classes. You must work for what you achieve

I tend to agree with this, I also do not believe in Sloth as a rule, (although on Sundays I may be inclined to commit it just a wee bit!) I also agree that in general you need to work to achieve anything I cannot think off the top of my head of anyone who achieved anything noteworthy without some form of sacrifice or bloody hard work (regardless of class)

8Pack said:

Therefore, it is encumbert upon the upper class to prove their worth, rather than waste their inheritence on mere fripperies and desires.

I balk at this statement however. It is not incumbent on the upper class to prove anything. In this day and age I suspect that the massive majority of upper class people will either be working for other people or be doing something of benefit to others. (Be it charity work or by directly or indirectly employing others.)

Another point is that any inheritance they may enjoy is theirs to do with as they wish. If I am fortunate enough to be able to leave a decent inheritance for any kids I may chose to have in the future I wouldn't want someone telling them where or how to spend the money that I worked bloody hard for to provide for them. On PH in particular, where most of us are joined by a love of what many would consider to be a frippary or desire I find this statement very unpalatable.

8Pack said:

It must enhance our Nations wealth creation. Unfortunately this is now lost, and they invest instead in the wealth of other Nations who are paid much, much less for the same work.

I presume "It" is the wealth of the Upper class? If so, then I assert that a huge amount of money is paid into the national coffers as taxes by those who are considered to be upper class. I also suspect that more money is spent in country than on different countries' economies. However I have no way of knowing this - it merely fails to make sense in my mind. (Not unheard of to be fair!)

8Pack said:

Then, they blame the Unions and society collapses

Again I'm not too sure about this comment - are you saying that those companies* who do invest outside of the country do so because of the actions of the unions? If so I don't think it's as simple as that. The country as a whole is wealthy, this tends to inflate salaries (Although the unions do do their part in bargaining for increased salaries and other benefits) So I would state that it is economics that means that certain industries' activities are more profitable to be run outside of the UK.

*I have used the word "companies" here over the upper class as I don't believe that the upperclass has the same level of influence in global industry that it used to enjoy in the Victorian era - but the argument remains sound I hope)



My initial understanding of your comments was that the success of socialism was the responsibility of the Upper classes and that it appears that you blame the Upper classes for the failure of socialism because they didn't want to take part. Is that right or am I massively far off mark?

Apologies for singling you out 8Pack but the comments did interest me as it seems that of course Socialism is dependant on the entire community wanting to take part. It also seems obvious to me that the whole community will never want to take part and that therefore as an ideal it is fatally flawed from the start. Yet it appears you still wish it to be in place. I am interested in your thoughts as to how (and why) it should / could work.

Cheers

Phil

[jimbeaux]

Mannginger said:

I have just read a comment on a different thread by 8Pack and I find it difficult to reconcile. 8Pack said: A true Socialist does not believe in sloth. In either the upper or lower classes. You must work for what you achieve. Therefore, it is encumbert upon the upper class to prove their worth, rather than waste their inheritence on mere fripperies and desires. It must enhance our Nations wealth creation. Unfortunately this is now lost, and they invest instead in the wealth of other Nations who are paid much, much less for the same work. Then, they blame the Unions and society collapses Now I'll come right out and say that I'm not a big believer in Socialism as a political or economic ideal. However I am interested in the thoughts behind these comments - they intrigued me. 8Pack said: A true Socialist does not believe in sloth. In either the upper or lower classes. You must work for what you achieve I tend to agree with this, I also do not believe in Sloth as a rule, (although on Sundays I may be inclined to commit it just a wee bit!) I also agree that in general you need to work to achieve anything I cannot think off the top of my head of anyone who achieved anything noteworthy without some form of sacrifice or bloody hard work (regardless of class) 8Pack said: Therefore, it is encumbert upon the upper class to prove their worth, rather than waste their inheritence on mere fripperies and desires. I balk at this statement however. It is not incumbent on the upper class to prove anything. In this day and age I suspect that the massive majority of upper class people will either be working for other people or be doing something of benefit to others. (Be it charity work or by directly or indirectly employing others.) Another point is that any inheritance they may enjoy is theirs to do with as they wish. If I am fortunate enough to be able to leave a decent inheritance for any kids I may chose to have in the future I wouldn't want someone telling them where or how to spend the money that I worked bloody hard for to provide for them. On PH in particular, where most of us are joined by a love of what many would consider to be a frippary or desire I find this statement very unpalatable. 8Pack said: It must enhance our Nations wealth creation. Unfortunately this is now lost, and they invest instead in the wealth of other Nations who are paid much, much less for the same work. I presume "It" is the wealth of the Upper class? If so, then I assert that a huge amount of money is paid into the national coffers as taxes by those who are considered to be upper class. I also suspect that more money is spent in country than on different countries' economies. However I have no way of knowing this - it merely fails to make sense in my mind. (Not unheard of to be fair!) 8Pack said: Then, they blame the Unions and society collapses Again I'm not too sure about this comment - are you saying that those companies* who do invest outside of the country do so because of the actions of the unions? If so I don't think it's as simple as that. The country as a whole is wealthy, this tends to inflate salaries (Although the unions do do their part in bargaining for increased salaries and other benefits) So I would state that it is economics that means that certain industries' activities are more profitable to be run outside of the UK. *I have used the word "companies" here over the upper class as I don't believe that the upperclass has the same level of influence in global industry that it used to enjoy in the Victorian era - but the argument remains sound I hope) My initial understanding of your comments was that the success of socialism was the responsibility of the Upper classes and that it appears that you blame the Upper classes for the failure of socialism because they didn't want to take part. Is that right or am I massively far off mark? Apologies for singling you out 8Pack but the comments did interest me as it seems that of course Socialism is dependant on the entire community wanting to take part. It also seems obvious to me that the whole community will never want to take part and that therefore as an ideal it is fatally flawed from the start. Yet it appears you still wish it to be in place. I am interested in your thoughts as to how (and why) it should / could work. Cheers Phil

I agree with your summation that socialism(and communism for that matter)in its pure form, ala, "Lenin-by-the-book" might well work. However, the major flaw is human nature. Unless everyone works their absolute hardest to contribute(which they won't), it is doomed to failure. I too would be interested in 8Pack's explaination regarding "human nature".

[ErnestM]

"Under Czarist Russia you had the Czar, the Boyars, Peasants and inequality. Under the Soviet Union you had the Commisars, the Polituro, the Proliteriat and inequality." - Tom Clancy

Under both systems, somebody always has to decide who gets what. Better to let the individual decide what and how hard to work for it...


ErnestM

PS: Inheritance is a private matter. The work has already been done for the inheritance, the exploitation of which has just been deferred by the earning party

[raftom]

ErnestM said:

"Under Czarist Russia you had the Czar, the Boyars, Peasants and inequality. Under the Soviet Union you had the Commisars, the Polituro, the Proliteriat and inequality." - Tom Clancy

Place: Moscow, circa 1980

6 a.m. The streets of Moscow are filed with people badly slept, dress and fed who go, using the public transport system, to their workplaces.

They are the people, the true owners of the country.


10 a.m. Luxury cars stroll along the avenues, carrying well-dressed people who, while smoking their havana cigars, are chauffeured to their private cabinets.

They are the party members, the servers of the people.