(Harry Pollard:)
> You mean there would be no market in your socialist scheme?
>
...
> The UK had all these things well developed - and a glorious majority in the
> Commons for the first Labor government. Unfortunately for them (and us)
> their idealistic socialism didn't work out in practice.
>
That is the problem, your idea of socialism doesn't coincide with any
of it's classical definitions.
No labour party to my knowledge did
any idealistic or any other socialism. Capitalism was left intact.
Those industries were nationalised, that were necessary to maintain
private industry, but had not enough profit in them to be run by
private industry, such as energy production, transport, steel
industry. They were run by the capitalist, for the capitalist.
They also tried to save the status quo by introducing decent social
benefits. And due to the general boom period, it did work well for
avhile. However, when there is an economic crisis, a system based on
capitalism takes these hard won gains back first.
> >
> >Actually, there was quite a decent one here in the UK, until Thatcher
> >happened.
>
> It's a miracle! A National Health Service that cost nothing!
>
Well,at the point of demand it cost nothing. Which is still (just
about) the case. And to my information, it is running far cheaper
than the US system, that leaves millions without cover and a lot of
worry.
> When I tell English friends how little I pay for first-class service from
> my private HMO - they are envious. Why is Blair trying hard to find money
> to improve the NHS? After all, it's free.
>
You have some wierd or well-to-do friends. I obviously don't mix with
the beautiful people, I don't know anyone who
pays for the health service here. Funding was badly cut by the
tories and labour doesn't promise anything different, proving, that
they not only have the same monetarist attitude, they can't even
bother to pretend to care, since they won the elections.
The tories however now decided, that they are the caring party.
Isn't politics wonderful...
> The UK's attempt at socialism - supported by the enthusiastic 'free will of
> the people' - was a dismal failure.
>
Just because you repeat things, it doesn't make it true...
But my british part is annoyed now, - in what way is britain more of
a failure than the US??? What I know of US poverty, ignorance and
crime compares (favourably??) with anything here...
> In fact, that 'free will' brought the Tories back - eventually for more
> than a decade - because of the socialist failure. (Both Blair and Clinton
> are very good at adopting rightist policies. Could that be because of the
> rejection of socialism by the 'free will of the people'.)
>
Oh, good. This means the tories were voted down now, because the
people are fed up with failed capitalism... I can only hope you're right...
> >Why couldn't it be
> >different now with so much more resources, experience in some
> >democracy and with i.t. that is cheap enough now to be
> >available for every human?
>
> There's a reason but, as yet I don't see you approaching it.
>
So, say it, I'm a simpleton. Explain to me, please. Why do you
think that on these above bases socialism - by the classical definition of
a system without capitalism - wouldn't work?
> >I am not a pacifist, if I'd think, that force would work, I would go for
> it. But it evidently doesn't work.
>
> I wouldn't.
>
You rather let people die of malnutrition, wars, etc. due to the
present system. You are not really "better".
But, as I said, history amply demonstrated that
terrorism and tyranny doesn't work, there are no shortcuts to a
democratic change.
> Read your history. My education through technical college was free in the
> thirties. I - along with my contemporaries - could read at the age of 6.
> (We sat on our front door step - swapping the Champion, Hotspur, Wizard,
> etc. They were full of reading material - adventure, sports, science
> fiction, school, stories.
>
Well, I haven't read much american history. I've just seen a tv docu
series about the british education system for the majority
before 1945, and it was dismal - it wasn't all that great in the
"public" schools neither. And I know, that my
father who was very clever and got through secondary school as a
scolarship student in the 30s if the capitalist Hungary, couldn't go
on to university, because - he was poor.
> >By the way, Thatcher and most government is voted in by 40+ percent
> >of the 60+/- percent of the people who bother to vote, is this the
> >democratic parliament you are refering to?
>
> Is democracy a system where one MUST vote whether she wants to, or not?
>
I just pointed out, that voted in to power here - and there - doesn't
mean the democratic decision of the majority or the "people's will"
you were refering to.
> >>HARRY: The market makes a profit when it satisfies the desires
> >>of the consumer,
> >> which is all of us. People like cars. The market supplies their likes. You
> >> should understand that the market is simply the message carrier. You may
> >> not like the people's choices - but the choices are theirs.
>
> >If the consumer is a power hungry dictator? (Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
> >Iran, Indonasia, etc etc???) Not to mention Hitlers Germany so well
> >supplied for the market of killing.
>
> It's very difficult to discuss anything, when you introduce such nonsense.
> Try to keep your mind on real life, like Mrs, Smith going to Tesco to buy
> some sausages.
>
The real life also contains Saudi Arabia purchasing weapons of
torture and Indonesia killing the people of East-Timor, etc, etc,
with the arm industry making up a large section of your,
global market place and Mr Smith is a minor player unfortunately,
whether you find this nonsense or not.
> The only way we can make progress is for you to tell me what you mean by
> Capitalism, Socialism, and the Market.
>
Read Marx (Karl) still available in most libraries.
You'll find that economists accept his definitions, even if not his
conclusions. But all of it is educational...
Eva
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
