TomandBob
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘Sounds to me like you envy the capitalist class and see socialism as a ticket for being free to behave like them without any laws, money, etc. standing in your way.’
I don’t envy anybody. Money does stand in the way of all people having what they want. This was my original point, that in the mind of a lot of people Socialism is associated with sharing out the misery and imposing controls on what people want or need.
What is your definition of ‘rampaging capitalism’? Building infrastructure? Planning to travel to Mars?
‘An irresponsible society would never establish socialism. The irresponsible thrive already’.
You said it not me.
Capitalism has brought unprecedent wealth to a lot of people. In the west especially, most people are living longer and healthier lives. Even Marx aknowledged this:
“The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?”The problem is that Capitalism produces vast inequalities. Hence, why the aim should be abundance for all.
Also the ‘selfish bastards’ you describe exist because there is no other way to get rich and buy high quality goods. If money doesn’t exist and we live ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ then there would be no need to be selfish. However, ‘need’ is a subjective concept.
‘An irresponsible society would never establish socialism. The irresponsible thrive already’.
So Socialism is impossible.
‘The community would shun them as selfish bastards and restrain them if they do harm.’
We do that now. People and companies are fined or imprisoned for breaking rules and regulations related to the environment. Most of the problems are happening in countries without adequate institutions to set and enforce laws.
‘..not necessary for humans to live’ is subjective. What I don’t think is necessary, you might think is essential for a happy life.
‘People who “don’t give a damn” about these things where their pleasures are concerned would, I hope, be publicly shamed’.
How? Sent to a gulag?
‘We should be thinking of a more balanced approach to life’.
But, what you consider as ‘a balanced approach to life’ may be different to someone else. I’m happy to use public transport as I live in a city, while someone else may find having a car more important. I only wash with soap, someone else may like using different shower gels and putting on different body sprays each day.
‘We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume.'(Sylvia Pankhurst). That seems like a pretty good aim.
Socialism became less attractive when it became lumped in with environmentalism. Instead of calling for abundance for all it became an ideology wanting to share out the misery. A case in point is fossil fuels. An advanced society needs energy, and plenty of it. The easiest way to generate energy is by burning fossil fuels. The emissions are bad for human health and the environment, but we have the technology and ability to find ways of using these resources more efficiently. Until ‘Socialism’ is associated with abundance for all and a positive view of the future it will continue to be rejected by the people.
