No Fault Evictions

[BC'er]

Those in power will milk whatever system they are in charge of. But a socialist system allows anyone in society to milk the system too, it encourages fecklessness.

Complete opposite of the truth. The whole point of brexit and everything about free-market neoliberalism, de-regulation etc is to allow businesses to "milk the system" with as little constraint as possible.
The childish ideology says that this will somehow work out the best for everybody. But it does not, never has, and socialism in its many forms exists precisely to correct this and fill the gaps, "for the many not the few".
Globalisation has made things more difficult for many by shipping jobs abroad. Automation adds to this by reducing the number of jobs required. These add up to a large class of people in insecure and low paid jobs, and/or dependant on benefits. It's not their own fecklessness which has taken their jobs and opportunities away and created mass unemployment.

In fact the "socialist" model as it has played out in reality rather than in Fabian fantasies is that the ruling class, the "apparatchiki" as they were called in Russia, are the ones who milk the system as they have the power and the perks to do so, while the "workers & peasants" who of course must remain workers & peasants unless by dint of ability, "loyalty" or nepotism they manage to join the ruling class, have only the black market to turn to; that and what they can produce for themselves by growing on the small plots they were allowed or a bit of hunting & gathering.

The bulk of what the USSR produced was grown on those small plots by the way. Strangely enough, having promised the peasants "land and peace" the communists then took back the land and those who didn't go along got the peace of the grave. Of course when the state starves you to death as a matter of policy, loyalty isn't going to do you much good anyway.

One of the grotesque ironies is that the average standard of living by every measure was pitiful in 1924, 34, 44, 54, 64, 74 etc. compared to what it had been in 1914. Even the top apparatchiki lived miserable lives compared to what they would have done had Russia continued on the course she was on before WWI.

The truly childish idea; though to say so is to insult the common sense of children, is that the state can, should or ever would legislate material equality in any meaningful sense. As Churchill well put it, socialism is "equality of misery", at least for all but the ruling class, a group always composed of the most ruthless, grasping and fanatical components of the population who naturally rise to the top in all societies.

Marxism is nothing but a black comedy, the man himself referred to his works as "swinish books". He was a sponger who lived off Engels, allowed several of his children to die of starvation, fathered an illegitimate child by Helen Demuth his household servant, and squabbled obsessively with anyone in the so-called revolutionary movements who aroused his jealousy. The "workers" like the rest of humanity, he despised and wrote of with contempt. His true desire as he expressed it one of his poems was "tear down everything and stride like a colossus through the ruins". Not surprisingly, several of his surviving children and their spouses committed suicide.

The real problem we have in the West at present is the financial and banking oligarchies riding herd on politicians and corporations. Nothing new about that of course, its been going on for centuries, but now we have vast pools of capital chasing immediate returns and essentially looting corporations to get it. That of course and enforcing ludicrous "social" and "environmental" policies with ever greater trans-national controls and censorship. The "long march through the institutions" which parlour leftists and two bit American radicals used to declaim about: gradually enlarge the state while choking off private enterprise and personal freedoms, until voila, "SOCIALISM"!. The crackpots and misanthropes who dream of this stuff will be its victims of course, just as they were in the USSR and the PRC. Once the machinery of repression is created it no more "withers away" than the state does; it merely goes in search of new grist for its mill, and those who had a hand in creating it of course know too much to be allowed to live.

And those who do live with it will be like the cab driver in Leningrad in the 50s who remarked to his foreign passenger: "My father says we did a lot of stupid things in 1917 and we're paying for it now".

 

[Blackswanwood]

Re the part highlighted in red. I am not sure that medical need afflicts only poor people and would be interested to see the evidence for this assertion Jacob.

I think @Jacob is making a slightly different point which is in part illustrated by the attached …

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insigh...in poverty has a,stage of the patient journey.

I’m sure he’ll be along to correct me if not!

For the avoidance of any doubt I absolutely concur that the NHS should be there for all.

 

[Jacob]

Re the part highlighted in red. I am not sure that medical need afflicts only poor people and would be interested to see the evidence for this assertion Jacob.

I didn't say that. What I meant was something very simple i.e. that if you are both ill and poor you are unlikely to be able to afford modern medicine in the open market.
I guess a large proportion of the population fall into this category, not that poor - routine modern treatments would cost £thousands.
I'm probably fairly typical of people my age (79) even though fundamentally healthy but having hip replacement, hernia op, quad tendon break and op, lens replacement, hearing aids, spectacles, dozens of vaccinations, health checks, more to come before I'm dead! etc etc. You'd have to be very rich to afford all this, not to mention the healthcare from birth, well 1947, up to the present.
Sorry if you think this is waste of public resources in my case!

Whilst one might argue that more well off people can afford to pay for private healthcare, the existence of same goes against the principles of socialism.

No it's the neglect of health care for the less well off which goes against basic morality. You don't need to be a socialist to work that out!

But equally importantly, the private sector typically excludes chronic conditions and is often poor at handling major trauma. Furthermore, people who are better off are also the ones who have likely paid the most into the NHS and so are surely equally entitled to use it.

Yes equally entitled to use it, of course

.......

I'm not being obtuse but as we all pay for the NHS we should all expect it to deliver. Perhaps we need a contract of what it can and can't do. We also need to get a grip of the obesity epidemic and should not be allowing manufacturers to destroy the nation's health selling salt and sugar laden chemical foods, as these lead to ill health.

Agree. More regulation and control of processed food etc plus education. Goes against the grain of market liberalisation in a big way.

 

[Jacob]

...

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/relationship-poverty-nhs-services#:~:text=Living in poverty has a,stage of the patient journey.

....

That looks very interesting. So much to read and so little time!
Quick glance - it looks like a basic argument for UBI and the elimination of poverty at a stroke - it could actually save money. Poverty is a waste of money.
It's absolutely pineapple ing crazy that many people providing essential health care e.g care workers and others, are obliged to live in poverty themselves.

 

[Jacob]

In fact the "socialist" model as it has played out in reality rather than in Fabian fantasies is that the ruling class, the "apparatchiki" as they were called in Russia, are the ones who milk the system as they have the power and the perks to do so, while the "workers & peasants" who of course must remain workers & peasants unless by dint of ability, "loyalty" or nepotism they manage to join the ruling class, have only the black market to turn to; that and what they can produce for themselves by growing on the small plots they were allowed or a bit of hunting & gathering.

The bulk of what the USSR produced was grown on those small plots by the way. Strangely enough, having promised the peasants "land and peace" the communists then took back the land and those who didn't go along got the peace of the grave. Of course when the state starves you to death as a matter of policy, loyalty isn't going to do you much good anyway.

One of the grotesque ironies is that the average standard of living by every measure was pitiful in 1924, 34, 44, 54, 64, 74 etc. compared to what it had been in 1914. Even the top apparatchiki lived miserable lives compared to what they would have done had Russia continued on the course she was on before WWI.

The truly childish idea; though to say so is to insult the common sense of children, is that the state can, should or ever would legislate material equality in any meaningful sense. As Churchill well put it, socialism is "equality of misery", at least for all but the ruling class, a group always composed of the most ruthless, grasping and fanatical components of the population who naturally rise to the top in all societies.

Marxism is nothing but a black comedy, the man himself referred to his works as "swinish books". He was a sponger who lived off Engels, allowed several of his children to die of starvation, fathered an illegitimate child by Helen Demuth his household servant, and squabbled obsessively with anyone in the so-called revolutionary movements who aroused his jealousy. The "workers" like the rest of humanity, he despised and wrote of with contempt. His true desire as he expressed it one of his poems was "tear down everything and stride like a colossus through the ruins". Not surprisingly, several of his surviving children and their spouses committed suicide.

The real problem we have in the West at present is the financial and banking oligarchies riding herd on politicians and corporations. Nothing new about that of course, its been going on for centuries, but now we have vast pools of capital chasing immediate returns and essentially looting corporations to get it. That of course and enforcing ludicrous "social" and "environmental" policies with ever greater trans-national controls and censorship. The "long march through the institutions" which parlour leftists and two bit American radicals used to declaim about: gradually enlarge the state while choking off private enterprise and personal freedoms, until voila, "SOCIALISM"!. The crackpots and misanthropes who dream of this stuff will be its victims of course, just as they were in the USSR and the PRC. Once the machinery of repression is created it no more "withers away" than the state does; it merely goes in search of new grist for its mill, and those who had a hand in creating it of course know too much to be allowed to live.

And those who do live with it will be like the cab driver in Leningrad in the 50s who remarked to his foreign passenger: "My father says we did a lot of stupid things in 1917 and we're paying for it now".

Too long to read. Say 500 words max? 2 of your paragraphs?

 

[Stan]

Automation adds to this by reducing the number of jobs required.

Years ago I saw a cartoon of two men standing looking at some roadworks, where another man was sitting in a digger digging a trench.

The first man complained to the second:
"You know, if it wasn't for that man in the digger, twelve men with shovels could have paid jobs doing that".
"Aye", said the second man. "But if it wasn't for your twelve men with shovels, two hundred men with teaspoons could have paid jobs doing that".

Without modern automation lots of goods would be beyond the reach of ordinary people. How many of us could afford a car if they were all hand made? Those two hundred men with teaspoons would all have to be paid a pittance to make whatever they were producing affordable. But not affordable for them on their pittance. Sounds a bit like Soviet communism to me - everybody has a job but nobody can afford anything.

 

[Jacob]

...

Without modern automation lots of goods would be beyond the reach of ordinary people....

As long as they are not out of work. That's the basic paradox. The automation puts them out of work and they can't even afford the cheapo rubbish
Also in general cheaper goods leads to lower wages - less pressure on wage demands and lowering of standards of goods and services. A negative feedback cycle.
Similarly free NHS health care means less pressure on wage demands. I would have needed many £thousands to pay for the health care I've already had - and not dead yet!