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. And being ill may mean losing your earning capacity too.
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!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

UK unemployment (actively looking for work) is 4.4% -(1.5m). A "natural" level of unemployment is 2.5-3.5% due to job moves, business cycles, etc. Overall there is low unemployment in the UK.

There are ~8.6m others of working age not in work - students 2.4m, carers 1.6m, sick 2.4m, early retired 1.2m, others 1.0m (half over 50). Source ONS.

Of these ~1m would like a job were circumstances more favourable ~0.25m students and ~0.5m over 50s. That they are not actively looking may be due to disabled, caring, age discrimination etc.

Economic and social challenges will not be fixed by making existing work less efficient - it would have the effect of making both rich and poor, poorer. Resolution will come through enabling the economically inactive to work by:

• improving NHS performance to enable those sick to work where possible
• incentivising early retirees to return to the workplace
• enabling flexible working patterns and employment contracts to minimise risk to businesses and individuals in returning to work
• training and support for those wanting employment despite barriers

I would not expect to eliminate the 8.6m economically inactive - but a substantial reduction would benefit both the economy and wider society.

Legislation which excessively limits zero hours contracts, employment conditions etc will be a barrier to progress, not a worthy addition to employee rights.

 

[Ozi]

Unless they are out of work. That's the basic paradox.
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.

If the Luddites had been successful we would still be living as if at the beginning of the 19th century. If I was renting a house to someone which provided the typical standard of a working mans cottage from that era I can guess what you would be saying about it on this thread.

Pure Socialism or pure Capitalism unchecked are a nightmare.

Only a system which rewards effort and celebrates success while taxing in a fair manor those who profit from it either by luck, ability or more usually a combination of both has any chance of long term success. The "check" that is required is that those who do not play by the rules suffer (and are seen to suffer) the consequences. Either the ultra rich avoiding the tax system or free loaders taking without contributing.

 

[BC'er]

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

Says the chap with 30,000+ posts!

From what I've seen so far Jacob you're always keen to engage in bit of give 'n take; nothing there at all you can sink your teeth into?

How odd, and yet perhaps not.

"Never mind that elephant you fellows, come and look at this spot I found on the wall paper."

 

[Jacob]

If the Luddites had been successful....

The Luddites were successful but not necessarily in their own lifetimes.
Popular mistake is to assume that they were opposed to technical progress, machines etc.
In fact they were fighting to protect their livelihoods, not attacking progress for its own sake.
They were a strong component of the moves which led to trade unions, reform acts, universal suffrage, welfare state, UK civilisation as we know it.
Luckily they had the example of the French revolution only just across the channel, which sharpened the minds of the ruling clarses. It didn't prevent the Peterloo Massacre but this became a turning point rather than the trigger for all-out revolution, which came close.

 

[Jacob]

Says the chap with 30,000+ posts!

Does seem a lot! I've been at it for a long time, from when this forum was a Yahoo newsgroup, 20+ years ago perhaps? Mostly about woodwork. Have been banned, or merely left and rejoined, at various times!

From what I've seen so far Jacob you're always keen to engage in bit of give 'n take; nothing there at all you can sink your teeth into?

How odd, and yet perhaps not.

"Never mind that elephant you fellows, come and look at this spot I found on the wall paper."

yes sorry it all seemed very busy last night!

 

[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,

Russian communism was a long way removed from the normal socialism now operating in all modern states.
Long rant about Marx not much to do with socialism as we know it; Harold Wilson: "The British Labour Party owes more to Methodism than to Marxism"

...

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",

Straw-man argument, nobody proposes "material equality". Impossible to imagine in the first place!
If you are interested in Marx this is a good read: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1097544.Karl_Marx

 

[BC'er]

Russian communism was a long way removed from the normal socialism now operating in all modern states.
Long rant about Marx not much to do with socialism as we know it; Harold Wilson: "The British Labour Party owes more to Methodism than to Marxism"

Straw-man argument, nobody proposes "material equality". Impossible to imagine in the first place!
If you are interested in Marx this is a good read: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1097544.Karl_Marx

So the the People's Republic of China is not a "modern state" then?

You're old enough to remember the USSR and it's miserable satellites and of course Pol Pot's Cambodia etc. etc.

Socialism: dictatorships of the proletariat, or at least their self-appointed leaders. "Oh", the socialists say, "but that was much more exteme than what we propose, we're Democratic Socialists!"

It's been said and probably rightly, that Britain was the most moral or idealistic, depending on how you put it, nation in Europe. Anyone who looks back at the various anti-slavery and social reform movements should be able to see that they sprang firstly out of the Christian belief in the equal value of all men (as the term then was) to God.

The various philosophes then blessing the world with their liberty, equality and fraternity etc. seem to have been quite content with the "natural order" of slavery and what we would come to call social darwinism. Their philosphical descendants having no belief in the inherent spiritual value of all people, now fanatically insist that all are equal (except of course themselves) in some other vaguely defined sense. In fact, as their comments at their various elite venues now make clear, they regard most of humanity as worthless and expendable, a sort of variation on the Nazi theme without the fig leaf of eugenics. The rationale now is that the planet cannot support them etc.

Take away the "Methodist" influence, and gradually erode the moral sense inherited from it, and see what you get - well in fact you're seeing it now, aren't you? Those who are able and willing to see.

Material equality is as Marxists have long admitted, merely the bait to fool those who can be fooled. It assauges such consciences as twits like the Cambridge Apostles possess, while stimulating resentment and class division among the lower orders, which the actual rather than apparent ruling class are always glad to stimulate.

Of course the idea of having the state take care of your brother instead of having to do it yourself appeals both to those with and without the means to do so.

I'm not interested in Marx except as a study in evil and how it destroys both its adherents and those whom they deceive. Presumably you've read Schwarzchild? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Schwarzschild ? "World in Trance" is well worth reading also.

Of course if you want to get to the nub of the matter you'll need to read Wurmbrand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wurmbrand

 

[Chris152]

It's been said and probably rightly, that Britain was the most moral or idealistic, depending on how you put it, nation in Europe.

Who said that?

Material equality is as Marxists have long admitted, merely the bait to fool those who can be fooled.

Again, who's 'admitting' that?

 

[selectortone]

Who said that?

 

[BC'er]

Greetings comrades. Sadly Chris I can't now recall where I read the assertion of the levels of idealism in British society. I can understand those who are sceptical however! But remember it's a comparative, not an absolute.

Likewise on the second quote I'd have to go back through books I read years ago, hundreds of which I have disposed of though, due to lack of space. Might have been "The Communist Technique in Britain". Have you read that one? Could have been in Kravchenko or one of the other pre-war emigres. Try Whittaker Chambers if you don't find anything there. There are dozens, nay hundreds to choose from and I daresay a few useful lessons may be learned from them, by those those able and willing to do so,

And you can start on Karl here.

 

[Spectric]

I am not sure that medical need afflicts only poor people

But if you are eating junk food and living in poor conditions then you will be more susceptible to health conditions, also was it not found that obesity was linked to the poorer regions so another issue.

 

[Jacob]

So the the People's Republic of China is not a "modern state" then?

You're old enough to remember the USSR and it's miserable satellites and of course Pol Pot's Cambodia etc. etc.

Socialism: dictatorships of the proletariat, or at least their self-appointed leaders. "Oh", the socialists say, "but that was much more exteme than what we propose, we're Democratic Socialists!"

It's been said and probably rightly, that Britain was the most moral or idealistic, depending on how you put it, nation in Europe. Anyone who looks back at the various anti-slavery and social reform movements should be able to see that they sprang firstly out of the Christian belief in the equal value of all men (as the term then was) to God.

The various philosophes then blessing the world with their liberty, equality and fraternity etc. seem to have been quite content with the "natural order" of slavery and what we would come to call social darwinism. Their philosphical descendants having no belief in the inherent spiritual value of all people, now fanatically insist that all are equal (except of course themselves) in some other vaguely defined sense. In fact, as their comments at their various elite venues now make clear, they regard most of humanity as worthless and expendable, a sort of variation on the Nazi theme without the fig leaf of eugenics. The rationale now is that the planet cannot support them etc.

Take away the "Methodist" influence, and gradually erode the moral sense inherited from it, and see what you get - well in fact you're seeing it now, aren't you? Those who are able and willing to see.

Material equality is as Marxists have long admitted, merely the bait to fool those who can be fooled. It assauges such consciences as twits like the Cambridge Apostles possess, while stimulating resentment and class division among the lower orders, which the actual rather than apparent ruling class are always glad to stimulate.

Of course the idea of having the state take care of your brother instead of having to do it yourself appeals both to those with and without the means to do so.

I'm not interested in Marx except as a study in evil and how it destroys both its adherents and those whom they deceive. Presumably you've read Schwarzchild? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Schwarzschild ? "World in Trance" is well worth reading also.

Of course if you want to get to the nub of the matter you'll need to read Wurmbrand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wurmbrand

What would you say are the alternatives to our evil National Health Service and other evil state institutions looking after the health, education and welfare of the population, and the many other infrastructure necessities of life?

 

[BC'er]

What would you say are the alternatives to our evil National Health Service and other evil state institutions looking after the health, education and welfare of the population, and the many other infrastructure necessities of life?

Who said they are evil? Government can and should take reasonable measures to ameliorate suffering and distress, though their most important duty, were they allowed to pursue it, is to create national and international conditions which help to eliminate suffering and distress. That of course means fostering advantageous economic conditions which create as full employment as possible through private enterprise, while avoiding war etc.

Taking care of the population has been the Christian position since the first century; the Roman commentators both sneered and wondered at it. Almost all the Christian churches have continued the same practice since to varying extents for millenia now, and all over the world. The number of lives saved from death or misery is probably beyond counting. The atheists and agnostics are very late comers indeed and as has been said, with them it's almost always about spending someone else's money rather than one's own.

The inherent problem with state provision of such services is all the apathy, abuses, lack of accountability and arbitrary policies that states and statists invariably and inevitably employ. And as we can see from history distant and recent, when human beings are just numbered citizens of the state, their value and what they are held to be entitled to can range from almost anything to nothing at all. That tendency like other forms of moral debasement needs to be carefully monitored and controlled as far as possible within the limits of individual rights and freedoms.

And so we come back to the perpetual problem of money: where does it come from and why? Who controls it and how? How can a state pay for those essential services the citizens agree that the state should provide?

Can an increasingly poor country continue to pay for the same services at the same level? If not, how should that be addressed?

Follow the money gentlemen.