8 thoughts on “Socialism: will next time be different? (Part 1)”

  1. Posted 25/06/2018 at 13:41 | Permalink

    What a load of simplistic rubbish!
    Not a word about exploitation, artificial price fixing, shareholders’ pleasing, the sharemarket manipulations
    and how all of this inevitably leads to political corruption.
    There is no such a thing as ‘free market’ and there never was one. Markets are manipulated and rigged from the first gong at Wall Street to the closing time of the Far East Exchanges. There has never been in history a capitalist economy that did not succumb to corruption and exploitation. The ‘invisible hand’ was functional only in transferring big money from entrepreneurs’ pockets to politicians’ pockets. And let us not forget that Milton Friedman was recruited by the FBI already in the 1930’s. His job was just as yours Niemietz, to convince the plebs that it is in the best of their interests to remain powerless and rightless.
    Socialist policies and national wealth can be compatible if there is co-operation between workers and entrepreneurs on a national level, and between their concerted efforts and the intentional market. Impossible? Naivete? Wishful thinking? Perhaps the next world war will teach everyone concerned that greediness, just conventional and nuclear military power, has its limits. Just as the world had to come together to avoid atomic destruction, it will have to come together to prevent devastation by greedy piggish capitalism and irresponsible consumerism.
    Don’t try to tell it to your financial backers. They might turn you into a socialist by making you redundant.

  2. Posted 25/06/2018 at 15:01 | Permalink

    @Cyril Chilson:
    “There has never been in history a capitalist economy that did not succumb to corruption and exploitation.”

    Please could you point me towards some examples of socialist economies that have been less susceptible to corruption and exploitation than capitalist economies?

  3. Posted 25/06/2018 at 16:11 | Permalink

    “Rubbish,” “manipulated”, “simplistic,” “greedy,” “capitalism”, “something, something”, “consumerism,” “greediness,” “exploitation,” “corruption”, “capitalism,” “workers”, “something, something”

    There. I’ve just summated Cyril Chilson’s ( and that of every other brain dead socialist on the planet) entire vocabulary

  4. Posted 25/06/2018 at 16:11 | Permalink

    Yes. The Scandinavian countries. Especially in Sweden and Norway and to a certain extent, Germany (I am referring particularly to the 1970’s) and Be. Don’t get me wrong: corruption is always a risk, but socialism has better potential than capitalism (which is corrupt by definition, see my arguments above) to fight corruption. And finally, it is no more than a propagandistic trick to claim: “Socialism had always failed” on the basis of the communist block. Socialism in its present context seeks to learn from the mistakes of the past and address the terrible challenges of present-day piggish capitalism. The institution which ‘hosts’ our discussion here has been assigned one single job: to confuse and brainwash those who believe that their lives cannot be better without manic consumption and those who simply don’t give a toss about others and live in the illusion that their reaches are an insurance policy against (almost) everything. Both types are wrong.

  5. Posted 25/06/2018 at 19:17 | Permalink

    Scandinavia and Benelux have maintained a mixed system with strong socialist elements. It doesn’t take a research of UN reports to find that these countries are at the bottom of the international corruption table.
    You may also find that historically the political system in the countries concerned had become less susceptible to corruption especially after they had introduced socialist elements into their respective economies (after the 2nd World War in particular).

  6. Posted 26/06/2018 at 13:44 | Permalink

    >And let us not forget that Milton Friedman was recruited by the FBI already in the 1930’s. His job was just as yours Niemietz, to convince the plebs that it is in the best of their interests to remain powerless and rightless.

    Thanks for this information, I will write to the FBI straight away and ask them if they have any money left to pay me. I only hope that Niemietz hasn’t already snaffled it all.

  7. Posted 27/06/2018 at 10:59 | Permalink

    Does Cyril Hilson really think that Scandinavian countries are Socialist? In many ways they are far more capitalist than the UK. That’s why they rank highly on indices of economic freedom.

    Do they have state run medical systems? Do they have our levels of ‘social’ housing?

    The fact is that they are generally free market systems with high taxation/redistribution levels – they are not socialist.

  8. Posted 29/06/2018 at 09:59 | Permalink

    This is a really well argued piece. However, the problem with recent expressions of ‘socialism’ within the Labour Party is not solely about it being economically superior to capitalism. The problem is that there is a tendency for them to disregard economics and finance altogether, with human happiness regarded to be emergent from grassroots ‘democracy’ or mutualism. This seems to be the direction Momentum want to take. For a longer defence, I would de-construct the paradox of libertarian socialism, buts that’s a topic for another tome perhaps. It results in a system where poverty is seen as spiritual and the mutualism comes from us all being poor together. The ‘tax the rich’ arguments are slightly different, but remain the same, they’re about removing prosperity and re-distributing poverty. The outcome of Corbynite Economics is equality, but equality of very little…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.