h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of course you can judge a book by its cover! What do you think covers are for?

And of course I said Lennon was a democratic socialist.

Communism has had its successes. Ask any Chinese who are not closet capitalists waiting to exploit their countrymen, older Russians, Eliam's dad, most people from the former Yugoslavia, unemployed East Germans....

Did you just call Cuba a success?

The definition of "successful" communism depends on your stance. If, for instance, you are Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin, then Russian communism was a blast.
If you are a poor struggling worker comrade, then Chinese communism is a bit better.

The point about Communism that appears to have been lost by the people who argued to counter my Lennon point (nothing against you) is as follows:

John Lennon was a supporter of Communism as a principle, i.e. a Marxist. He believed in a society where everyone worked for the state, there were no posessions and all were equal. The Communism that was bred in Russia, and Cuba, and in a certain sense in China is a lot more extreme right-wing and similar in basis to the Timocracy system employed in Sparta during the Hellenic period of Greece. (Anyone doing A/L government and politics I hope you're taking notes). Basically that the ordinary people are working for the state (just as in proper Communism and other totalitarian systems), but the totalitarianism breaks down because the state is working for the ruling classes. It is similar to an autocracy with a dictator leader, or the feudalistic system of serfs and fiefs which is the founding basis (and many argue still the centre) of British (non-democratic) government, with the Lords and Royalty having many priviliedges granted to them, the bill for which is taken up by the taxpayer. This is not what Lennon believed in.

I hope that clarifies things a little. I don't understand it, but maybe you do.

I've always thought that the entire idea was flawed right from the start. It makes absolutely no concessions for a thousand aspects of human life. Where do the artists come in? What about writers or entertainers? Or doctors, who make exactly the same salary as fieldhands?

Right.

Marxist communism's a practical impossibility, no matter what Gene Rodenberry thought.

Socialism = governence of the people by the people for the people

Capitalism = government sanctioned exploitation of the masses by the few

I actually thought Madonna's version wasn't that bad. you just can't compare covers to the original songs and then you're fine.

Madonna's version probably isn't that bad, except that
1.) I hate Madonna.
2.) In the video she spent half the time snogging some bloke, and then dancing provocatively - which ISN'T what the song is about. It degrades it.

Oh. Well I don't hate her as such, I just don't like her. And I haven't seen the video. I guess I'm lucky in that sense.

Capitalism is not (in itself) a governmental system designed to allow the ruling class to exploit the masses. It's the opposite of socialism.

As you (seem to) know, Socialism is where everybody works for the State. In capitalism, then, everyone works for themselves. The individual is an individual and not a state monkey, they work for their own profit and personal gain. While this can promote scrupulousness and trickery, it can also be conducted in a fair and just way. Depending on your view of justice. Plato defines justice as doing what you're supposed to do and not minding the affairs of others, but that's because he was a socialist. If he was a capitalist he may have defined justice as that which is in the common interest of all concerned. If he was a fascist he would have defined it as that which is in the interest of the stronger party.

So it is fascim that you have quoted as being the opposite of socialism, and not capitalism which is what you called it.

Capatilism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Or to put it another way "Working for the man"

Socialism was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

But, as Humpty-Dumpty knows, what a word means, what you mean it to mean, and what your audience take it to mean are often different things.

The thing that really hurts people's understanding of socialism is the fact that their is no really good real world example of successful socialism in action.

If you want to show some one capitalism, take them to America (Specifically, New York. "Wanna buy a $20 rolex?") If you want them to understand communism, explain the former Soviet Union to them. For Marxism, refer them to the manifesto that founded it. But no nation has really accepted the idea of socialism.

Although it should be pointed out that no nation has ever totally embraced either of the other systems as well, except possibly Rockafeller Era America.

The main reason that no-one has ever seen a good example of socialism is, as you pointed out, that the type of people who become the leaders of large populations of people normally aren't the most socialist of types. However, depending on the outcome of today's mayoral election (basically, whether Red Ken gets in or not) we could see a 9.5million head commune develop on the banks of the Thames.

A good place to start for a description of socialism, though, is The Republic, one of Plato's dialogues. Once you get past the hideous ways in which the Greeks wrote their books (I refer, of course, to the dialogue itself, which consists of one person expounding his (women couldn't have opinions in the Hellenic period) views, and the other going "I agree" every other line ad nauseum. That and the way that if a supporting passage can be quoted from an epic or poem, then the argument is considered closed with both sides instantly settling. This is the same as a Christian saying to an agnostic "God must exist, it says so in the Bible" and then the agnostic saying "Okay then".), the constitution Plato defines is very similar to the common view of socialism, with everybody having their place in society and doing only what their position calls upon them to do. Of course there are differences, Plato believed in hereditary castes (with certain exceptions for abnormaly gifted or the reverse), which are often frowned upon by socialists because it is the workers who are meant to wield power. He also disagreed vehemently with democracy (It's all very well letting the population decide how the polis should be run, but do the population know how to run it?), which is a pretty key point of proper socialism (run by the people for the people).

Also interesting to have a look at for an idea of socialism is the Spartan Timocratic system (I think I mentioned it before). Although, again, this is hereditary, it does feature the concept of noone having personal posessions (hence the phrase, this room's a bit Spartan) and the like.

Which reminds me of the reference to "Imagine" by John Lennon that was made earlier, which isn't necessarily a Marxist manifesto. Zen Buddhism and many other nontheistic religions say that you shouldn't worry about a God or heaven or hell, just make sure that you are kind to everyone in this life and you will be rewarded, whether in the next or otherwise. OK, many Buddhist sects feature the concept of Nirvana but overall what they say (and I think the Hare Krishna, although I wouldn't like to be quoted on that) can be summed up by "...and the world will live as one."

TTFN,

Graham

Denmark, Sweden and Norway and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand and Australia could, arguably, be called successful socialist countries.

They are all countries in which the underlying principles adhered to by any new government legislation are socialistically based. The concerns (repercussions) of the (so-called) disadvantaged are taken into consideration.

This happens even when right-wing political parties are in power.

Trades Unions, charities and the NHS are all examples of socialism in action. Unless, like Margaret Thatcher, you believe that nurses only work for the money ("There is no such thing as society". Anarchistic old bat).

Well, if it comes to that, the United States uses a form of socialism. We haven't had unbridled capatilism here since the laissez faire days.

But right now I'm on a capatilism high, because my horse just one the derby...

IN YOUR FACE, COMMUNISM!!

Well done on the old gee-gees, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that U.S. is probably a little more capitalist than the U.K., mainly because your version of democracy involves deciding between the Democrats (a mildly right-wing party) and the Republicans (a mildy right-wing party).

It also appears that party politics influences American democracy more than provincial issues, though I may be wrong.

I think that the main reason that the Madonna version isn't that great is that it does not suit her vooice or the "person" that Madonna is. (if you get what I mean) A really funny version that I heard on the radio (sorry that I don't have the lyrics) is "why did Madonna kill American Pie?" It is quite funny!!

Laters
Rach

You've got to admit, though, Madonna was right about one thing. It is this.

"the day the music died. I started singing"

It most certainly did .