Hi SM,

It's interesting that in Imperial Germany, Bismarck introduced age-pensions, unemployment benefits (and I think widows' pensions too), etc., back in the 1880s or so. I don't recall Marx extolling Bismarck as some sort of socialist, rather as a Junker-capitalist who, if anything, Marx feared for his welfare-oriented policies.

Welfare and social relief are not necessarily the exclusive initiatives of Red Communists. Nor, on reflection, are fascist repressions the exclusive province of the Rabid Right. I'm more and more drawn to Hayek's Triangle of Socialism, Fascism and Democracy and their various associations.

And did Bismarck's innovations impede capitalist development in Germany ? I think not. Nor did Ford's setting-up of machine industries in Stalin's Russia of the twenties necessarily impede Stalin's version of socialism. Well, of course, nor was Stalin's version of socialism necessarily socialism, no matter how many Gulags he had set up or how many millions he had 'subtracted'.

I was named after Stalin, but if I had lived in the Soviet Union any time between 1917 and 1989, I don't think I would have survived the twenties. If I had lived that long.

Joe

Loudmouth,

You just said: "I was named after Stalin, but if I had lived in the Soviet Union any time between 1917 and 1989, I don't think I would have survived the twenties. If I had lived that long."

Talk about a pessimist.

And while you're at it can you please tell Shadow Minister to stick t being an engineer and leave the Arts things like history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, philosophy, etc., to the Arts graduates.

Why oh why are we plagued by twits that are refugees from twitterland ?

Joe you do disappoint me, with some backhanded reference that I would be in agreement with, or supportive of, the barbarity of non-communist states such as USSR, China, Cuba and the rest of your list which is not worth mentioning. The only state that is worthy of the title communist is Heaven, and they are doing so well, that nobody bothers to pop out to tell us mere mortals exactly, how well! I suppose if you want to pin some kind of tag on me, I would think maybe 'democratic socialist' will do, it sounds good if nothing else. I'm very much in agreement with the Australian model, a bit of tinkering around the edges might be in order from time to time, such as turf one mob out in favour of the other mob, just changing the jockey, same horse.

Being someone who is knowledgeable on this, you Joe of all forumites should understand given our position of comfort, it is easy to point the finger of scorn towards those less fortunate. With the history of Russia, China, etc its no wounder they are what they are, or have been. The Tsarists regime gave Russia Bolshevism, then Hitler and the death of Stalin gave the Soviet Union it attempt at post war modernism. Its history that leads to failed societies not ideology.

Sorry, Paul, either I don't properly understand what you are getting at, or I'm not in favour of speculation about Utopias. Or more likely both.

Capitalism is a rapacious system, but it's always also innovative, opportunist, on the look-out for anything, new or old, to turn a buck. A good capitalist will sell his grandmother's skin for its tattoos (and the rest of her for dog-food) and also put money into, say, a cure for Covid-19, whatever makes money which can be turned into capital which can be invested (i.e. M - C - M - C - M - C). It is forever inventive, and forever parasitic.

Hey, in a sense, it's a bit like a virus :). Whether there can ever be a vaccine for it, I don't know. But socialism wasn't it, given that it degenerated everywhere into a de facto form of fascism and patron-clientage.

Joe

Joe, I'll agree runaway capitalism is a rapacious system by nature, it fosters greed in the individual and in society in general, we are all to some degree capitalists. Is it not possible to apply a handbrake to the excesses of capital? A rhetorical question, as Australia for one has done that successfully.