for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)
|This page helpful? Share it!|
(A terraces/bleachers chant to Land of hope and glory.)
Raymond Aron analysing Marx (p.166):
Aron goes on to explain that in Marx, unlike the bourgeoisie who gain power by their own merits, the lumpen proletariat (sic) need someone to lead them.
Step forward Obama, 'Liary and ... Chelsea.
I have been increasingly wondering of late whether socialism has ever done anything useful for populations, anything at all, over the long term.
Or whether the progress of the poor would have been every bit as good and better if the socialist religion had never been invented.
Consider these examples:
What I am after is whether any action of the left ever, in fact, advanced to condition of the worker, rather than just one powerful self-interested section battening off the real poor as the miners did and several others).
Francis Galton turned around the Victorian assertion that drunkenness caused
poverty, and asked if it were not, in fact, that poverty caused drunkenness.
While every socialist regime indeed does tend to engender poverty and mass murder, is there anything at all to be said for their dogmas in pragmatic terms? Or is it just as Vilfredo Pareto suggests, always one (in this case) mad elite trying to replace another established elite?
And nothing more at all at all?
I look at modern examples of Socialist change by revolution in countries across the world. Socialism may not be "always awful", there is probably a minimum/limited case for Cuba, and perhaps similar claims could be made for the French Revolution and even for the Russian Revolution, but the costs were outrageous.
However, my growing sense is that Socialism has never done any real good for the poor.
Working within a revolutionary model for Socialist improvements to society, that model is totally inapplicable to any gains in more
Considering current socialist 'model' countries, and comparing them to Western or Westernised societies, I look at North Korea compared to South Korea, and to China.
It is very likely that Cuba would likely now be far more developed and advanced without socialism and the Castros.
None of the responses to my question that I have received so far, including those vaunting Cuban medical and school services, make a very convincing argument
against my original question:
a psychiatrist will tell you that a person raised by parents without much sense will learn to project a hatred of all authority. Some of those never grow out of it.
And then there is the simple mind who seeks a perfect world with 'answers' that are simple, clear and wrong.
socialism, a religion that hopes for the end of times
Of course, idiots like then USSR President Khrushchev supported loons like Fidel Castro, as did and does the Socialist cult in general.
When will lightweights like Andrew Neill and Michael Portillo grow up? When will the British State Broadcaster stop giving them airtime?
I believe you know the 'answer'.
Why do socialists believe they are any more sane than Islamists hoping for the end of times?
|You are here: socialism and sociology news from November 2016 < News < Home|
|latest||abstracts||briefings||information||hearing damage||memory||France zone|
© abelard, 2016, 28 november