So, the Daily Mail did this article on Ralph Milliband,
which actually reminds me of this kind of shite said about the current US president.Of course the Daily Mail might be a bit more careful about what they say about others having rather tenuous links when their editor and chief were among the many captains of industry who were seduced by the twat with the tash.
Why are all these comparisons made between anyone advocating any level of socialism and obvious bell ends such as Starlin and the Kim Jong dynasty? What's with this thing of going "EEK!!! COMMUNISM!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!! KILL IT TO DEATH!!!"
any time a debate about nationalising a service or product is proposed? Instead of going "well if we do this than this, but if we do that then that," it turns into the Jerry Springer show.
The Labour Party advocates Socialism, and they are popular, but I can't imagine any of them thinking the Starlinist or Kim Jong regimes are good. So what is Socialism anyway? According to here, it's basically the nationalisation of a service or industry.
It also seems to say that not all socialists advocate the nationalisation of everything, instead favouring a mix of capitalism and socialism.
And looking at the way China's changed since Mao's days, it seems to me Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to democracy, and the UK certainly didn't join the USSR as a result of the founding of the National Health Service in the 1940s.
It seems to me that going case by case, what should be nationalised and what should not be nationalised should depend on whether or not open competition is possible.
I would not, for example, advocate the nationalisation of washing up liquids because the products stand next to each other on the supermarket shelf, and they can compete on quality because there is huge scope for what the composition of the washing up liquid could consist of.
I would, however, advocate the nationalisation of the police, because I can't imagine a great many people being able to afford to pay for the man hours and resources needed to investigate a crime, and arrest and prosecute a criminal, or the cost of containing the criminal, or the cost of the post release support needed to ensure the criminal sorts their life out and does not reoffend (or a lot less likely to reeoffend, although some countries have privatised the prison service, so it's only profitable as long as there is repeat custom, so rehabilitation often gets obstructed in various ways).
I would not advocate the nationalisation of drugs because of the wide range of factors such as ingredients, production method and other factors on which private drug manufacturers can compete, and like with washing up liquids, competing brands sit next to each other on the supermarket shelf.
I Would advocate the nationalisation of the health service, because if you're having a heart attack, or a stroke, or just got shot or stabbed, you need help and you need it five fucking minutes ago. You can not pick and choose your hospital, it's your nearest hospital or the local morticians. And who's going to be able to pay for the treatment out of their own pocket? Of course you can take out an insurance scheme, but what if you're "High Risk" or "Uninsurable?" You're basically fucked.
In the 1960 or 1970s (can't recall which decade this was started in), there was a nationalisation of a number of car plants in the UK. This demonstrated a situation where nationalisation is inappropriate because fewer ideas float to the top of the design board in a single company vs a variety of companies fighting each other in the market place, so UK car manufacturing turned into (even more of) a joke (not helped by the antagonistic relationship between unions and managers in British industry that would perplex German unions and managers who co-ordinate for mutual benefit and have had so few strikes you can count them on one hand).
The 1990s to today privatisation of rail, water and power, however, demonstrate where privatisation is inappropriate because train companies have their consumers over a barrel with their pants down and their arses greased up. Train companies don't have to compete because they own a route, and customers need to travel that route to get to work. We have "Peak Fares" to try to "discourage use in peak times." We have a maze of complex ticket types that no one on their way to work can possibly navigate. We have privatised water in England and nationalised water in Scotland, and Scotland gets a much better deal over water than we do, the water grid only accepts one type of water, this percent water, that percent minerals, these companies can't compete on quality, same with gas and electricity, they have to be at a consistent standard or the consumer can't use it without buying a whole load of new appliances that do the same thing as their old appliances, so the only basis for competition is how to trick people into paying over the odds. What privatisation has done is introduced a layer of command between the state and the service that wants to make money any way it can and has shareholders to pay off.
And now our Tories are seeking to privatise Royal Mail.
And Dave said it was Labour that has never learned. Fucking hell.