BASED on the premise that whoever wins the war can make history, Michael Fry demonstrated a failure to understand political systems by suggesting that there is something fundamentally flawed in socialist methods of government.
He conveniently overlooks that it was US-led economic pressures that forced the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Left to rebuild and develop in its own way after WWII rather than having to engage in an arms race and a space race to defend against a US military threat, there is no reason why the Soviet Union could not have redeveloped in a similar way in West Germany or Japan.
READ MORE: An independent Scotland built on socialism is the recipe for a failed state
Furthermore, Mr. Fry has no valid reason to exclude the People’s Republic of China from his list of surviving socialist states other than the wealth that is currently being generated there. The distribution of this wealth is very different from the myth of the spinoff economy which he seems to prefer. It won’t be long before the People’s Republic of China does to the United States what the United States did to the Soviet Union. It will be interesting to see how history is written around this time.
IF Michael’s weekly anti-socialist rant is designed to aggravate those who disagree with his somewhat pejorative interpretation of socialism, then it certainly works (An independent Scotland based on socialism is a recipe for a failed state, 29 June).
He deliberately and conveniently merges the political ideologies of socialism and communism to come to the conclusion he wants, and cites North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba as examples of failed socialist ethics and practice. The use of terms like âMarxist ideasâ illustrates his calculated ambiguity in trying to sell his own idiosyncratic version of the story to naive and unsuspecting readers.
The Labor government of 1945-51 was an example of how democratic socialism can change the fabric of a country’s social and economic life for the benefit of all. The NHS, free access to education and welfare reform provided the basis for the welfare state that we continually try to defend today against the dogma and greed of the Conservative Party.
The 1945 Labor manifesto, “Face the Future,” informed the nation that by establishing a Socialist Commonwealth of Britain it would organize its material resources in the service of its people. These are the principles to which an independent Scotland should aspire, not a reformed capitalist state but a democracy guided by a socialist constitution based on egalitarian socialist principles.
No mention of revolution, Michael, but of redistribution of wealth and social justice. Now give us all a break and use your considerable journalistic skills to scrutinize Westminster!
I SEE that Michael Fry still does not understand socialism. In his article, he denounces certain States, some of which are âfailingâ. He, however, confuses the names they use to describe themselves as socialists with the fact that they are in reality one-party dictatorships, run for the benefit of their despotic rulers. The parallels to the operation of our Westminster government are eerily familiar, although currently without overt use of force to maintain control.
Mr. Fry’s converse with socialism is capitalism, which also fails. Unbridled capitalism directly produces and promotes disparity in income and well-being, accompanied by significant environmental destruction, all in the name of obscene levels of private profit. True socialism or even communism is in principle a force for the common good, but like capitalism they are subject to the whims of the megalomaniac tendencies of whoever is in control.
“SOCIALISM” is promoted in Scotland just like Brexit in England: it is just a populist policy that gives people a supposed solution and something to blame for their discontent, despite all the evidence that it will not serve well there. ‘electorate. The Greens are probably the biggest hypocrites. I despair of reading personal attacks on Michael Fry, rather than any rational and obvious challenge to much of what he says.
A NEW bill on assisted dying introduced by Liberal Democrat MP Liam McArthur is, as usual, opposed by religious lobbies.
Their arguments must be heard but it is difficult to shake the feeling that their position is underpinned by a religious belief that only their god can give and take life.
While this is quite legitimate for other believers, they do not have a monopoly on morality, and religious views should only be viewed in proportion to their minority representation.
Edinburgh Secular Society