READING through Michael Fry’s latest capitalism promotion piece I knew he would eventually make the claim that the failed Soviet Union was somehow socialist, and of course he did (No country’s done well from socialism – why would we be any different?, September 15).

His problem, like all those who hold that Soviet state as an example of the failure of socialism, is fundamentally that it was never truly a “socialist” state. Anyone examining the structure of its system would recognise the definition of state capitalism. In other words, while it was a substantially planned economy, it was also a market-based system, with monetary exchange and the pursuit of profit. A failed and corrupted capitalism, but capitalism nevertheless; where workers, typically as in capitalism, sold their labour and profits were made, either private or for the state where they intervened in production.

Yes, it was restricted by rules, and when they were lifted after the failure, the unfettered capitalism Fry would subject us all to didn’t bring a rise in prosperity for any other than the oligarch billionaires who creamed off even greater profits.

READ MORE: No country’s done well from socialism – why would Scotland be any different?

Fry reckons capitalism works, and he may be correct in terms of the owners of capital, but can’t we all see it is an abject failure on so many fronts?

While we may now have a higher standard of poverty for most, real poverty persists, with many homeless, children going to school hungry and even some in work needing to access food banks; and a trailing third world ravaged by war, poverty, pestilence and diseases we can and should be eradicating.

Fry also lauds capitalism and market forces for the plethora of goods we have access to, as if this is a good thing? The downside is the system’s drive for consumption brings us sweat shops in the third world, with workers earning a pittance while the goods they produce are sold in the West at enormous prices and profit.

It also brings cheap goods like low-quality clothing destined to languish in landfill, pollution our descendants will have to clean up. Also over-use of materials like single-use plastic, which pollutes our planet – not only our oceans impacting on sealife, but also in our soil as it disintegrates into microbeads that are impossible to clean up, and in both cases leads to us ingesting that material with hazardous risks for all.

Capitalism’s reliance on and drive for consumption has driven population increase, assuredly fuelling the acceleration of climate change with real damage to our environment.

The fact that capitalism needs to be regulated proves it doesn’t work. Isn’t the question for us – at least until we can find a better, acceptable way to organise the production, distribution and consumption of goods without profit accumulation by the few – to determine the degree and form of regulation needed to equalise the wealth generated among the population, and end the inequality which is the very bedrock of capitalism?

So, Michael Fry, let’s not accept that the Soviet Union was socialism in action and capitalism is the only game in town. It never was, and isn’t by a long way.

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

ONCE again I feel the need to respond to Michael Fry’s article. Michael is a good historian but his political economy is not so good. While I agree that we should be looking at economics in the wider context of political economy, if we do this it requires us to be even more careful to define the political terms we use if our assessments are to be meaningful.

Michael uses the term “capitalism” as if it were clearly defined, as if a Keynesian managed market were the same thing as neoliberal multi-nationalism. He talks of socialism as if the post-war Russian “command” market system, Attlee’s post-war Keynesian managed market, and the current Chinese internal market were all the same, and can be defined by the word “socialism” .This is, of course, nonsense.

If we are going to apply economics, in however wide a concept, we need to retain some scientific standards and accurate terms, not pejorative language which is lose and misleading.

If Michael wants to look for an effective example of socialist ideas in a managed market, he need look no further than the Attlee government in the UK (1945-51) the most economically successful Government the UK ever had. Was that government “socialist”? Well I would not describe it in that lose way, but many of its effective and long-lasting innovations such as the NHS were based on socialist principles.

Michael’s criticism of Nicola Sturgeon’s sensible and pragmatic statement “I think unregulated capitalism is a force for bad, and I think we need much more regulation, and I am not opposed to more state ownership where that is appropriate” shows us his weakness. That statement, which no doubt he would define as “socialist” is of course, nothing of the sort. It is an obvious pragmatic assessment of practical economics.

In this Nicola is saying I want to keep our publicly owned and run health service, I do not want a private health system like they have in the US, in this she is absolutely right and 85% of Scots agree with her. Even the staunchly “capitalist” right-wing Scottish Tories would not challenge her on that.

I am a socialist, I am not going to try and justify my political beliefs in Michael’s narrow undefined way, but I can see that Scotland’s future will need to be one of completely reforming the financial system which neoliberalism has left in such a mess, it will require major investment in renewable technology, it will require greater distribution of wealth as his friend Mark Blyth is suggesting.

Now I would not claim that such a programme must be “socialist” – it could indeed be Keynesian, but it will contain many good socialist ideas, Michael should wake up and smell the coffee. He is too intelligent to tie himself up with outdated political prejudice.

Andy Anderson
Saltcoats