BS: How many socialists are there here?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 02:11 AM

Thanks Bruce. My wife was looking through Facebook today - she said - I think I've found Trish Spencer for you.

And there were several Trish Spencers to choose from, but one photograph looked very much like her. However the lady in question turned out to live in Australia and had never set foot in England.

there was a lot of radical chic around in those days - there were all these books around like Regis Debray's Revolution dans la Revolution - god knows what all that was about.

I went on one of the anti Vietnam war marches about 1967. I found myself walking down this road in London, and I heard this kid on the sidewalk say, who are those people Mummy?
She said in a very posh voice, those people are all communists...
(and I'm thinking bollocks to you dear!) then one of my fellow marchers(looking even younger than my 18 years)sidles up to me and says, which branch are you in then?
I said, Branch....?
He says, you know, branch of the communist party - I'm from Lewisham...
I said, I'm not a communist
he says, what the bloody hell are you doing here then? Anyway whatever you do - don't get mixed up with that lot behind us - they're syndicalists. they're very mixed up, they haven't got it worked out - like us.....When it comes to Vietnam, they are completely unsound.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Rowan
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 02:44 AM

Ah!!!! The days of Ram-SDS, Trots, Marxist-Leninists, Bakuninites. Maoists etc. And that was just in some of Melbourne's suburbs.

Thank goodness everything's so much simpler these days, when the plaques and the senior moments have left us with just enough connecting neurones to be able to cope with "Us" and "Them".

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: theleveller
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:14 AM

Us? Them? What's he talking about, nurse?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Stu
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:19 AM

One of the big problems we face is that 'democracy' has been come interchangeable with 'capitalism' in modern political parlance. In the case of the US and UK, the formation of virtually all foreign policy and much domestic policy (especially with regards to taxation and economic de-regulation) is disproportionately influence by the interests of big business*

Evidence of this is easy to find, with the most recent issue being Brown quite happy to do the bidding of the Chinese when they ring up demanding he holds the Olympic torch to help legitimise their ongoing persecution of not only the Tibetans, but their own people.

This illustrates what might be the defining characteristic between socialism and capitalism - moral integrity. Capitalism is, by its very nature, exploitative. It has to show a certain disregard for the most vulnerable in society, whether local or global in order to produce goods cheaper than they will be brought for. This can work providing the employer/buyer has moral integrity and can keep his greed in check, but as so many of us from the industrial disputes we see on the TV we know this often doesn't happen even within our own countries - and it is taken to extreme when dealing with large factory states like China. This attitude of exploitation extrapolates out and before we know it we're letting our leaders stand by whilst an entire culture (in this case Tibetan) be systematically eradicated in the most brutal fashion because it makes economic sense.

This is why capitalism will ultimately fail us. Global warming, third world health, workers rights across the planet and the freedom of every individual is threatened because we have let people who are blinded by self-interest run our countries and the ultimately, the world. They ignore the advice of scientists, community and religious leaders in pursuit of profit and then tell us we are unpatriotic, unrealistic or idealistic when we question their motives. They won't regulate the free market and the free market is now beginning to control them and that is a bad place to be, for all of us.

*It's important to note this applies to larger companies only. I am a sole trader and despite being hailed as the 'backbone of the economy' or whatever we pay tax on everything, no concessions or loop holes. Class 4 NI contributions anyone? I would contend that sole traders who come under the VAT threshold are the single most taxed group of workers in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:51 AM

imo, Marx was right about the working-class needing to do it.

in my current experience, the UK is a concervative , small 'c', country,I mean, kingdom, where many of the wotking class have a CEO's baton in their knapsack, and otherwise have an infinite quantity of putting-up-wth-ness-with-their-chains to keep them going till they're gone.

And selling off council houses (social housing) to them not only set the seal of the future for capitalism, but demonstrated by its popularity where large swathes of the British working-class are at.

Really makes me wonder why the Conservatives and people further right get in such a sweat about twitches from the centre-left (making them out to be rabid communists and everything)

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 05:09 AM

Stigweard...I agree with most of your post.
Politicians of all parties are now openly corrupt and are rewarded by us for being so...........in a so called democracy.


I too am self employed and am taxed heavily, although less so than my son who is on PAYE on a low to medium wage.
Almost one third of my son's and his wife's earning go on taxation while the high earners and politician "fiddle" tax and expenses.
Our "democracy" is corrupt from top to bottom.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:06 AM

'Our "democracy" is corrupt from top to bottom'

And furthermore some people tops are nearly as corrupt as their bottoms.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:27 AM

And there's a quote,

"The rich will do everything for the poor except get off their back".

I have discovered that many of the not so well-off and the poor won't get off the backs of the poor either.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 06:18 AM

Was it something I said?

:-)

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 02:13 PM

Those who keep citing the Soviet Union and China as examples of the failure of Socialism neglect to take into consideration the Scandinavian countries, where it is working quite well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 02:48 PM

yeh, it works now they've nicked all our fish....

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 03:08 PM

Beside the point. I don't see what that has to do with it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:23 AM

okay I counted, three socialists in all. two armchair ones, and one hot blooded revolutionary....

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: GUEST,V.I.Ulyanov
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:38 AM

Do you think REAL revolutionaries would TELL you?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:48 AM

and the uncovering, in secret, of vast numvers of working-class tories, eho make life difficult, particularly for themselves.

Still, that's their business.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: GUEST,L. D. Bronstein
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 11:22 AM

Ah Vlad my old comrade. I wish in the end you could have seen it my way.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 01:00 PM

Strangely enough I couldn't sleep last night and woke up about 3 a.m.
Guitar obviously, coffee obviously, and tv as background to drown out the bum notes.

Anyway there was this FBI files programme on. And it was all about Raymond Luc LeVasseur and Tom Manning. They were all socialist revolutionaries in America and eventually they were caught by the clever old FBI.

Their case was interesting. from a number of points of view. Which of us through those years and were involved in student politics and remembers how confused and silly our thinking was, can honestly not say - there but for the grace of god....

Their big mistake of course (apart from getting caught) was to commit their crimes in a place where there was no hope of grass roots support. Far worse terrorist acts than theirs, have been absolved in Norhern Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement - that your presidents did so much to achieve, and which for many has been such a boon.

I would be interested to hear waht they made of teh case stateside. To be quite frank, I'd never heard of these people before last night.

Theres a load about them on the internet if your memory has deserted you on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 01:11 PM

France is perhaps the most successful socialist country today.
They balance personal freedom and socialism much better than anyone else with the pssible exception of Denmark or Sweden.



China - not so good but going forward in a hurry until their air and water set them back.

US- going backward in democracy, economy and compassion.

Russia- going forward with their version of the Bush's Young Republican religio-politic democracy movement ( which is neither democratic or a true Hitler Youth program).

UK ?????????

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 01:25 PM

sorry about all the spelling and typing errors

al

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Monique
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 01:40 PM

Well Donuel, I'm afraid that when Sarkoleon's reign is over, there'll be much less socialism left in my country!

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 05:33 PM

"France is perhaps the most successful socialist country today.
They balance personal freedom and socialism much better than anyone else with the pssible exception of Denmark or Sweden."

Of course it is as long as everybody else pays for it.

Won't continue to do that forever of course some of their EU "partners" are beginning to see the light, as did Sarko - he for one realises that the party is coming to an end and La Belle France cannot afford to pay for her "socialist state".

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Monique
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 06:15 PM

Sure he did! That's probably why he started to have his salary increased by 172%

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:27 PM

I'd be a socialist provided I could be in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Slag
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:41 PM

Well, I was glad to see that someone finally mentioned Hitler, although in an oblique way (thank you, Donuel). To the best of my recollection, he and his party was a socialist endeavor. Mussolini too. Joe Stalin and crew embodied much that was socialistic. They kinda make the money grubbers look benign. Tens of millions dead on the revolutionary battlefields of the world in the name of socialism. Not very favorably impressive to one who hates war and violence.

Are pickpockets really just disenfranchised socialists?
When you got that "group" assignment in school to do a report, you know the one I mean, where six of you do nothing and one poor schmuck does all the work and the other six get as good a grade as the one who put in the effort, was that some kind of socialism?

Some one above mentioned Social Security above. That's the system whereby every working stiff's biggest tax is to the SS program and the money goes to, uh, goes to, well, Washington DC and gets SPENT and so technically their is NO MONEY in the program, per se, but uh, weel, they say now, "BANKRUPT" by 2019, so maybe that isn't such a good illustration, Hmmm? I'm having a hard time getting a handle on this "Socialism" thing.

I don't think I'm in favor of it.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:30 AM

To the best of my recollection, he and his party was a socialist endeavor. Mussolini too.

Your recollection is not all it ought to be, slag.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:00 AM

Well Guest PMB,

Mussolini was the Head of the Italian Social Republic. One of the founders of Italian fascism, which valued nationalism, corporatism, expansionism, social progress and anti-communism combined with censorship and state propaganda. Some domestic pre-war achievements of Mussolini's Government were the taming of the Pontine Marshes, the improvement of job opportunities, and public transport (He actually was the guy who got the trains to run on time).

But with regard to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and latest boogey-man-de-jour Robert Mugabe all were self-styled "Socialists/Marxists" of some form or other. Hitler's "National Socialist Party" was "modelled upon" Mussolini's Fascist Party it was never a direct copy, and even Mussolini's description of the Italian State that he headed was the "Italian Social Republic", so maybe Slag is correct after all.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:08 AM

He actually was the guy who got the trains to run on time

Others have suggested that that was a side effect of using 3 phase induction motors in the electrification of the Italian railways. With those motors, they either run on time or not at all :)

Note Teri: Social != Socialist in Benito's case.
National Socialist != Any Other sort Of Socialist in Schickelgrueber's case.

Also note that the Mugabes, Nkrumahs, Kenyattas and so on used the tag 'socialism' as a way of getting support (economic and political) from the Soviet Union. Other dictators, like Banda and Bokassa, courted Britain and America. The result on the ground was often not a lot different.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Slag
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:53 AM

Nothing like a nice broad definition to tighten things up!

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:00 AM

Amongst all those things I was supposed to note!

"note that the Mugabes, Nkrumahs, Kenyattas and so on used the tag 'socialism' as a way of getting support (economic and political) from the Soviet Union. Other dictators, like Banda and Bokassa, courted Britain and America. The result on the ground was often not a lot different."

Anybody ever got anything other than "political" support from the Soviet Union?? "Economic" support would of course have been really worth taking them up on considering how successful they were in their own right (The USSR I mean). Mind you they did litter the planet (one person in sixty of the worlds population could have one) with that seemingly indispensible little gadget in the developing world known as the AK-47. In all those "trouble" spots around the globe where you have people with absolutely sod all, hacking bits off each other and killing massive numbers of each other, there you see blasted across the TV screens of the World, the bounty of "Communist Aid" in the shape of the 12.7mm Heavy Machine Guns, the BMP Armoured Personnel Carriers, the T-54, T-56 and T-64 Tanks. You see their principle was, "Give a man a meal and he will return for another hand-out tomorrow. Give a man an AK-47 and he can go and rob and disposess some other poor bastard and thereby feed himself for life." (Example: Darfur).

Also odd how before the left insisted that post-WW2 that colonies were bad, there were no massed famines in Africa - Reasons for that of course was that there were fewer people, less transport, less mobility in general and that the colonial power had a duty of responsibility to care for the citizens that the IMF and the World Bank does not.

Also note that when those who previously turned to the USSR and the Communist Block for "Aid", when they started getting it from the big bad evil "West" things started to get better, not perfect I know but an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:21 PM

Any attempt to conflate socialism with the political systems of Mussolini and Hitler—and for that matter, Stalin—is disingenuous. Even if those three did toss the work "socialism" around, there are huge differences between socialism and the systems those three presided over.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:13 PM

Ah, of course, they failed therefore they were not "real" socialists.

Why didn't anybody point that to them at the time - might have saved a lot of people a great deal of grief.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:26 PM

They weren't even trying for socialism.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:04 PM

If there are subtle differences between Marxism, Socialism and Communism, the burden of explaining said nuance is on the proponents of these philosophies. Have fun, unca Donald.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:13 PM

It's already been done by lots of knowledgeable folks with strings of letters after their names. You could read a few books or even just google a bit. A lot of information out there for those who are really interested in learning.

It's not my responsibility to spend my time and energy plugging holes in your education.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:30 PM

Furthermore, I am not a "proponent" of any of these philosophies, much as a few folks here would like to pigeon-hole me as such. Just because I was a "Liberal Arts" major doesn't mean that my knowledge is limited to those subjects exclusively.

Using such epithets to dismiss someone with whom you disagree is just another variation on the argumentum ad hominem. That's one of those pesky things one learns in Liberal Arts classes, such as Philosophy 115 - Basic Principles of Logic.

There. I've just plugged a hole in your education. No need to thank me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:56 PM

Also, I'm quite certain that your use of the term "Liberal Arts major" in the context of this thread is imply that those who disagree with you on scientific matters must be a) ignorant of science, and b) politically liberal.

Wrong on both counts. There are plenty of Liberal Arts majors (such as myself) who are quite knowledgeable in many realms of science. And I know a fair number of Liberal Arts majors who are politically very conservative.

And since it does make use of the argumentum ad hominen (a fallacious attempt to refute an argument by attacking the person presenting the argument rather than confronting the argument itself--hence, invalid), it is a transparent attempt to muddy the waters.

Actually, in a sense, in addition to be the fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem, it is a variation on the "straw man" fallacy.

Don Firth

P. S. Ain't "Liberal Arts" a bitch?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:05 PM

Yer easier to wind up than a $5 Timex, unca Donald.

Just for the record, it is very difficult for the average American, with an untrained eye, to tell one thug waving a copy of Karl Marx from another. Yes, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mao Zedong and Stalin all look about the same from here. Only difference I se is that Castro still breathes, at least as of 4:57 PM EDT.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:22 PM

Teribus, Slad, and others.

There is an an awful lot of the argument upthread you are simply ignoring.
Here's one of mine that's sort of slightly on your side, for example.

in my current experience, the UK is a conservative , small 'c', country,I mean, kingdom, where many of the wotking class have a CEO's baton in their knapsack, and otherwise have an infinite quantity of putting-up-wth-ness-with-their-chains to keep them going till they're gone.

And selling off council houses (social housing) to them not only set the seal of the future for capitalism, but demonstrated by its popularity where large swathes of the British working-class are at.

Really makes me wonder why the Conservatives and people further right get in such a sweat about twitches from the centre-left (making them out to be rabid communists and everything)



Especually that last para.

best wishes

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:50 PM

It seems to me like socialism was organized to work better in a society where large numbers of people went to work at the same place and at the same time, like mines, steel mills, and factories.
                     I wonder what kind of effects things like telecommuting and flex-time has on it?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM

Essential services.

911 is the local telephone number for emergency services. Just dial and tell the dispatcher the nature of the emergency and give your address. Actually, with computerized Caller ID and reverse directory, they already have the address.

If a burglar is breaking into your house, or you see someone breaking into a neighbor's house, you call the police, and the police department immediately dispatches a car. Paid for by taxes.

If your house catches fire, you call the fire department. The fire department dispatches a fire truck to your house immediately. Paid for by taxes.

Seattle is said to be a good city to be in if you're planning to have a heart attack because a telephone call to 911 and a Medic One aid van with a couple of paramedics aboard will be dispatched immediately. Their response time averages about three minutes between the call and the Medic One van's arrival. And if deemed necessary, they will transport you, in the van, to the nearest hospital. The 911 emergency call system and the emergency services are all paid for by taxes.

There is a grid of streets all over Seattle, making it possible for me to drive anywhere in the city. There are bridges across Lake Washington, across the Ship Canal, and across the Duwamish River. I can get on an Interstate, state, or county highway and drive to anyplace in the country. Anyplace on the continent. These are not toll-roads. Even if I haven't a dime in my pocket, I can drive on these roads. Paid for by taxes.

On the subject of streets in the city, I use a wheelchair. On almost every corner, there is a wheelchair ramp cut into the curb. In fact, if a corner lacks a wheelchair ramp, I can (and have) called the city engineer and within a few weeks, one is cut into the corner. Paid for by taxes.

There is a large library in downtown Seattle. Brand new building. And there are branch libraries in neighborhoods all over the city. Paid for by taxes.

I received a very good education in public schools, first in California, then in Seattle. Paid for by taxes. I only had to dig into my own pocket when I attended a state university, but what made it affordable to me was that the university is subsidized by taxes.

There is quite a number of services that do not require that I immediately dig out my wallet to make use of them. They are paid for by taxes. And, true indeed, I pay taxes, so I do pay for these services. But those taxes are nominal, and are, in no way, a financial burden. The police and fire departments, Medic One, the libraries, and the schools are paid for out of property taxes and city and state sales taxes. The street and highway system is paid for mostly with gasoline taxes (which is, of course, a form of "use tax").

Health care is an essential service. Just ask anyone who's ever been seriously ill or has had a serious accident. But usually the first thing you are asked when you go to a provider of health care, be it a doctor's office or a hospital, is, "Are you insured? How are you going to pay for this?" I've been there. I know.

It's interesting to note that you could suffer a heart attack and be saved by Medic One, only to die later because of your inability to afford follow-up treatment.

I don't think I need to carry this argument any further. Everybody knows the dynamics. We have tax supported emergency services, such as police, fire, and Medic One. We have a tax supported street and highway system. We even have tax supported libraries and schools. But you could have a failing heart, or cancer eating your insides out, or a potentially lethal infection, and if you can't afford health insurance (as 47 million Americans can't), you can't get treatment without more than likely putting yourself and your family in deep in debt for the rest of your lives.

The United States is the only modern industrialized nation that does not have an national health care system. Most other countries have very good systems, free of charge to those who need to make use of them. In fact, the idea of having to pay for something as essential as quality health care is something that strikes many Europeans in particular as bizarre, if not verging on the barbaric.

But wouldn't that increase our taxes? Well, I really don't know about that! After all, we've pooped away something like $511 billion so far on an illegal and unnessary war, which is making us far less safe from terrorism than if we had just left it alone, while at the same time, destroying any remaining American prestige in the world, and which one presidential candidate says could go on for the rest of the century. And this on top of Bush's tax cuts for the country's most wealthy citizens, those most able to pay taxes and who needed tax cuts the least.

I guess it depends on what you think is important.

We could afford an excellent single payer national health care system. Well, at least we could have, BB (before Bush).

No? No single payer national health care service? Why do you say "no?"

Oh! I see! A single payer national health care service is "socialistic!"

Well, screw that! I'm not a socialist, but I think a little "socialism" here and there ain't necessarily a bad thing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 08:25 PM

I feel very sorry when I read of Americans in straitened circumstances struggling to pay for drugs and medical procedures.

I know you don't the big taxes that we pay, but I think that is irrelevant. The intention to take care of poor people simply isn't there in the political parties.

You need to form a pressure group. Bugger global warming.... if the green lobby can achieve visibility , you certainly can. you must organise and let your voices be heard if you want to change those smug bumfaces - both democrat and republican.

Freedom from this sort of anxiety is a basic right, just like the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 11:07 PM

Exactly so, WLD!

There is plenty of agitation for a national health care system here in the U. S., and hardly a day goes by when I don't hear something on the radio or television relating to it (of course, I tend to watch and listen to PBS and NPR, which some folks insist are "liberally biased" merely because they actually report the news!). In fact, there's a "Frontline" program on my local PBS affiliate tonight, called "Sick Around the World" ("The healthcare systems of other advanced democracies could provide the United States with ideas as to how to reform its healthcare system"), which I am planning to watch.

The major presidential candidates, particularly Hillary and Obama, are talking about the access to health care problem, and both are promising to do something about it if elected, but both of them are trying to keep the insurance companies in the loop. The insurance companies and their lobbyist (BIG money!) have been the biggest stumbling block on the way to national health care for years. The health insurance companies make absolutely obscene profits.

I believe it was on "Bill Moyers' Journal" a few months back, when Moyers interviewed a number of insurance company employees and learned that it's standard policy for health insurance companies to examine and analyse every claim that comes in to see if they can find a way to deny payment! This, when you may have been paying hefty premiums for years! I'm covered by health insurance (my wife's job with the library), and I've had to use it a few times, and subsequently, I've had to twist some noses to make sure they paid my doctors according to their own contract, not just toss the bill back to me, saying, "Sorry, we don't cover this. This is a 'patient responsibility' charge." It can be done if you come on strong and don't let them intimidate you. Mention your attorney if necessary and sometimes they fold up like a cheap lawn-chair.

But that sort of nonsense shouldn't be necessary.   Trying to cheat like that to pad the profits just isn't nice!

As you say, it's a basic right. And the idea that there are those who would deny people this right unless they can make a profit from it - and that some of the finest politicians that money can buy go along with it - really fries me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 04:33 AM

Well to be honest, I think the insurance companies have to be 'in the loop'. And that is a tricky one. You see, if you don't, the insurance companies are always looking for some way to limit their liability in cases of serious illness, and kick it into the ball park/remit of the state system.

You have to give these buggers something to do with their vast profits other than build huge office blocks. Its not an easy one - they get off too lightly in this country (England) - but it needs facing, and can be faced.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:15 AM

A big bunch.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: sapper82
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:52 AM

If you put 10 socialists in a room to discuss the nature of scoialism, you will still end up with 12 different and mutually exclusive definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: pdq
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:35 PM

And 12 different mutually-exclusive plans that they will demand be immediately instituted.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:05 PM

and your point(s) is(are)?

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: sapper82
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:18 PM

basically Ivor, with elements of the socialist grouping trying to deny that the USSR was ever communist or socialist, Socialism is whatever the Socialist says it is.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:24 PM

Ah right. See, there's a bit of a glide there from
i elements of the socialist grouping trying to deny

to
i is whatever the Socialist says it is

as tho 'elements of the socialist' is a synonym for "the socialist".

Anyway, yes there are fantastic disagreements within Socialism - with you there. Nevertheless, they also have a vast amount in common, so it's not impossible to get a basic grip on what socialism is essentially about.

is your point that because

i Socialism is whatever the Socialist says it is

therefore we can't discuss anything or what?


Ivor (off to bed too late)

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 12:43 PM

For those who rmemeber their Monty Python.

From the 'Nudge nudge' sketch, I quote

Sayyyyyyyyy. Noooooo. More!

Ivor