|
29 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM (#2300739) Subject: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Just wondering how much company I have. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 09:15 PM (#2300747) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Riginslinger Gg- I could buy into most of it, but the last time I saw a Socialist convention on (I think it was C-Span) the guy who won thought Christianity was a really good idea, and described himself as a Baptist. I kind of lost any sense of hope after that! |
|
29 Mar 08 - 09:21 PM (#2300751) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Ross Campbell Has anyone actually tried socialism? How come all the things that could be afforded when our parents and grandparents had nothing (cheap public transport, good libraries and schools, clean water, health care and free public toilets just for instance) have to be sold off for private profit now that everybody can afford more in material terms than our predecessors could have dreamed of? Ross |
|
29 Mar 08 - 09:21 PM (#2300752) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Because of one looney on CSPAN they planted so everyone would be able to use that broad black brush to paint all socialists with, you mean? Did you ever consider something like, oh I don't know, reading the works of well regarded socialist thinkers? Learn the history of socialism in the US, that sort of thing? Admittedly, it is far easier to just take CNN's word for it... |
|
29 Mar 08 - 10:23 PM (#2300783) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rapparee Yes. And I'm partial to the real thing. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 10:25 PM (#2300784) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Richard Bridge Count me in |
|
29 Mar 08 - 10:40 PM (#2300792) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Riginslinger "Did you ever consider something like, oh I don't know, reading the works of well regarded socialist thinkers?" Well, I liked reading Big Bill Haywood, but I don't know how well regarded he was. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 10:44 PM (#2300795) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Amos There are several major variations on socialism, so I guess it depends on the kind and degree you espouse. I think Social Security, the Interstate Highway System, good infrastructure and partly-socialized medicine would be good ideas to preserve and maintain. I think the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a failure years before Gorbachev decided to cut and run. There's always a balance between the obligations and freedoms that the individual's energy can be directed toward. INsanity lies in both extremes, I guess. A |
|
29 Mar 08 - 10:55 PM (#2300806) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Little Hawk Don't be foolish, Riginslinger...a great many socialists have also been religious people, in fact some of the greatest socialists of all time have been religious people. Even Jesus appears to me to be preaching a decidedly socialist gospel!!!!!! (regardless of what some of his so-called "followers" are espousing these days on rightwing talk shows) Furthermore, Baptists are not necessarily all drooling idiots, however much you would like them to be. Your usual process of stereotyping people is taking over, that's all. ;-) Count me in as a strong believer in socialism...in a general sense...although that does not mean that I think everything in a society should fall under the umbrella of socialism! It's not an all or nothing proposition. No, I figure it is best to have about a 50/50 mix of capitalism and socialism in a society. Socialism is good for providing universal health coverage, universal educational facilities, libraries, museums, a scientific and medical research community, a government (at all levels), a judiciary and legal structure, a military, some large transportation and communications networks, some large energy regulators, a police force, and a number of other things that are there for the whole community and which are, in effect, public services (when used properly). (they are not always used properly) Capitalism is good for stimulating a huge variety of businesses, large and small, to market various profitable forms of goods and services that people want and/or need. This is also good. Together the two can work very harmoniously and very well...as they do right NOW in all developed societies...and there is no reason whatsoever to demonize either socialism or capitalism in an all or nothing fashion. You can have too much of either in a society. You can have too little of either. You can use either inappropriately or destructively. And I could say that about absolutely ANYTHING, couldn't I? Fanatics and zealots always want all-or-nothing solutions. Sensible people integrate opposites and find ways of harmonizing them to the benefit of all. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 11:20 PM (#2300819) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle Composite four hundred and and ninety one, subsection 5C............I move! |
|
29 Mar 08 - 11:28 PM (#2300823) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Why should one bother to get behind a serious anti-war movement when there's the chance for a good socialist reading session in a sublime room of one's own? As for action, I have written many a meaningful check backing the proper sort of people. I prefer the sort of candidates who have no chance of ever getting dragged into the messy little details involving dreary government work or distasteful coaltion building. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 11:30 PM (#2300824) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rapparee Exactly, Amos and LH and others. I'm not sure a truly pure socialist society is possible, given human evolution. I think that this is demonstrated by the repeated failure of the Utopian Communities of the 19th Century. But no society can ignore the needs of its citizens and long endure. As G. B. Shaw said, "The more I learn of the moneyed classes the more I understand the reason for the guillotine." Historically, the problem has been that as the rascals were tossed out, new rascals took over. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 11:52 PM (#2300835) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Padre J.F.D. Maurice (1805-1872), an Anglican priest, was the author of 'The Kingdom of Christ' a book which greatly influenced the rise of 'Christian Socialism' in Victorian England. I recommend it. Padre |
|
30 Mar 08 - 01:39 AM (#2300876) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Little Hawk GG - "I prefer the sort of candidates who have no chance of ever getting dragged into the messy little details involving dreary government work" Me too. That's why I'm voting for Chongo this time. ;-) |
|
30 Mar 08 - 03:34 AM (#2300900) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,albert Have been an active socialist for much of my adult life.The more I see of the neo liberal agenda,the on going wars for oil and the racismbeing pushed by those in power the more I agree with that old victorian gentleman who wrote that workers of the world had nothing to lose but their chains. albert |
|
30 Mar 08 - 04:43 AM (#2300913) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus I've always liked his line about "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Tho' someone else may have said it first. Also that God may have been the first socialist because He created everyone equal. Ivor |
|
30 Mar 08 - 05:27 AM (#2300925) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle It is sometimes worth considering that George Moore, the great Irish novelist, referred to Jesus at 'the pale socialist of Galilee' - I don't think it was intended completely as a compliment. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 05:31 AM (#2300927) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: akenaton Guest, much as I admire your understanding of the current political situation, your scathing posts on this forum and taking into account that I would like you to have my babies, I must disagree with your contention that "Socialism" is the answer to America and the worlds problems. In my youth I was an extreme socialist, but over the intervening years I have come to realise that "Socialism" always becomes just another tool in the rulers armoury. If we are to have a sustainable world, Capitalism must be removed lock stock and barrel. In the short term this would be traumatic for the tiny part of the human race which inhabits planet earth at the moment, but in my opinion is the only hope for humanity's survival. I hate Capitalism and how it bebases people, more than anything else in this world, but still remain objective enough to realise that obliging people to sacrifice their short lives on this planet working for "Monopoly money", destroying our precious environment, all for the so called "common good" is lunacy. There is no short term fix to the problems that humanity has created, but understanding that we have a problem at all would be a step in the right direction....Ake |
|
30 Mar 08 - 07:19 AM (#2300956) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rog Peek Yes Little Hawk, I have, for a very long time had no doubt in my mind that Jesus preached socialism. I believe Ewan MacColl for one was of a similar opinion: Ballad of the Carpenter Rog |
|
30 Mar 08 - 07:28 AM (#2300960) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: alanabit I like to see myself as a socialist. I hope I will never be a doctrinaire one though. Humans will always need to express themselves as part of a community. To enable this, a degree of socialist provision is necessary - for the reasons Little Hawk gave. On the other hand, a degree of personal, individual expression will always be necessary too - and that is served by a degree of capitalism, free will or whatever. Absolute systems of left or right achieve the same result, which is to prevent humans from functioning properly either as individuals or as part of society. In my view, the needs of the few are currently impinging too much on the needs of the many. That is why I call myself a socialist. A certain degree of socialist and capitalist thinking is present in most people. A system of government, which totally excludes the other, is a recipe for disaster. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 08:02 AM (#2300972) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Midchuck I identify myself politically as a libertarian with some socialist overtones. When I am told that that's inherently contradictory, I say, well, so is the society we live in... Peter |
|
30 Mar 08 - 08:07 AM (#2300975) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Leadfingers We USED to have a Major Political Party in U K that was Socialist - But all mention of Socialism was dropped in the 1997 manifesto . Is there still ANY hope ?? |
|
30 Mar 08 - 08:30 AM (#2300987) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest LH, you may not be talking to the Guest Guest you think you are in this thread. akenaton, not to worry. I remain unaligned in terms of party affiliations, and the historic flaws of American socialism (too lengthy an analytical treatise for here, anyway) too glaring for it to be accepted broadly enough to be practical. But in the wake of decades of government deregulation from both major parties in the US has wreaked havoc with our world, and not just within the confines of the US border. We do have a Democratic Socialist local here in MN, with which I am not affiliated, but occassionally participate in sponsored events, keep abreast of their projects, etc. I began wondering as I watched the Cold War comedy of Billy Wilder's "One, Two, Three" last night on TV. The film's politics du jour have not aged gracefully, and it now seems anachronistic in restropect, even though I'm sure it wasn't for it's time. Which got me thinking how anachronistic socialism seems to most sheep in this obscene era of consumer capitalism. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 08:36 AM (#2300989) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: sapper82 Ross, plenty have tried, no one has come even close to succeeding! Quite appart from the USSR and Peoples Republic of China etc, every utopian experiment based on Socialist ideas has failed, largely through internal politics and conflicts. Even Robert Owen's (the originator of the term "socialist") ideal communities at New Lanark and later communities, particularly New Harmony in the US, failed to become self supporting largely on these counts. It is interesting of course to consider that these early experiments were all funded by monies gathered from capitalist activities. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 08:39 AM (#2300991) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: goatfell not many in Britian, certainly none in the Labour party because they don't believe in it anymore, they are the tories in a different colour that's all, I vote for the SNP and they are more socialists than the Labour/tory party will ever be. I can't want for the revolution to happen |
|
30 Mar 08 - 08:56 AM (#2300999) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest I suppose my central point remains. That is of course that you are the sheep, and I am your anonymous shepherd. Now back to televised cinema. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 08:57 AM (#2301000) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest I shouldn't post before I've had tea. I do believe some form of socialist model will ultimately be adopted on a global scale, if for no other reason than to manage and sustain global resources for the future. Right now, those "in charge" of our global resources aren't exactly doing such a bang up job of it. There are good examples of practical applications of moderate forms of socialism that have worked, just not all in one country at one time. There have been successes in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Cuba, Venezuela, just to name a few. In the wake of the Sandinista revolution, good progress was being made on several fronts before the US led contra war destroyed the momentum. The US found the Sandinistas particularly threatening because they were attempting to do a mixed sort of economy, combining both socialist and moderate capitalist run industries. As I said elsewhere, I don't hold out much hope that the US will get beyond this current stage of corruption. If the US economy implodes after all these years of deregulation and banditry, we are done as a global power. And I think the US is far closer to that point than most think is even possible (in the "It Can't Happen Here" sort of vein). I come from a part of the US where socialism is very much a part of the historic political fabric. Not MN as much as North Dakota and Wisconsin, but we have a pretty solid history of socialist and progressive movements here too. So I'm always somewhat taken aback when people are shocked, dismayed, and derisive of that history, just because they are so ignorant of the history and fearful that they might be viewed as crazy (see Rigs response) if they claim any of that as their political pedigree, especially here in the US in this dark era of duopoly rule. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:03 AM (#2301002) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Folk Form # 1 I was once and not so long ago; but socialism as a way of running society had proven to be a failure. Even Social Democracy was in favour of capitalism. Socialism proved to be a disaster and is almost dead in the water now. I am more of a liberal. However, socialised medicine is a good thing and I believe in trade unions and union representation on the board of all public limited companies. Those who still advocate socialism are usually ageing baby boomers who were radicalised in '68 and haven't realsied that the Party [deliberate play on words, here] is over. They remind me of when I was a youth and all these crusty old Tories bewailing how this country was going to the dogs since the loss of the Empire. These people have all shaken off the mortal coil and gone to the great British empire in the school. Nowadays, instead, you have all these old socialists bewailing the 'sell out' of their generation and still continue to preach and believe in socialism. Ken Loach, John Pilger, Tony Benn, etc, and countless others, many who find a sympathetic refuge in Mudcat. Their time is gone, but they speak from the heart to a increasingly decreasing circle and are laughed at by those outside the circle and to whom they would dearly love to convice ie the young. I shall now duck for cover as the bile rains in on my head. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:22 AM (#2301014) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Ruth Archer Last time I checked, I thought I was. But I have a cleaner, shop for food at Mark's and Spencer and my daughter is at a selective (state) school - so I'm probably hoisted by my own petard. I still believe in socialised education (including higher education)and medicine, and in re-distribution of wealth through taxation, and would happily pay higher taxes to support all of these things... So you tell me: am I a socialist? |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:34 AM (#2301021) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest It is a simplistic sort of labeling, isn't it Ruth? It doesn't really reflect our contemporary values anymore, except maybe the few to whom Rockin' Reeler refers. I'm not quite so derisive of the elders as all that, and I don't think the current, upcoming generation is either, at least in the States. If anything, many young people seem to be searching for just those sorts of histories without the demonization the education system and mainstream society puts upon the leftist labels. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:38 AM (#2301023) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus Rather than tossing about labels, it might be more useful some time to analyse society, the economy, politics. Putting it like that is itself a liberalt take on these matters However, that all sounds like a different thread. Ivor |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:53 AM (#2301036) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Not necessarily, autolycus. Give it your best shot. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:57 AM (#2301039) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: akenaton A number of poster have stated that we require a degree of socialism and capitalism to effect a balance. This is pish!! True socialism is the desire to construct a workable caring community of our species as most of the higher mammals do. Capitalism is a virulent ideology based on the exploitation of the many by the few. Progress will never be made until this ideology has bee properly explained to all and destroyed forever..Ake |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:57 AM (#2301040) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Bobert ...present... B~ |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:08 AM (#2301049) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest I don't know akenaton. I think the hybrid models could be used transitionally to get us to where we will eventually have to go, based upon the realities of resource scarcities. And, the socialist model will have to be as ideology free as we can make it, in order for it to have staying power. One reason why I have never been able to climb onboard with the party lines, is that moralistic attitude rooted in moralistic ideology. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:08 AM (#2301050) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: sapper82 Interestingly, in the UK, the philanthopy of the 18th and 19th centuries that improved workers' conditions and began the educational revolution that led to the foundation of the ideals of Socialism, were largely assisted by Capitalists putting wealth created from capitalist activities into "good works." |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:14 AM (#2301054) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Yes, and when one owns the systems by which capital is produced, one can afford to do good works. Or not. Which is why capital needs to be redistributed; generation of it regulated, monitored, and policied, and; new models created to deal with the brave new world we are facing when the oil and gas that fuels the world's economies, runs out. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:16 AM (#2301055) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Oh--and let's not forget the scarcity of water which already exists in most places in the world, not just in pockets here and there--and how much water the generation of centralized energy and power generation uses. Making nukes so not the answer. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:23 AM (#2301061) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Charley Noble The credo that "Thou shall not rip off your fellow human (or your environment)" does has some basic appeal to me. However, the thought of gathering around to discuss how to do that, the heavy reading and the thinking, encourages me to begin working on my taxes today. I'll check back and see what you have all come up with. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:31 AM (#2301065) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rog Peek Sapper82, I think the model you refer to might be best called 'crumbs from the rich man's table'. Of course the flaw is: 'assuming the rich man lets them fall'. Rog |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:44 AM (#2301074) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST "Interestingly, in the UK, the philanthopy of the 18th and 19th centuries that improved workers' conditions and began the educational revolution that led to the foundation of the ideals of Socialism, were largely assisted by Capitalists putting wealth created from capitalist activities into "good works." " Ah, but how did the capitalists get the money in the first place? That's right, by screwing the workers - long hours, child labour, unsafe working conditions - and then their 'charity' was riddled with conditions such as attending church, not drinking, do what your betters tell you. A quick dip into the works of Dickens will show you what things were really like. If you're looking for true socilist ideals go back to the 1640s. Read what Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn, Winstanley etc. wrote. The practical application of thse priciples was, of course, soon stamped on the by those who owned the land and, therefore, had the power - a commonwealth in name only. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:56 AM (#2301080) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest And it should come as no surprise that as we have seen the global explosion of consumer capitalism and the exploitation of global resources by the global corporate plutocracies, that we have also seen an explosion in human slavery, human trafficking, child exploitation as laborers, prostitutes and soldiers. The one is directly linked to the other. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 11:02 AM (#2301085) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: theleveller Oops! Anonymous guest above was me. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 11:39 AM (#2301107) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rapparee There WILL be a reckoning, perhaps sooner rather than later. With rice becoming unavailable and water becoming scarce, with wheat flour and the flours from other grains becoming unaffordable, oh yes...there will be a reckoning. It can be stalled off, perhaps, but not avoided. Malthus is still out there, nodding, saying, "I told you so." |
|
30 Mar 08 - 11:48 AM (#2301113) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Water isn't "becoming" scarce. It is scarce, and has been for the better part of 50 years. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 11:55 AM (#2301114) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Which is one of the main reasons why we have to kill the demon that is global agribusiness, global forestry, and the global energy monsters that are oil, gas, and nukes. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 02:52 PM (#2301260) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Mrs.Duck I consider myself to be a socialist but regret that those polititians who claim to be bear no relation to my concept of socialism. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 03:27 PM (#2301298) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Lonesome EJ And it should come as no surprise that as we have seen the global explosion of consumer capitalism and the exploitation of global resources by the global corporate plutocracies, that we have also seen an explosion in human slavery, human trafficking, child exploitation as laborers, prostitutes and soldiers. It should be noted that there have been no greater spoilers of the land, exploiters of labor, and violators of basic human rights than the USSR and China, both socialist states. While I won't deny that there are global corporate abuses, socialism is not the solution. It is a basic suppressor of individual innovation and entrepeneurship, eliminating many of the basic motives that lead to technological advancement. Should capitalism be allowed unfettered and unchecked operation? Absolutely not. But government has never been shown to be more efficient than business in the regulation and control of wealth. T Roosevelt had it right, though. Corporate monopoly is the greatest threat to a free capitalist society when not held in check by an aggressive central government. We are now reaping the rewards of the last years of failure to correct those and other abuses. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 04:25 PM (#2301361) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus From: Lonesome EJ - PM Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:27 PM Corporate monopoly is the greatest threat to a free capitalist society when not held in check by an aggressive central government. And business spends a lot of its energy trying to get the government off its back and persuading others to think the same way. Shurely shome mishtake. Ed Ivor |
|
30 Mar 08 - 04:25 PM (#2301362) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Cats Sorry wee little drummer but your composite does not comply with standing orders...... count Jon and I in as socialists. Check out the old Liberal party. We still have them here in Cornwall. They have never moved on their politics and are now about as far left wing as you can get in this country! |
|
30 Mar 08 - 06:13 PM (#2301469) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,lox How many socialists does it take to change a lightbulb? It's society that needs to change! Socialism is a state of mind. I don't see it as a political decision, I see it as a motivation. The belief in the impportance of altruism in society both for it's own sake and to maintain it's integrity (or prevent it's disintegration depending on how you look at it) Enfranchising social pariahs and making those with too much power accountable to those whose lives their every decision affects. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 06:17 PM (#2301474) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Peace "RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?" There are three, but no two people can agree on which three. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:05 PM (#2301620) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rapparee It seems to me, hidden away in the hills of Idaho, that we must first begin caring again about others. Capitalists -- management, if you will -- must realize that it cannot survive without labor. Labor needs management. We are all interdependent -- everything touches. It's only when we realize that we really ARE what we eat, what we create, what we destroy, what we share, that we can begin thinking beyond the tips of our fingers. People are NOT created equal: some are smarter, some are musically talented, some create beauty with their hands, some to make money, some have an ability to teach, some to raise children, some to organize the knowledge we already possess, and some to use that knowledge so that the same mistakes aren't repeated over and over. Human society will work best when all of the talents given to people are recognized as such and used for the good of all. I think that this can be done. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen easily and will be watered with blood. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:15 PM (#2301626) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Lonesome EJ And business spends a lot of its energy trying to get the government off its back and persuading others to think the same way Absolutely Ivor. It is the nature of unfettered corporate business interests to seek growth and maximization of profits regardless of ethical, moral, and legal standards. Should the proprietor, CEO, or board of shareholders fail to hold the business to a legal and ethical standard, the will of the people, as manifested in the state or federal government, must stand by to do so. Business and government should be engaged in a healthy antagonism that will keep them both serving the citizen, the worker and the consumer. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 11:10 PM (#2301711) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Riginslinger "I consider myself to be a socialist but regret that those polititians who claim to be bear no relation to my concept of socialism." Yes, Mrs. Duck, that's exactly what I thought when I looked into it. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 01:52 AM (#2301763) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus On the other hand,Lonesome, business is never backward in looking to government for mone, halp and everything - even banks!! Just look what's been happening there both sides of the pond lately. How many companies rely on government for business, contracts (arms industry; defence contracts; consultancies;computer companies; government suppliers; et cetera), grants (like relocation ones), subsidy (rail, farmers). I mean it goes on and on the list does of how many are looking to government for business and money while simultaneously telling everyone 'we need to get the govenment off our back'. And presumably onto someone else's. Business wants people(i.e. workers) to buy their products and services, and simultaneously see working people (i.e. staff) as a cost; and a cost to be held down. I repeat the song lyric Somethings gotta give Somethings gotta give Somethings gotta giiiiiiiive. Ivor |
|
31 Mar 08 - 01:54 AM (#2301764) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Ebbie Speaking of the scarcity of water, there would be plenty of water far into the future in the developed world if we stopped flushing drinking water down toilets and lavishing drinking water by the ton onto home lawns and golf courses. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 07:40 AM (#2301881) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton Socialism must be coincidental with democracy and about making the means of production, distribution and exchange more democratic. Those who own and control the "means" use them for themselves. We cannot change this without a democratic organisation. Stand back to be enraged. In the UK the organisation best placed is the Labour Party. It has more people in it who call them selves socialists than any other organisation. Yes I know it isn't very democratic and it doesn't really run the government, but you either join it and work within or build another one rather like it. All other parties of the left are ineffective.Democracy, like socialism, is not answer it is a process, a very long term process. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 08:49 AM (#2301930) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Bobert Well, one thing si for sure and that is the current crop of capitalists have not been good stewards of the capital... They think it is their ***job*** to corral it and corral it they have done... And worse then that they have corraled the capital with a lot of help from the government with corrupt policies that has increasingly redistributed more and more wealth upwards... Does anyone know how or where George Bush made, if you can call it that, his money??? Google "Texas Rangers" and check out how he and a bunc of corrupt tax/cheat investers bilked the Arlington, Texas tax payers outta a couple hundred million dollar$$$$... This scam couldn't have been pulled off 40 years ago... It wopuld have been illegal but these corporate crooks have used the laws to steal... This is what i mean when I say that the current crop of capitalists are not good stewards of capital.. And it has settled in as a culture and that is the worst part... They feel entitled to this wealth... And when folks bring up these inconvient facts these folks hire PR folks and op ed shills to twist things around... Probelm is that the twistin' 'round days are numbered because now they have even gotten into "Southern Man's" pocket and when they can no longer control Southern Man they will find themselves havin' to readjust... B~ |
|
31 Mar 08 - 09:03 AM (#2301941) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rapparee "Stewardship" implies more than "ripping off for myself". Stewardship implies caring for something AND for the environment (including the people) which created it. No, Bobert, they haven't been very good stewards. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 09:09 AM (#2301949) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Bobert Yup, that's the point, Rap... BTW, did you get ahold of "Gree Lunch" yet??? The Bush/Texas Rangers chapter is a must read... B~ |
|
31 Mar 08 - 09:10 AM (#2301950) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Bobert make that "Free Lunch"... |
|
31 Mar 08 - 09:27 AM (#2301961) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rapparee We've got it in the Library. You'd be surprised how many people, many of them good, staunch, Red Republicans, have read it. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 09:44 AM (#2301970) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Bobert That's a good start, Rap... This book 'ill take the staunch outta even the stanchiest... |
|
31 Mar 08 - 08:51 PM (#2302737) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Jim Martin I don't think what we've got in the UK can be called Socialism with so much inequality around! (the divide between rich & poor getting wider) |
|
01 Apr 08 - 03:22 AM (#2302948) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: akenaton Les , the SNP, who have just ousted Labour from power here in Scotland, are proving more "socialist" than the last Labour administration. Although only having a majority of one in Hollyrood, the party's popularity in the country has increased dramatically since coming to power. The worrying thing (for Labour), is that when they lose their Scottish power-base, they will never again be in a position to rule the UK. All of this can be laid squarely at the door of Blair and the right wing policies of his administration. Especially the war in Iraq and his privatisation agenda. Its all very well to be a socialist in a New Labour administration, but a real socialist has to have balls...or the female equivalent. And I don't see many of them hanging around Westminster. Whenever any "dangly bits" do appear, they are swiftly amputated by the "Party machine"....,..Ake |
|
01 Apr 08 - 03:28 AM (#2302955) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton Much truth in what you say akenaton, All of this can be laid squarely at the door of Blair and the right wing policies of his administration. Especially the war in Iraq and his privatisation agenda. But the Iraq war has little to do socialism. We spent 20 odd years with a slightly more socialist agenda than Blair's and people chose Thatcher and Major and then Blair. As for other parties of the left there are none in England. that'smy point Cheers |
|
01 Apr 08 - 03:37 AM (#2302957) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,albert I don'think New Labour is the political party that will deliver socialism in Britain. It was founded at the start of the 20th century to tame the wilder excesses of capitalism but a hundred years later has retreated from even its initial ambitions. Blair removed Clause 4 [the nationalisation clause ] from its constitutionand both Blair and Brown have embraced neo liberalism,the free market ,privatisation and all the obscene excesses of capitalism. Both Blair and Brown have embraced imperialism and war and the New Labour leadership which is imposing wage restraints on working class people is content to see the super rich continue receive the fabulous wealth they believe they deserve. albert |
|
01 Apr 08 - 04:46 AM (#2303011) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton Don't understate your case Albert. Socialism has not been "delivered" anywhere. It is a long term process. Some one asked Cho En li, sorry I cannot spell the name of Mao's Prime Minister, what he thought of the French Revolution. He said it was too early to tell. If the Labour Party has few ideas it is partly because few ideas exist. My point is simply that as far as parties go Labour is still the only party of the left Perhaps you have some ideas to offer? Cheers Les |
|
01 Apr 08 - 08:08 AM (#2303099) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Mr Red Don't count the chromatically co-ordinated, it is a purely sartorial affectation. Politically - water is the nearest hue to Mr Red's voting pattern - he can see through them! And he never declares his politics. Leaving him free to criticise or praise (tick one of the above) as the need arises. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 10:36 AM (#2303227) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Stu "Together the two can work very harmoniously and very well...as they do right NOW in all developed societies...and there is no reason whatsoever to demonize either socialism or capitalism in an all or nothing fashion." I disagree with this utterly - where does this happen? You can't work capitalism and socialism side by side because by definition a socialist does not accept that the capitalist ideal of free market economics can be applied to all areas of society and the economy. Healthcare is the best example of this. Here in the UK our excellent NHS should be providing high quality healthcare for free, regardless of social class, income or location. Free dental care, free eye care etc etc. However, as the powers that be have gradually privatised the NHS we find we now all have to pay for healthcare to some degree, and the rush to profit from people's illness and misfortune has led from everything from the phones the patients use, to the cleaning/portering services to the management of top-rank consultants being run by outside agencies whose aim is to make a profit rather than provide the absolute best in healthcare (you pay extra for that). In truth, the NHS should be paid for totally by taxation and be totally inclusive. The idea that healthcare should have to turn a profit for shareholders is an anathema to socialists, and quite rightly. No-one expects the military to be profitable - that's why it's OK to rain bombs that cost 25k a time down on mud-huts in Afghanistan. I'll declare my politics loud and proud - I'm a Socialist with a leaning towards certain aspects Marxism, and here's why. I firmly believe people need to be able to realise their potential, to be free from suffering and oppression, and to live peaceful lives, in the manner of their own choosing. I believe that capitalism fails utterly in being able to deliver these objectives both locally and internationally - it keeps the poor in the gutter, the rich in the penthouse and those in between distracted by trying to sell them tat they don't need. The dreams it offers are mirages - unobtainable and ultimately, hollow. In the UK, the combination of capitalism and the odious class system we still live with means gradually the most vulnerable in our society are being marginalised in increasing numbers whilst the wealthiest top 2% in our society get richer whilst contributing less and less. I'm not against a certain amount of free-market economics - it might even be essential as people need choice and the possibility of advancing themselves materially if that is what they wish, but not at the expense of all other human endeavours and the quality of life for a significant part of society. Unfettered capitalism has led the world to the brink of environmental disaster, I see no evidence unregulated capitalism offers any solutions to the worlds problems - and that has to change. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 10:39 AM (#2303234) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest Not all socialists and capitalists are as doctrinaire and ideologically pure, stigweard. That is why hybrid solutions drawing from both models need to continue receiving support from all quarters. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 10:43 AM (#2303237) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Donuel I enjoy the services of a socialized Police and Fire Department. Does that make me a socialist? |
|
01 Apr 08 - 11:09 AM (#2303259) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Doc John Well if you've ready my postings on the 'Lights Out' thread, you'll know you can add me to the list. Stigwaerd, I agree with much you say but there may have been some kind of balance in the UK before Thatcher and Blair her Heir. In my view some things should be run on socialist, nationalised (dirty word now) or is a better word 'mutual' manner: health, as you mentioned, but then there are railways, postal service, water, electricity ... services we all need. The rot set in when these items were privatised and are now run for profit rather than use. Did anyone hear of anything so silly as a private prison? The hospitals are now famously dirty because the cleaning is no longer done 'in house' but given to the lowest bidding private company, who then proceeds to cut corners. OK, let market forces (= law of the jungle) operate with burgers and jeans but not with essential services. However have you noticed when market forces work against the government's business friends (eg Lloyds), suddenly they don't like these forces anymore? Doc John |
|
01 Apr 08 - 11:28 AM (#2303282) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Stu "Not all socialists and capitalists are as doctrinaire and ideologically pure, stigweard." Capitalists adhere to no ideology - unless self-interest counts. "That is why hybrid solutions drawing from both models need to continue receiving support from all quarters." But they need a common aim, and the aims of pure capitalism and socialism are not compatible. This common aim should be the welfare of all those who live within a society, not just those who can afford it. We should strive to gather not just material wealth but also knowledge to be used for the advancement of science and reason to improve the lot of every man, woman and child on the planet, not generate income for an elite few. Unfortunately we are in a situation where socialism has become a dirty word. The elitist New Labour grandees have abandoned the very ideology they falsely claim as their own - they are as far from the Tolpuddle Martyrs as it's possible to get. They are capitialists to the bone - witness the fact a so-called Socialist Prime Minister won't even stand up to the tyranny of China because it will effect trade despite the injustices of this oppressive regime - this abandonment of socialist principles is astounding and is damning in it's indictment of modern Labour policy - the true heir to the Thatcherite mantle. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 11:42 AM (#2303305) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Guest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7324485.stm |
|
01 Apr 08 - 11:53 AM (#2303327) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton OK, some elements of agreement perhaps? Will we be needing some kind of collective action, maybe even a political organisation then? No, I thought not, just another swapping of possible ideas then? |
|
02 Apr 08 - 04:16 AM (#2304246) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,albert Dear Les, I offer these remarks in a comradely spirit!! "The emancipation of the working class will be the act of the working class!" Marx wrote that over 100 years ago because he recognised that no other class or force would usher mankind to socialism. How to get to that place has been the century old problem since. New Labour has consistently failed the test when it came to war,privatisation and the redistribution of wealth. I think the answer lies outside New Labour.Its best activists have been deserting the party in droves for years now and many of its remaining socialists have been broken politically on the party wheel [Peter Hain springs to mind as does Joan Ruddock ]. I am a member of Respect which came into existence out of the anti war and social justice movement.I make no claims whatsoever that Respect [or the Left List ] is the answer because Respect along with all the other left groups has to prove itself over a period of time and in practice!! albert |
|
02 Apr 08 - 05:19 AM (#2304280) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton Albert, you make a number of points with which I agree. But the working class ain't what is was. For one the unions have little power. It is not simply the Labour Party that has failed to advance socialism, it is the whole of the left. The best organised has been the SWP, with which I guess you are familiar. It has no clear idea of what socialism might be, it has almost no members and nobody votes for it and it has achieved nothing of any note in 30 odd years of existance. "I am a member of Respect which came into existence out of the anti war and social justice movement" Really, why did the Trotskists get into bed with an opportunist unrecontsructed pro-soviet stalinist who favoured the soviet invasion of Afganistan? Most of the Labour Party are anti war and pro social justice. The Labour Party is not a happy or comfortable place but you will find more working class and middle class socialist here than anywhere else. That is simply it. Cheers, I have to build an Invertibrate habitat in my garden |
|
02 Apr 08 - 08:00 AM (#2304347) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Mr Happy What's a socialist? |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:01 PM (#2304540) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton Socialism must be coincidental with democracy and about making the means of production, distribution and exchange more democratic. We have some way to go Cheers Les |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:10 PM (#2304548) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: pdq "Socialism must be coincidental with democracy..." By democracy, you surely mean free and fair elections. Right? What if the majority votes against your favoured form of governance, Socialism? |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:12 PM (#2304551) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Mr Happy I'm a socialite! |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:15 PM (#2304555) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Mr Happy ..........as opposed to a sociopath? |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:19 PM (#2304562) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: pdq Those two terms are not mutually exclusive. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM (#2304591) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton By democracy, you surely mean free and fair elections. Right? Yes What if the majority votes against your favoured form of governance, Socialism? Then we cannot have it. Since so far we have completely failed to convince almost anybody we have a long way to go. I am tempted to say, in fact I will, global warming is likely to cause such chaos, in which the rich will look after themselves and the poor will starve and possibly invade rich countries, that the chances for: "making the means of production, distribution and exchange more democratic." a bit slim. In the end democracy is the essential, how far can we use to organise a fairer world? Cheers Les |
|
02 Apr 08 - 06:57 PM (#2304964) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Stringsinger I think that there are partial Socialists in many countries of the world such as in Germany, Sweden, and Canada. "Socialist" is a hard label to figure out. There are so many who disagree such as Schactmanites and Trotskyites. I think most civilized countries of the world practice some portion of socialism. The only way to answer this question is to ask, what kind of socialist are you? Then we can determine how much agreement you have on Mudcat. The word socialist has been misrepresented and misunderstood that a detailed description and definition by the people who calls themselves socialists need to expressed before the question can be answered. Stringsinger |
|
02 Apr 08 - 10:00 PM (#2305086) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Socialites have more fun. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 10:52 PM (#2305121) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: number 6 "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! " .... Karl Marx "A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. " .... Groucho Marx ..... biLL |
|
02 Apr 08 - 11:14 PM (#2305130) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Little Hawk Idealists of all countries...prepare to be laughed at by many and ignored by many more. Prepare also to be arrested, tortured, and shot. It depends on where you are living. If you should ever succeed in triggering a national or regional revolution (as happens very rarely) prepare to have it quickly stolen from you by an assortment of unidealistic thugs and then prepare to be betrayed by the bureaucrats and powermongers who take over when the revolution is won. And if the revolution somehow holds relatively true to its original ideals...then prepare to be shunned, isolated, named as the greatest "evil" in the world, and attacked relentlessly by the greatest military and financial powers in the world around you. Idealists are never tolerated for long. Not in religious affairs, and not in political affairs either. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 11:24 PM (#2305131) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: number 6 "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included. " .... Karl Marx "Women should be obscene and not heard." .... Groucho Marx biLL |
|
02 Apr 08 - 11:58 PM (#2305145) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rowan "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! " "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included. " .... Karl Marx for both quotes. And yet his wife was extremely poorly treated by the man himself, even according to the rather Dickensian conditions regarded as "acceptable" at the time. Arguments over principle are essential (although most in our society seem to have an interest in arguing over principal and capital gains) and I'm wary of ad hominem arguments but, it's always made me wonder about the relationship between beliefs and actions. I'm trying. Some of my friends agree; I'm very trying. Cheers, Rowan |
|
03 Apr 08 - 03:26 AM (#2305215) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton Thanks that turned out much more positive than I expected. Stringsinger: "I think that there are partial Socialists in many countries of the world such as in Germany, Sweden, and Canada. "Socialist" is a hard label to figure out. There are so many who disagree such as Schactmanites and Trotskyites." I feel sure this is right. We have no right to be trusted with our ideas or our governemnts unless we can show that what we advocate is good and fair. We have shown that with the UK Health Service. |
|
03 Apr 08 - 01:53 PM (#2305651) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle What's a Schactmanite? Are they the ones that hang from the roof - I get mixed up. |
|
03 Apr 08 - 01:59 PM (#2305658) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Mark Ross I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and member of the IWW(Industrial Workers of the World)myself. "Dump the bosses off your back!" Yours for the OBU(One Big Union), Mark Ross |
|
03 Apr 08 - 02:00 PM (#2305663) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: number 6 I think they were a hard core revolutionary baker's union in Eastern Europe back at the turn of the century. Movement started out in Latvia. biLL |
|
03 Apr 08 - 02:01 PM (#2305668) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Donuel A real democracy will always lead to socialism. There will always be more working folks than ruling families. That is why we have so many laws to circumvent or eliminate democracy and preserve the country as a Republic which is firmly in the grasp of the power elite whose 1% owns 90% of the capital and still wants more. |
|
03 Apr 08 - 02:59 PM (#2305717) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Doc John To me there are two poles: left wing (=socialist) & right wing and then liberal (not capital L) & authoritarian. These intertwine with each other. Witness the Spanish Civil War. Democracy is another matter altogether. It's rather like tolerance: if you are tolerant should you tolerate intolerance. An interesting example is 'Pride's Purge' in the Civil War: parliament, who hardly represented the majority but were democratically elected, wanted to come to terms with the King. The army - who were probably more representative of the people but hardly democratically elected - realized that this was futile and purged parliament so that only those who wished to bring the King to trial remained. Dubya is always banging on about 'mocracy as if it's some kind of religion but not in the Gaza strip! Doc John |
|
03 Apr 08 - 03:01 PM (#2305721) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle I used to fancy a girl named Trish With her long brown hair, shw was quite a dish I was hypnotised by her big blue eyes And her little mini skirt going swish swish swish Trish Trish she was a communist I was an anarcho syndicalist marxist lenninist for the rest of the song http://bigalwhittle.co.uk/id10.html sorry! meeting actual anarcho syndicalist - after all these years...just brought it all back al |
|
03 Apr 08 - 03:03 PM (#2305724) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Peace I LOVE that song, Al. Have for a long time now. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 02:11 AM (#2306158) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 02:44 AM (#2306171) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Rowan 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 |
|
04 Apr 08 - 03:14 AM (#2306184) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: theleveller Us? Them? What's he talking about, nurse? |
|
04 Apr 08 - 05:19 AM (#2306235) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Stu 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 04:51 AM (#2313514) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus 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 |
|
12 Apr 08 - 05:09 AM (#2313516) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: akenaton 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 06:06 AM (#2313549) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle 'Our "democracy" is corrupt from top to bottom' And furthermore some people tops are nearly as corrupt as their bottoms. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 06:27 AM (#2313555) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus 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 |
|
13 Apr 08 - 06:18 AM (#2314128) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus Was it something I said? :-) Ivor |
|
13 Apr 08 - 02:13 PM (#2314385) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
13 Apr 08 - 02:48 PM (#2314425) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle yeh, it works now they've nicked all our fish.... |
|
13 Apr 08 - 03:08 PM (#2314437) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth Beside the point. I don't see what that has to do with it. Don Firth |
|
14 Apr 08 - 10:23 AM (#2315120) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle okay I counted, three socialists in all. two armchair ones, and one hot blooded revolutionary.... |
|
14 Apr 08 - 10:38 AM (#2315137) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,V.I.Ulyanov Do you think REAL revolutionaries would TELL you? |
|
14 Apr 08 - 10:48 AM (#2315142) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus 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 |
|
14 Apr 08 - 11:22 AM (#2315163) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,L. D. Bronstein Ah Vlad my old comrade. I wish in the end you could have seen it my way. |
|
14 Apr 08 - 01:00 PM (#2315254) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
14 Apr 08 - 01:11 PM (#2315265) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Donuel 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 ????????? |
|
14 Apr 08 - 01:25 PM (#2315286) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle sorry about all the spelling and typing errors al |
|
14 Apr 08 - 01:40 PM (#2315312) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Monique Well Donuel, I'm afraid that when Sarkoleon's reign is over, there'll be much less socialism left in my country! |
|
14 Apr 08 - 05:33 PM (#2315582) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Teribus "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". |
|
14 Apr 08 - 06:15 PM (#2315617) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Monique Sure he did! That's probably why he started to have his salary increased by 172% |
|
14 Apr 08 - 10:27 PM (#2315798) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: fumblefingers I'd be a socialist provided I could be in charge. |
|
14 Apr 08 - 10:41 PM (#2315809) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Slag 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 03:30 AM (#2315902) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,PMB 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 05:00 AM (#2315948) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Teribus 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 05:08 AM (#2315953) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,PMB 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 05:53 AM (#2315975) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Slag Nothing like a nice broad definition to tighten things up! |
|
15 Apr 08 - 06:00 AM (#2315979) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Teribus 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 01:21 PM (#2316376) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
15 Apr 08 - 03:13 PM (#2316499) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Teribus 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 03:26 PM (#2316517) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth They weren't even trying for socialism. Don Firth |
|
15 Apr 08 - 04:04 PM (#2316564) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: pdq 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 04:13 PM (#2316574) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
15 Apr 08 - 04:30 PM (#2316592) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
15 Apr 08 - 04:56 PM (#2316626) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth 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? |
|
15 Apr 08 - 05:05 PM (#2316640) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: pdq 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 06:22 PM (#2316724) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus 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 |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:50 PM (#2316807) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Riginslinger 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? |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM (#2316811) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
15 Apr 08 - 08:25 PM (#2316833) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 11:07 PM (#2316915) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
16 Apr 08 - 04:33 AM (#2317033) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 12:15 AM (#2317937) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: DougR A big bunch. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 11:52 AM (#2318331) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: sapper82 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. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 12:35 PM (#2318372) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: pdq And 12 different mutually-exclusive plans that they will demand be immediately instituted. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 01:05 PM (#2318404) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus and your point(s) is(are)? Ivor |
|
17 Apr 08 - 01:18 PM (#2318416) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: sapper82 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. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 07:24 PM (#2318793) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus 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) |
|
20 Apr 08 - 12:43 PM (#2320747) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus For those who rmemeber their Monty Python. From the 'Nudge nudge' sketch, I quote Sayyyyyyyyy. Noooooo. More! Ivor |
|
20 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM (#2321032) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Slag Yup! Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, et al. Were not socialists. That's the point. Socialism is dependent on the good will of ALL. Unfortunately, not ALL are good. Remember the "more equal" pigs in Orwell's "Animal Farm".* It all goes awry when Glorious Leader or First Citizen says "Now lets all close our eyes..." (read: "Now you all turn in your AK-47s..." or "...We'll collectivize ALL your money...", etc.). As soon as you start looking to someone else to do what you can and should do for yourself...you're done. |
|
20 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM (#2321035) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Peace It's hard to believe that a simple discussion of transmittable veneral diseases can turn into THIS! |
|
20 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM (#2321038) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Peace OOPS. Wrong thread. |
|
20 Apr 08 - 10:21 PM (#2321166) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Riginslinger "Socialism is dependent on the good will of ALL. Unfortunately, not ALL are good." Which explains why, to date, capitalism has been more successful. More people are bad than good, and capitalism works well for bad people. |
|
21 Apr 08 - 12:12 AM (#2321197) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Slag Rig, I expect better from you. Simplistic, unsubstantiated, unsupportable. But then again, on par for this type forum! Really, it explains nothing. |
|
21 Apr 08 - 01:38 AM (#2321211) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus Bit like that conserv, I mean Conservative, definition of Socialism that Sapper offered upthread Ivor |
|
21 Apr 08 - 02:25 AM (#2321225) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: alanabit Marxism actually requires an almost obsessive degree of democracy at every level and a high degree of decentralisation. (Yes I can spot the potential weakness!) I don't think anyone is accusing Mao or Stalin of that. Marx and Engels were actually gentle people in their private lives. Engels, in particular, went to great trouble to educate himself about other people's needs. He himself came from a wealthy weaving family in Wuppertal. Stalin and Mao were thugs, who used whatever political clothes, which suited their purpose, to get themselves into power. It works both ways. One of the darlings of the right in post war Germany was the Bavarian bully Franz Josef Strauß. It emerged after his death that he had earned a considerable part of his fortune by negotiating arms deals with the DDR. Did that make him a good "Communist" or a good "Conservative"? |
|
21 Apr 08 - 03:48 AM (#2321252) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle The trouble is Al, its a bit like these people who say - Christianity is a great idea, someone should try it sometime. And I've found a terrific diet, but I can't stick to it. He wasn't a true Marxist/Socialialist/Christian/Muslim/etc. I play real folk music, but no folk actually like it - but its the real traditional stuff all right You have to factor in the human element into the equation. These great movements and belief systems are not important as abstract thoughts. However much we would like to think we are the guardians of the light when it comes to socialism, christianity or even the bloody pathetic folk tradtion - its the commerce with reality and people that gives it importance. Not a set of ideas. Mao and Stalin did the sort of things that human beings are going to do in a Marxist state. |
|
21 Apr 08 - 05:15 AM (#2321300) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: GUEST,Sapper in the Office (1st time in weeks) Alan, I'm having a lot of fun on another forum with a Militant supporter who is in total denial about the Communist nature of the USSR and China! He totally refuses to admit that there was anything remotely Socialist about Stalin for example and comes back with bloody great chunks of obscure and turgid Marxist self justification in response! |
|
21 Apr 08 - 05:26 AM (#2321307) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Slag Yes, yes to all. Idealism says that because roses smell sweeter they make a better soup than cabbages. |
|
21 Apr 08 - 04:15 PM (#2321853) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus Mao and Stalin did the sort of things that human beings are going to do in a Marxist state. So did Solzhenitsin and Shostakovich Ivor |
|
21 Apr 08 - 05:02 PM (#2321928) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Bobert Actually, with the bail out of Chrysler back in '89 and the recent bail out of Bear Stearns we have had corporate socialism for a long time... B~ |
|
21 Apr 08 - 05:59 PM (#2321994) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus I heard the other month we have socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. Ivor |
|
21 Apr 08 - 07:18 PM (#2322056) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don Firth Sounds about right. If you keep getting the impression that you're being peed on, just remember: that's trickle-down economics. Don Firth |
|
29 Apr 08 - 05:29 PM (#2329059) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus i I heard the other month we have socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. Confirmed last week of course by the bankers being provided with £60,000,000,000 of taxpayers money, while the 10pence tax band for the poorest got removed. How starl does the example have to be before everyone's got it? Ivor |
|
29 Apr 08 - 05:40 PM (#2329072) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Bobert Yeah, ya see... It all comes down to "risk"... In a socialistic society the risk is spread evenly and in a capitalistic society the risk is specific to those who mjessed up... So in the US we do indeed have a socialistic system for the rich... They are well protected from risk... The working class has no such protection... B~ |
|
29 Apr 08 - 05:45 PM (#2329083) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus in a capitalistic society the risk is specific to those who mjessed up... Oh. I thought the money men were the ones who messed up, selling those duff mortgages, yet it;s the money men being bailed out. Aaaaaaaaand, please note this is being done in the UK not by a Conservative but by a Labout Government. As I say, nothing for Tories to worry about unless worry is your normal/usual state. Ivor |
|
29 Apr 08 - 09:15 PM (#2329281) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T "Aaaaaaaaand, please note this is being done in the UK not by a Conservative but by a Labout Government. As I say, nothing for Tories to worry about unless worry is your normal/usual state." I agree Auto, that it's being done by a Labour govt. I would challenge any argument which refers to this govt as Socialist though. IMHO they are more capitalist than Maggie Thatcher. I DO wonder where you got the idea that all Tories are to be found among the rich. Here's one Tory who just had his tax doubled by Gordon Brown because he has a total income less than £15,000, and all his taxable income falls inside what used to be the ten pence band (now twenty pence). I paid eighty pounds extra this month. Oh! and by the way, the U-turn which everyone hailed is another smoke and mirrors dodge in the true New Labour mould. He hasn't instituted protection for us that have lost out. He has merely SAID that he will, and he HASN'T said when. Meanwhile we continue to subsidise tax cuts for those who earn three times more than we do. You will understand, I am sure, why I won't be voting New Labour anytime soon. Don T. |
|
30 Apr 08 - 03:13 AM (#2329429) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus I said nothing but nothing about all Tories being among the rich. I'm fully aware of tories at all levels of society, all of them worried about having socialism. I did ask once which was more absurd, a champagne socialist or a working-class tory, but that thread had no legs. Ivor |
|
30 Apr 08 - 03:24 AM (#2329438) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: skarpi no Socialist : but a whiskey list I prefer better :>) I am to the right to the middle and never from behind , like the Socialist. what that mean I have no idea , all the best Skarpi |
|
30 Apr 08 - 05:13 AM (#2329507) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Al Whittle I'm a Labour supporter, but even I can't defend the tax rises for the poor. You'd have to made of stone, not to be disappointed by New Labour and some of its decisions. The trouble with the New Tories as an alternative is that one fears that they have the same old agenda. Tax breaks for the stinking rich. widespread unemployment, with not a care in the world as to the social ills it will bring in its wake. Insults and humiliation for those of us who live 'on the state' - pensioners, carers, disabled people, the unemployed, etc. Worst of all Irish policy dictated by the Unionists, and MI5's dirty public school fingers in every foreign policy pie. the none cleaning out of that Augean stables has been the keenest disappointment about New Labour. |
|
30 Apr 08 - 12:20 PM (#2329851) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus The old marxist line was that the Labour Party, when it comes to it, essentially keeps the seats warm till the Tories return. We can sit and wait for the working-class to rise up, and I shall be long gone before that happens in the UK or US Ivor |
|
30 Apr 08 - 12:42 PM (#2329871) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Teribus "The old marxist line was that the Labour Party, when it comes to it, essentially keeps the seats warm till the Tories return." - Ivor Interesting article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/30/do3002.xml Some of the appended comments are quite good. |
|
30 Apr 08 - 12:52 PM (#2329878) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Big Mick And now we've a government in London, The New Labour Party's won the day. And they come back to find their roots, In their sharp Italian suits, and when the cameras have gone, so have they. And they whisper that Socialism's dyin' Ya cannae sell it at the supermarket till. But while there's 50 left like me, we'll make bloody well they see, that ideas are the hardest thing to kill. Brian McNeill, from his song titled The Prince of Darkness. |
|
30 Apr 08 - 12:59 PM (#2329883) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Emma B Great quote Mick from a wonderful song writer and muscian. thanks! |
|
30 Apr 08 - 03:10 PM (#2330026) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus Ideas certainly can't be killed, no matter how hard the telegraph tries. Seeing the Brits putting the ideas into practice - ah, that's a whole other kettle of wax. Wake me if something happens. Ivor |
|
01 May 08 - 05:27 AM (#2330402) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: Les in Chorlton "Wake me if something happens." Why what will you do? When they came for the Trade Unionists I did not complain for I was not a Trade Unionist. When they came for the ............................ |
|
01 May 08 - 02:42 PM (#2330812) Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here? From: autolycus If they come for the Trade Unionists, then wake me up - that'll be something happening. Interesting your example is not about the working-class doing something - one of my points. What I'll do on being woken is take in the situation and work out, with your help, what's going on first. Not going to wake up, and leap into action without doing that first; some might regard that as a bit silly, me, for one. And I notice Teribus moves on from socialists to have a pop, courtesy of the Telegraph, at the 'Labour Governmnet'. not a word about the activities of the banks, or the largesse they've just received (£50 or 60 billion? I forget). merely that the attack changes target, and blithely proceeds. Just no pleasing the not-Left, is there. Ivor Ivor |