UKC

There are quite a number of politically extreme posters on UKC (left and right), as well some quite "extreme" centrists. Do you find you end up stating your position more forcefully than you really hold it online? Or this a hot-bed of extremism?

In reply to MG:

I think debates can become polarised with two sides forming with opinions becoming increasingly entrenched.

Of course this is just as observation as I'm always correct.

In reply to MG: Not sure I put mine more forcefully.......... but what's missing online is context. People simply don't know you, so while you may have what appears to be a right wing (or left) view on a specific subject, taken over a range of things and given a proper discussion, you might find the 'arguments' less polarised.

Two centrists reply being completely centrist!

In reply to MG: I love the artists on here that try to refute scientific fact. They are wrong and sanctimonious to boot.

In reply to MG:

Ah, but I wasn't 'forceful' about it

In reply to MG: Unless the poster is particularly gifted in their use of their written word, the true meaning of many posts on forums are often misinterpreted.

That and the ability for many, to hide behind fictitious users names may also add to ones ability to be more extreme.

In reply to MG:

I've met socially, and/or climbed with more than 30 people off UKC, some of whom have become good friends. Not once have we ever had a discussion, let alone argument, about religion, public sector pensions, politics, or the grade of 3 pebble slab!

I'm a centrist anyway, it even says 'hardline middle of the roadist' under the politics section of my facebook profile.

In reply to MG:

There are posters who have strong political beliefs and argue them quite robustly but I'm struggling to think of anyone who could genuinely be described as extreme left or right.

In reply to MG:
Num Num likes to keep a deal of flexibility in his political viewpoints lest he be accused of hypocrisy. At work, Num Num is a fully paid up member of the awkward squad and likes to do as little as possible for his weekly crust, taking advantage of his sickness and holiday rights to the maximum. His politics on these occasions trend slightly to the left of Karl Marx.
However, when advising Mrs. Num Num on her cleaning business workforce issues, Num Num likes to see himself as a bit of a Bradley Hardacre, with his political views swinging just to the right of Attila the Hun.
In this manner, Num Num finds that, unlike many of his excellent fellow posters on UCK, he keeps the balanced view.

In reply to birdie num num: Very wise. But what about the middle ground. Is Num Num a pure extremist?

In reply to timjones: Well I won't name them but I can think of two or three who are prett extreme left. No Nazis I suppose but certainly some fairly far orthodox right economically, and socially.

In reply to timjones:

I can think of a few extreme left posters. The rightward leaning ones tend to have right wing views on economics but not 'extreme' right views on immigration etc.

In reply to timjones:


ah but what do you mean by left or right?


dives for cover

In reply to dissonance:Shhh.

It's civilised at the moment...

()

In reply to MG: Bit of a mixture i reckon, it may be the position i'm saying it from but there seems a fairly vocal 'right' wing element on here...there have been a few unpleasant posts at times....one I took particular issue with was a post referring to 'all' gypsies/travellers as 'parasites'...not nice.

In reply to teflonpete:

Compared to some other places I visit the hard left on here is very mild, if you think of the Respect, SWP hardcore ideological types then I don't think there are any.

People tend to think of anything identifiably left or right as an extreme these days, so shit scared of being anything less than centrist that we have become.

In reply to MG:

Num Num is generally regarded by his inner circle as a pussycat. Num Num always likes to temper his political views to be accomodating (to himself)

In reply to dissonance:

Surely the definitions of left and right are well enough defined to need no debate?

In reply to timjones:


unfortunately the relevant thread or more accurate threads (it got quite lengthy) were in the pub and hence i cant point you in their direction.

the ducking for cover bit was serious.

In reply to MG: I'm hugely paraphrasing Douglas Adams here, but essentially most of us don't care enough to "win". The people who do will keep posting post after post until the thread is just two deaf people shouting at each other. sometimes there's an interesting discussion, mostly it's just the usual suspects.

In reply to MG:
I am naturally quite ambivalent but on line I find myself veering to extreme views. I have a natural tendency to react against loudly stated opinions more often as a desire to redress a balance than because I have a strong opinion one way or another. I find it interesting that I can be hooked emotionally in this way

In reply to teflonpete:
>

wait til you climb with me!

In reply to MG:


I think people do exaggerate online. They like to sound trenchant.

Oh look, that sounded trenchant :-0

Myself, I'm a John Locke/ John Stuart Mill liberal:

John Locke, as in there is no just government except by consent, and the only good reason for having a government at all is to increase individual freedom.

And John Stuart Mill, as in the only legitimate reason for interfering with the freedom of the individual is to prevent harm to others.

These days where the state is busy trying to lecture us, preach at us, and regulate us at every turn, I reckon my sort of liberalism begins to look like a pretty extreme position.

I've loved this bit from the left anarchist Proudhon ever since I read it in the front pages of Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.

On this forum I suppose I come across as a bit right-wing, that's Ok, I can live with that. On another forum I infest I'm thought of (by the mainly American membership) as close to being communist.
It's entirely possible to have strong views on personal responsibility and strong justice, while simultaneously being pro social justice and equality.

In reply to toad: "most of us don't care enough to "win". "
Exactly that. So many times I've gone to post something and thought "oh what's the point" and watch as the thread turns into the usual suspects slugging it out.
I like the term 'Marmite Distribution'
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/interesting-distribution-of-amazon-reviews...

In reply to MG:

State a falsehold; add on something wierd. Ask a question you know the answer to and question again to finish, with a flourish of exaggerated nonsense. Well done: your post on politics proves you should be a politician !

In reply to MG:

I have to admit I find it quite depressing that some climbers are so right-wing. No reason to assume they'll all be leftish, 'proper' liberal types but still, it somehow sullies the sport for me.

In reply to stroppygob: You come across as a racist idiot.

That's not being right wing, that's being a racist without the ability to construct a rational for being a racist.

Of course it's possible to have strong views on personal responsibility and equality it's just that you don't.

In reply to MG:

Probably because the only people who can be bothered to post on political/economic threads are probably those who already have strong views on the subject. I occasionally get sucked in and always regret it.

After all when was the last time you wrote on a UKC thread: "By Jove, I'd never looked at it that way. I do believe you may be right"?

No, me neither.

In reply to MG:

I don't think of myself as left or right. I also think left and right is inadequate to say the least, if you are trying to label someone's political views. I have an opinion on most current affairs issues (I blame general studies) and I often argue on here about them.

A lot of the time it is helpful to bounce your opinion off of other people to see if there is an obvious weakness in your position. Sometimes, that leads to going away to real life and changing one's mind. But you'd never admit it on the internet. Most of the time, you realise you're right and can't believe that there is people out there who are so stupid that they can't see it. That means you have to spend every waking minute trying to get them to see sense.

In reply to Wiley Coyote: That happened in the pensions thread I took part in the other day.

In reply to MG:

It's quite an interesting topic. I think that we should discuss t over a pint though.

In reply to Eric the Red:

http://xkcd.com/386/ :0)

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I couldn't really care less if it's a lefty or righty on the other end of the rope, climbing's about climbing, not politics, for me at any rate.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


That sort of comment surprises me. What does climbing have to do with being left or right? Why would a sport be "sullied" if there are participants in it who have different opinions about something unrelated to the sport?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

It baffles me how so many climbers can be big State, ban anything we don't like lefties. Heh,ho. They can be fun to climb with anyway.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yep, it seems to me that the essence of climbing ethos is making and being responsible for ones own decisions -- you don't have a Big Brother institution to tell you what to do, protect you from screwing up, and ensure a good outcome. And surely that's much more of a right-wing mindset than a left-wing one.

In reply to Eric the Red:

Exactly right. We all have varying strengths of view, pro and con, on many matters. It's only those with blind alliance to a political perspective who mistake doctrine for thinking.

In reply to Postmanpat: I've just realised- you are Ian Duncan Smith! Notice you've got little to say about Keiser's perspective on the crisis.You know he's right about the bankers- but just won't admit it. Pride...
http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-219-max-keiser/

In reply to ruckman:


I notice you have little to say about anything. I'd start proceedings against a few bankers and introduce capital ratios of 30%.

Ian

In reply to MG:

libertarian.

how left or right depends on how left or right what i confront is. i prefer to meet fire with fire rather than to balance at centre.

more than willing to rant about it in person.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's in the context of placing one's self in a dangerous situation though, where as everyday life could be seen a bit differently, where people pop out into the world and have to figure out what to do about it as they get older.

It'd be daft to expect anybody else to take responsibility for something which happen's to one's self going climbing when one's doing it from freewill.

Where it's not daft (I think) to want people to have free healthcare at the point of need, or to not want children from poorer parents to not have a worse education. I know some other people won't agree, which is fine.

Climbing and politics/figuring out how society should be are different things, quite obviously i'd have thought, just because climbers choose to climb.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Coel Hellier:


nice to see you are branching out from your economics only approach.
Shame you are still taking a rather novel viewpoint and confusing providing support where necessary with support is compulsory.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

If put in those terms.

But one could argue that unless soloing, one puts oneself in the hands of another to protect you and hold your ropes. Also there is the (usually unspoken) agreement to abide by the rules and mores of the climbing society, so a left wing climber is not to abstruse a concept.

Applying basic political concepts to everyday activities is fraught with problems.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It baffles me that seemingly intelligent people always assume that left equals authoritarian and right equals libertarian, reading any of the popular right of centre press disproved that notion.

As for climbing, in Britain modern climbing (post WW2) is all about the freedoms won by the working man, usually men of the left, be that access or time and money to climb. OK, it is a complex argument, but that is at least a very strong strand within the history of the sport.

In reply to The New NickB:

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

(Churchill, paraphrasing earlier French quote)

In reply to The New NickB: <-- Wot he said.
Coel's views of what "left" and "right" mean have always struck me as rather bizarre, or at least a very personal use of the terms than doesn't really chime with anyone else's usage.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Earwegoagain!

What about libertarians? Kropotkin? Prudhon? etc etc etc.

In reply to MG:

As is evidenced by the report on the today program this morning, I think that there has been massive growth of individualism and associated behaviours, which I think is the main thing that people see reflected on UKC forums, and this has the appearance of the growth in a more politically right leaning group.

In reply to MG:
For folks of a political bent, there's masses of climbing to do without treading on eachothers toes or upsetting eachother:

Right Unconquerable
Right Wall
Right route right etc.

Left Unconquerable
Left wall
Bachelor's Left Hand etc.

Beardy characters who smoke pipes can have a go at Central Climb.

In reply to birdie num num: There appears to be "Liberal Man" on Kinder too. Although no feminist named climbs to balance it out.

In reply to The New NickB:



That has to be a top contender for "sweeping generalisation of the week"

In reply to birdie num num: not to mention routes such as Totalitarian, Il Duce, Anarchist, Communist Convert & no doubt many others

In reply to Timmd:


Well, almost no-one advocates a pay-as-you-go method of health care; differences of opinion are over insurance-based versus nationalised healthcare.


Both left and right support universal education of children.

In reply to Jimbo W:

I would say support for individualism and socialism/communism is about equal on UKC. Individualism is certainly not the "main thing".

In reply to stroppygob:



Free association (as in forming a company) and societal customs and mores both feature strongly in right-wing thought. But I agree with you, there's nothing incongruous about a climber being left wing. The point is that neither is there anything incongruous about a climber being right wing.

In reply to Coel Hellier:I mentioned them because they're things outside of climbing, where the ethos is self reliance. I probably came across as thinking you were dafter than I actually did. ()

Cheers
Tim

In reply to The New NickB:


Far-left communism and Old-Labour-left socialism are indeed pretty authoritarian. New Labour is not, but that's more centre-left.


There is indeed a strong libertarian streak in right-wing thought.


Does it?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes. There is any equally strong authoritarian streak in right-wing thought. For example, the tendancy to lay down rules about who can marry , and who is allowed to have sex, and the tendancy to censorship.

In reply to MG:Harsher treatment of people who commit crimes seem's a bit more common in right wing thinking.

In reply to MG: Yep, take for example the current republican primary race in the US. With Paul running, there is a clear and principled libertarian option, and despite his almost cultish followers, he clearly finds it hard to get over 10% of Republican support. And it is generally his libertarian leanings that cause the problem with huge majority of rightwing voters.

In reply to MG:


This gets into how one defines "right wing". There is strand of "social conservatism" that is logically distinct from "economic liberalism"; and even though these two things are often found in the same people they have no necessary connection.

At the risk of provoking TobyA, I'd regard the "economic liberalism" as "right wing", but not the "social conservatism". As just one example, the Muslim communities are among the most socially conservative, but tend to vote Labour. Also, censorship (to take one of your examples) is most characteristic of far-left regimes.

In reply to Timmd:


Though if you went round working-mens clubs in Old Labour areas you'd find a lot of support for the death penalty.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I'd say right wing thinking has been characterised by social conservatism and economic liberalism - in simple (and not entirely accurate) terms individual's freedoms are curtailed and business's freedoms aren't. Vice versa for left wing. Having said that, I don't think many people fit into those moulds anymore.

Andrew Marr discusses it in "A History of Modern Britain" I think.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm sure if you went round Conservative clubs in the country you'd get a lot of support for the death penalty.

The death penalty was abolished for all but a handful of crimes in the UK in 1965, following a Private Members Bill introduced by a Labour MP. This was when Harold Wilson was Labour PM.

For the handful of crimes (treason, most notably) for which the death penalty was still available, abolition didn't take place until 1998 - another Labour Government. The Tory Governments of Thatcher and Major chose not to do anything about it.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

So what do you call someone who's both a social and an economic liberal?

In reply to tony:


Agreed, but my point is that it doesn't seem to be a left/right thing.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Quote here:

"The left tended to think people's private lives should be their own, even if they made choices traditional Christian society regarded as immoral; but that people's working lives, from how much they earned to where they worked, were fit for State interference. The right had a reverse view, that the State should uphold traditional moral codes with the full rigour of the law, but keep out of the economy as much as possible."

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Ah, a joke! I don't know, what do you call...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

In which case what was the point of your statement that working-mens clubs in Old Labour would show support for the death penalty?

And I note you chose to ignore the issue of the death penalty being abolished under Labour administrations.

In reply to tony:


It was a response to Timmd's comment that: "Harsher treatment of people who commit crimes seem's a bit more common in right wing thinking". As you might have deduced by the fact that I quoted that line in my post.


I was not ignoring it. I am NOT TRYING TO CLAIM THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS A LEFT WING OR LABOUR THING! As I said, my point is that "it doesn't seem to be a left/right thing". And the fact that it was abolished by Labour is entirely compatible with my statement that "it doesn't seem to be a left/right thing".

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Don't worry, I'm not provoked by people making simple mistakes. The terms left and right come from the seating arrangement of those for and against the French revolution, with those to the right favouring the ancien régime. Rightwing means conservatism, which is predominantly (or arguably was until the Reagan/Thatcher Revolution) about social mores and social control before economics.

Economic liberalism is, well, liberalism. I guess you can say that it's a Scottish idea of about the same vintage, and therefore stands separate to or in the middle of the classic left-right divide; indeed, as it has come to be in the modern parlance.

You can define left and right as whatever you wish, but you'll mainly just confuse people. Or move to Denmark because IIRC, their Left Party is our right and vice versa because they've sat on the different sides of their parliament historically. Please Danes, correct me if I've got that wrong!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


What an odd question. I would have thought "a liberal" would be the rather obvious answer.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

There is also a long history of libertarian left - I guess Anarcho -syndicalism would fit under that heading, as would the writings of Bakunin & several others. And there's a long history of antagonism between libertarian & authoritarian left going back to Marx the 1st International.

In reply to TobyA:


True, but then language and usages do evolve over time.


So, you want to exclude economic considerations from the left-right axis, and then you accuse *me* of confusing people!

It seems to me that the economic consideration is now the primary aspect of the left-right axis as it is used today (with more communal control of the economy to produce more equality of outcome being "left", and less communal control of the economy to allow more individual action and tolerating unequal outcomes being "right").

In reply to Doug:


We've discussed this one before, in a couple of *long* threads.

I would respond that, from the point of view of a participant in one of those anarcho-syndicalist communes, they are anything but "libertarian", indeed their essence was communal authoritarian control over everything. And it is was very unclear how a whole economy based on such communes would operate, since that was never implemented. Again, I'd suspect it would be highly authoritarian.

In reply to timjones:

Not if you bother to read the second sentence. Even without the second sentence it woundnt even make the top 100.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

There's no need to shout. It just seemed that you were doing your usual thing of appropriating the good stuff to one side and blaming the other side for all the evils of the world. When, as I'm sure you really know, it's a bit more complicated than that.

Having said that, it does seem that landmark social justice legislation in the UK does come with Labour Governments.

<Lights blue touchpaper and sods off to do some work.>

In reply to Coel Hellier:


No, not at all. Both centre right and centre left as well as Liberal parties tend to be 'economically liberal'. In the UK, the difference between the Darling plan and Osborne plan seems to be mainly one of the speed of cutting, rather than the actual idea of cutting itself. In a globalised economy virtually all states that want to be part of it are 'economically liberal', even if domestically they are politically authoritarian.

There isn't much socialist economic planning left in Europe - look at Cameron nicking loads of policy ideas from Sweden for example, many of them introduced there by the SDP under Persson.

In reply to The New NickB:


I thought the second sentence only made sense if you thought gritstone was proper climbing

In reply to tony:


And I'm sure that no-one on the left would ever do such a thing, would they?


(By the way, I agree with you about the social-justice advances by Labour; "social conservatism" is not something I support; I'd consider myself "centre-right" in the sense of economic liberalism.)

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That's ahistorical nonsense.

In reply to nastyned:


Can you support your claim with a reasoned argument?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not quite sure what the stuff that the lefties want to ban is.

Personally, I'm a big state (as in, high taxes, good services for all, and take the sting out of greed and dishonesty inherent in capitalism by tough regulation) kind of guy. But I don't want to ban stuff, I want a better informed public where ideas gain support through their merit, not through manipulation of the media or hiding things we don't like out of sight.

What sort of lefty does that make me?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Not even bankers' bonuses?

In reply to Coel Hellier: Errr. Not that sure about it. I don't know enough about the banking sector to know how much the government can interfere (to take the sting out of the inherent greed and dishonesty) before the cooperation between the city and the state is damaged and we suffer a net loss. I'd say the government needs to try to get as close to that line as possible, bringing in as much tax as it can (rather than just trying to superficially placate the public's cry for bankers' heads on sticks). The usual art of taxation I guess.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The Tories used to be fairly central as modern politics go. It was Thatcher who went more towards the Libertarian 'Individualism' ideal and thus Thatcherism is fairly distinct from Conservatism in my opinion. Problem for the Tories is that this approach worked for changing the direction she wanted the country to go in but was unsustainable for long term social reasons, and moving away from manufacturing instead of investing in it has been a totla disaster for the UK. Yet 'modern' tories seem to think this is the only form of conservatism to aspire to. Blair saw the void and gladly filled it with New Labour, but let his megalomania get in the way of what could have been achieved.

Tuppence worth.

In reply to MG: Secondly, those who seem to support one party through thick and thin need their heads examined.

In reply to yer maw:


+2p

In reply to MG:

Right wing extremism ? on here ?yes definately !
theres _ _ _ _, _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _4, _ _ _/_ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _, and quite a few others.I've had running battles with them all, metaphorically speaking.

Hi yes there are politically extreme right wing posterds on here ,but i see the centrists on here as being actually on the right of centre,the centre right would be just right wing ETC ETC.The reason for this is the indoctrination of the population by rich neo-con owned media corporations and the shift to the right by New Labour.

I myself am just an ordinary wee Proletarian wanting an end to the greedy,selfish,uncaring "capitalism dripping in blood", as John Maclean put it and a society based on need and not profit.

But i'm not going to kick it all off as we know where we stand, my viewpoint comes from my heart and my head and i haven't heard anyone capable of changing my views.

Basically because i know they are right

I state my views quite strongly on various internet forums but you should hear me in person i'm much much worse as i get very passionate !

In reply to yer maw:

WTF !
You had to ruin what was a good previous post by stating that nonsence.

In reply to workingclasslass:
Num Num is interested to know if the veins bulge out on your forehead when you post on UCK?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


By Jove, I'd never looked at it that way. I do believe you may be right.

In reply to workingclasslass:


Do you only discuss politics and political ideals in real life though? I rarely do, although I do on here sometimes. You rarely seem to contribute on non political threads.

In reply to birdie num num:

Hmmm no mirror at my laptop but i have been raging many a time.

In reply to workingclasslass:

<lights match, readies touch paper>

All this lefty socialist stuff-- it's SOOOOOOOOOOOO last century darling. Just looks bad on you! Just makes you look bad!

Tell you what, love, here's fifty quid, run down the boutique and do the boys a favour, get yourself kitted out in a nice modern political outlook.

<takes prudently distant cover>

In reply to teflonpete:

Hi,

In everyday life most of my pals aren't into politics so they tell me to politely zip it but some pals are and with those we do talk a lot about politics as well as other stuff.Not climbing at the moment myself so politics is practically the only thing that i would bother posting about as i find it fascinating and most other stuff to be a bit boring.

God i must be getting old !but not really actually because i've always took a very active radical interest.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

<rolls sleeves up>

hmmm wait a minute ...guess what ...your right enough !

How are you going to get the half a ton to me though, thats going to come in really handy.


Thanks very much! Text back please

In reply to MG:

Conservate - Pander to the rich, sod the rest.
Labour - Flip flop
Lib Dem - The bitch of either of the above.
Socialism - Narrow the gap between rich and poor, by making the rich poorer, not the poor richer.
Communism - As above, but shoot anyone who disagrees.
Green Party - Save the world with magic money from their magic arses.
Dictatorship - A rather extreme version of either Socialism or Conservatism.
Save the 2CV Party - Now you're talking.

In reply to workingclasslass:


Typical socialist! All they care about is money!

You know, there's more to a person's worth than how much wonga they've got. My friend Hugo the hedge-fund manager that I know from Cambridge, for example, spent his year off on a kibbutz in the West Bank with almost no money at all!

Let's see, how many provocations is that?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

< Typical socialist! All they care about is money!>

Wahaha ! from a Tory ? Thats rich !
Typical tight arsed Tory !

Hugo the hedge fund manager !sounds like a Tory version of Trumpton.

Oooew la de da the filthy rich capitalist went on a holiday where he spent f all !

Well surprise surprise !

In reply to workingclasslass:


Wah wah wah! You dayn't even knay what a hedge fund manager is, do you? Phwah wah wah!

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Of course i do ya numpty and is that your sleeping pills kicking in now ?

In reply to all:

What I find amusing is how there seems to be a preponderance of those of a capitalist bent posting during the day and yet many of a more socialist bias seem to start contributing at night, presumably after their daily work.

In reply to workingclasslass:

Just for the record, I'm a liberal (small or big L). I haven't voted Conservative for nearly 30 years, and even then it was tactical.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

To accuse someone of being a Tory is a real insult so many apologies i really should know better than that.

In reply to workingclasslass:


No worries. I'm only here to be annoying, so I guess I'm fair game

There is quite a long list of parties I have voted for, including the Greens, Labour, and the SDP alongside the Liberal Democrats.

There's a rather shorter list of parties that I will not vote for until they say sorry for the Iraq War, which used to be both Labour and the Conservatives, but is now just the Conservatives.

And there's a longish list of parties that I will not vote for under any circumstances, such as the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the BNP, the National Front, Sinn Fein, and anything involving George Galloway

If push came to shove, I would vote tactically for the Conservatives, but only to keep out the Nazi Party.

In reply to workingclasslass:

Nonesense? Anybody who believes the party they vote for gives an actual stuff about them is living in denial. They have one interest and that's self preservation in a job where they talk crap all day, know nowt about owt, and will do and say whatever they can to keep the vote.

The modern voter tries to pick the best bits of a fairly homogeneous bunch, hence why so many aren't voting these days.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


But being a rabid christian is last millennium.... It colours your politics through and through.

In reply to yer maw:

So you don't think that behind it all each party defends, in a general sort of the way, the interests of certain classes in society? I agree that the liberals have just given a sordid demonstration that points this way but I don't think you can really take all substance out of politics, as your las post appears to do.

In reply to Jimbo W:

That's because the capitalists are mostly poncey office boys and the proles are working in jobs where they can't be trusted with a computer or don't need one. Not rocket science really.

In reply to yer maw:

Hi maybe the main parties but not the rest who do believe in what they stand for ,but i agree with you when you say that is why folks dont vote so much because the main parties really are all very similar.

In reply to teflonpete:

Capitalists don't work. They let their capital do it for them

In reply to teflonpete:

Cant be trusted !

Why?

Would we immidiately run off with it and flog it in the nearest boozer ?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Christian yes, rabid no. But I certainly do hope it colours my politics; there are some principles, like the idea that every individual is precious in the sight of God, that probably wouldn't be around without Christianity, and that are well worth hanging on to.

However, I have no intention of getting drawn into a religion thread.

In reply to teflonpete:


Well, I think the lack of liberty of the prole in lacking the use of a computer to play all day on UKC should be remedied, and all the righties should offer to swap places with them, afterall, they do state they believe so much in the liberty of their fellow man....

.....but of course don't really.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Capitalists don't work, they let the shop floor proles make the capital for them :P

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I do agree with you as you say in a very loose "general sort of way".
The Tories try to mask the fact that they support the more 'well-off',but are actually reasonably honest in their stance, whilst Labour have lost touch with their roots and confused socialism with free-loading.
The Lib Dems have as Malcolm Tuckers say 'Lost it so much they need Sat-Nav to find their own nipples.

However, self preservation is corrupting and they all hate their constituency work!

In reply to Tim Chappell:


If you really believe that why aren't you on the left?

In reply to workingclasslass:

Probably, or just break it! ;0)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Possibly because previous incarnations of far left governments (communist and Soviet socialists) haven't exactly welcomed religion.

In reply to teflonpete:


Religion was very popular in the USSR and Socialist Czechoslovakia with many millions of followers . What of liberation theology in Latin America and its influence ?

In reply to workingclasslass:

It may have been popular in the USSR, but the ruling regime sought to actively discourage it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

I'm not well versed in the politics of Latin America.

In reply to teflonpete:

I didn't mean the religion itself, christianity moved on a bit from the origins Tim described, into crusades, witch-burning and such like, but the basic notion of all humans being of equal worth (with or without adding "before god") is the basis of all left wing politics.

In reply to workingclasslass:

Don't forget that religion is the opiate of the people, the Soviet Union was quite right to discourage it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

an out of power sort of leftie?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: My politics are these..................You're all Cu*ts.

In reply to MG:
Oh well, the soapboxes are out now. That's your thread well and truly finished.

In reply to yer maw:

what of the few SSP mPs a few years back who refused to take an MPs wages and took only a working man/womans wage of was it 20k ?Donating the rest (was it 15 or 20k )to party funds or charity or sumat.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

yeah thats an often quoted sentence from Marx's description of religion but before that i think he acknowledged some of the very socially positive aspects of religion ..if i remember right.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Indeed I can. Do you have any evidence to back up the nonsense you spouted?

In reply to workingclasslass:

That is the system in the French Communist Party. All those elected on a party list hand their wages over to the party, whether they be deputies (MPs) or on locally elected bodies and then they are paid according to the national wages agreements ("Convention Collective") that covered their line of work, IIRC, or it may have been based on the pay scale of the Parisian metallurgy industry, I can't remember. The difference covered about one third of the party's running costs.

In reply to workingclasslass: 'The sigh of the oppressed masses'

In reply to workingclasslass:
'The Workers have nothing to lose but their brains'

In reply to teflonpete:

oh aye i missed that one ,you traitor you ,its always the ones that turn coat that are the worst !

<cant reply as computer is now broke>

In reply to Postmanpat:
So why no arrests at JP Morgan? And a few months ago you were spinning that the bankers hadn't broken any financial regulations- just made a few 'bad decisions'. The Capitalists 'devour their own children'!

In reply to birdie num num:

Its a well known fact that thats what happens if you buy the Sun.

In reply to workingclasslass: Is he Birdienumnumbrains?

In reply to ruckman:

No, I said you can only indict them if you believe they have broken the law not for being greedy and incompetent. So it's up to the prosecutors to decide if they have broken the law. Being a believer in justice I am sure you will understand this.

In reply to workingclasslass: Yes old tommy shagger sheridan, what a role model he turned out to be.

In reply to ruckman:
hiya,
Hes a bourgeoisie num num but more tweet than twit and has a cracking sense of humour.

MG Sorry thread hijack !

In reply to Postmanpat:
Bloody eck you're sure, I wouldn't bet a wet fart on it!

In reply to KTT:

Hey Tommys a working class hero he fought the bailiffs during the Thatcher poll tax and more and was hunted and villified by the(allegedly)criminal Murdoch papers !

In reply to workingclasslass: Yes, the Murdoch press are criminal scum, we know that, as for Shagger Tommy I seem to remember that the people that shopped him were fellow Scottish Socialists, I guess either Tommy or his 'comrades' are in need of a stint in the salt mines; so who should be exlied for re-education? Is it socialist 1 or socialist 2?

In reply to KTT:

Its a bit more complicated than that Curzon and do you want to talk of gulags ?

Uk foriegn gulags and slave labour ?

In reply to workingclasslass:


"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Erm, why should believing that every individual is precious in the sight of God put me "on the left"?

At the level of political implementation I'm sure it commits me to believing in some sort of organised help for the poor, ill, old and otherwise vulnerable or afflicted. It doesn't commit me to socialism, though, unless you think that believing in a welfare state is believing in socialism.

In reply to workingclasslass:


Whilst it was a nice gesture of Tam the Bam Shagger Sheriden I can assure you he was raking it in elsewhere. They were nothing short of Communism Idealists and shouldn't have been let out of their cage.

I admire your dogged devotion to your working class 'brothers and sisters' but the only ones who took any notice were also regular participants to the Jeremy Kyle show. The real working classes i.e. people who have jobs, could see stright through the steam of the poo they were spouting.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Plain English for those who can't be bothered with interpreting for the daft please!

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Well yes, I'd say the welfare state is a left wing notion. A right winger would normally believe that it was in the interest of all, poor or rich, to defend their individual interests as best they can rather than leaving this to the state.

It seems that there is a lot of confusion between left and right

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


OK, well, to that extent I'm left-wing then, by your definition. These are just labels; we can stick them on whatever we like.

The substantive issue is that I agree with John Locke (1) that it's up to the individual to make or break his own destiny and happiness and that the state should not interfere too much with this, and also (2) that there is a duty on everyone to rescue and protect the suffering and the vulnerable. Obviously these two beliefs can come into conflict in particular circumstances; nearly all actual political debate between "left" and "right", it seems to me, is about how to reconcile them.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

The misconception of the "left" is that (2) has to be done through the State, that it can only be done through redistribution and that people who disagree with those ideas are "bad".

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think this bit is from within your own mind too quite a bit, not just a "left wing" prejudice. It is historically true that "other methods" like charities and individual generosoty were tried for decades and didn't prove that efficient. It's hard to believe that the "safety net" can be provided by anything except the state... even the yanks are coming slowly over to that!

In reply to Postmanpat:

How would you ensure a 'safety net' is in all parts of the country, if it was left to charities and people being generous?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I would love to hear your ideas on how we can protect the vulnerable in society without state interference, and how any help, even help that isn't sponsored or co-ordinated by the state can be done without distribution.

In reply to The New NickB:

Actually you wouldn't.You'd probably just sneer because that is easier than addressing the issue.

Going back to the OP, this is a typical example of one of the problems on this and other website. PMP is generally quite pro market. PMP says that the State is not the only mechanism for protecting the vulnerable.
QED. PMP believes the State should have no involvement in protecting the vulnerable.

Since this is clearly unworkable he probably believes that old people should be left to starve and babies left to die.

If you were of the real muppet persuasion (which you're not) you would then conclude that PMP must hate black people and gays, spends his life metaphorically mugging old ladies and planning invasions of other countries. Not to mention reintroducing slavery.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I agree its a problem with websites / online discussion, but you seem to be assuming the fault is not with you and lies with others. Frankly, you come across as someone who is anti-state involvement.

In reply to Jimbo W:

Well, going back to the OP, I think I (and many other people) sometimes find myself defending stronger positions than I hold or appear to be more fixed in my views than I am because of the combative nature of so many threads.

The follow on from that is even if people actually want to genuinely to discuss and explore an issue they end up being dragged into a pissing match.

Which is why I'm trying to waste less time on here.

In reply to MG:

I love that I can just scan the thread for who's posted and instantly know what g'wan. Oh good old continuity.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
...like the idea that every individual is precious in the sight of God, that probably wouldn't be around without Christianity, and that are well worth hanging on to...

Why is the idea that individuals are precious in the sight of a non-existent entity worth hanging on to? I mean, I can see how your primitive superstitions might be useful if you're supporting capitalism, especially if you fancy a bit of genocide or homophobia or want to smite a few other nations or suppress women and that kind of thing. But do we really need a sky-fairy to tell us how to behave morally?

In reply to yer maw:

Whats that all about ? Why do YOU call him a bam ?Whats your problem ?

>They were nothing short of Communism Idealists and shouldn't have been let out of their cage.

Ohhhh i see ,anyone who doesn't fit what you say shouldn't have any freedom to be political .

i suppose we should ban the Communist party eh ?


Oh aye well i've news for you buster ...i'm one of the working class and and a great deal of us do admire Tommy for standing up for the ordinary person .

Well i'd like to say i admire you but i'm not going to lie.

In reply to workingclasslass: I'm afraid that you're as wrong about Sheridan as 'yer maw'. Sheridan led a party that supports capitalism and offers no alternative to the working-class. Just a typical left-wing opportunist.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Heres your dummy back Pat.
ps.I didnt include your name in my first reply on this thread.

Now if you say-

A)"The misconception of the "left" is that (2) has to be done through the State,"

Then you say-

B)"PMP says that the State is not the only mechanism for protecting the vulnerable.

A) says that it doesn't have to be done through the state.
B) says you do believe the state should have involvement.

so to follow from that how would you do it?

In reply to Postmanpat:
>

Hear hear !

I hate when you are discussing something in a civil way then some childish walloper comes on and spouts off some insulting nonsense at you.

Then if you're not careful you get dragged down to that level and do the same yourself,i'm guilty but who isn't ?

In reply to workingclasslass:
I didn't notice your first reply. It's past 7pm so I have now turned into a pumpkin. Have a nice evening and do some reading on these things . It'll be more interesting than me.

In reply to workingclasslass:
I didn't notice your first reply. It's past 7pm so I have now turned into a pumpkin. Have a nice evening and do some reading on these things . It'll be more interesting than me. X

In reply to Chambers:

I did vote for his party a few years back but i don't remember it being capitalist,in fact i think its decidedly anti-capitalist.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Umm, can't the old folk simply eat the babies? Surely that's the obvious solution in line with "right wing" thought?


Aww, if so I might feel obligated to spend more time on here defending pro-market ideas.

In reply to Postmanpat:

But you can save me a lot of wasted time trying to find this stuff that you know the answer to couldn't you?

Hugs n XXXs

In reply to workingclasslass: The rhetoric might be anti-capitalist, but if you look at what his party advocates it is nothing more than piecemeal reforms to capitalism rather than an alternative to capitalism.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Is there any defence for such ideas, Coel? I realise that your telescope is probably bigger than mine, but I can't see any defence for pro-market ideas!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Ah but you forget the mutual inter dependence of the climbing party in ensuring the safety of each other. A perfect example of left-wing ideals

I would consider myself slightly left wing in my politics. In that the strongest in society have a duty of care to the weakest. I also believe that we are responsible for our own actions and in the old adage that although society owes no man (or woman) a living it owes them the opportunity to make a living. So I believe in free health care and I believe in free education (within limits while I believe that education benefits society as a whole and that the best minds do not always come from the households with the biggest income I wouldn't say that the state should fund a fine art degree for instance) and I believe in trade unions as means for those without financial clout to have a voice. But dislike the view that one is entitled to everything one asks for without working for it and that I am being "unfair" if I don't allow someone who has never worked to have a plasma screen tv from my money. Don't expect a free ride

In reply to Chambers:

After a quick squint i can see exactley what you mean.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

< But dislike the view that one is entitled to everything one asks for wthout working for it and that I am being "unfair" if I don't allow someone who has never worked to have a plasma screen tv from my money. Don't expect a free ride >

In the USSR and the Eastern bloc it was technically illegal to be unemployed.

In reply to workingclasslass:


Are you suggesting that that was a good thing?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Hear, hear.

In reply to Chambers:

To be rid of unemployment i think is indeed a very nobel ideal.

In reply to workingclasslass: But being rid of unemployment within capitalism is a pipe-dream. Simply not possible. Better to get rid of employment, I think. Abolish the wages system. That's what Marx advocated.

In reply to Chambers:


Can't you really? All of the world's nations with the highest standard of living and the highest quality of life have pro-market economies. So long as one doesn't regard the market as the only solution, and so long as one moderates and controls the markets, it works far better than any other solution humans have hit upon.

In reply to workingclasslass: Indeed and their use of forced labour sorted that didn't it?

In reply to Chambers:

Yeah did he not say that is what should eventually be aspired to but before that you need a slow transition to get you there if indeed you did or did not actually get that far.

Ps. I'm not someone who is familiar with all of Marx just some of it and other Marxist writers to so please forgive my lack of depth,i'm just an ordinary worker.although what you say is very interesting to me is there any writings or books you would recommend to me.

In reply to KTT:

What do you mean?

In reply to Chambers:

There you go MG, a perfect example of what you were thinking of, a person who can't see ANY defence for pro-market ideas.

Chambers, do you really think that, really and truly? You can't think of a any good points about a market economy or a mixed economy at all? Not one thing?

In reply to workingclasslass: Don't you know about forced labour camps?

In reply to KTT:

Of course ,Britain is built on the money generated by the slaves but are you suggesting that those who wouldn't work or contribute to society in Czechoslovakia in the ...say 70s or 80s were put in forced labour camps instead of being locked up for 2 years ?

In reply to Postmanpat:
No, I would actually be interested. I might not agree, but I wouldn't mind getting beyond the abstract that these things tend to get argued in. I thought you might be able to articulate a considered position.

Nice rant though.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Coel suggests that "All of the world's nations with the highest standard of living and the highest quality of life have pro-market economies. So long as one doesn't regard the market as the only solution, and so long as one moderates and controls the markets, it works far better than any other solution humans have hit upon."

One of the problems with making assertions like this is that they are necessarily value-based judgements which are dependent on a particular perspective. It's perfectly possible to argue, for example, that the worldwide distribution of, say, mobile phones - a distribution that has only been made possible by the development of a global markey economy - has actually caused a marked reduction in quality of life. The swamping of people's minds with irrelevant cack - again made possible by the development of a global market economy - could hardly be advanced as a rise in standard of living. Indeed, it could be argued that the development of a global market economy has severed our connection with the natural world and turned many of us into gibbering idiots that are fit only for a life of unthinking wage-slavery. Now, that perspective is just as valid as Coel's, it seems to me.

But I don't adhere to that point of view. I think it's true to say that the market economy has had some very positive effects on human society as well as some very negative ones. But this is a matter of history. It's my assertion that the market system has outlived its usefulness and has, in fact, become dangerously obsolete. And I think it's wrong to assume that just because the market system can be argued to be the best economy that humanity has devised thus far that we can do no better. After all, we're talking about a global system that is capable of producing enough food to feed several times the current population of the planet yet fails to feed even the population it has. We're talking about a global system that generates poverty, insecurity, hostility and war whilst failing to meet human needs at a very basic level.

Human ingenuity has made it possible for us to achieve some phenomenal things. I can sit here, for example, and write this, and within seconds of my hitting the 'submit message' button it can be read anywhere in the world. We can put machines on other planets. We can observe galaxies that we didn't even know existed a hundred years ago. We have developed distribution systems that allow us to send stuff from one side of the world to the other very quickly. It's amazing to think that only a short time ago in human terms our ancestors were still learning to bang rocks together to make fire. Now, Coel might want to argue that it's only the market system that has made these things possible, but he's got a lot of work ahead of him if he does want to argue that, and he'll have quite a lot of explaining to do along the way. For my part, the position that 'this is the best we've done' in no way translates into 'this is the best we can do'.

In reply to Chambers:

So now can you give us a brief summary of the alternative system you propose?

I can't, not any more, so I'm very open to suggestions

In reply to Chambers:


Most mobile phones that I've encountered have "off" stwitches.


Speak for yourself!


OK, but you need something better before anyone will take you seriously.


The countries that have implemented market economies coupled with liberal democracy are the ones that do satisfy human needs, doing so vastly above basic levels, and which have the highest standard of living, the highest standards of quality of life mankind has ever had, and also the most peaceful existence mankind has ever had.

Poverty and war and failing to fullfill basic humans needs are properties, not of the democractic Capitalist West, but of the parts of the world that do not have liberal democractic market economies.


It's straightforward to argue that; all the advances that you mention are characteristics of the nations with democractic market economies.


OK, come up with something better. No human scheme is perfect. Liberal democratic market economies work far better than any other scheme mankind has tried. It's up to you to argue for a better scheme if you can.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I think it starts with his ornithologist friends getting some large nets and going out to capture a flock of Cloud Cuckoos.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Ah! Ridicule. Very scientific. And very disappointing from someone whose views I admire on the importance of scientific rationalism when it comes to religion. You ought to apply such rigorous thinking to your analysis of society, as well. Still, I'll pretend that you were only trying to be funny and that you are open to reason on this matter. I'll go back and deal with your reply to my suggestions that the market system is inherently flawed.

In reply to Postmanpat:


When it comes to distributing social care to those who need it, it's not a doctrinaire point, but simply an obvious point about the practicalities, that the state is far and away the best way to do it.

I don't have any assumption in my head that those who disagree with this obvious truth are necessarily "bad". For example, it's perfectly possible that they're stupid.

In reply to Chambers:


How kind!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Indeed they do. Just as most televisions have 'off' switches. But the situation is a little more complex than that, isn't it? Your market economy has created an entirely artificial 'need' for these things and -as I'm sure I don't need to point out - that 'need' is self-perpetuating and self-generating and has had an entirely detrimental effect on human interaction. Do u no wot i mean?


But I'm very clearly not speaking for myself, am I? Nor am I speaking for you. I'm speaking for the vast majority of our fellow humans in developed capitalist nations who are being stupefied to the point of cretinism by the market's continual exhortations to buy this and consume that and to hell with the consequences.


Do I? I mean, quite apart from the fact that I do advocate an alternative to the chaos of capitalism and propose a practical alternative to the waste and inefficiency of production for profit, why do you suppose that I should refrain from critiquing capitalism if I don't offer an alternative? And isn't the process of critique in itself a method for generating an alternative?



As I said earlier, if you want seriously to defend this position you are going to have to do a lot of explaining. But before I challenge you to explain the massive contradictions thrown up even by social conditions in so-called developed capitalist countries, I want to make one thing very clear: This distinction that you make between countries that "have implemented market economies coupled with liberal democracy" is a distinction that is fundamentally flawed. We are talking here about a global economy. When it comes to business there is no ideological split between free-market, liberal democracy and, say, military, theocratic dictatorships. British capitalists are perfectly comfortable doing business with despotic regimes, and really, in the final analysis, your beloved 'liberal democracy' is nothing but a sham. What we're looking at is a global dictatorship of the social force of capital. More of which, later.

So, you argue that standards of living are higher in so-called liberal democracies. Perhaps then, you can explain why it is that nearly three million people rely on state handouts in order to live? And why there are nearly 50,000 registered homeless families in the UK? Why is personal debt such a huge problem to so many families? Now, I'd be perfectly happy to accept that it's better to be poor in the UK than in, say, Ethiopia, but that's hardly the point, is it? The fact remains that we are talking about a global economic system, and the fact some people have been lifted out of absolute poverty in some parts of the world does nothing to explain the fact that the cost of this amelioration is that two-thirds of the population of the planet goes to bed hungry.



You suggest that 'liberal democracies' are more peaceful. Afghanistan. Iraq. Who's invading who here? No, you are wrong. World War 1 and World War 2 were wars over markets and which nation-state was going to dominate them. The argument that free-market liberal democracies don't cause wars whilst non-free-market, non-liberal dictatorships do is nonsensical and demonstrably untrue. The market economy causes wars.

In reply to Chambers:


Blimey!

Let me know when you get round to burning all the books ;(

In reply to timjones:

Let me know when you've finished reading what I wrote, and then I'll try to help you to understand it.

In reply to Chambers:


Well, well, well.

Another aggressive, argumentative, rude, obstinate, dismissive, testosterone-charged, reductionist-minded, long-winded and somewhat obsessive poster arrives on UKC.

Welcome; I imagine you'll find yourself very much at home here.

And once you've got over yourself a bit, be sure to post some more relaxed and possibly even climbing-related thoughts as well.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Goodness, Tim. I don't think that I've ever witnessed anyone being so open about their own character whilst pretending to be talking about someone else. Well done!

In reply to Chambers:


That was a bit of a feeble reply, wasn't it? Feel free to delete and try again, if you can think of anything better.

If you're going to try for the status of keyboard hard man, you should at least try to do it properly.

In reply to Chambers:


PS Oh, and get your facts straight, too. No one's ever called me reductionist-minded before.

In reply to Tim Chappell: No-one needs to, do they. It goes without saying. Isn't it time to say your prayers now?

In reply to Chambers:


There I was thinking that today's populations were above any previous in educational achievement, performance on IQ tests (Flynn effect), etc. And if we buy things, perhaps it's because we quite like them?


Chaos? Don't know about you, but it seems to me that Britain has just had a very peaceful and prosperous fifty years with very high quality of life, more so than any other period I can think of. When would you prefer? Europe during the 100-years war? The 1740s civil war?


But, you haven't proposed any practical alternative that is less wasteful and more efficient. Indeed, "production for profit" seems, on the whole, to be the least wasteful and most efficient production process we know of.


But when it comes to well-functioning countries there is.


Which is why it is always good to have businesses under democratic control. The problem in those despotic countries is the despotic government, not the presence of capitalists.


Hmm, think we might have to disagree on that one.


Doesn't seem that way to me.


Yes. On the whole. (Not necessarily that every single individual is better off than every single individual in some other system.)


They're still, on the whole, better off than in any alternative system we know of. Are these people, for example, all emigrating to India because they think they'd be better off there? Indeed, the number of state handouts is actually an indication of the high levels of social protection in this country.


Yes, it is 100% exactly the point.


Ahh, so you're arguing it's a zero-sum game, such that the only way someone can be "lifted out of poverty" is if someone else is dumped deeper into it? Sorry, it isn't a zero-sum game at all.

The hunger of 2/3rds of the world is not caused by the rich countries having adopted liberal democractic market economies and so got rich, it's caused by the fact that the poor countries have not adopted liberal democractic market economies and so not got rich.


Yes, on the whole, liberal democracies are indeed more peaceful (and in particular tend not to invade other liberal democracies). That's not to say they are perfect.


Evidence for that claim?

In reply to Chambers:


It's *always* time to say my prayers.

I'll put a word in for you. You see, my faith is limitless.

In reply to Tim Chappell: As is your credulity.

In reply to Chambers:

There must be more interesting ways of engaging than playground insults. Here, try a poem. It's fun, it's thought-provoking, and best of all, it has absolutely no relevance at all to your last remarks:


THE PICTURE

Here is a sea-legged sailor,
Come to this tottering Inn,
Just when the bronze on its signboard is fading,
And the black shades of evening begin.,

With his head on thick paws sleeps a sheep-dog,
There stoops the Shepherd, and see,
All follow-my-leader the ducks waddle homeward,
Under the sycamore tree.

Very brown is the face of the Sailor,
His bundle is crimson, and green
Are the thick leafy boughs that hang dense o'er the Tavern,
And blue the far meadows between.

But the Crust, Ale and Cheese of the Sailor,
His Mug and his platter of Delf,
And the crescent to light home the Shepherd and Sheep-dog
The painter has kept to himself.

Walter de La Mare

In reply to Chambers:


I don't think this for you but for myself I no longer feel able to devote a large amount of my time to "changing the world" without having at least a credible objective and means of reaching it. As someone once said, up till now people have set out to explain the world, our job is to change it... more or less. Having believed once and been disappointed I don't feel like doing it again... but that's just me, and it doesn't mean I don't criticize, only that I would feel my criticisms had more weight if I also proposed an alternative.


I quite agree here, and given what has just gone down in Libya and is being prepared in Syria and Iran I can't see how Coel has the cheek to deny it! On the other hand the old notion that only capitalism caused wars and under socialism there wouldn't be any has clearly been shown to be untrue.. China and Vietnam fought, USSR China.... human nature still came through, or maybe imperfect socialism lead to imperfect peace

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Don't feel too disheartened Bruce the neo-liberialist movement is just as misguided and utopian as the socialist dream, both have at it's core the enlightenment folly of "progress"

In reply to joey82:

The biggest problem is that it's all out of kilter. Yes, we can make huge technological and even social progress, as if that's all that matters. Seems we're very stuck with that little old thing called human nature. One of the most bizarre recent examples of a faith in 'progress' that I've come across is Stephen Pinker's new book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes'. Wonderful academic idea, but it has absolutely no bearing on reality. He appears to have no awareness whatever of current affairs or recent history.

In reply to workingclasslass:

Lass, you need to take some comments in jest, though I'm honestly quite chuffed to be nailed to the wall and called 'buster'. It's a much better form of mild aggression than is often found on here!

However I still think Tommy was standing up for his own ego more than anything.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


"are the ones"

That is completely wrong,there are other countries incorporating 100s 0f millions of people who have lived with better standards of living,like zero homelessness,zero unemployment,zero crime(comparitively),free and equal health care and education for all and more sociable communities to boot as well as being massively less wasteful than the capitalist west that throws 1/3 of the food we make right in the bin !


God you'd be forgiven for thinking a small child had written that....We've got more cars than you're family will ever have and we've got a bigger house than you family will ever have na na ne na na.

For the first part see above .
For the second, well where to start ? hmmm ...lets just reiterate what you said ,"the most peaceful existence that mankind has ever had".

The US to name one has attempted to overthrow 50 governments since 1945 and many of these countries were DEMOCRACIES.They've attacked and bombed f out of 30 countries with the loss of countless lives.

And they do not deny that they will be in constant war !


like the countries where we installed or supported brutal dictators that were against liberal Democracy ?

Or where we stole their lands resourses and even people.

Poverty !Its ok for you in your middle class world but if you think the capitalist booms and busts with the employers trying to bleed ever more from you for profit and the chronic unemployment,endless misery and desperate worrying about ending up homeless,or paying the mounting debt,heating your house or a room,becoming a victim of the spiralling violence on the streets is fulfilling the basic human needs then i must disagree.

so we dont invade countries for oil killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process or inflicting utterly barbaric sanctions that cause 1/2 million babies to die ?

God ! i mean how many wars and interventions have Britain been in since 1945 ?

Absolutely loads !

"The profound hypocracy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilisation lies unvieled before our eyes,turning from its home where it assumes respectable forms,to the colonies,where it goes naked."

Karl Marx

In reply to workingclasslass:
what countries were you thinking off with full employment and zero crime??
Though i agree and think that capitalism has little to do with peace, before the breakout of the 1st world war europe enjoyed almost 100 years of peace despite countries following protectionist economic practises.

In reply to workingclasslass:

The countries that have implemented market economies coupled with liberal democracy are the ones that do satisfy human needs, doing so vastly above basic levels,

That is completely wrong,there are other countries incorporating 100s 0f millions of people who have lived with better standards of living,like zero homelessness,zero unemployment,zero crime(comparitively),free and equal health care and education for all and more sociable communities to boot


Please name one. And while you're at it, I'd love to know what "zero crime(comparitively)" means.

In reply to joey82:

(Comparably)

Mother Russia and the Eastern Bloc

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Thought it was self explanitory

comparable to the West.

Duh !

=)

In reply to workingclasslass:

Ah, I've just worked out who you are, hello again Nae! The similarity of the (err, what's the polite word for "rant"?) gave it away.


I notice that you don't name any. Anyhow, I don't accept that any of these communist utopias had higher standards of living; at least I would not have preferred to live there. And I don't believe their propagands about crime rates either.


Hmm, you haven't given us a cite for this claim of lower food waste.


I'm sticking to my claim that from the point of view of a typical Western citizen the last 50 years have been the most peaceful we've known. I'm not aware of any time when you could point to a lower probability of a typical Western-nation citizen being killed in war.


Well, if I was given the choice of being plonked down as a random person today versus any time in Britain's past I'd choose today.

In reply to workingclasslass:
The size of the gulag population would suggest that they had vast problems with crimes against the state.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well, if I was given the choice of being plonked down as a random person today versus any time in Britain's past I'd choose today.

isn't that stating the obvious, though I only "know" you though your online precess you seem to be articulate and intelligent, therefor i would expect you do well in todays society and have a preference for it, wether that makes this incarnation of society just is up for debate.

In reply to workingclasslass:



OK, little question for you: here's an air ticket (stroke time machine ticket) back to the Soviet Bloc. You can stay living where you are in 2011, or you can go and live in Moscow in 1980.

Your call. If you really think that's a better society than this one, all I can say is, have fun in the Lubyanka.

In reply to joey82:

OK, but even if I was not me but just a random yokel I'd still reckon that a typical person would be way better off today than at any previous time. I think we can have a nostalgic attitude towards the past, which in reality was usually a life of unrelenting toil, physical hardship, and with a high probability of early death, plus much higher rates of violence and war than are typical (in Western nations) today.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I think she enjoys railing against capitalist iniquity far too much to leave that behind and actually live in a communist society.

In reply to joey82:

The USSR was a fledgling socialist state with incredible internal and external problems at the begining which improved as time went by as did the terrible times of the early say european imperialists/capitalists.

I know people who lived in the Eastern Bloc and Russia who say that its a fact that there was practically no crime whatsoever and a few of them are not Commies.

In reply to workingclasslass:


"Incredible problems." Mmm. That's a nice euphemism for the biggest mass-murders in history, apart of course from that wicked capitalist Mao Tse-Tung. Oh, wait.

And incidentally, two words on your quite barking claim above that communists are better with the environment than capitalists are: (a) Chernobyl; (b) Azov.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

>
Hang on i'll get my suitcase and you still owe me £50 by the way !
Can i have somewhere a wee bit warmer though ?

Praha !

Oh, and (c) the biggest and most lethal deliberately-induced famine in history, too. On his own people! Well done Uncle Joe!

In reply to workingclasslass:

I've actually met some of the people who were involved in the Prague Spring. Presumably you think they're deviationists, and had you been there in 67, would have been busy cheering the tanks on straight over their heads?

In reply to workingclasslass:

Hmmm. My grandparents were Polish, settled here after the war (WW2). My grandmother had a sister in the Ukraine, near Kiev. She went to visit her a couple of times in the late 70s. As well as the petty crime such as pickpocketing, smuggling and prostitution she saw, she was detained and questioned by the police. Her sister was absolutely terrified when the police came to take my nan in for questioning, fearing that she would never be seen again. The biggest criminals out of the lot were the police and KGB. It might have improved greatly in the 80s leading up to wall coming down but through the 60s and 70s it was far from being a happy place to be, and not without crime by any stretch of the imagination.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


For a bright boy you don't catch on quickly, do you Coel! :0)

In reply to Tim Chappell:


<Turns guns away from Coel and toward Chapp-ell>

oh god ! here we go again,

How many people died in the imperialist/capitalists world wars ?

How many 10s of millions of indians died in the famines whilst we shipped out THEIR food ?

Every heard of European imperialists and slavery?

How many native Americans were butchered ?i'll help you 11 million !


As for my quite barking claim ....well it turns out i never made it old bean.Have you been into the Port or Brandy tonight?

Perhaps another thread if you want to discuss that though,its been done before,i know cos i woz innit !

In reply to teflonpete:

Hi that is completely different from ALL the accounts that i have been told and yeah i'm talking about the 60s 70s and 80s.There are 7 members of my family who are from Prague and many more friends there to,i know 4 Polish lassies a Muscovite and a Lithuanian who each and every one have said it was wonderful and they wish so many things they have lost from back then were still there.

In reply to teflonpete:


Nope, I don't, I'm pretty useless at that sort of thing! Nickname changes confuse the hell out of me (I'm not too good remembering names/faces in real life either).

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Hiyeee !

(back)

In reply to workingclasslass:


The only way you could get anywhere near that 11 million estimate is by taking the highest estimates of Native American population levels and then including all the deaths owing to disease (measles, smallpox, chickenpox, etc), which were by far the biggest factor in reducing Native American populations. However, those deaths were not deliberate and the word "butchered" is hardly appropriate.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm no expert on the subject and neither are you i just go from what i have read from people who are and they most certainly were butchered. As well as the obvious deaths from diseases on exposure to the Europeans and the unimaginable squaller endured by children,women and men crammed up and lying on their sides in the African slave ships and their perpetual diseases.Especially in the Caribean and South and central america .

In reply to workingclasslass: So because indians were butchered you think it was right for the communists to kill millions? Right on sister.

In reply to workingclasslass:


I've no idea how old you are, but I wonder if you ever went behind the Iron Curtain yourself before it fell in 1990.

I did. It was grim. It turned me into a fervent anti-communist in about 12 hours.

I suppose you think everyone celebrating when the Berlin Wall came down was a dupe or a stooge of some sort as well.

The collapse of communism is the best political change of our lifetimes. Wanting to reverse it would be comical, if it wasn't such an insult to the memory of the millions of brave men and women who fought and died to rid the world of communism.

I believe in freedom. You appear to believe in dictatorship. Sorry, but I've no time for that sort of teenage, posturing nonsense. Freedom is too important.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

When they caught these diseases due to being deliberately given infected blankets would you still say "butchered" wasn't justified?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Then why are so many people still voting Communist in Eastern countries today? Take a look at Russian population figures since the fall of the the USSR, the economy, the near social meltdown of gangsterism, the loss of rights for women to work as they could under communist regimes. You are simplifying the issue.... You might also think about the results of giving the USA total world power, to invade where it wants, to change governments, have the old leaders murdered and so on.... Didn't you say yesterday you regretted the invasion of Iraq? That could only happen because the USSR had gone.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

He very wrongly suggested that the most numerous deaths came from Communism which is clearly not true.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Was it the beggers living in cardboard boxs,skeletal junkies, wee prostitute lassies that feel worthless and the pimps,gangs of feral kids with swords and machetes or drug barons and organised crime or lack of these things that you missed or was it just a cloudy day?

I personally know of many poeple who were very much DUPED !

>
Was that the Nazis then!
And no the end of the USSR was a very very sad time but it will rise again.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That claim is largely a myth, possibly being true on one isolated occasion, and being a very tiny part of the overall picture.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

The argument advanced by the 'uesful idiots' is simple but illogical. Socialism cannot work because it always leads to dictorship, internal oppression and human rights abuses.What they conveniently overlook is the mayhem and destruction produced by capitalism: the millions butchered in first and second world wars, and of course the every present wars of imperialism and conquest.In fact, the Unites States now devotes over half of it's federal budget to making war across the globe.
In the U.K., the war in Afghanistan is now opposed by 75% of the U.K. population.I've recenttly had an interesting conversation with two members of the the British Legion who were frankly appalled by this governments cynical manipulation of public sympathy for U.K. troops in it's attempts to bolster support for this bloodbath.Please note that Afghanistan now produces record harvests of opium:just another valuable commodity to be traded on the 'markets'.

In reply to ruckman: Is this the thread for made-up statistics? 75% of the uk want the death penalty reintroduced.
On an unrelated issue, I await with bated breath your description of a system to replace capitalism.

In reply to ruckman:


Including the UK government judging by their enthusiasm for leaving.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Care to expand?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Dee Brown's Excellent "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" covers American history from the native American point of view (even if it still uses the word "Indian" which folk tend not to use now). The smallpox blankets may be a myth, I don't know, and population levels may be exaggerated but there was butchery a-plenty in the history of the West. Notably the Sand Creek massacre, Aravaipa Apache village massacre, amongst many. Also one has to consider the forced relocation onto reservations which resulted in starvation and disease. There is no doubt from reading that the native Americans were considered at best a nuisance to be exploited and at worse a threat to be destroyed. I do think that this is valid as an example of the evils of capitalism as such things were ultimately motivated by the acquisition of land and resources (gold etc.) but also it is an example of what happens when a superior force clashes with an inferior one and what happens when greed runs unchecked. Every system or ideology has its faults it isn't capitalism that makes the West so stable (so far) it is the checks and balances of our political system that prevent the development of extreme situations

In reply to workingclasslass:

I guess it was more like the empty shops, the drab, dulling persistant propaganda, the constant air of suspicion and general lack of freedoms (travel, advancement etc.)
The USSR's big mistake was in being a dictatorship where the common man theoretically had freedom but in practice didn't. I wouldn't have wanted to live in Iron curtain Russia but then I wouldn't want to live in post Iron curtain Russia either. Russia should also be seen in context with Tzarist Russia, essentially a feudal system, which preceded the Communist regime. The Communist regime was an improvement on what preceded it, at least no one starved, but it was a long way from perfect.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Possibly, but since pre capitialist societies had been doing this throughout recorded history and since non capitalist societies also did it doesn't it show something about human nature rather than about capitalism?

Morever, since the emerging capitalist liberal democracies of the 19th and 20th and centuries were some of the first to condemn and reject such activities eg.slavery could there not be some causation?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Were the 1st and 2nd world wars an example of western stability or the scores of other western wars fought abroad resulting in the murder of millions of foriegn innocents. Who obviously dont count because our corporate media dont show them and they are not fought here but in far away foriegn nasty places.

Did they prevent Nazism or British colonialist fascism or the State war criminals of the USA and their fascist death squads ,did they prevent Bush.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes. That capitalism is a formalization and legitimization of basal tendencies present within human nature.

In reply to Jimbo W:

But it's liberal democracies have spent, with varying degrees of success, 200 years trying to delegitimise the worst of those tendencies.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Travel ?

My friends Mum and sister from Prague used to visit their Granma in West Germany frequentley and were asked to stay if they wanted on a few occasions and they said no way and no thank you we would much rather be in our system than yours.West Germans used to go over to Prague because the quality of food was so much better than their own and look with envy at the Eastern blocs free health care.But no there were NO empty shops and there was an abundance of everything except Western fast food muck!

You want to talk about "dulling persistant propaganda",have you seen the stuff flowing from the sewers of Fox,Sky, News international and all the other right wing media corporations.


Freedom? Women over 21 didn't even get the vote in Britain til 1928 !
They were protecting the revolution and the hard fought for rights for the proletariat,the flag isn't red for no reason.End of unemployment,end to racism and oppression and homelessness ,free health care ...they were more advanced and civilised than we were!


An over simplification considering that Tzarist Russia was extremely backward and after a civil war against the Whites and against Western Imerialist invasions (the 21 that invaded during the civil war).Then probably the biggest invasion in history by the Nazis which completely destroyed their country and reduced it to a pile of rubble.They managed to advance so fast because of Socialism that they became a massive world superpower from a backward peasant society in less than 50 years despite the massive Western attacks ,which is absolutely incredible.

The Bolsheviks didn't follow Marxs stages of developement, they were totally relying on and waiting for the Socialist revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries and a worldwide workers international.To protect the revolution which was under constant threat from the imperialists/fascists of the West they were of course wary and suspicious,they would have been nuts if they weren't!The Nazis FFS!Perhaps you dont appreciate the dangers they faced as a young Socialist state which was attacked viciously and mercilessly from the very start.

In reply to Postmanpat:
>

Of couse wars,invasions and slavery have been around as far as written history and are indeed a part of basic human tribal nature.The Waring,militarily and technologically advanced European countries who sought out riches and new empires developed this ancient imperialist desire to subjugate and exploit other peoples which led to capitalism.



Causation ? Yes -guilt after the damage was done and the oppressers were rolling in it!
Indeed Adam Smith critisized slavery to as not being the most productive way to get more work out of people.

The British slave trade lasted for 300 years.

THREE HUNDRED YEARS !

We shipped more slaves than the rest ,we took it to much much higher levels, all the British empire was built on slavery and the money was soaked in blood like many of the grand buildings in our cities .

The industrial revolution was funded by the British slavery of Africans, the sugar,the cotton,the tobacco, the rum ,insurance companies,banks,investors and much more. The capitalists factories .... bought with the money generated by branded African slaves in British colonies.

In reply to workingclasslass:
>
250 of which were under a precapitalist monarchical government!!! Have a great evening.It's pumpkin time xx

In reply to workingclasslass:


So why did none of the old eastern Bloc nations keep the 'old system' or anything remotely approaching it if it was so loved by the people?

Why did people flock from eastern to western Germany and not the other way. (You do know why the Berlin Wall was built.) Actually I know what you will answer here: Western propaganda! If only we knew what a land of milk and honey it was behind the iron curtain we would have been marching their in our millions. Yeah?

My other half was brought up in the eastern bloc and if you ask her to describe life under that sort of system she would reply with the word: Dull

It was like a life without much 'colour'.

There may have been less uncertainties that we face in a western democracy but there is no way she would describe life here as worse then the communist system. In fact of all her friends back home, none would ever want go back to how things were pre-1990.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Imperialists ,capitalists ....same thing hun.

Ditto. mwah!

In reply to Tim Chappell:

You're right, Timothy, there are. But long experience has made me wiser, and I now engage at the level at which my opponents enter the debate. (I'd refer you here to your opening - and utterly unfounded - attack on me.) So, to put things at the level that you set yourself, you damn well started it!!

I like poetry. My partner gets sick of me quoting it at her. But I don't like the doggerels of de la Mare!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'd argue that revolutionary socialists do have a viable alternative to capitalism as well as a maens of reaching it. I'd imagine that your disillusionment is borne out of following the wrong path in the first place. For decades now I've argued for a classless, stateless, moneyless global society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. That's what Marx and Engels advocated and it's emphatically not what any party on the left has ever argued for. The left is utterly discredited, and we see vestiges of that discrediting in workingclassgirls' defence of state-capitalist dictatorships which is, in short, embarrassing to watch. The left, be it Trotskyist, Leninist or Stalinist, has lost the argument. But that doesn't mean that the argument for socialism has been lost, since the left never argued for socialism in the first place.

The Prof spends too much time star-gazing, perhaps? No, look, conflict between so-called communist nations was a function of capital. The USSR was never anything but capitalist and the same is true of all other Eastern bloc countries. It's about economics, not human nature.

In reply to Blunderbuss:

>
There was a desire by some for a bourgeousie lifestyle and without a lie they were told that absolutely everyone could have a BMW a managers job and a big house just like everyone in the West had.You know that lots didn't believe the Socialists when they said there was homelessness ,unemployment and no free health care(US etc) in the West and were in for a shock!


You know the Nazis and how there are German?You know how they invaded Socialist Russia and were exterminating even german Socialists?Then the Russians(enemy)took just revenge against the Nazis in occupied Germany but the West were very lenient to them ,which in itself saw the mass rush by Germans to be in US/UK hands and not Russian.The fact that they were a country who were very anti-socialist and indoctrinated in anti-Soviet propaganda may have some bearing on the Germans jumping over to the West.But as above though i dont know, many may have wanted the bourgeousie lifestyle and didn't want the benefits of barrack Socialism.

"dull" ?

"Dull"?

Well i for one would welcome a world devoid of the "Cancer of advertising",as Hamish MacInnes called it on a trip to Moscow.

In reply to workingclasslass: Hamish MacInnes didn't mind using the 'Cancer of advertising' to flog his products did he!

All Socialism does, is drag everything down to the lowest common denominator, and is usually spouted by people who either don't have anything to relinquish financially, or those so rich, they are immune to any political change.

In reply to Chambers:
That's what Marx and Engels advocated and it's emphatically not what any party on the left has ever argued for.

The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs"."

Vladimir Lenin.

In reply to Postmanpat: Utter theoretical claptrap, that completely fails to factor in the real world behaviour of people.

In reply to Chambers:
"Pol Pot, had grown to admire the way the tribes on the outskirts of Cambodia's jungles lived, free of Buddhism, money or education, and now he wanted to foist the same philosophy on the entire nation. Pol Pot envisioned a Cambodia absent of any social institutions like banks or religions or any modern technology. He sought to triple agricultural production in a year, absent the manpower or means necessary. On a visit to China in 1975, two Khmer Rouge members bragged they would "be the first nation to create a completely Communist society without wasting time on intermediate steps."

In reply to Chambers:

I know there were imperfections and a Socialist society has to be run by the people and not a party of beaurocrats.But i would say as the first steps toward Socialism in a world that fought against it, Lenin and Trotsky's visions as well as those of Liebnicht and luxembourg and many more were Marxist.You say you are a revolutionary Socialist but are you saying they and the millions of other revolutionaries who have actually given their lives are not?

You critisized Tim C for an attack on you without provocation but you then resort to the same thing that you critisize someone else for by saying that my point of view is "embarrasing to watch" !

Well f you Jack !

In reply to Goucho:

God ! What a lot of pish !

Hasn't it crossed your narrow mind that maybe some people could be Socialist not because they are beggars or rich but because they think it can be a better alternative.

In reply to Goucho:

Can you not see that this could happen in an advanced human society that has tryed to evolve beyond some of these "real world behaviours"?

You know ,great advances have been happening all the time in spite of those who want to drag us backward.

What i am saying is we dont know.

Sorry about the "load a pish" comment i was still angry at somebody else.

In reply to workingclasslass: History proves that all Socialism does is f**k everything and everyone.

And it's nothing about being narrow minded, you arrogant and presumptious individual.

For the record, I am not an out and out Capitiast - I don't agree with bailing fat cat bankers out, or spending billions fighting wars in countries which always seem to have oil.

However, until you can show me any working aspect of socialism, which has actually contributed anything to the people it's suppose to benefit, then your argument is nothing more than theoretical posturing.

And in reality, it is you, who are narrow minded, refusing to even consider the fact that nothing other than Socialism has any merit!!!

In reply to Postmanpat: Do we have to go through this again, Pat? Do you not have any letters to deliver? You are quoting from 'State and Revolution' which was published in 1917 and written long before Lenin, political opportunist that he was, hijacked the Bolshevik party and seized political power in Russia. The Bolsheviks never advocated socialism as Marx defined it. Indeed, as early as 1916 Lenin was arguing for state-capitalism and not socialism, and after the publication of 'State and Revolution' he made it very clear that the working-class were incapable of understanding the case for socialism. Now, that's an inherently anti-Marxist position to adopt. The joys of Google, eh? Information decontextualised and with no need to understand.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thank god for the Vietnamese Communists that invaded and chased these monsters out of Cambodia and into Thailand .Where ...incidentely they were supported covertly with money and arms by the US government, who fought at the UN to have them reinstalled as the legitimate government of Cambodia !!!

The Cambodians after being carpet bombed daily by the USA who murdered 600,000 civilians were so angry and scared of the West that some say this paved the way for this maniac to get some support in a society that pre-US bombing would not have tolerated.

In reply to Goucho:

Real socialism could only ever really work with a different species.

Humans are not built for it.

In reply to workingclasslass: That's right. I'm saying that Lenin wasn't a socialist. Nor was Trotsky. Nor Stalin. Rosa Luxembourg was, however. And yes, I'm saying that most of the people who claim to be socialists - and I'm including Tommy Sheridan and you in this - are actually advocating state-capitalism. And if you want to know why I'm so insistent about this you only need to look at the ill-informed opinions of people like 'goucho' who think that socialism's been tried. One of the reasons that people think that is that lefties like you help to perpetuate that myth.

And yeah, it's embarrassing to watch someone defend the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent people. It's even more embarrassing when they claim to be socialists.

In reply to Blunderbuss:

Well, speak for yourself. Socialism will be a society based on the harmonious co-operation of people who are acting in their own enlightened self-interest. Most of the people I've met would fit in just fine. Maybe it's people like you that are the problem? Maybe you suffer from that terrible condition called 'human nature'? Terrible disease, that one. Makes you greedy and selfish and nasty and anti-social. No? It's always everybody else that's the problem, isn't it?

In reply to Goucho:


Are you sitting comfortably?
Good !then i'll begin ,there is a distant far away land once called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics......

In reply to Chambers: Me thinks you are getting a bit above your station sunshine.

Socialism has many many facets and interpretations, from purist (idealogical and theoretically flawed nonsense) through to the kind of Socialism typical of Eastern Bloc history etc.

So you are now saying there is only one definition.

if you're going to masquerade as the font of all knowledge on this, make sure it's watertight, and also, don't adopt a superior intellectual attitude on here, it just makes you look like a cock!

In reply to Chambers:

Most of the people I meet would not fit in, hence my previous comment. Probably due to 'human nature'.

All the best with your efforts to get this 'society' up and running though.

In reply to workingclasslass: Oh yes, that really benefitted the people didn't it.

Have you ever been to Russia, both now, and earlier, - I have, so i do know what I'm talking about - a more miserable and oppressed bunch of bastards would be hard to find.

So going back to my comments.....do you want another go?

In reply to Chambers:

Ah, so no socialist revolutionaries advocated socialism except the ones that did, right? Took you a month or two to deal with that then.

The reason they spent 90% of their time arguing about means rather than ends is because, apparently unlike you, when confronted with reality they realised that achieving their ends required force and power and then, as we know "absolute power corrupts absolutely". The truth is not that none of them dreamt of "true socialism" or that the perversion of it was an unfortunate coincidence. It is inherent in the concept.

Anyway, dream on.

In reply to Blunderbuss: Would you really want a society run by someone with such myopic vision?

In reply to Chambers:

so all the workers militias from Ireland to St Petersburg ,you know ,all the real workers who fought and died for a better society weren't Socialist revolutionaries at all but state capitalists then eh?

I'm an ordinary worker and an ordinary person who comes on here and defends the USSR ,Cuba and all the others who fought for a better society and an end to wars and Western imperialism but you for some reason have made me quite angry as you dont seem to be reasonable ,understanding or helpful.You just come across as a stuck up snooty friggin know it all.


Where do i defend the wholesale slaughter of millions ?

Where ?

In reply to Goucho:

eeeh is that it?

Is that the best you can do ...yawn! i'm not going to repeat myself every 1/2 hour.

=)

In reply to workingclasslass: If there was any joined up logic, or validity to your argument, you wouldn't have too.

You just come across as a female version of Rick from the Young Ones!

In reply to Postmanpat:

>

Its so much more complicated than that.You can get power and then use it not to corrupt.

In reply to Goucho:

I could very easily say exactly the same about you. But I'm far too nice and polite to be as arrogant as you seem to think your station permits you to be.


One of the problems here, of course, is the problem of definition. Now, I don't claim to have a monopoly of the term 'socialism', but the salient fact here is that for the term 'socialism' to have any real meaning in a discussion that is polarised along the lines of 'capitalism' or 'socialism' then it seems clear to me that in such a debate 'socialism' must mean something different than 'capitalism'. Am I right? I think it's clear that I am. So, for you to suggest that socialism can include forms of capitalism is pretty daft, no? And that's putting it politely, as I'm wont to do.

See above. If Russia was socialist I'm not a socialist.

Well, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Looks like you're just throwing your weight about and not really saying anything. So, given the lack of substance, I'll just let your posturing go and hope that you enjoyed it. xxx

In reply to Goucho:

Get back to your homework and tell your babysitter that your getting tired and need your beddy byes now.

Sweet dreams.

In reply to Chambers:

Where ?!?!

In reply to Chambers: it's really funny how people with socialist political viewpoints, seem incapable of ever accepting that other people may have equally strong and valid political viewpoints of an opposing persuasion.

The reality is, that in just the same way that pure capitalism can never work, neither can your interpretation of socialism - extremes never work, they just marginalise.

So the answer, however flawed, in order to work in the real world - not some intellectual and ideological point in time which has never existed - is a compromise.

Of course, that requires people to move away from intransigent positions, and here in lies the problem.

There's a lovely old saying regarding socialism, that goes like this....

....The working class can kiss my arse, I've got the foremans job at last!

In reply to workingclasslass:

That's what I'm saying. Yes. I'm not questioning the sincerity of some of them, any more than I'd question the sincerity or bravery of innocent workers who spilled their blood and guts to defend western capitalism. But they were all wrong, you see?

Just here...


I'm not too concerned about what you might think about me. I am, however, concerned about the misguided nonsense that you write that does nothing but discredit the case for a new society. And I'm certainly not descending into a slanging match the like of which so typifies the behaviour of lefties.

Now, if you want to defend the slaughter of millions of workers in Stalinist Russia and brazenly claim that this was somehow justifiable whilst the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime were not, then you make yourself my opponent. I'll tell you what. If you want to call yourself a socialist that's fine with me. But, just as Marx said shortly before he died, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist" so do I say that if you're a socialist then I'm bloody well not one!

In reply to Chambers:


Much like capitalism then?

Like Bruce, I'd actually be interested if you could outline your alternative system.

In reply to workingclasslass:

I was stating only a few months ago on here how REAL socialism has never been tryed and that the Leninist ,Maoist or Stalinist versions weren't real Socialism but they were a start in the right direction.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Don't you find it hilarious, that the two staunchest proponents of socialism (Chambers & Working Class) are now rowing aggresively with each other about what Socialism is!!!

Says all you need to know, and typifies 'the harmonious co-operation of people acting on their own enlightened self-interest'!!!!

In reply to Goucho:

First off, this is your first experience of engaging in debate with a socialist who doesn't advocate capitalism, so enjoy the newness! No, look, I love the fact that you don't agree with me. Without that we'd have little to say. But you see, I think you're wrong and I think I can prove it. Further, I think that I can explain why you think the things that you do. And on top of that I think that the dialectical process that we're involved in here might just save our species from extinction. So no, I celebrate our differing viewpoints and opinions.

I have no idea what you mean by the term 'pure capitalism'. To me, capitalism is a system of society in which goods and services are produced to be sold on a market with a view to profit. What 'pure' capitalism would look like I have no idea. Moreover, there is nothing 'extreme' about what I advocate. It's just a sensible alternative to the insanity of the profit system. It merely involves the people who run society already doing it in the interests of all. Doesn't look at all extreme from here.


Ah! Reforms to the system. Funny how they never to seem to work.


You're damn right about that. Stop assuming that you know what people are advocating, and look at what they're advocating.
Well and good and very funny. Except the foreman is still a wage slave.

In reply to Chambers: <Now, if you want to defend the slaughter of millions of workers in Stalinist Russia and brazenly claim that this was somehow justifiable >

I do not and never have
So does that still mean-

In reply to Chambers: Your last comment, unfortunately, undermines any validity other points raised may have had.

So everyone who works for someone, is a wage slave??

And without the people who 'own' the businesses, the money to run your social reforms would come from where???

In reply to Coel Hellier: Of course you would, Prof! But what you need to understand is that the case for socialism is the case against capitalism. There can be no understanding of how a socialist society would work that isn't preceded by an understanding of how capitalism works. And we've yet to agree on that. And when you suggest that capitalism is a society based on the harmonious co-operation of people who are acting in their own enlightened self-interest I have to wonder whether you might not do better confining your observations to heavenly bodies, since objectivity seems to elude you here. How can you possibly claim that harmonious co-operation underpins a society in which 1% of the population owns 80% of marketable wealth and the vast majority are forced by economic necessity to sell their labour power in order to live?

In reply to Goucho: As I said, you need to understand my position if you're going to argue against it. And you clearly don't. At the moment you're trying to discredit pears by dissing apples. I'm advocating a classless, stateless, moneyless society here.

In reply to Chambers:


That selling ones labour seems to me to be the "harmonious co-operation of people who are acting in their own enlightened self-interest", no?

At least the people who most deprecate being "forced by economic necessity to sell their labour power in order to live" are also the ones quickest to complain if no-one is offering to buy people's labour.

By the way, I don't think your "1% of the population owns 80% of marketable wealth ..." is accurate, without some really weird definition of "marketable", excluding houses and pension rights etc.

In reply to Chambers: Well that's just naive childish pie in the sky, and your socialist tendencies and energies would be far better spent in other 'achievable' social modifications.

You may as well campaign for a 100% tax rebate, dated back to 1879 for every person in the world, because that has more reality than what your proposing.

Unfortunately, without wishing to be too insulting, I think you need to grow up, and leave immature student ideology where it belongs - in a smoke filled university bedsit, with Billy Bragg wailing tunelessly in the background, and an unwashed pan filled with stewing lentils on a grime caked stove.

In reply to Goucho:


to list but a few:
john lewis partnership aint to bad
Taiwan, Japan (or most wartime economies) under the state directed banner for driving the modernisation of those economies forward post WWII.
Hell the amount of direction and support the US gave via military spending falls under state direction.

Pure socialism fails but then so does pure capitalism. Both rely to much on human nature being able to be changed.

In reply to Chambers:


Well, how about you tell us what it is, then we can see for ourselves whether it is extreme.


Could that be because you haven't yet told us what you're advocating?


Hmm, a touch melodramatic don't you think?