Is socialism actually working here?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

Midlands Eagle 25 Jun 15 7.32am
Interesting comment in the article that "Basic groceries such as oil, rice and beans were loaded into carts, wheeled from the store and taken to a local food bank to help the poor" I'm sure that Brits wouldn't refer to oil, rice and beans as basic groceries as Brits think that oven ready chips and microwave dinners fill that category
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

25 Jun 15 7.32am

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Interesting comment in the article that "Basic groceries such as oil, rice and beans were loaded into carts, wheeled from the store and taken to a local food bank to help the poor"

I'm sure that Brits wouldn't refer to oil, rice and beans as basic groceries as Brits think that oven ready chips and microwave dinners fill that category

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 25 Jun 15 9.14am
Quote OldFella at 25 Jun 2015 1.13am Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about... But,moving on to your point: "Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "? Closest we've ever had to getting towards that IMO was under the Attlee government operating in very much an overall capitalist, social democrat, liberal democracy environment I'd say...not "socialism"...but IMO generally moving in a direction a lot better (allowing for the circumstances then and improved technology/knowledge etc now) than what we've got and where we're moving today... Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am) Legal was there...oh no, perhaps he wasn't. Atlee is the most overrated of politicians. But Legal knows better, anyway. Wnkers of the world unite, perhaps, on a joint Legal/Gusset/Brand/Tux/Serial/next fool to lead Labour ticket. Where we're moving today? Work, and get paid properly. Or don't, and don't. Unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, in which case there will ALWAYS be a proper safety net. Lefties - just go away and support Palace for 5 years. Just a suggestion Fair enough.You always know better than me and any of the other posters you mention...that's a given,regardless of the topic. Though your "safety net" is largely there because of (heresy) the foundations put in place by Mr (overrated) Attlee's government You are too modest Who better to head up the Palace w*kers (S.London branch) for the next 5 seasons than OF (that's OF not OAF). Could have an OF led section at the ground then? Counterpart to the HF and the AWM? The OFW's?
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

25 Jun 15 9.14am

Quote OldFella at 25 Jun 2015 1.13am

Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am

A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about...

But,moving on to your point:

"Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "?

Closest we've ever had to getting towards that IMO was under the Attlee government operating in very much an overall capitalist, social democrat, liberal democracy environment I'd say...not "socialism"...but IMO generally moving in a direction a lot better (allowing for the circumstances then and improved technology/knowledge etc now) than what we've got and where we're moving today...

Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am)

Legal was there...oh no, perhaps he wasn't. Atlee is the most overrated of politicians. But Legal knows better, anyway. W*nkers of the world unite, perhaps, on a joint Legal/Gusset/Brand/Tux/Serial/next fool to lead Labour ticket.

Where we're moving today? Work, and get paid properly. Or don't, and don't. Unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, in which case there will ALWAYS be a proper safety net.

Lefties - just go away and support Palace for 5 years.
Just a suggestion

Fair enough.You always know better than me and any of the other posters you mention...that's a given,regardless of the topic.

Though your "safety net" is largely there because of (heresy) the foundations put in place by Mr (overrated) Attlee's government

You are too modest Who better to head up the Palace w**kers (S.London branch) for the next 5 seasons than OF (that's OF not OAF). Could have an OF led section at the ground then? Counterpart to the HF and the AWM? The OFW's?

Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 25 Jun 15 9.26am
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 3.58pm Quote The Sash at 24 Jun 2015 3.35pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jun 2015 1.02pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 12.58pm [Link] I may have just found an example where socialism is actually bettering the lives of the many rather than unintentionally worsening lives. What do you think? That's not socialism, that Anarchism. I like it. Personally I don't think socialism really makes peoples lives worse here, arguably things like welfare, disability living allowance and the NHS serve to cushion the impact of capitalism and post-industrialism. Absolutely it is. The definition of Anarchy is not 'without rules' but 'without rulers'...and it would f***ing work In the developed world at any rate there isn't socialism or capitalism in their truest form - Both have lurched towards corporatism and an enslavement to business - usually in the West, its the financial business. Edited by The Sash (24 Jun 2015 3.37pm) You can't have rules without rulers......It's a contradiction. No its not. Edited by The Sash (25 Jun 2015 9.27am) As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 25 Jun 15 9.26am

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 3.58pm

Quote The Sash at 24 Jun 2015 3.35pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jun 2015 1.02pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 12.58pm

[Link]

I may have just found an example where socialism is actually bettering the lives of the many rather than unintentionally worsening lives.

What do you think?

That's not socialism, that Anarchism. I like it. Personally I don't think socialism really makes peoples lives worse here, arguably things like welfare, disability living allowance and the NHS serve to cushion the impact of capitalism and post-industrialism.

Absolutely it is.

The definition of Anarchy is not 'without rules' but 'without rulers'...and it would f***ing work

In the developed world at any rate there isn't socialism or capitalism in their truest form - Both have lurched towards corporatism and an enslavement to business - usually in the West, its the financial business.

Edited by The Sash (24 Jun 2015 3.37pm)

You can't have rules without rulers......It's a contradiction.

No its not.

Edited by The Sash (25 Jun 2015 9.27am)

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 25 Jun 15 9.37am
Quote Stirlingsays at 25 Jun 2015 1.24am Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about... But,moving on to your point: "Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "? Closest we've ever had to getting towards that IMO was under the Attlee government operating in very much an overall capitalist, social democrat, liberal democracy environment I'd say...not "socialism"...but IMO generally moving in a direction a lot better (allowing for the circumstances then and improved technology/knowledge etc now) than what we've got and where we're moving today... Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am) Difficult to go back seventy years but I take your point.....The problem with modern left wing politics is that along with it comes all that comes the egalitarian thought police stuff. Not for me. Maybe, that's true, but then right wing politics in the UK has always had an overriding 'Morality Police' approach (towards homosexuality, drug users, travelers, ravers, single mothers, single people, people without children and so on) and has often used the criminal justice system and policy to actively control peoples life choices towards their projected 'moral ideal'. The prominence of a 'thought police' pales in comparison to the 1990s Criminal Justice Acts "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 25 Jun 15 9.37am

Quote Stirlingsays at 25 Jun 2015 1.24am

Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am

A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about...

But,moving on to your point:

"Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "?

Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am)

Difficult to go back seventy years but I take your point.....The problem with modern left wing politics is that along with it comes all that comes the egalitarian thought police stuff.

Not for me.

Maybe, that's true, but then right wing politics in the UK has always had an overriding 'Morality Police' approach (towards homosexuality, drug users, travelers, ravers, single mothers, single people, people without children and so on) and has often used the criminal justice system and policy to actively control peoples life choices towards their projected 'moral ideal'.

The prominence of a 'thought police' pales in comparison to the 1990s Criminal Justice Acts

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 25 Jun 15 9.40am
There is a difference between anarchism and anarchy. Anarchism is effectively left wing liberatriasm, and doesn't mean without rules, or even rulers, but the primacy of the rights of individuals in society against the primacy of the state (to varying degrees) within a socialist, rather than capitalist economic model. Different models of anarchism have different ideas of how that is implemented, and it varys from just left of center to very extreme (nutbar) alternatives that are hopelessly idealistic (such as those proposed by Ghandi). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 25 Jun 15 9.40am

There is a difference between anarchism and anarchy. Anarchism is effectively left wing liberatriasm, and doesn't mean without rules, or even rulers, but the primacy of the rights of individuals in society against the primacy of the state (to varying degrees) within a socialist, rather than capitalist economic model.

Different models of anarchism have different ideas of how that is implemented, and it varys from just left of center to very extreme (nutbar) alternatives that are hopelessly idealistic (such as those proposed by Ghandi).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 25 Jun 15 10.18am
Another equally valid question would be is capitalism working. Pay freezes, cuts on public spending, rising inequality, wages that are below the cost of living, rising prices, high rents and ludicrously high housing prices etc. The capacity for capitalism to be said to be delivering particularly well for society. Just because something is functioning doesn't mean its working well or as intended (the trickle down effect of monetarism for example, is a flawed concept). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 25 Jun 15 10.18am

Another equally valid question would be is capitalism working. Pay freezes, cuts on public spending, rising inequality, wages that are below the cost of living, rising prices, high rents and ludicrously high housing prices etc.

The capacity for capitalism to be said to be delivering particularly well for society. Just because something is functioning doesn't mean its working well or as intended (the trickle down effect of monetarism for example, is a flawed concept).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

lankygit Lincoln 25 Jun 15 10.36am
Quote johnno42000 at 24 Jun 2015 9.40pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 9.25pm Quote sydtheeagle at 24 Jun 2015 8.23pm It's not a contradiction at all. What I think you're trying to say is "you can't have rules without A ruler" (singular.) But you can. Collective rule self-imposed by all the people is still being ruled. Whether the idea is Utopian and impractical is another debate. It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot. So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic. Let's leave it at that. Wouldn't the chocolate teapot work if it was cold tea? It can work with boiling water too johnno. [Link] Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

lankygit

Lincoln 25 Jun 15 10.36am

Quote johnno42000 at 24 Jun 2015 9.40pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 9.25pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 24 Jun 2015 8.23pm

It's not a contradiction at all. What I think you're trying to say is "you can't have rules without A ruler" (singular.) But you can. Collective rule self-imposed by all the people is still being ruled. Whether the idea is Utopian and impractical is another debate.

It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot.

So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic.

Let's leave it at that.

Wouldn't the chocolate teapot work if it was cold tea?

It can work with boiling water too johnno.

[Link]

Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000 25 Jun 15 10.46am
Quote lankygit at 25 Jun 2015 10.36am Quote johnno42000 at 24 Jun 2015 9.40pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 9.25pm Quote sydtheeagle at 24 Jun 2015 8.23pm It's not a contradiction at all. What I think you're trying to say is "you can't have rules without A ruler" (singular.) But you can. Collective rule self-imposed by all the people is still being ruled. Whether the idea is Utopian and impractical is another debate. It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot. So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic. Let's leave it at that. Wouldn't the chocolate teapot work if it was cold tea? It can work with boiling water too johnno. [Link] That's brilliant 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

25 Jun 15 10.46am

Quote lankygit at 25 Jun 2015 10.36am

Quote johnno42000 at 24 Jun 2015 9.40pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 Jun 2015 9.25pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 24 Jun 2015 8.23pm

It isn't another 'debate' as too whether 'self imposed rule' could work. It's like someone trying to argue for the concept of the chocolate teapot.

So it is a contradiction for anyone willing to follow logic.

Let's leave it at that.

Wouldn't the chocolate teapot work if it was cold tea?

It can work with boiling water too johnno.

[Link]

That's brilliant

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

OldFella London 25 Jun 15 11.53am
Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 9.14am Quote OldFella at 25 Jun 2015 1.13am Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about... But,moving on to your point: "Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "? Closest we've ever had to getting towards that IMO was under the Attlee government operating in very much an overall capitalist, social democrat, liberal democracy environment I'd say...not "socialism"...but IMO generally moving in a direction a lot better (allowing for the circumstances then and improved technology/knowledge etc now) than what we've got and where we're moving today... Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am) Legal was there...oh no, perhaps he wasn't. Atlee is the most overrated of politicians. But Legal knows better, anyway. Wnkers of the world unite, perhaps, on a joint Legal/Gusset/Brand/Tux/Serial/next fool to lead Labour ticket. Where we're moving today? Work, and get paid properly. Or don't, and don't. Unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, in which case there will ALWAYS be a proper safety net. Lefties - just go away and support Palace for 5 years. Just a suggestion Fair enough.You always know better than me and any of the other posters you mention...that's a given,regardless of the topic. Though your "safety net" is largely there because of (heresy) the foundations put in place by Mr (overrated) Attlee's government You are too modest Who better to head up the Palace w*kers (S.London branch) for the next 5 seasons than OF (that's OF not OAF). Could have an OF led section at the ground then? Counterpart to the HF and the AWM? The OFW's? Fair comment - made me chuckle. Uniform would have to be sheepskin jackets and fedoras. Not sure I will last the whole five years Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..
Alert a moderator to this post

OldFella

London 25 Jun 15 11.53am

Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 9.14am

Quote OldFella at 25 Jun 2015 1.13am

Quote legaleagle at 25 Jun 2015 12.56am

A perfectly reasonable opinion generally someone could hold (though I disagree with a fair amount of it)...just not what my post was about...

But,moving on to your point:

"Essentially a balanced economy with something for everyone that allows for a real meritocracy...are no doubt desirable "?

Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 1.03am)

Where we're moving today? Work, and get paid properly. Or don't, and don't. Unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, in which case there will ALWAYS be a proper safety net.

Lefties - just go away and support Palace for 5 years.
Just a suggestion

Fair enough.You always know better than me and any of the other posters you mention...that's a given,regardless of the topic.

Though your "safety net" is largely there because of (heresy) the foundations put in place by Mr (overrated) Attlee's government

Fair comment - made me chuckle.

Uniform would have to be sheepskin jackets and fedoras.

Not sure I will last the whole five years

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is socialism actually working here?

Site Map

Sponsors