Whatever happened to him?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

hedgehog50 Croydon 26 Feb 17 4.16pm
“Your grandchildren will live under Communism ... You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you finally wake-up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you, we’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” Nikita Khrushschev, Premier of the Soviet Union (1958-1964) in conversation Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture in 1959. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 26 Feb 17 4.16pm

“Your grandchildren will live under Communism ... You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you finally wake-up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you, we’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Nikita Khrushschev, Premier of the Soviet Union (1958-1964) in conversation Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture in 1959.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

kenbarr Jackson Heights, Queens, New York ... 26 Feb 17 6.09pm
He was overthrown after the Cuban Missile crises and replaced by Brezhnev. Divorced...And LOVING it! VJRAM Rev. CPFC since Boxing Day 1989 CPFC 2-2 CFC Gregg Berhalter, US International & USMNT Head Coach Jill Ellis, England International & Retired USWNT Head Coach Trevor Francis, International PRAT
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

kenbarr

Jackson Heights, Queens, New York ... 26 Feb 17 6.09pm

He was overthrown after the Cuban Missile crises and replaced by Brezhnev.

Divorced...And LOVING it!
VJRAM Rev.
CPFC since Boxing Day 1989 CPFC 2-2 CFC
Gregg Berhalter, US International & USMNT Head Coach
Jill Ellis, England International & Retired USWNT Head Coach
Trevor Francis, International PRAT

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

hedgehog50 Croydon 26 Feb 17 6.11pm
Originally posted by kenbarr He was overthrown after the Cuban Missile crises and replaced by Brezhnev. Perhaps he should have started an astrology column in Pravda. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 26 Feb 17 6.11pm

Originally posted by kenbarr

He was overthrown after the Cuban Missile crises and replaced by Brezhnev.

Perhaps he should have started an astrology column in Pravda.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

kenbarr Jackson Heights, Queens, New York ... 26 Feb 17 6.18pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Perhaps he should have started an astrology column in Pravda. Divorced...And LOVING it! VJRAM Rev. CPFC since Boxing Day 1989 CPFC 2-2 CFC Gregg Berhalter, US International & USMNT Head Coach Jill Ellis, England International & Retired USWNT Head Coach Trevor Francis, International PRAT
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

kenbarr

Jackson Heights, Queens, New York ... 26 Feb 17 6.18pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Perhaps he should have started an astrology column in Pravda.

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

chateauferret 26 Feb 17 11.38pm
Come and live in the People's Democratic Republic of North Lanarkshire and you'll see that he was not that far off. ============ The Ferret ============
Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret

26 Feb 17 11.38pm

Come and live in the People's Democratic Republic of North Lanarkshire and you'll see that he was not that far off.

============
The Ferret
============

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Feb 17 11.17am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 “Your grandchildren will live under Communism ... You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you finally wake-up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you, we’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” Nikita Khrushschev, Premier of the Soviet Union (1958-1964) in conversation Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture in 1959. The Soviet Union collapsed, Khrushschev was dead by 1971. If true, its more likely that people were trying to claim an ideological victory for things they never had influence over. Things like workers rights, free health care, welfare, fair pay etc aren't socialism, they're just ethically right. The problem of capitalism has always been the unwillingness of those who benefit the most, to share with those who produce that benefit, and those who don't share in it. This kind of s**t gets bounced around, as if the Soviet Union, were somehow subversively controlling anything that was 'free market capitalism' like somekind of James Bond villain. In truth, the Liberal Party, Labour Party and the Trade Unions, were probably more of an influence of the Left in the UK, than the Communist Party and assorted hard left socialists were. In the US, I've no idea, because anything not free market capitalist, is automatically shouted down as socialism. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Feb 17 11.17am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Nikita Khrushschev, Premier of the Soviet Union (1958-1964) in conversation Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture in 1959.

The Soviet Union collapsed, Khrushschev was dead by 1971.

If true, its more likely that people were trying to claim an ideological victory for things they never had influence over.

Things like workers rights, free health care, welfare, fair pay etc aren't socialism, they're just ethically right. The problem of capitalism has always been the unwillingness of those who benefit the most, to share with those who produce that benefit, and those who don't share in it.

This kind of s**t gets bounced around, as if the Soviet Union, were somehow subversively controlling anything that was 'free market capitalism' like somekind of James Bond villain.

In truth, the Liberal Party, Labour Party and the Trade Unions, were probably more of an influence of the Left in the UK, than the Communist Party and assorted hard left socialists were.

In the US, I've no idea, because anything not free market capitalist, is automatically shouted down as socialism.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 27 Feb 17 11.44am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The Soviet Union collapsed, Khrushschev was dead by 1971. If true, its more likely that people were trying to claim an ideological victory for things they never had influence over. Things like workers rights, free health care, welfare, fair pay etc aren't socialism, they're just ethically right. The problem of capitalism has always been the unwillingness of those who benefit the most, to share with those who produce that benefit, and those who don't share in it. This kind of s**t gets bounced around, as if the Soviet Union, were somehow subversively controlling anything that was 'free market capitalism' like somekind of James Bond villain. In truth, the Liberal Party, Labour Party and the Trade Unions, were probably more of an influence of the Left in the UK, than the Communist Party and assorted hard left socialists were. In the US, I've no idea, because anything not free market capitalist, is automatically shouted down as socialism. I posted it really to illustrate how the left thought (and probably still think) that their victory is inevitable, some sort of natural 'progress'. Agree with you on the 'greedy Capitalists' to some extent, but it is in their interests too to have a relatively well-off population who buy their products and make them even more profits. The problem with Socialism is that without that profit motive there is no incentive to produce good products efficiently. As was seen in the USSR and their colonies, their products were pretty low standard, relatively expensive and a shambles in terms of availability. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 27 Feb 17 11.44am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The Soviet Union collapsed, Khrushschev was dead by 1971.

If true, its more likely that people were trying to claim an ideological victory for things they never had influence over.

Things like workers rights, free health care, welfare, fair pay etc aren't socialism, they're just ethically right. The problem of capitalism has always been the unwillingness of those who benefit the most, to share with those who produce that benefit, and those who don't share in it.

This kind of s**t gets bounced around, as if the Soviet Union, were somehow subversively controlling anything that was 'free market capitalism' like somekind of James Bond villain.

In truth, the Liberal Party, Labour Party and the Trade Unions, were probably more of an influence of the Left in the UK, than the Communist Party and assorted hard left socialists were.

In the US, I've no idea, because anything not free market capitalist, is automatically shouted down as socialism.

I posted it really to illustrate how the left thought (and probably still think) that their victory is inevitable, some sort of natural 'progress'.
Agree with you on the 'greedy Capitalists' to some extent, but it is in their interests too to have a relatively well-off population who buy their products and make them even more profits.
The problem with Socialism is that without that profit motive there is no incentive to produce good products efficiently. As was seen in the USSR and their colonies, their products were pretty low standard, relatively expensive and a shambles in terms of availability.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Feb 17 5.23pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I posted it really to illustrate how the left thought (and probably still think) that their victory is inevitable, some sort of natural 'progress'. Agree with you on the 'greedy Capitalists' to some extent, but it is in their interests too to have a relatively well-off population who buy their products and make them even more profits. The problem with Socialism is that without that profit motive there is no incentive to produce good products efficiently. As was seen in the USSR and their colonies, their products were pretty low standard, relatively expensive and a shambles in terms of availability. I think most people believe in progress, I'm not one of them. It doesn't really fit with the evidence. I tend to see Socialism as a critical theory of Capitalism, rather than being an alternative. That said people seem to see the idea of Socialism as an improvement on Capitalism, rather than an alternative, with its own issues and problems. The question really is about whether those differences are preferable on a social scale (i.e. Is it worth paying say more tax for a well funded Health System, should those with more contribute more than those with less etc). Personally, I'm more inclined towards the Anarchists than the Communists. Individual freedoms are far more important to me, than an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Like you say, there needs to also be incentives towards success. My concern with capitalism is much more about the staggering inequality, and how this destroys personal freedom. That said, post-Communist Russia isn't exactly much better, and a lot of the old Eastern bloc hasn't exactly improved either (and its not like the 'wall came down' last year anymore). Realistically, to experience a truly socialist society, it has to be a post-scarcity society, which would require a major technological break through in sub atomic scale manipulation. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Feb 17 5.23pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I think most people believe in progress, I'm not one of them. It doesn't really fit with the evidence. I tend to see Socialism as a critical theory of Capitalism, rather than being an alternative.

That said people seem to see the idea of Socialism as an improvement on Capitalism, rather than an alternative, with its own issues and problems. The question really is about whether those differences are preferable on a social scale (i.e. Is it worth paying say more tax for a well funded Health System, should those with more contribute more than those with less etc).

Personally, I'm more inclined towards the Anarchists than the Communists. Individual freedoms are far more important to me, than an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Like you say, there needs to also be incentives towards success. My concern with capitalism is much more about the staggering inequality, and how this destroys personal freedom.

That said, post-Communist Russia isn't exactly much better, and a lot of the old Eastern bloc hasn't exactly improved either (and its not like the 'wall came down' last year anymore).

Realistically, to experience a truly socialist society, it has to be a post-scarcity society, which would require a major technological break through in sub atomic scale manipulation.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Feb 17 5.24pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I posted it really to illustrate how the left thought (and probably still think) that their victory is inevitable, some sort of natural 'progress'. Agree with you on the 'greedy Capitalists' to some extent, but it is in their interests too to have a relatively well-off population who buy their products and make them even more profits. The problem with Socialism is that without that profit motive there is no incentive to produce good products efficiently. As was seen in the USSR and their colonies, their products were pretty low standard, relatively expensive and a shambles in terms of availability. We don't 'produce' anything really, anymore. We're much more a society in which you make money by putting your hand in the next guys pocket and taking a slice. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Feb 17 5.24pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

We don't 'produce' anything really, anymore. We're much more a society in which you make money by putting your hand in the next guys pocket and taking a slice.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 27 Feb 17 7.01pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think most people believe in progress, I'm not one of them. It doesn't really fit with the evidence. I tend to see Socialism as a critical theory of Capitalism, rather than being an alternative. That said people seem to see the idea of Socialism as an improvement on Capitalism, rather than an alternative, with its own issues and problems. The question really is about whether those differences are preferable on a social scale (i.e. Is it worth paying say more tax for a well funded Health System, should those with more contribute more than those with less etc). Personally, I'm more inclined towards the Anarchists than the Communists. Individual freedoms are far more important to me, than an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Like you say, there needs to also be incentives towards success. My concern with capitalism is much more about the staggering inequality, and how this destroys personal freedom. That said, post-Communist Russia isn't exactly much better, and a lot of the old Eastern bloc hasn't exactly improved either (and its not like the 'wall came down' last year anymore). Realistically, to experience a truly socialist society, it has to be a post-scarcity society, which would require a major technological break through in sub atomic scale manipulation. Good luck if you need to go into an Anarchist-run hospital, or are in need of Anarchist-policemen. The personal freedom, and safety, of individuals in a Capitalist society is of magnitudes greater than in Communist societies. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 27 Feb 17 7.01pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think most people believe in progress, I'm not one of them. It doesn't really fit with the evidence. I tend to see Socialism as a critical theory of Capitalism, rather than being an alternative.

Personally, I'm more inclined towards the Anarchists than the Communists. Individual freedoms are far more important to me, than an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Like you say, there needs to also be incentives towards success. My concern with capitalism is much more about the staggering inequality, and how this destroys personal freedom.

That said, post-Communist Russia isn't exactly much better, and a lot of the old Eastern bloc hasn't exactly improved either (and its not like the 'wall came down' last year anymore).

Realistically, to experience a truly socialist society, it has to be a post-scarcity society, which would require a major technological break through in sub atomic scale manipulation.

Good luck if you need to go into an Anarchist-run hospital, or are in need of Anarchist-policemen.
The personal freedom, and safety, of individuals in a Capitalist society is of magnitudes greater than in Communist societies.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

leifandersonshair Newport 27 Feb 17 7.28pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Good luck if you need to go into an Anarchist-run hospital, or are in need of Anarchist-policemen. The personal freedom, and safety, of individuals in a Capitalist society is of magnitudes greater than in Communist societies. Good luck trying to get treated in a hospital in most capitalist countries too, if you left your credit cards at home. And the freedom and safety of the rich are definitely much improved in capitalist society. Not so much for the man on the street. Anarchy would probably be no different for 90% of people. Depressing really. We live in a deeply flawed system. Anarchy, socialism, communism, capitalism... all different. Not necessarily better. I suppose anarchy would rule out football as an organised sport, so no more Palace games. So, I vote against that one
Alert a moderator to this post

leifandersonshair

Newport 27 Feb 17 7.28pm

Send a Private Message to leifandersonshair

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Good luck trying to get treated in a hospital in most capitalist countries too, if you left your credit cards at home. And the freedom and safety of the rich are definitely much improved in capitalist society. Not so much for the man on the street.

Anarchy would probably be no different for 90% of people. Depressing really. We live in a deeply flawed system. Anarchy, socialism, communism, capitalism... all different. Not necessarily better.

I suppose anarchy would rule out football as an organised sport, so no more Palace games. So, I vote against that one

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 27 Feb 17 8.17pm
Originally posted by leifandersonshair Good luck trying to get treated in a hospital in most capitalist countries too, if you left your credit cards at home. And the freedom and safety of the rich are definitely much improved in capitalist society. Not so much for the man on the street. Anarchy would probably be no different for 90% of people. Depressing really. We live in a deeply flawed system. Anarchy, socialism, communism, capitalism... all different. Not necessarily better. I suppose anarchy would rule out football as an organised sport, so no more Palace games. So, I vote against that one Most Capitalist countries in Europe have health services available to their populations. Capitalist countries have clearly provided better lives for their people than all the Communist countries put together. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 27 Feb 17 8.17pm

Originally posted by leifandersonshair

Anarchy would probably be no different for 90% of people. Depressing really. We live in a deeply flawed system. Anarchy, socialism, communism, capitalism... all different. Not necessarily better.

I suppose anarchy would rule out football as an organised sport, so no more Palace games. So, I vote against that one

Most Capitalist countries in Europe have health services available to their populations. Capitalist countries have clearly provided better lives for their people than all the Communist countries put together.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Whatever happened to him?

Site Map

Sponsors