FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Populism is showing its cracks.
Populism is showing its cracks.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I bet a lot of them are confused about why we are praising the low paid so much and calling them essesntial." They're going to be even more confused when most of us still insist on doing it when Covid 19 is under control - when, in many months, maybe over a year, that finally happens. They seem to think that the world will go "back to normal", ie. the debt-fuelled, inequality shit-show that they were used to. It really won't. They'll be surprised about that, too. | |||
"I bet a lot of them are confused about why we are praising the low paid so much and calling them essesntial. They're going to be even more confused when most of us still insist on doing it when Covid 19 is under control - when, in many months, maybe over a year, that finally happens. They seem to think that the world will go "back to normal", ie. the debt-fuelled, inequality shit-show that they were used to. It really won't. They'll be surprised about that, too." I do hope you're correct, but I have my doubts tbh. It won't take Murdoch and Co. long to revert to type and up the pro establishment propaganda once things are under control again. As bad as this virus is, it would take a truly cataclysmic event to make any real change, and would we really want something like that to happen? People soon forget. | |||
"Judging by the Tories who post on here. It's not making a blind bit of difference. They support them no matter what they do, or say, no matter how brazenly self serving they are. If there was an emoji shrugging it's shoulders. I would use it now." It's fun arguing with them though | |||
"Judging by the Tories who post on here. It's not making a blind bit of difference. They support them no matter what they do, or say, no matter how brazenly self serving they are. If there was an emoji shrugging it's shoulders. I would use it now. It's fun arguing with them though" It gets tedious after a while. | |||
"Judging by the Tories who post on here. It's not making a blind bit of difference. They support them no matter what they do, or say, no matter how brazenly self serving they are. If there was an emoji shrugging it's shoulders. I would use it now. It's fun arguing with them though It gets tedious after a while." It's fun and tedious at the same time. There's only so long you can laugh at people grasping for straws or trying to deflect. | |||
"Judging by the Tories who post on here. It's not making a blind bit of difference. They support them no matter what they do, or say, no matter how brazenly self serving they are. If there was an emoji shrugging it's shoulders. I would use it now. It's fun arguing with them though It gets tedious after a while. It's fun and tedious at the same time. There's only so long you can laugh at people grasping for straws or trying to deflect. " I know.havent reached that stage yet though. | |||
"What this situation has demonstrated is that populist regimes are extremely fragile. It’s all good when there is a perceived threat, but totally ineffective when there is a real threat. Even the pro brexiteers are showing how callous they are in the face of the crisis. JRM making money off this. Wetherspoons boss sacking staff. The ratty right show its true face. What do you think? " Definitely. Though for some, short-term or selective memory will come into play. | |||
"What this situation has demonstrated is that populist regimes are extremely fragile. It’s all good when there is a perceived threat, but totally ineffective when there is a real threat. Even the pro brexiteers are showing how callous they are in the face of the crisis. JRM making money off this. Wetherspoons boss sacking staff. The ratty right show its true face. What do you think? Definitely. Though for some, short-term or selective memory will come into play." Need to remind them of their misdemeanours every day now. | |||
"Judging by the Tories who post on here. It's not making a blind bit of difference. They support them no matter what they do, or say, no matter how brazenly self serving they are. If there was an emoji shrugging it's shoulders. I would use it now. It's fun arguing with them though It gets tedious after a while. It's fun and tedious at the same time. There's only so long you can laugh at people grasping for straws or trying to deflect. " There's nothing you can say that will reverse nine years of brainwashing. | |||
| |||
"What this situation has demonstrated is that populist regimes are extremely fragile. It’s all good when there is a perceived threat, but totally ineffective when there is a real threat. Even the pro brexiteers are showing how callous they are in the face of the crisis. JRM making money off this. Wetherspoons boss sacking staff. The ratty right show its true face. What do you think? Definitely. Though for some, short-term or selective memory will come into play. Need to remind them of their misdemeanours every day now. " Yes, once this crisis passes it's got to to be relentless! | |||
 | |||
"At least Corona is giving people a glimpse of life in a socialist regime. Can't beat queueing for food. "Keep telling yourself that. Whatever it takes to justify pushing the far right agenda. | |||
"At least Corona is giving people a glimpse of life in a socialist regime. Can't beat queueing for food. "Don’t you mean totalitarian regime? | |||
"At least Corona is giving people a glimpse of life in a socialist regime. Can't beat queueing for food. "You do realise people are actually dying on the steet in this country? | |||
| |||
"Pretty sure capitalism fked things up here, not socialism. Not enough money for the NHS or even basic necessary equipment, low wages for all those deemed essential right now with no talks of a pay rise or bonus for those people yet MPs get a whopping 'bonus' of up to £10,000 for expenses asap...wonder how many won't claim the whole lot? People panic buying all the cheapest stuff so that the poor can't afford their shopping or even access anything because the shelves were emptied. Now firms are producing vital equipment for non-profit we should see how vital socialism actually is for everyone, instead of just for the rich who always ensure they get the biggest take of whatever is going at everyone elses expense." I know it's not the virus section but saw a piece in the ft about private firms selling testing kits | |||
"Pretty sure capitalism fked things up here, not socialism. Not enough money for the NHS or even basic necessary equipment, low wages for all those deemed essential right now with no talks of a pay rise or bonus for those people yet MPs get a whopping 'bonus' of up to £10,000 for expenses asap...wonder how many won't claim the whole lot? People panic buying all the cheapest stuff so that the poor can't afford their shopping or even access anything because the shelves were emptied. Now firms are producing vital equipment for non-profit we should see how vital socialism actually is for everyone, instead of just for the rich who always ensure they get the biggest take of whatever is going at everyone elses expense. I know it's not the virus section but saw a piece in the ft about private firms selling testing kits" Don't really know what's going on with them tbh. I don't even blame people for capitilising off anything, that is the society we have had for some time now but it hasn'tworked well for everyone at the bottom of that society and i don'tg et why it takes a tragedy/emergency to show how bad it is for many? Many people now are living the life of someone disabled without support, unemployed without support, and the low paid with little support but more than they had before this...and they're bored or can't cope, panicking. Welcome to normality for millions people who've been doing this for years and will probably survive the crisisand lose nothing much coz they had nothing to lose. | |||
| |||
"I can't help thinking that a lot of people on this thread are looking at how people are going to react to this crisis through the rather rose tinted glasses of those that already believe. " I think you may be right. I can see this crisis hardening some attitudes. It’s a perfect storm for populism in some respects. Look at the blame game being played out. | |||
"Great post ..agree with you wholeheartedly. The right generally are bullies..pretty much every bad cunt i was in school with thinks Brexit and Farage are good " hahaha and the left dont bully give ya head a wobble mate the left have some right cunts amongst them they justify it by claiming there standing up for yhe downtrodden.lives in plenty of sqauts in east london in the 90s with a lot of sjw but they wernt called that then.majority of them only got involved in trouble wen they had the numbers to do so as soon as it all got a bit rowdy they slipped away.usualy tje middle class ones and the upper class trusterferrians.to say the right are the only bullys is absolute bollox and no i dont vote for any of the bell ends | |||
"What this situation has demonstrated is that populist regimes are extremely fragile. It’s all good when there is a perceived threat, but totally ineffective when there is a real threat. Even the pro brexiteers are showing how callous they are in the face of the crisis. JRM making money off this. Wetherspoons boss sacking staff. The ratty right show its true face. What do you think? " Yep, not firgetting Branson either... Oh, wait a minute... | |||
"Great post ..agree with you wholeheartedly. The right generally are bullies..pretty much every bad cunt i was in school with thinks Brexit and Farage are good hahaha and the left dont bully give ya head a wobble mate the left have some right cunts amongst them they justify it by claiming there standing up for yhe downtrodden.lives in plenty of sqauts in east london in the 90s with a lot of sjw but they wernt called that then.majority of them only got involved in trouble wen they had the numbers to do so as soon as it all got a bit rowdy they slipped away.usualy tje middle class ones and the upper class trusterferrians.to say the right are the only bullys is absolute bollox and no i dont vote for any of the bell ends" For someone who doesn't vote you sure seem to stick up for the Tories a lot. And seem very threatened by anyone in politics not in it purely to get rich. | |||
| |||
"Great post ..agree with you wholeheartedly. The right generally are bullies..pretty much every bad cunt i was in school with thinks Brexit and Farage are good hahaha and the left dont bully give ya head a wobble mate the left have some right cunts amongst them they justify it by claiming there standing up for yhe downtrodden.lives in plenty of sqauts in east london in the 90s with a lot of sjw but they wernt called that then.majority of them only got involved in trouble wen they had the numbers to do so as soon as it all got a bit rowdy they slipped away.usualy tje middle class ones and the upper class trusterferrians.to say the right are the only bullys is absolute bollox and no i dont vote for any of the bell ends For someone who doesn't vote you sure seem to stick up for the Tories a lot. And seem very threatened by anyone in politics not in it purely to get rich. " stick up for the tories lol not at all but i will point out bollox when i see it.trying to say the torys are the only bullys is nonsense.the left can be just as disgusting as the right.inly difference being the torys know there cunts and dont try to hide it.labour on the other hand make out they care and are above reproach when the reality is there just as disgusting as the torys.not gona lump the lib dems in with either of them as there pretty much a non party and as for the snp a bunch of nationalists | |||
"Great post ..agree with you wholeheartedly. The right generally are bullies..pretty much every bad cunt i was in school with thinks Brexit and Farage are good hahaha and the left dont bully give ya head a wobble mate the left have some right cunts amongst them they justify it by claiming there standing up for yhe downtrodden.lives in plenty of sqauts in east london in the 90s with a lot of sjw but they wernt called that then.majority of them only got involved in trouble wen they had the numbers to do so as soon as it all got a bit rowdy they slipped away.usualy tje middle class ones and the upper class trusterferrians.to say the right are the only bullys is absolute bollox and no i dont vote for any of the bell ends For someone who doesn't vote you sure seem to stick up for the Tories a lot. And seem very threatened by anyone in politics not in it purely to get rich. stick up for the tories lol not at all but i will point out bollox when i see it.trying to say the torys are the only bullys is nonsense.the left can be just as disgusting as the right.inly difference being the torys know there cunts and dont try to hide it.labour on the other hand make out they care and are above reproach when the reality is there just as disgusting as the torys.not gona lump the lib dems in with either of them as there pretty much a non party and as for the snp a bunch of nationalists" Interesting. And interesting to see you say the Tories are cunts. Obviously I don't see everything you post. But everything I have seen has appeared to be defending the Tories. I don't support or vote for any of the parties you mentioned. | |||
"Great post ..agree with you wholeheartedly. The right generally are bullies..pretty much every bad cunt i was in school with thinks Brexit and Farage are good hahaha and the left dont bully give ya head a wobble mate the left have some right cunts amongst them they justify it by claiming there standing up for yhe downtrodden.lives in plenty of sqauts in east london in the 90s with a lot of sjw but they wernt called that then.majority of them only got involved in trouble wen they had the numbers to do so as soon as it all got a bit rowdy they slipped away.usualy tje middle class ones and the upper class trusterferrians.to say the right are the only bullys is absolute bollox and no i dont vote for any of the bell ends For someone who doesn't vote you sure seem to stick up for the Tories a lot. And seem very threatened by anyone in politics not in it purely to get rich. stick up for the tories lol not at all but i will point out bollox when i see it.trying to say the torys are the only bullys is nonsense.the left can be just as disgusting as the right.inly difference being the torys know there cunts and dont try to hide it.labour on the other hand make out they care and are above reproach when the reality is there just as disgusting as the torys.not gona lump the lib dems in with either of them as there pretty much a non party and as for the snp a bunch of nationalists Interesting. And interesting to see you say the Tories are cunts. Obviously I don't see everything you post. But everything I have seen has appeared to be defending the Tories. I don't support or vote for any of the parties you mentioned." Those who defend the tories are living in a world of make believe. They believed cuts to vital public services were necessary as part of austerity. Now look at us, we were unprepared for such a situation, and we are still playing catchup. Even with all the incentives they were forced to carry out to keep the economy afloat, this could have been all prevented if they just invested wisely. Instead reckless spending cuts to frontline services were implemented, and now the system is overwhelmed. Well we just got to wait until council elections which will be soon and midway and then the general election in five years to see if this populism fad fades away. | |||
" Those who defend the tories are living in a world of make believe. They believed cuts to vital public services were necessary as part of austerity. Now look at us, we were unprepared for such a situation, and we are still playing catchup. Even with all the incentives they were forced to carry out to keep the economy afloat, this could have been all prevented if they just invested wisely. Instead reckless spending cuts to frontline services were implemented, and now the system is overwhelmed. Well we just got to wait until council elections which will be soon and midway and then the general election in five years to see if this populism fad fades away. " We can only hope. The PM's currently up in the opinion polls  | |||
" Those who defend the tories are living in a world of make believe. They believed cuts to vital public services were necessary as part of austerity. Now look at us, we were unprepared for such a situation, and we are still playing catchup. Even with all the incentives they were forced to carry out to keep the economy afloat, this could have been all prevented if they just invested wisely. Instead reckless spending cuts to frontline services were implemented, and now the system is overwhelmed. Well we just got to wait until council elections which will be soon and midway and then the general election in five years to see if this populism fad fades away. We can only hope. The PM's currently up in the opinion polls "Can fool some people etc | |||
" Those who defend the tories are living in a world of make believe. They believed cuts to vital public services were necessary as part of austerity. Now look at us, we were unprepared for such a situation, and we are still playing catchup. Even with all the incentives they were forced to carry out to keep the economy afloat, this could have been all prevented if they just invested wisely. Instead reckless spending cuts to frontline services were implemented, and now the system is overwhelmed. Well we just got to wait until council elections which will be soon and midway and then the general election in five years to see if this populism fad fades away. We can only hope. The PM's currently up in the opinion polls "After being absent for three weeks? Weird. | |||
"At least Corona is giving people a glimpse of life in a socialist regime. Can't beat queueing for food.
Keep telling yourself that. Whatever it takes to justify pushing the far right agenda."“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy," “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Socialism/communism is a failed ideology, no country where it has been fully implemented has done any good. Venezuela is a perfect example, once one of the richest countries in South America, now its absolutely dirt poor. That is a country where the poor suffer. | |||
"Great post ..agree with you wholeheartedly. The right generally are bullies..pretty much every bad cunt i was in school with thinks Brexit and Farage are good hahaha and the left dont bully give ya head a wobble mate the left have some right cunts amongst them they justify it by claiming there standing up for yhe downtrodden.lives in plenty of sqauts in east london in the 90s with a lot of sjw but they wernt called that then.majority of them only got involved in trouble wen they had the numbers to do so as soon as it all got a bit rowdy they slipped away.usualy tje middle class ones and the upper class trusterferrians.to say the right are the only bullys is absolute bollox and no i dont vote for any of the bell ends For someone who doesn't vote you sure seem to stick up for the Tories a lot. And seem very threatened by anyone in politics not in it purely to get rich. stick up for the tories lol not at all but i will point out bollox when i see it.trying to say the torys are the only bullys is nonsense.the left can be just as disgusting as the right.inly difference being the torys know there cunts and dont try to hide it.labour on the other hand make out they care and are above reproach when the reality is there just as disgusting as the torys.not gona lump the lib dems in with either of them as there pretty much a non party and as for the snp a bunch of nationalists Interesting. And interesting to see you say the Tories are cunts. Obviously I don't see everything you post. But everything I have seen has appeared to be defending the Tories. I don't support or vote for any of the parties you mentioned." if you read it as im sticking up for torys fair enough.perhaps it looks that way because i call out lefties when they slag the torys off about how bad they are and how labour would do a much better job.there as bad as each other inept in there own seperate ways.your as bad as a right winger mate they degend the torys to the death same way u defend the left.the torys think make ya own way in life witch is a bit shit but ni worse than labour thinking they should re distribute peoples money to those less well off.bit hey its as pointless pointing this out to you as it would be to someone from the right.im i a cunt in some peoples eyes yea without a doubt others would think not.yourself seem to have all the answers perhaps mabey try to become a politician as somehow a bloke on a swingers site seems to have much more of an idea of how to run the country than elected politicians do.think you missed your calling in life mate | |||
"Great post ..agree with you wholeheartedly. The right generally are bullies..pretty much every bad cunt i was in school with thinks Brexit and Farage are good hahaha and the left dont bully give ya head a wobble mate the left have some right cunts amongst them they justify it by claiming there standing up for yhe downtrodden.lives in plenty of sqauts in east london in the 90s with a lot of sjw but they wernt called that then.majority of them only got involved in trouble wen they had the numbers to do so as soon as it all got a bit rowdy they slipped away.usualy tje middle class ones and the upper class trusterferrians.to say the right are the only bullys is absolute bollox and no i dont vote for any of the bell ends For someone who doesn't vote you sure seem to stick up for the Tories a lot. And seem very threatened by anyone in politics not in it purely to get rich. stick up for the tories lol not at all but i will point out bollox when i see it.trying to say the torys are the only bullys is nonsense.the left can be just as disgusting as the right.inly difference being the torys know there cunts and dont try to hide it.labour on the other hand make out they care and are above reproach when the reality is there just as disgusting as the torys.not gona lump the lib dems in with either of them as there pretty much a non party and as for the snp a bunch of nationalists Interesting. And interesting to see you say the Tories are cunts. Obviously I don't see everything you post. But everything I have seen has appeared to be defending the Tories. I don't support or vote for any of the parties you mentioned. if you read it as im sticking up for torys fair enough.perhaps it looks that way because i call out lefties when they slag the torys off about how bad they are and how labour would do a much better job.there as bad as each other inept in there own seperate ways.your as bad as a right winger mate they degend the torys to the death same way u defend the left.the torys think make ya own way in life witch is a bit shit but ni worse than labour thinking they should re distribute peoples money to those less well off.bit hey its as pointless pointing this out to you as it would be to someone from the right.im i a cunt in some peoples eyes yea without a doubt others would think not.yourself seem to have all the answers perhaps mabey try to become a politician as somehow a bloke on a swingers site seems to have much more of an idea of how to run the country than elected politicians do.think you missed your calling in life mate" That's interesting. But inaccurate. I've never suggested that Labour would do better. I've never stood up for the left. I don't consider myself lefty. The Tories are in power. And are doing a shit job. You seem to think that no one is allowed to critise them. And aside from the one mention above. You do not treat left and right the same. You appear to constantly defend the Tories and attack Labour. I'm all for actual critisism of Labour too. But they're not currently in power and not currently making a mess of the country. Does that help? | |||
 | |||
"At least Corona is giving people a glimpse of life in a socialist regime. Can't beat queueing for food.
Keep telling yourself that. Whatever it takes to justify pushing the far right agenda.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,"
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Socialism/communism is a failed ideology, no country where it has been fully implemented has done any good. Venezuela is a perfect example, once one of the richest countries in South America, now its absolutely dirt poor. That is a country where the poor suffer. "The NHS is part of a "failed ideology"? Free education is part of an "equal sharing of misery"? Odd things happen when you apply hyperbole to reality  | |||
"At least Corona is giving people a glimpse of life in a socialist regime. Can't beat queueing for food.
Keep telling yourself that. Whatever it takes to justify pushing the far right agenda.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,"
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Socialism/communism is a failed ideology, no country where it has been fully implemented has done any good. Venezuela is a perfect example, once one of the richest countries in South America, now its absolutely dirt poor. That is a country where the poor suffer.
The NHS is part of a "failed ideology"?
Free education is part of an "equal sharing of misery"?
Odd things happen when you apply hyperbole to reality ""fully implemented". Full socialism is never a good idea, check and balances are required to stop each side going to far one way and to stay somewhere near the centre. The quotes are from Churchill, a man that had a good understanding of oppressive regimes. | |||
"At least Corona is giving people a glimpse of life in a socialist regime. Can't beat queueing for food.
Keep telling yourself that. Whatever it takes to justify pushing the far right agenda.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,"
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Socialism/communism is a failed ideology, no country where it has been fully implemented has done any good. Venezuela is a perfect example, once one of the richest countries in South America, now its absolutely dirt poor. That is a country where the poor suffer.
The NHS is part of a "failed ideology"?
Free education is part of an "equal sharing of misery"?
Odd things happen when you apply hyperbole to reality
"fully implemented". Full socialism is never a good idea, check and balances are required to stop each side going to far one way and to stay somewhere near the centre.
The quotes are from Churchill, a man that had a good understanding of oppressive regimes. "Good dodge
"Fully implemented" is meaningless. "Fully implemented" socialism is not defined.
We have socialism as fully implemented as we wish it to be. We wish for more sometimes and sometimes less.
Churchill's opinion is one of many. He does have a good understanding of oppressive regimes though as he was quite keen on things like the British Empire which was certainly not a universal good. | |||
| |||
"Isn't 'fully implemented' socialism essentially communism?" Nope. | |||
"Isn't 'fully implemented' socialism essentially communism? Nope." Socialism is an idea that you can achieve justice and equality by redistributing wealth. Communism goes further to say that you can achieve real equality only by abolition of private property. When you are taxed a part of your pay and that money is used by the government for social welfare, it is socialism. When you are not even paid anything and everything is owned by the government, it is communism. Socialism is path to communism. | |||
"Isn't 'fully implemented' socialism essentially communism? Nope. Socialism is an idea that you can achieve justice and equality by redistributing wealth. Communism goes further to say that you can achieve real equality only by abolition of private property. When you are taxed a part of your pay and that money is used by the government for social welfare, it is socialism. When you are not even paid anything and everything is owned by the government, it is communism. Socialism is path to communism." Just like conservatism is a path to Fascism. | |||
| |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government?" Lolz Which alt-right website did you copy and paste this from? | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? Lolz Which alt-right website did you copy and paste this from?" The use of "alt-right" just makes you sound unhinged. So I'm now a white supremacist is it, yeah well done mate. | |||
" The quotes are from Churchill, a man that had a good understanding of oppressive regimes. " Absolutely, his policies directly led to the death of 3 million Bengalis from starvation. | |||
"Isn't 'fully implemented' socialism essentially communism? Nope. Socialism is an idea that you can achieve justice and equality by redistributing wealth. Communism goes further to say that you can achieve real equality only by abolition of private property. When you are taxed a part of your pay and that money is used by the government for social welfare, it is socialism. When you are not even paid anything and everything is owned by the government, it is communism. Socialism is path to communism. Just like conservatism is a path to Fascism. " Nationalist conservatism? Yes. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government?" Well explained. Adding to that, a social democracy is a liberal economy where the government intervenes a little bit to help the economically backward classes. That is a very limited implementation of socialism. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? Lolz Which alt-right website did you copy and paste this from? The use of "alt-right" just makes you sound unhinged. So I'm now a white supremacist is it, yeah well done mate. " Wow that's a leap and a half. Although I did enjoy you sarcastically congratulating me for something that you made up that I said. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? Lolz Which alt-right website did you copy and paste this from? The use of "alt-right" just makes you sound unhinged. So I'm now a white supremacist is it, yeah well done mate. Wow that's a leap and a half. Although I did enjoy you sarcastically congratulating me for something that you made up that I said. " It was implied. You asked which alt-right website I used, not much of leap now is it as who do you think uses such sites? The pope? If that's your go to then like I said, unhinged. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? Lolz Which alt-right website did you copy and paste this from? The use of "alt-right" just makes you sound unhinged. So I'm now a white supremacist is it, yeah well done mate. Wow that's a leap and a half. Although I did enjoy you sarcastically congratulating me for something that you made up that I said. It was implied. You asked which alt-right website I used, not much of leap now is it as who do you think uses such sites? The pope? If that's your go to then like I said, unhinged. " Ah don't worry I found the alt right website it was published on. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? Lolz Which alt-right website did you copy and paste this from? The use of "alt-right" just makes you sound unhinged. So I'm now a white supremacist is it, yeah well done mate. Wow that's a leap and a half. Although I did enjoy you sarcastically congratulating me for something that you made up that I said. It was implied. You asked which alt-right website I used, not much of leap now is it as who do you think uses such sites? The pope? If that's your go to then like I said, unhinged. Ah don't worry I found the alt right website it was published on." Be interested to find out which one? Obviously don’t post the link mate. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government?" That's taken a bizzare pseudointellctual turn. Free healthcare and education is a slippery slope to communism? It is a huge step from "political correctness" to "reduction", bit the right are perfectly capable of the latter whilst being overtly abusive. The euphemism for that is "saying it like it is". Everyone is equal to everyone else. I'm alright with that. The reality of socialism is a democratic system with some reallocation of resources. I'm comfortable with that. I'm happy with paying more to give to somebody with a lot less. We live in a socialist system. Is your preference pure capitalism and no state except for defence and the law? Something nice and Dickensian? You are having a strange "philosophical" argument about an imaginary bottom of an imaginary slippery slope. What are you actually upset about and what do you want to change, and what does it have to do with the topic? | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? That's taken a bizzare pseudointellctual turn. Free healthcare and education is a slippery slope to communism? It is a huge step from "political correctness" to "reduction", bit the right are perfectly capable of the latter whilst being overtly abusive. The euphemism for that is "saying it like it is". Everyone is equal to everyone else. I'm alright with that. The reality of socialism is a democratic system with some reallocation of resources. I'm comfortable with that. I'm happy with paying more to give to somebody with a lot less. We live in a socialist system. Is your preference pure capitalism and no state except for defence and the law? Something nice and Dickensian? You are having a strange "philosophical" argument about an imaginary bottom of an imaginary slippery slope. What are you actually upset about and what do you want to change, and what does it have to do with the topic?" He just defined socialism and communism. We now live in a socialist democracy. There is a difference between socialist democracy and socialism. | |||
| |||
"Populism is the fuel which powers the right wing. It cannot give any decent solutions at all and what ever ideas are put forward are so simplistic and short sighted. You can see it everyday in every new report. The poster child is a vain moron. The people behind the scene are confused and demented. It’s thinkers are stupid pundits, who are shameless self promoters. By the end of this, things will change as the people who put them in power have realised they has conned them with simple slogans." You are more hopefull than me re the last paragraph. | |||
"Populism is the fuel which powers the right wing. It cannot give any decent solutions at all and what ever ideas are put forward are so simplistic and short sighted. You can see it everyday in every new report. The poster child is a vain moron. The people behind the scene are confused and demented. It’s thinkers are stupid pundits, who are shameless self promoters. By the end of this, things will change as the people who put them in power have realised they has conned them with simple slogans." And self righteousness and appeasement are the fuels which drive the left wing. In the end, both left and right wing politicians are power hungry bastards who use left and right wing philosophies as tools to keep their vote banks happy and get to power. In reality, none of them give a flying fuck about people. At the end of every regime, people always feel they were fucked because they really were. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? Lolz Which alt-right website did you copy and paste this from? The use of "alt-right" just makes you sound unhinged. So I'm now a white supremacist is it, yeah well done mate. Wow that's a leap and a half. Although I did enjoy you sarcastically congratulating me for something that you made up that I said. It was implied. You asked which alt-right website I used, not much of leap now is it as who do you think uses such sites? The pope? If that's your go to then like I said, unhinged. Ah don't worry I found the alt right website it was published on. Be interested to find out which one? Obviously don’t post the link mate. " Lincoln institute. A weird US alt right libertarian website. The article was written by some lad called Lowman S Henry. Not to be confused with The lincoln institute of land registry. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? That's taken a bizzare pseudointellctual turn. Free healthcare and education is a slippery slope to communism? It is a huge step from "political correctness" to "reduction", bit the right are perfectly capable of the latter whilst being overtly abusive. The euphemism for that is "saying it like it is". Everyone is equal to everyone else. I'm alright with that. The reality of socialism is a democratic system with some reallocation of resources. I'm comfortable with that. I'm happy with paying more to give to somebody with a lot less. We live in a socialist system. Is your preference pure capitalism and no state except for defence and the law? Something nice and Dickensian? You are having a strange "philosophical" argument about an imaginary bottom of an imaginary slippery slope. What are you actually upset about and what do you want to change, and what does it have to do with the topic? He just defined socialism and communism. We now live in a socialist democracy. There is a difference between socialist democracy and socialism. " You can talk about "socialism" all you like but it does not define "the left". This is just a guy having a bit of a strange rant. I've noticed that neither of you address any of the questions addressed. You just move on to the next piece of dogma. What do you want to say? You do not like "the left" bit you do like "the right"? You don't like anybody? What does it have to do with "populism"? That's really just telling people what they want to hear to gain power even if it cannot be delivered. What do you want? | |||
"Populism is the fuel which powers the right wing. It cannot give any decent solutions at all and what ever ideas are put forward are so simplistic and short sighted. You can see it everyday in every new report. The poster child is a vain moron. The people behind the scene are confused and demented. It’s thinkers are stupid pundits, who are shameless self promoters. By the end of this, things will change as the people who put them in power have realised they has conned them with simple slogans. And self righteousness and appeasement are the fuels which drive the left wing. In the end, both left and right wing politicians are power hungry bastards who use left and right wing philosophies as tools to keep their vote banks happy and get to power. In reality, none of them give a flying fuck about people. At the end of every regime, people always feel they were fucked because they really were." Well the left wing havent been too successful in this country. | |||
"Populism is the fuel which powers the right wing. It cannot give any decent solutions at all and what ever ideas are put forward are so simplistic and short sighted. You can see it everyday in every new report. The poster child is a vain moron. The people behind the scene are confused and demented. It’s thinkers are stupid pundits, who are shameless self promoters. By the end of this, things will change as the people who put them in power have realised they has conned them with simple slogans. And self righteousness and appeasement are the fuels which drive the left wing. In the end, both left and right wing politicians are power hungry bastards who use left and right wing philosophies as tools to keep their vote banks happy and get to power. In reality, none of them give a flying fuck about people. At the end of every regime, people always feel they were fucked because they really were. Well the left wing havent been too successful in this country." Is this going to be a "what have the left ever done for us?" sketch?
There are a few things.
The opposite question about "the right" I find harder to answer other than in opposition to "the left" getting a bit carried away which happened once in the 70's to the best of my knowledge | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? That's taken a bizzare pseudointellctual turn. Free healthcare and education is a slippery slope to communism? It is a huge step from "political correctness" to "reduction", bit the right are perfectly capable of the latter whilst being overtly abusive. The euphemism for that is "saying it like it is". Everyone is equal to everyone else. I'm alright with that. The reality of socialism is a democratic system with some reallocation of resources. I'm comfortable with that. I'm happy with paying more to give to somebody with a lot less. We live in a socialist system. Is your preference pure capitalism and no state except for defence and the law? Something nice and Dickensian? You are having a strange "philosophical" argument about an imaginary bottom of an imaginary slippery slope. What are you actually upset about and what do you want to change, and what does it have to do with the topic? He just defined socialism and communism. We now live in a socialist democracy. There is a difference between socialist democracy and socialism. You can talk about "socialism" all you like but it does not define "the left". This is just a guy having a bit of a strange rant. I've noticed that neither of you address any of the questions addressed. You just move on to the next piece of dogma. What do you want to say? You do not like "the left" bit you do like "the right"? You don't like anybody? What does it have to do with "populism"? That's really just telling people what they want to hear to gain power even if it cannot be delivered. What do you want?" If socialism is not left, what is? You are the one who commented that there is nothing like fully implemented socialism. Fully implemented socialism is communism. That's why I responded. He gave a more detailed definition of both the terms. My view is the right wing is messed up in its own way and left is also messed up. If the left wing comes to power, it will suddenly make everything better? Italy is being ruled by left wing party btw. | |||
"Communism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. That is why the rhetoric of the Left today is so stunningly similar to the philosophic principles that were the underpinning of the communist movement in the last century. For example, it is a very short step from “political correctness” to “re-education,” and the conformity required at universities today shows we are well on our way. Under communism, everyone is equal to everyone else and property and resources are owned and controlled by the state: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as ALLOCATED to you by the GOVERNMENT: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his ability and contribution.” Both systems require government control that ensures the people have little say. The idea of giving the government even more control over us and think that it wont be abused is perhaps wishful thinking. Do any of us really trust the government? That's taken a bizzare pseudointellctual turn. Free healthcare and education is a slippery slope to communism? It is a huge step from "political correctness" to "reduction", bit the right are perfectly capable of the latter whilst being overtly abusive. The euphemism for that is "saying it like it is". Everyone is equal to everyone else. I'm alright with that. The reality of socialism is a democratic system with some reallocation of resources. I'm comfortable with that. I'm happy with paying more to give to somebody with a lot less. We live in a socialist system. Is your preference pure capitalism and no state except for defence and the law? Something nice and Dickensian? You are having a strange "philosophical" argument about an imaginary bottom of an imaginary slippery slope. What are you actually upset about and what do you want to change, and what does it have to do with the topic? He just defined socialism and communism. We now live in a socialist democracy. There is a difference between socialist democracy and socialism. You can talk about "socialism" all you like but it does not define "the left". This is just a guy having a bit of a strange rant. I've noticed that neither of you address any of the questions addressed. You just move on to the next piece of dogma. What do you want to say? You do not like "the left" bit you do like "the right"? You don't like anybody? What does it have to do with "populism"? That's really just telling people what they want to hear to gain power even if it cannot be delivered. What do you want? If socialism is not left, what is? You are the one who commented that there is nothing like fully implemented socialism. Fully implemented socialism is communism. That's why I responded. He gave a more detailed definition of both the terms. My view is the right wing is messed up in its own way and left is also messed up. If the left wing comes to power, it will suddenly make everything better? Italy is being ruled by left wing party btw." Nowhere has "fully implemented" communism. All we have are corrupt totalitarian states which bare no resemblance to the ideology that drove the revolution against whatever crappy regime people were living under before. I have no interest in dogma. I have an interest in calling people out who rant unquestioningly against one side of the argument, especially as it's arguing against some imaginary extreme. You actually seem to have not too dissimilar opinion toe but you are agreeing with someone who is not, in fact, taking a balanced view. The socialism that we have is really rather pleasant. Unfortunately it is apparently not exciting enough for us so as a first world problem we want something "better" which "populism" tells us is the fault of other people. "Other" can be defined as whomsoever you wish. | |||
" Nowhere has "fully implemented" communism. All we have are corrupt totalitarian states which bare no resemblance to the ideology that drove the revolution against whatever crappy regime people were living under before. I have no interest in dogma. I have an interest in calling people out who rant unquestioningly against one side of the argument, especially as it's arguing against some imaginary extreme. You actually seem to have not too dissimilar opinion toe but you are agreeing with someone who is not, in fact, taking a balanced view. The socialism that we have is really rather pleasant. Unfortunately it is apparently not exciting enough for us so as a first world problem we want something "better" which "populism" tells us is the fault of other people. "Other" can be defined as whomsoever you wish." Ok. Socialist democracy - Less government intervention. It is still a free market. Government takes tax and uses it for some social welfare. This is what we have now. This is great. Socialism - State owns all businesses and pays everyone based on ability. We don't have socialism. Communism - State owns everything and gives away stuff based on needs. There is no concept of private property. Even if you work hard, you are only given what you need. You see the problem here? People will not work for the state if they don't get a reward. That is why any attempt at communism becomes totalitarian. Stalin knew it. That's the only practical way to achieve both socialism and communism. The problem with the debate on this thread is that people tend to mis-use socialism often. The government doesn't own all businesses. So no. We don't have socialism. What we have is a socialist democracy. This is what both of us are trying to explain. Populism takes us to other side if spectrum towards fascism. But demands of political correctness and forced equality will take us towards socialism. Both are equally bad. | |||
" Nowhere has "fully implemented" communism. All we have are corrupt totalitarian states which bare no resemblance to the ideology that drove the revolution against whatever crappy regime people were living under before. I have no interest in dogma. I have an interest in calling people out who rant unquestioningly against one side of the argument, especially as it's arguing against some imaginary extreme. You actually seem to have not too dissimilar opinion toe but you are agreeing with someone who is not, in fact, taking a balanced view. The socialism that we have is really rather pleasant. Unfortunately it is apparently not exciting enough for us so as a first world problem we want something "better" which "populism" tells us is the fault of other people. "Other" can be defined as whomsoever you wish. Ok. Socialist democracy - Less government intervention. It is still a free market. Government takes tax and uses it for some social welfare. This is what we have now. This is great. Socialism - State owns all businesses and pays everyone based on ability. We don't have socialism. Communism - State owns everything and gives away stuff based on needs. There is no concept of private property. Even if you work hard, you are only given what you need. You see the problem here? People will not work for the state if they don't get a reward. That is why any attempt at communism becomes totalitarian. Stalin knew it. That's the only practical way to achieve both socialism and communism. The problem with the debate on this thread is that people tend to mis-use socialism often. The government doesn't own all businesses. So no. We don't have socialism. What we have is a socialist democracy. This is what both of us are trying to explain. Populism takes us to other side if spectrum towards fascism. But demands of political correctness and forced equality will take us towards socialism. Both are equally bad. " The Venezuelan government is not socialist by your definition then is it? "State owns all businesses and pays everyone based on ability." I am not advocating communism or arguing that there is no self interest in human nature or that there should be no reward for one's own efforts. "Political correctness" does not drive us towards socialism. When applied correctly it drives us towards civility. When applied inappropriately it drives us towards censorship. There is no logical progression beyond that. You still are not making a sensible point. | |||
" Nowhere has "fully implemented" communism. All we have are corrupt totalitarian states which bare no resemblance to the ideology that drove the revolution against whatever crappy regime people were living under before. I have no interest in dogma. I have an interest in calling people out who rant unquestioningly against one side of the argument, especially as it's arguing against some imaginary extreme. You actually seem to have not too dissimilar opinion toe but you are agreeing with someone who is not, in fact, taking a balanced view. The socialism that we have is really rather pleasant. Unfortunately it is apparently not exciting enough for us so as a first world problem we want something "better" which "populism" tells us is the fault of other people. "Other" can be defined as whomsoever you wish. Ok. Socialist democracy - Less government intervention. It is still a free market. Government takes tax and uses it for some social welfare. This is what we have now. This is great. Socialism - State owns all businesses and pays everyone based on ability. We don't have socialism. Communism - State owns everything and gives away stuff based on needs. There is no concept of private property. Even if you work hard, you are only given what you need. You see the problem here? People will not work for the state if they don't get a reward. That is why any attempt at communism becomes totalitarian. Stalin knew it. That's the only practical way to achieve both socialism and communism. The problem with the debate on this thread is that people tend to mis-use socialism often. The government doesn't own all businesses. So no. We don't have socialism. What we have is a socialist democracy. This is what both of us are trying to explain. Populism takes us to other side if spectrum towards fascism. But demands of political correctness and forced equality will take us towards socialism. Both are equally bad. The Venezuelan government is not socialist by your definition then is it? "State owns all businesses and pays everyone based on ability." I am not advocating communism or arguing that there is no self interest in human nature or that there should be no reward for one's own efforts. "Political correctness" does not drive us towards socialism. When applied correctly it drives us towards civility. When applied inappropriately it drives us towards censorship. There is no logical progression beyond that. You still are not making a sensible point."  Do you even have any clue about Venezuela?
They were Nationalised everything from Agriculture to supermarkets. And we are the one not making a sensible point?
How do you even apply political correctness? Everyone gets offended by some random crap. There is no way you can keep everyone happy. To do it, again you need a central authority to decide what is correct and what is wrong. Again it involves government intervention. | |||
" Nowhere has "fully implemented" communism. All we have are corrupt totalitarian states which bare no resemblance to the ideology that drove the revolution against whatever crappy regime people were living under before. I have no interest in dogma. I have an interest in calling people out who rant unquestioningly against one side of the argument, especially as it's arguing against some imaginary extreme. You actually seem to have not too dissimilar opinion toe but you are agreeing with someone who is not, in fact, taking a balanced view. The socialism that we have is really rather pleasant. Unfortunately it is apparently not exciting enough for us so as a first world problem we want something "better" which "populism" tells us is the fault of other people. "Other" can be defined as whomsoever you wish. Ok. Socialist democracy - Less government intervention. It is still a free market. Government takes tax and uses it for some social welfare. This is what we have now. This is great. Socialism - State owns all businesses and pays everyone based on ability. We don't have socialism. Communism - State owns everything and gives away stuff based on needs. There is no concept of private property. Even if you work hard, you are only given what you need. You see the problem here? People will not work for the state if they don't get a reward. That is why any attempt at communism becomes totalitarian. Stalin knew it. That's the only practical way to achieve both socialism and communism. The problem with the debate on this thread is that people tend to mis-use socialism often. The government doesn't own all businesses. So no. We don't have socialism. What we have is a socialist democracy. This is what both of us are trying to explain. Populism takes us to other side if spectrum towards fascism. But demands of political correctness and forced equality will take us towards socialism. Both are equally bad. The Venezuelan government is not socialist by your definition then is it? "State owns all businesses and pays everyone based on ability." I am not advocating communism or arguing that there is no self interest in human nature or that there should be no reward for one's own efforts. "Political correctness" does not drive us towards socialism. When applied correctly it drives us towards civility. When applied inappropriately it drives us towards censorship. There is no logical progression beyond that. You still are not making a sensible point. Do you even have any clue about Venezuela?
They were Nationalised everything from Agriculture to supermarkets. And we are the one not making a sensible point?
How do you even apply political correctness? Everyone gets offended by some random crap. There is no way you can keep everyone happy. To do it, again you need a central authority to decide what is correct and what is wrong. Again it involves government intervention. "Is, there, or rather was there before the collapse of the state, private business in Venezuela? How were assets and wages allocated? By ability, need or political expediency and corruption? Define "political correctness". Is demanding that people aren't overtly racist "politically correct"? Is that acceptable to you? Is that free speech? What if there's encouragement to commit violence? What if it's just bullying? Somebody decides or you just let it happen? What's your preference? What has that to do with socialism, communism or populism? | |||
" Is, there, or rather was there before the collapse of the state, private business in Venezuela? How were assets and wages allocated? By ability, need or political expediency and corruption? Define "political correctness". Is demanding that people aren't overtly racist "politically correct"? Is that acceptable to you? Is that free speech? What if there's encouragement to commit violence? What if it's just bullying? Somebody decides or you just let it happen? What's your preference? What has that to do with socialism, communism or populism?" Venezuela was ruled by the socialist party which was in the process of nationalising everything. When the collapse happened, some private businesses still existed though not many. But the damage was done. Agriculture was nationalised. Food production went down by 75% in a decade. Electricity was nationalised. Their power production suffered. So yes. Socialism caused Venezuela's downfall. People discriminating someone based on race for jobs etc. is wrong. But I feel that speech should be free and no one should be afraid to express one's opinion as it may offend someone. The guardian made a cartoon mocking Priti Patel with cow and bull. I personally don't give a damn about it. People felt offended as it mocked Hindu tradition. Some felt it was racist. Some felt it was not. Someone I knew here made a joke about British and American English. An Asian friend didn't understand it and she told these kind of jokes are offensive for non-native English speakers. Some black men even call each other nigga. But some get offended by it The problem is it is a very subjective matter. You just cannot draw a line. The problem with PC brigade is they have some idea of what is offensive and what is not. They want to enforce it on whole world. The problem with PC brigade that has leaning towards socialism is their obsession with equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is achievable in current state. For equality in outcome, you need to take the state towards socialism. | |||
" Is, there, or rather was there before the collapse of the state, private business in Venezuela? How were assets and wages allocated? By ability, need or political expediency and corruption? Define "political correctness". Is demanding that people aren't overtly racist "politically correct"? Is that acceptable to you? Is that free speech? What if there's encouragement to commit violence? What if it's just bullying? Somebody decides or you just let it happen? What's your preference? What has that to do with socialism, communism or populism? Venezuela was ruled by the socialist party which was in the process of nationalising everything. When the collapse happened, some private businesses still existed though not many. But the damage was done. Agriculture was nationalised. Food production went down by 75% in a decade. Electricity was nationalised. Their power production suffered. So yes. Socialism caused Venezuela's downfall. People discriminating someone based on race for jobs etc. is wrong. But I feel that speech should be free and no one should be afraid to express one's opinion as it may offend someone. The guardian made a cartoon mocking Priti Patel with cow and bull. I personally don't give a damn about it. People felt offended as it mocked Hindu tradition. Some felt it was racist. Some felt it was not. Someone I knew here made a joke about British and American English. An Asian friend didn't understand it and she told these kind of jokes are offensive for non-native English speakers. Some black men even call each other nigga. But some get offended by it The problem is it is a very subjective matter. You just cannot draw a line. The problem with PC brigade is they have some idea of what is offensive and what is not. They want to enforce it on whole world. The problem with PC brigade that has leaning towards socialism is their obsession with equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is achievable in current state. For equality in outcome, you need to take the state towards socialism." You only seem to want to address the things that suit your narrative, whatever that may be. How many businesses in the economy were privatised? Is it better for a country's natural resources to be owned by the state or private businesses? Is it the intention of either socialism or communism to allocate resources based on corruption and nepotism? If not, then how is Venezuela the ultimate socialist state? Is your argument is that any state where people have to behave selflessly will fail? Russia is the other end of the scale. A capitalist state with individuals and companies behaving purely in their own self-interest. Is that a success with high unemployment, a low standard of living, low health outcomes and high corruption? Why are people so keen to argue against one unacceptable extreme of politics but not the other? Why are you only making one argent here? Why not tell us more about Russia and how unfettered capitalism is bad in the same level of detail? Why is one direction worse than the other? Isn't the basis of any successful political and economic system the rule of law? Are you saying that "political correctness" is the same as the control of any speech? That's it's too "subjective" to judge if a video or article is racist or sexist or calling for violence so anybody should be free to say anything and persuade anybody that their opinion is correct? Equality of outcome of that outcome is good education, health and a high standard of living is worse than having a very few extremely wealthy people and lots of extremely poor? Which should we aspire to? I still don't understand your argument? Socialism and any attempt to prevent people from deliberately causing offence inevitably leads to societal collapse where as capitalism and unrestricted free speech does not? If not, what? That finding a middle path provides the best outcome? The Buddha came up with that thousands of years ago. Who's saying anything to the contrary other than having a slightly different view on the percentage of state and privately owned assets? What do you want and what is the relevance of any of this to "populism"? | |||
" You only seem to want to address the things that suit your narrative, whatever that may be. How many businesses in the economy were privatised? Is it better for a country's natural resources to be owned by the state or private businesses? Is it the intention of either socialism or communism to allocate resources based on corruption and nepotism? If not, then how is Venezuela the ultimate socialist state? Is your argument is that any state where people have to behave selflessly will fail? Russia is the other end of the scale. A capitalist state with individuals and companies behaving purely in their own self-interest. Is that a success with high unemployment, a low standard of living, low health outcomes and high corruption? Why are people so keen to argue against one unacceptable extreme of politics but not the other? Why are you only making one argent here? Why not tell us more about Russia and how unfettered capitalism is bad in the same level of detail? Why is one direction worse than the other? Isn't the basis of any successful political and economic system the rule of law? Are you saying that "political correctness" is the same as the control of any speech? That's it's too "subjective" to judge if a video or article is racist or sexist or calling for violence so anybody should be free to say anything and persuade anybody that their opinion is correct? Equality of outcome of that outcome is good education, health and a high standard of living is worse than having a very few extremely wealthy people and lots of extremely poor? Which should we aspire to? I still don't understand your argument? Socialism and any attempt to prevent people from deliberately causing offence inevitably leads to societal collapse where as capitalism and unrestricted free speech does not? If not, what? That finding a middle path provides the best outcome? The Buddha came up with that thousands of years ago. Who's saying anything to the contrary other than having a slightly different view on the percentage of state and privately owned assets? What do you want and what is the relevance of any of this to "populism"?" You seem to turn blind to things which don't suit your narrative. You asked it Venezuela was socialist. I told that Venezuela was ruled by the socialist party who started nationalising industries almost two decades back. I don't have data on how many businesses were yet to be nationalised. But it is a well known and accepted fact that most of the businesses were nationalised and every industry they nationalised started performing poorly. Land is a natural resource. Should we remove land ownership completely? Capitalism has its flaws. But overall, it has been good for the human race. And it is a much much better model than socialism. Try reading Sapiens by Yuval Noah. Unemployment and poverty still exist. But the standard of living of poor people has considerably improved from what it was before capitalism to what it is now. Capitalism is not doom and gloom as most left wing media makes it out to be. Socialist and communist philosophy is to nationalise industries. Corruption and nepotism are side effects of it. And yes. A state where all people should behave selflessly will fail. Humans are selfish. You are selfish At anytime we will want to safeguard ourselves and our own families over than others. If you are given a choice between your life and another person you have never met in life, you will choose your life. That's a biological fact. Socialism tries to suppress it. Capitalism exploits that selfishness. As you cannot get people to work selflessly, all socialist regimes eventually turn totalitarian. Stalin knew this. He used his army to enforce it. Gorbachev thought otherwise and the Soviet fell apart. Soviet Russia is not an extreme side of socialism. That is the only practical way to implement socialism. This is something which many young armchair socialists and communists fail to grab. Capitalism will go bad if it is totally unregulated. That is one of the reasons why we are facing the climate crisis. Another problem is monopoly. These two problems are easy to solve compared to socialism which has been proven wrong in its fundamental theory itself. So capitalism is bad if it is unregulated and goes extreme. Socialism is bad even its default form. Socialism can possibly work far in the future when we have abundant resources for population and each and every single job is automated. Ironically, you want capitalism to achieve that. So for now, we have to stick with capitalism. But countries can do better with regulations. Unrestricted free speech is already there in many western countries. Did all their societies collapse? Censorship is not a solution to racism. It only makes the problem worse. I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? You will never understand the importance of free speech till you actually lose it. What does it all have to do with populism? We have to do away with populism. But we have to choose a pro capitalist party. Not a socialist party that thinks nationalisation of industries is a solution to the problems. Unfortunately most left wing parties have created some sort of pro-socialist image around them. Is it true or not? I don't know. But that is what people seem to think. | |||
" I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? " This really demonstrates the victimhood of the right. Here's someone talking about how he is able to make offensive jokes with his friends in private, with no censorship or consequences, but somehow there's still a problem because of what the 'PC brigade' would think? So what? You won't get to make offensive jokes or comments in *public* without criticism, because people are entitled to express their opinion. You don't get to be exempt from that criticism just because you don't like it. | |||
" I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? This really demonstrates the victimhood of the right. Here's someone talking about how he is able to make offensive jokes with his friends in private, with no censorship or consequences, but somehow there's still a problem because of what the 'PC brigade' would think? So what? You won't get to make offensive jokes or comments in *public* without criticism, because people are entitled to express their opinion. You don't get to be exempt from that criticism just because you don't like it. " I am ok with criticism. I am not ok with censorship. If I use a public forum like Twitter or Facebook or even a real meeting where I speak something which someone finds offensive, that someone can always unfollow me or just not attend my meetings. They can also criticise me for what I said. Just like they are entitled to express their opinion, I am entitled to express my opinion. Can't give a toss about what their criticism is. | |||
" I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? This really demonstrates the victimhood of the right. Here's someone talking about how he is able to make offensive jokes with his friends in private, with no censorship or consequences, but somehow there's still a problem because of what the 'PC brigade' would think? So what? You won't get to make offensive jokes or comments in *public* without criticism, because people are entitled to express their opinion. You don't get to be exempt from that criticism just because you don't like it. I am ok with criticism. I am not ok with censorship. If I use a public forum like Twitter or Facebook or even a real meeting where I speak something which someone finds offensive, that someone can always unfollow me or just not attend my meetings. They can also criticise me for what I said. Just like they are entitled to express their opinion, I am entitled to express my opinion. Can't give a toss about what their criticism is." How are you being censored? | |||
" I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? This really demonstrates the victimhood of the right. Here's someone talking about how he is able to make offensive jokes with his friends in private, with no censorship or consequences, but somehow there's still a problem because of what the 'PC brigade' would think? So what? You won't get to make offensive jokes or comments in *public* without criticism, because people are entitled to express their opinion. You don't get to be exempt from that criticism just because you don't like it. I am ok with criticism. I am not ok with censorship. If I use a public forum like Twitter or Facebook or even a real meeting where I speak something which someone finds offensive, that someone can always unfollow me or just not attend my meetings. They can also criticise me for what I said. Just like they are entitled to express their opinion, I am entitled to express my opinion. Can't give a toss about what their criticism is. How are you being censored? " None of us claimed that we are already being censored. But going by the number of people asking for accounts to banned on social media websites, they would want the government to pass law on censorship of certain words that they don't like. Now, social media companies are private entities. They have the right to censor what they feel do not belong to their platform. But for people asking for censorship on social platforms, they obviously want censorship from the government too. Look at the speakers being no-platformed in universities jusr because their political views are not the same as the speaker. Isn't that censorship? Imagine the state of a conservative student in these universities. Aren't the rest of the students forcing their views on these students? | |||
" I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? This really demonstrates the victimhood of the right. Here's someone talking about how he is able to make offensive jokes with his friends in private, with no censorship or consequences, but somehow there's still a problem because of what the 'PC brigade' would think? So what? You won't get to make offensive jokes or comments in *public* without criticism, because people are entitled to express their opinion. You don't get to be exempt from that criticism just because you don't like it. I am ok with criticism. I am not ok with censorship. If I use a public forum like Twitter or Facebook or even a real meeting where I speak something which someone finds offensive, that someone can always unfollow me or just not attend my meetings. They can also criticise me for what I said. Just like they are entitled to express their opinion, I am entitled to express my opinion. Can't give a toss about what their criticism is. How are you being censored? None of us claimed that we are already being censored. But going by the number of people asking for accounts to banned on social media websites, they would want the government to pass law on censorship of certain words that they don't like. Now, social media companies are private entities. They have the right to censor what they feel do not belong to their platform. But for people asking for censorship on social platforms, they obviously want censorship from the government too. Look at the speakers being no-platformed in universities jusr because their political views are not the same as the speaker. Isn't that censorship? Imagine the state of a conservative student in these universities. Aren't the rest of the students forcing their views on these students?" Ah, so you're not being censored, therefore you have to make up stuff. Got it. That some people want social media companies to not host offensive material, does not equate to wanting government censorship. That's a leap of logic you've made to justify your desire to feel like a victim. And no-platforming is in no way censorship. You and are aren't getting to speak at universities. Are we being censored? If a student is a Conservative at a university they can form a group and invite Conservative speakers to come. You realise the no-platforming is not being done by the universities themselves, but by groups/societies who change their mind about who they've invited? | |||
" I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? This really demonstrates the victimhood of the right. Here's someone talking about how he is able to make offensive jokes with his friends in private, with no censorship or consequences, but somehow there's still a problem because of what the 'PC brigade' would think? So what? You won't get to make offensive jokes or comments in *public* without criticism, because people are entitled to express their opinion. You don't get to be exempt from that criticism just because you don't like it. I am ok with criticism. I am not ok with censorship. If I use a public forum like Twitter or Facebook or even a real meeting where I speak something which someone finds offensive, that someone can always unfollow me or just not attend my meetings. They can also criticise me for what I said. Just like they are entitled to express their opinion, I am entitled to express my opinion. Can't give a toss about what their criticism is. How are you being censored? None of us claimed that we are already being censored. But going by the number of people asking for accounts to banned on social media websites, they would want the government to pass law on censorship of certain words that they don't like. Now, social media companies are private entities. They have the right to censor what they feel do not belong to their platform. But for people asking for censorship on social platforms, they obviously want censorship from the government too. Look at the speakers being no-platformed in universities jusr because their political views are not the same as the speaker. Isn't that censorship? Imagine the state of a conservative student in these universities. Aren't the rest of the students forcing their views on these students? Ah, so you're not being censored, therefore you have to make up stuff. Got it. That some people want social media companies to not host offensive material, does not equate to wanting government censorship. That's a leap of logic you've made to justify your desire to feel like a victim. And no-platforming is in no way censorship. You and are aren't getting to speak at universities. Are we being censored? If a student is a Conservative at a university they can form a group and invite Conservative speakers to come. You realise the no-platforming is not being done by the universities themselves, but by groups/societies who change their mind about who they've invited? " Yeah, I'm all in favour of free speech, but I wouldn't let a UKIP person stand in my front yard and address passers by. Doesn't mean I am censoring them. | |||
" I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? This really demonstrates the victimhood of the right. Here's someone talking about how he is able to make offensive jokes with his friends in private, with no censorship or consequences, but somehow there's still a problem because of what the 'PC brigade' would think? So what? You won't get to make offensive jokes or comments in *public* without criticism, because people are entitled to express their opinion. You don't get to be exempt from that criticism just because you don't like it. I am ok with criticism. I am not ok with censorship. If I use a public forum like Twitter or Facebook or even a real meeting where I speak something which someone finds offensive, that someone can always unfollow me or just not attend my meetings. They can also criticise me for what I said. Just like they are entitled to express their opinion, I am entitled to express my opinion. Can't give a toss about what their criticism is. How are you being censored? None of us claimed that we are already being censored. But going by the number of people asking for accounts to banned on social media websites, they would want the government to pass law on censorship of certain words that they don't like. Now, social media companies are private entities. They have the right to censor what they feel do not belong to their platform. But for people asking for censorship on social platforms, they obviously want censorship from the government too. Look at the speakers being no-platformed in universities jusr because their political views are not the same as the speaker. Isn't that censorship? Imagine the state of a conservative student in these universities. Aren't the rest of the students forcing their views on these students? Ah, so you're not being censored, therefore you have to make up stuff. Got it. That some people want social media companies to not host offensive material, does not equate to wanting government censorship. That's a leap of logic you've made to justify your desire to feel like a victim. And no-platforming is in no way censorship. You and are aren't getting to speak at universities. Are we being censored? If a student is a Conservative at a university they can form a group and invite Conservative speakers to come. You realise the no-platforming is not being done by the universities themselves, but by groups/societies who change their mind about who they've invited? Yeah, I'm all in favour of free speech, but I wouldn't let a UKIP person stand in my front yard and address passers by. Doesn't mean I am censoring them." Correct. If he is in front of your yard and forcing his speech on you and it is disturbing, you can file all cases on those bastards. But if they are speaking on TV, you can always change the channels. | |||
" Ah, so you're not being censored, therefore you have to make up stuff. Got it. That some people want social media companies to not host offensive material, does not equate to wanting government censorship. That's a leap of logic you've made to justify your desire to feel like a victim. And no-platforming is in no way censorship. You and are aren't getting to speak at universities. Are we being censored? If a student is a Conservative at a university they can form a group and invite Conservative speakers to come. You realise the no-platforming is not being done by the universities themselves, but by groups/societies who change their mind about who they've invited? " Well. Labour party kept claiming that Tories are going to sell NHS to America and many people seemed to believe it. But it didn't really happen yet, right? And why is it a great leap of logic? When someone could just unfollow a person or even block the person if their content is offensive to them, they go as far as launching campaigns to get the account banned and asking social media companies to change their guidelines. And you are saying that they won't expect the government to change laws for them? No-platforming someone half an hour before a speech just because majority of the students body felt they didn't like her political views, is censorship. In general, at that age, number of students being conservative is much less. Even when I was in university, vast majority of the students were liberals. I used to be a staunch liberal myself. Rest of the students were apolitical, as they told us. They were small in numbers. As it turns out, they were all actually conservative. Now looking back, do I blame them for hiding it from us? Not at all. If they had told us that they were conservatives, I myself would have played a part in suppressing them, given my state of mind at that time. They would have been isolated. That's the state of conservatives in most universities. And you expect them to form another group and raise their voices? Good luck with that. Amidst all the calls for diversity from the liberals, how about trying for some political diversity? | |||
" I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? This really demonstrates the victimhood of the right. Here's someone talking about how he is able to make offensive jokes with his friends in private, with no censorship or consequences, but somehow there's still a problem because of what the 'PC brigade' would think? So what? You won't get to make offensive jokes or comments in *public* without criticism, because people are entitled to express their opinion. You don't get to be exempt from that criticism just because you don't like it. I am ok with criticism. I am not ok with censorship. If I use a public forum like Twitter or Facebook or even a real meeting where I speak something which someone finds offensive, that someone can always unfollow me or just not attend my meetings. They can also criticise me for what I said. Just like they are entitled to express their opinion, I am entitled to express my opinion. Can't give a toss about what their criticism is. How are you being censored? None of us claimed that we are already being censored. But going by the number of people asking for accounts to banned on social media websites, they would want the government to pass law on censorship of certain words that they don't like. Now, social media companies are private entities. They have the right to censor what they feel do not belong to their platform. But for people asking for censorship on social platforms, they obviously want censorship from the government too. Look at the speakers being no-platformed in universities jusr because their political views are not the same as the speaker. Isn't that censorship? Imagine the state of a conservative student in these universities. Aren't the rest of the students forcing their views on these students? Ah, so you're not being censored, therefore you have to make up stuff. Got it. That some people want social media companies to not host offensive material, does not equate to wanting government censorship. That's a leap of logic you've made to justify your desire to feel like a victim. And no-platforming is in no way censorship. You and are aren't getting to speak at universities. Are we being censored? If a student is a Conservative at a university they can form a group and invite Conservative speakers to come. You realise the no-platforming is not being done by the universities themselves, but by groups/societies who change their mind about who they've invited? Yeah, I'm all in favour of free speech, but I wouldn't let a UKIP person stand in my front yard and address passers by. Doesn't mean I am censoring them. Correct. If he is in front of your yard and forcing his speech on you and it is disturbing, you can file all cases on those bastards. But if they are speaking on TV, you can always change the channels." I agree somewhat on the "change channels", youtube is a good example. Loads of people comments on all kinds of videos "this video was shit". Well why did you watch it then. How about when someone using their free speech for something damaging. A clear example could be someone putting out content that says climate change isn't really happening. This is potentially damaging as it could change the opinions, habits, political opinions of the people watching, having real world implications. Should this be criticised, challenged in some way, or should we just stop watching? | |||
" Well. Labour party kept claiming that Tories are going to sell NHS to America and many people seemed to believe it. But it didn't really happen yet, right? And why is it a great leap of logic? When someone could just unfollow a person or even block the person if their content is offensive to them, they go as far as launching campaigns to get the account banned and asking social media companies to change their guidelines. And you are saying that they won't expect the government to change laws for them?" I'm saying you can't just say 'look, people are doing X, therefore they must support Y'. That's not how a logical, evidenced argument works. "No-platforming someone half an hour before a speech just because majority of the students body felt they didn't like her political views, is censorship." I'm afraid you don't know what censorship means. Someone being invited to give a speech and then un-invited is not censorship, anymore than my not being invited to give a speech is me being censored. I also don't think you know the details of the Rudd incident. She wasn't invited/uninvited by 'the student body' but by a particular group/society within the university who are entitled to control who speaks at their own event. If another group wants to invite her back, they're free to organise that and she's free to attend. " In general, at that age, number of students being conservative is much less. Even when I was in university, vast majority of the students were liberals. I used to be a staunch liberal myself. Rest of the students were apolitical, as they told us. They were small in numbers. As it turns out, they were all actually conservative. Now looking back, do I blame them for hiding it from us? Not at all. If they had told us that they were conservatives, I myself would have played a part in suppressing them, given my state of mind at that time. They would have been isolated. That's the state of conservatives in most universities. And you expect them to form another group and raise their voices? Good luck with that. Amidst all the calls for diversity from the liberals, how about trying for some political diversity? " An awful lot of waffle to not say anything of substance. Conservative societies exist, they are not oppressed into silence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_student_political_societies | |||
" In general, at that age, number of students being conservative is much less. Even when I was in university, vast majority of the students were liberals. I used to be a staunch liberal myself. Rest of the students were apolitical, as they told us. They were small in numbers. As it turns out, they were all actually conservative. Now looking back, do I blame them for hiding it from us? Not at all. If they had told us that they were conservatives, I myself would have played a part in suppressing them, given my state of mind at that time. They would have been isolated. That's the state of conservatives in most universities. And you expect them to form another group and raise their voices? Good luck with that. Amidst all the calls for diversity from the liberals, how about trying for some political diversity? An awful lot of waffle to not say anything of substance. Conservative societies exist, they are not oppressed into silence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_student_political_societies " Just as a note, the number of students with conservative views may have dropped due to the ConDem coalition raising students fees. A fact that many in the student body, past and present, are still raw about. Just saying. As you were Gentlemen. | |||
" Well. Labour party kept claiming that Tories are going to sell NHS to America and many people seemed to believe it. But it didn't really happen yet, right? And why is it a great leap of logic? When someone could just unfollow a person or even block the person if their content is offensive to them, they go as far as launching campaigns to get the account banned and asking social media companies to change their guidelines. And you are saying that they won't expect the government to change laws for them? I'm saying you can't just say 'look, people are doing X, therefore they must support Y'. That's not how a logical, evidenced argument works. No-platforming someone half an hour before a speech just because majority of the students body felt they didn't like her political views, is censorship. I'm afraid you don't know what censorship means. Someone being invited to give a speech and then un-invited is not censorship, anymore than my not being invited to give a speech is me being censored. I also don't think you know the details of the Rudd incident. She wasn't invited/uninvited by 'the student body' but by a particular group/society within the university who are entitled to control who speaks at their own event. If another group wants to invite her back, they're free to organise that and she's free to attend. In general, at that age, number of students being conservative is much less. Even when I was in university, vast majority of the students were liberals. I used to be a staunch liberal myself. Rest of the students were apolitical, as they told us. They were small in numbers. As it turns out, they were all actually conservative. Now looking back, do I blame them for hiding it from us? Not at all. If they had told us that they were conservatives, I myself would have played a part in suppressing them, given my state of mind at that time. They would have been isolated. That's the state of conservatives in most universities. And you expect them to form another group and raise their voices? Good luck with that. Amidst all the calls for diversity from the liberals, how about trying for some political diversity? An awful lot of waffle to not say anything of substance. Conservative societies exist, they are not oppressed into silence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_student_political_societies " We make judgements everyday in our life. Person X is short tempered. Telling this may piss him off. Someone who goes out of his way to get social media censor stuff which they he finds offensive would not want the government to censor stuff? Is that really a jump? About the Rudd matter, in the last moment, they decided based on a vote and majority voted to cancel it which means there was a minority who wanted to listen to her. The simplest thing to do would be to let her come in. People who did not want to attend could have skipped while the ones who wanted to attend could have attended. This way, Rudd would have been given an opportunity to speak. The ones who didn't like her would have sent a message to her by the walkout. The ones who wanted to talk could have talked to her. But no. If they don't like her, the others should also not see her speak. Thanks for the link on the state of stuff in the UK. I didn't have much knowledge about that. | |||
" We make judgements everyday in our life. Person X is short tempered. Telling this may piss him off. Someone who goes out of his way to get social media censor stuff which they he finds offensive would not want the government to censor stuff? Is that really a jump?" It's a jump to say 'left wing people favour social media removing racist content, therefore the left favours government censorship' without evidence of the latter being a widespread, mainstream positions. Of course there will be some individuals who meet the description, but there will always be some people who hold any opinion you make up. It's like if I were to say 'right wing people support a reduction in immigration, therefore right wing people want to deport all foreigners that are already here'. There may be people who that applies to, but it wouldn't be fair or logical to use that as an argument. " About the Rudd matter, in the last moment, they decided based on a vote and majority voted to cancel it which means there was a minority who wanted to listen to her. The simplest thing to do would be to let her come in. People who did not want to attend could have skipped while the ones who wanted to attend could have attended. This way, Rudd would have been given an opportunity to speak. The ones who didn't like her would have sent a message to her by the walkout. The ones who wanted to talk could have talked to her. But no. If they don't like her, the others should also not see her speak. " You can argue that is unfortunate for the people who wanted to get to see her speak. You can argue that it makes you look silly and unprofessional to invite someone and then change your mind at the last minute (I'd agree with this). But that doesn't mean any censorship took place. I'll leave it here as going over what censorship isn't again and again gets a bit dull. | |||
" You only seem to want to address the things that suit your narrative, whatever that may be. How many businesses in the economy were privatised? Is it better for a country's natural resources to be owned by the state or private businesses? Is it the intention of either socialism or communism to allocate resources based on corruption and nepotism? If not, then how is Venezuela the ultimate socialist state? Is your argument is that any state where people have to behave selflessly will fail? Russia is the other end of the scale. A capitalist state with individuals and companies behaving purely in their own self-interest. Is that a success with high unemployment, a low standard of living, low health outcomes and high corruption? Why are people so keen to argue against one unacceptable extreme of politics but not the other? Why are you only making one argent here? Why not tell us more about Russia and how unfettered capitalism is bad in the same level of detail? Why is one direction worse than the other? Isn't the basis of any successful political and economic system the rule of law? Are you saying that "political correctness" is the same as the control of any speech? That's it's too "subjective" to judge if a video or article is racist or sexist or calling for violence so anybody should be free to say anything and persuade anybody that their opinion is correct? Equality of outcome of that outcome is good education, health and a high standard of living is worse than having a very few extremely wealthy people and lots of extremely poor? Which should we aspire to? I still don't understand your argument? Socialism and any attempt to prevent people from deliberately causing offence inevitably leads to societal collapse where as capitalism and unrestricted free speech does not? If not, what? That finding a middle path provides the best outcome? The Buddha came up with that thousands of years ago. Who's saying anything to the contrary other than having a slightly different view on the percentage of state and privately owned assets? What do you want and what is the relevance of any of this to "populism"? You seem to turn blind to things which don't suit your narrative. You asked it Venezuela was socialist. I told that Venezuela was ruled by the socialist party who started nationalising industries almost two decades back. I don't have data on how many businesses were yet to be nationalised. But it is a well known and accepted fact that most of the businesses were nationalised and every industry they nationalised started performing poorly. Land is a natural resource. Should we remove land ownership completely? Capitalism has its flaws. But overall, it has been good for the human race. And it is a much much better model than socialism. Try reading Sapiens by Yuval Noah. Unemployment and poverty still exist. But the standard of living of poor people has considerably improved from what it was before capitalism to what it is now. Capitalism is not doom and gloom as most left wing media makes it out to be. Socialist and communist philosophy is to nationalise industries. Corruption and nepotism are side effects of it. And yes. A state where all people should behave selflessly will fail. Humans are selfish. You are selfish At anytime we will want to safeguard ourselves and our own families over than others. If you are given a choice between your life and another person you have never met in life, you will choose your life. That's a biological fact. Socialism tries to suppress it. Capitalism exploits that selfishness. As you cannot get people to work selflessly, all socialist regimes eventually turn totalitarian. Stalin knew this. He used his army to enforce it. Gorbachev thought otherwise and the Soviet fell apart. Soviet Russia is not an extreme side of socialism. That is the only practical way to implement socialism. This is something which many young armchair socialists and communists fail to grab. Capitalism will go bad if it is totally unregulated. That is one of the reasons why we are facing the climate crisis. Another problem is monopoly. These two problems are easy to solve compared to socialism which has been proven wrong in its fundamental theory itself. So capitalism is bad if it is unregulated and goes extreme. Socialism is bad even its default form. Socialism can possibly work far in the future when we have abundant resources for population and each and every single job is automated. Ironically, you want capitalism to achieve that. So for now, we have to stick with capitalism. But countries can do better with regulations. Unrestricted free speech is already there in many western countries. Did all their societies collapse? Censorship is not a solution to racism. It only makes the problem worse. I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? You will never understand the importance of free speech till you actually lose it. What does it all have to do with populism? We have to do away with populism. But we have to choose a pro capitalist party. Not a socialist party that thinks nationalisation of industries is a solution to the problems. Unfortunately most left wing parties have created some sort of pro-socialist image around them. Is it true or not? I don't know. But that is what people seem to think." So you are demonstrating my inability to "turn blind to things that do not suit" my narrative by ignoring all of the points that make you have to address the weakness in your argument? I do not support communism, which is the communal ownership of property that you are so concerned about any more than I would advocate an unfettered capitalist economy. You do understand that, right? You seem to only have a problem with one end of the spectrum. I don't like either. Socialism can take any range of options from largely market-led to largely state owned. Ultimately the success of any political and economic system is based on the rule of law. no corruption. If that fails then you do not have a functioning state whatever its organisation. The whole basis of this discussion is that Venezuela demonstrates the consequence of socialism. "I don't have data on how many businesses were yet to be nationalised. But it is a well known and accepted fact that most of the businesses were nationalised" You have literally said that you have no idea that what you are saying is true but you are arguing it anyway because it is apparently "well known and well accepted" even though it isn't! Regardless of that, Venezuela was in no way functioning as any state should let alone a socialist one. It's a failed state. not because it is "socialist" but because it is corrupt and incompetently run. Is Russia, in comparison, an acceptable capitalist nation? What about Zimbabwe? Norway's national resources, specifically oil are state owned. How's that "socialist" state worked out? 41% of UK GDP is the state. Is that socialist? You then seem to have an entire other thread where you state (again free of any information) that "political correctness" inevitably leads to censorship, which it does not. You also seem to have no expectation thatcomplete free speech allows lies to be spread without check because your solution is to just not listen if you don' want to. So people denying climate change or anti-vaxers or people who advocate violence against minorities or women should just be left to it as there can be no consequences from this. Where is this mythical place where there is unrestricted free speech? You are plain wrong. There are limits to it everywhere. We do not "have" to do anything. That's what you have been arguing. We choose to do what we think is best for ourselves, our families, our community and preferably the planet as a whole not what you tell me that I should do. There is a bit of a contradiction in your advocacy of free shoice there. From a pure business perspective, companies where the workers have a stake in the company perform significantly better in the medium and long term than companies where they have no stake. How does that work with your argument? | |||
| |||
" So you are demonstrating my inability to "turn blind to things that do not suit" my narrative by ignoring all of the points that make you have to address the weakness in your argument? I do not support communism, which is the communal ownership of property that you are so concerned about any more than I would advocate an unfettered capitalist economy. You do understand that, right? You seem to only have a problem with one end of the spectrum. I don't like either. Socialism can take any range of options from largely market-led to largely state owned. Ultimately the success of any political and economic system is based on the rule of law. no corruption. If that fails then you do not have a functioning state whatever its organisation. The whole basis of this discussion is that Venezuela demonstrates the consequence of socialism. "I don't have data on how many businesses were yet to be nationalised. But it is a well known and accepted fact that most of the businesses were nationalised" You have literally said that you have no idea that what you are saying is true but you are arguing it anyway because it is apparently "well known and well accepted" even though it isn't! Regardless of that, Venezuela was in no way functioning as any state should let alone a socialist one. It's a failed state. not because it is "socialist" but because it is corrupt and incompetently run. Is Russia, in comparison, an acceptable capitalist nation? What about Zimbabwe? Norway's national resources, specifically oil are state owned. How's that "socialist" state worked out? 41% of UK GDP is the state. Is that socialist? You then seem to have an entire other thread where you state (again free of any information) that "political correctness" inevitably leads to censorship, which it does not. You also seem to have no expectation thatcomplete free speech allows lies to be spread without check because your solution is to just not listen if you don' want to. So people denying climate change or anti-vaxers or people who advocate violence against minorities or women should just be left to it as there can be no consequences from this. Where is this mythical place where there is unrestricted free speech? You are plain wrong. There are limits to it everywhere. We do not "have" to do anything. That's what you have been arguing. We choose to do what we think is best for ourselves, our families, our community and preferably the planet as a whole not what you tell me that I should do. There is a bit of a contradiction in your advocacy of free shoice there. From a pure business perspective, companies where the workers have a stake in the company perform significantly better in the medium and long term than companies where they have no stake. How does that work with your argument?" I will repeat some points which I said above because you obviously turned blind to them. The main cause that triggered the economic crisis was shortage in local production. This shortage was seen in all the industries which were nationalised. Agricultural output reduced after nationalisation while population increases. At some point, they were only producing 25% of people's food needs. Same with electricity too. Whichever department they nationalised became crap. And then the drop in oil prices just became as a final nail in the coffin. They just couldn't keep importing everything. I don't have to know if their candy shops were nationalised, to understand what happened here. No one demanded unfettered capitalism. Capitalism should be regulated to promote competition and prevent exploitation of natural resources which are limited. Rule of law and lack of corruption are not the only factors. Capitalism is driven by competition. When two private entities compete for market share, they punch above their weight. A nationalised industry can never produce as much as a private industry. Russia, right now is capitalist economy. Zimbabwe is in a state where where neither free market not socialism could help given the problem with violence. Where did you get that 41% public sector gdp from? Norway had to own oil industry because, it is an industry on which the entire economy depends on, and is very much prone to currency fluctuations. If they make it private, there would be good production. But if global oil demand goes down, the entire country will be in shambles and the state won't be in a position to control the downfall. Norway is essentially forced in this way because it didn't have a choice. In countries with diverse revenue streams, they don't have to be afraid of this. You can choose what is good for you. But who are you to choose what is good for the family and community? Who gave you the right to do that? What moral high ground do you have, to take decisions for others? That's the whole problem with censorship. People are different. Different people want different things out of life and have different ways to achieve it. Just because you feel something is right, doesn't make it universally right. About countries with free speech, How about the first amendment in the US? Do they have the problem of racism? Yes. Is curtailing free speech going to help them? No. They will be racist in all their activities. They just won't talk about it. At least by talking openly, you have a chance to change some of their views. Curtailing free speech has never solved any problem for any country. Do you think anti vaxxers will not exist if don't let people to talk about them? They will exist. But as secret societies. At least by letting them speak, you have a chance to fix them. Regarding companies giving their stakes to employees, I work in IT where many companies give us stocks as part of compensation. Let me tell you how it works. People are still selfish and want to make more money. If the company's stock falls suddenly, they don't stay there and try to work hard and get the company back on track. They just leave the company. If 50% of my compensation is stocks and the company stocks fall by 50%. My compensation drops to 75%. It makes more sense for me to jump companies rather than staying there with lower pay. Any company where stocks are falling will lose plenty of employees who joined when the stocks were high. And within these companies, high performers get more stocks whereas poor performers get less stocks. This is no way related to socialism. Just pure capitalism in action. In the end, people try to maximise their own profit. No one falls in love with the company because they gave stakes in them. It is mostly the companies who are already performing better who use stakes as a way to lure the employees. So that statistic is misleading. | |||
" You only seem to want to address the things that suit your narrative, whatever that may be. How many businesses in the economy were privatised? Is it better for a country's natural resources to be owned by the state or private businesses? Is it the intention of either socialism or communism to allocate resources based on corruption and nepotism? If not, then how is Venezuela the ultimate socialist state? Is your argument is that any state where people have to behave selflessly will fail? Russia is the other end of the scale. A capitalist state with individuals and companies behaving purely in their own self-interest. Is that a success with high unemployment, a low standard of living, low health outcomes and high corruption? Why are people so keen to argue against one unacceptable extreme of politics but not the other? Why are you only making one argent here? Why not tell us more about Russia and how unfettered capitalism is bad in the same level of detail? Why is one direction worse than the other? Isn't the basis of any successful political and economic system the rule of law? Are you saying that "political correctness" is the same as the control of any speech? That's it's too "subjective" to judge if a video or article is racist or sexist or calling for violence so anybody should be free to say anything and persuade anybody that their opinion is correct? Equality of outcome of that outcome is good education, health and a high standard of living is worse than having a very few extremely wealthy people and lots of extremely poor? Which should we aspire to? I still don't understand your argument? Socialism and any attempt to prevent people from deliberately causing offence inevitably leads to societal collapse where as capitalism and unrestricted free speech does not? If not, what? That finding a middle path provides the best outcome? The Buddha came up with that thousands of years ago. Who's saying anything to the contrary other than having a slightly different view on the percentage of state and privately owned assets? What do you want and what is the relevance of any of this to "populism"? You seem to turn blind to things which don't suit your narrative. You asked it Venezuela was socialist. I told that Venezuela was ruled by the socialist party who started nationalising industries almost two decades back. I don't have data on how many businesses were yet to be nationalised. But it is a well known and accepted fact that most of the businesses were nationalised and every industry they nationalised started performing poorly. Land is a natural resource. Should we remove land ownership completely? Capitalism has its flaws. But overall, it has been good for the human race. And it is a much much better model than socialism. Try reading Sapiens by Yuval Noah. Unemployment and poverty still exist. But the standard of living of poor people has considerably improved from what it was before capitalism to what it is now. Capitalism is not doom and gloom as most left wing media makes it out to be. Socialist and communist philosophy is to nationalise industries. Corruption and nepotism are side effects of it. And yes. A state where all people should behave selflessly will fail. Humans are selfish. You are selfish At anytime we will want to safeguard ourselves and our own families over than others. If you are given a choice between your life and another person you have never met in life, you will choose your life. That's a biological fact. Socialism tries to suppress it. Capitalism exploits that selfishness. As you cannot get people to work selflessly, all socialist regimes eventually turn totalitarian. Stalin knew this. He used his army to enforce it. Gorbachev thought otherwise and the Soviet fell apart. Soviet Russia is not an extreme side of socialism. That is the only practical way to implement socialism. This is something which many young armchair socialists and communists fail to grab. Capitalism will go bad if it is totally unregulated. That is one of the reasons why we are facing the climate crisis. Another problem is monopoly. These two problems are easy to solve compared to socialism which has been proven wrong in its fundamental theory itself. So capitalism is bad if it is unregulated and goes extreme. Socialism is bad even its default form. Socialism can possibly work far in the future when we have abundant resources for population and each and every single job is automated. Ironically, you want capitalism to achieve that. So for now, we have to stick with capitalism. But countries can do better with regulations. Unrestricted free speech is already there in many western countries. Did all their societies collapse? Censorship is not a solution to racism. It only makes the problem worse. I have a bunch of friends with whom I make so many offensive jokes. None of them cared about it. Why should I care about what some PC brigade lunatics think is right and wrong, before I talk every word with my friend? You will never understand the importance of free speech till you actually lose it. What does it all have to do with populism? We have to do away with populism. But we have to choose a pro capitalist party. Not a socialist party that thinks nationalisation of industries is a solution to the problems. Unfortunately most left wing parties have created some sort of pro-socialist image around them. Is it true or not? I don't know. But that is what people seem to think. So you are demonstrating my inability to "turn blind to things that do not suit" my narrative by ignoring all of the points that make you have to address the weakness in your argument? I do not support communism, which is the communal ownership of property that you are so concerned about any more than I would advocate an unfettered capitalist economy. You do understand that, right? You seem to only have a problem with one end of the spectrum. I don't like either. Socialism can take any range of options from largely market-led to largely state owned. Ultimately the success of any political and economic system is based on the rule of law. no corruption. If that fails then you do not have a functioning state whatever its organisation. The whole basis of this discussion is that Venezuela demonstrates the consequence of socialism. "I don't have data on how many businesses were yet to be nationalised. But it is a well known and accepted fact that most of the businesses were nationalised" You have literally said that you have no idea that what you are saying is true but you are arguing it anyway because it is apparently "well known and well accepted" even though it isn't! Regardless of that, Venezuela was in no way functioning as any state should let alone a socialist one. It's a failed state. not because it is "socialist" but because it is corrupt and incompetently run. Is Russia, in comparison, an acceptable capitalist nation? What about Zimbabwe? Norway's national resources, specifically oil are state owned. How's that "socialist" state worked out? 41% of UK GDP is the state. Is that socialist? You then seem to have an entire other thread where you state (again free of any information) that "political correctness" inevitably leads to censorship, which it does not. You also seem to have no expectation thatcomplete free speech allows lies to be spread without check because your solution is to just not listen if you don' want to. So people denying climate change or anti-vaxers or people who advocate violence against minorities or women should just be left to it as there can be no consequences from this. Where is this mythical place where there is unrestricted free speech? You are plain wrong. There are limits to it everywhere. We do not "have" to do anything. That's what you have been arguing. We choose to do what we think is best for ourselves, our families, our community and preferably the planet as a whole not what you tell me that I should do. There is a bit of a contradiction in your advocacy of free shoice there. From a pure business perspective, companies where the workers have a stake in the company perform significantly better in the medium and long term than companies where they have no stake. How does that work with your argument?" I will add more clarification to Norway and Venezuela situation. When people say Norway nationalised its oil, it doesn't mean that the industry is run by government. The Norwegian government owns the oil resources and it gives license to other companies. There are private oil companies in Norway. But there is one company named Statoil in which Norway government holds major stakes. So Norway nationalised its resources as it is a natural resource that is limited. It did not nationalise the companies which refine oil. They just regulated them by having ownership of resources. Any country that depends on oil is prone to a big economic downfall when the oil prices go down. This is the reason why it is important that other industries in these countries should flourish so that they can survive even when oil prices are down. Norway was shrewd. When the oil companies run based on free market, they obviously will produce a lot of profit when oil prices are up. Norway used the profit it made, and made very good foreign investments which will give them money to run the country even if oil prices are down. So Norway is not even an example you can use for success of nationalisation of socialism. It uses capitalism to make money. But all armchair socialists seem to believe the propoganda that Norway has got it right by nationalising their oil industry when the truth is far from it. Compare it with Venezuela. Their oil industry was completely nationalised. Obviously they did not make that much profit when things were good for them. Even the money they made out if it was not invested properly. If agriculture and other important industries were allowed to function on free market, at least they would have helped the economy during bad times. But no. They messed them up too by nationalising it. So, nationalising industries is a major cause for economic downfall of Venezuela. And Norway is not really an example for success of nationalising industries. | |||
