Socialism

[Andy Moynihan]

LOL I thought the saying was 'you are only as old as the person you feel'.

Young people should be idealistic and not old fogies in a young skin.
We should also bear in mind that while the 'oldies' make the decisions it's the young that are dying and being maimed as a result of them. You don't have the old soldiers out there fighting the battles and as the OP is going to be putting his life on the line for his country (and the oldies) I think he deserves more respect for his views even if you don't agree with them. After all isn't it freedom, free speech and democracy he'll be fighting for?

I don't think it's necessarily disrespect that's intended, it's just the knee jerk of "I was there and thought similarly, and that's what makes me say this now" type of thing and that has a certain....well....CERTAINness about it that can be taken as down-talk by someone who doesn't see it.

 

[Tez3]

oh Tez, again with the sly insults. typical of you

Moi?
Insults are in the eye of the reader my dear.

 

[Sukerkin]

It's hard to know what to say on that last little exchange. After all, we, as a board are committed to reducing the amount of uselessly combative 'speach' that can go on.

The big "But" tho' is to also consider triggers that cause such events.

When I find myself targeted for such things my automatic reaction is to review the 'history' and see if I did anything to bring it about. Sometimes the answer is "Yes", sometimes it is "No".

In the "No" cases, the best thing, assuming a member doesn't want to go 'official' about it, is to talk via PM and find out the 'why' of things. Spilling it into threads is not the best way.

Extreme views, regularly posted, wear on the resilience of people who do not agree with them. So if a person espouses such views, then said poster might expect a little 'payback' every now and again.

A thick skin may help deflect some of that and it's not good for that to happen but it is human nature ... and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else (tho' I try my best to keep my fingers quiet when I get really wound up).

The most beneficial solution is for posters to recognise that what they're about to post is inflammatory and, if it serves no purpose other than to advertise their ideology one-more-time, then it need not be posted.

Then again, I am somewhat stereotypically English ...

 

[Tez3]

The comment about the young having an excuse was merely a comment, it was neither an insult nor an snipe at anyone, it was just a comment. A light hearted one at that.

 

[Sukerkin]

:tup: Good to know, Irene. It goes to show what I rambled on about earlier i.e. the Net is a terrible place to air views and try to banter.

EDIT: Unless you're on the same 'wavelength' as your protagonist of course.

 

[Tez3]

:tup: Good to know, Irene. It goes to show what I rambled on about earlier i.e. the Net is a terrible place to air views and try to banter.

EDIT: Unless you're on the same 'wavelength' as your protagonist of course.

Well it was getting a tad heavy so I thought one of those nice English throwaway comments we make over our tea and scones would be nice, you know the sort with the arched eyebrow and the slight sniff just before one says "more tea vicar?"

 

[CuongNhuka]

Fascism can be more properly called Corporatism. Calling historical communisit powers fascist is not neccessarily true.

OK, I'll give you this. But it still not Socialism/Communism.

"Democracy is the Road to Socialism" - Karl Marx

"Democracy is as vital to Communism as blood is to the human body" - Lenin.

One would need to make those corporations elected for it to be truelly a Socialistic system.

Last time I'm saying this, There are no Communistic States.
"There cannot be a Communist State or Country. Why you may ask? Because Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism. To say that the USSR was a Communistic country is to say that there can be an Arachicial country. It's an Oxymoron. But then, why do we call these States Communistic? Because they claim to be, and that automatically makes it true, even if what they are is the exact opposite of what they claim to be. For instance, I'm the Pope. That makes it true using the same logic." - My Socialist teacher.

 

[Tez3]

Did I mention the tea had a hefty swig of gin in it?

I have a suspicion the tea parties over and we really all should be saying our goodbyes on this thread lol!

:uhoh: :uhyeah:

 

[Twin Fist]

Moi?
Insults are in the eye of the reader my dear.

whatever, i have seen you do the same thing, more times than i care to remember

I do give you credit tho, you are so very good at skating the line with the rules around here.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Did I mention the tea had a hefty swig of gin in it?

I have a suspicion the tea parties over and we really all should be saying our goodbyes on this thread lol!

:uhoh: :uhyeah:

So, Tez, I'm curious... what party are you affiliated with?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

OK, I'll give you this. But it still not Socialism/Communism.

"Democracy is the Road to Socialism" - Karl Marx

"Democracy is as vital to Communism as blood is to the human body" - Lenin.

One would need to make those corporations elected for it to be truelly a Socialistic system.

Last time I'm saying this, There are no Communistic States.
"There cannot be a Communist State or Country. Why you may ask? Because Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism. To say that the USSR was a Communistic country is to say that there can be an Arachicial country. It's an Oxymoron. But then, why do we call these States Communistic? Because they claim to be, and that automatically makes it true, even if what they are is the exact opposite of what they claim to be. For instance, I'm the Pope. That makes it true using the same logic." - My Socialist teacher.

I think you, and your teacher, are misunderstanding one thing. You can have a communistic oligarchy or dictatorship. The overriding question is whether the oligarchs or dictators remains true to the communistic philosophy.

Do not confuse the bureacracy of the government with the philosophy. Here is what I mean based on your perspective:

Actually there are alot of cultures that use Marx's idea of a Communistic state. We just don't recoginize them as independent states, or Communists. Name an isolated or semi-isolated culture, an old-school tribe living in the middle of Africa or South America. They live in a Classless, Stateless society were everyone works together (mostly anyways).

These groups still have a “government”. Just, as you say, not one htat we recognize. Whether they have an elder or tribal counsel, there is still a heirarcal structure, or government.

 

[Big Don]

Human nature is constant regardless of the economic system.

Yes, but, human nature being what it is, economic systems, that depend on universal altruism, like communism and socialism are doomed before they begin.

 

[Big Don]

Did I mention the tea had a hefty swig of gin in it?



:uhoh: :uhyeah:

Uh, really? that seems like a bad combination...

 

[Tez3]

So, Tez, I'm curious... what party are you affiliated with?

None, we tend not to join parties here. I'm liberal with a small l as in the old tradition of thinking people should be free to do and say what they wish with the proviso it doesn't harm or hurt anyone else. Liberals were around long before communism or socialism were even dreamed of. As I said earlier Winston Churchill was a Liberal and held several high positions in the Liberal Government. He changed parties and became a Tory but the two parties aren't that far apart in beliefs. The Labour Party over here is the Socialist party not the Liberals.

 

[Mr G]

Did I mention the tea had a hefty swig of gin in it?

I have a suspicion the tea parties over and we really all should be saying our goodbyes on this thread lol!

:uhoh: :uhyeah:

Goodbye
(Anyone free for a drink?)

 

[Twin Fist]

never seen the appeal of gin.........or socialism

 

[Tez3]

never seen the appeal of gin.........or socialism

Depends what gin you have and what you have as a mixer, it can be very pleasant as an aperitif.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I think you, and your teacher, are misunderstanding one thing. You can have a communistic oligarchy or dictatorship. The overriding question is whether the oligarchs or dictators remains true to the communistic philosophy.

Do not confuse the bureacracy of the government with the philosophy. Here is what I mean based on your perspective:



These groups still have a “government”. Just, as you say, not one htat we recognize. Whether they have an elder or tribal counsel, there is still a heirarcal structure, or government.

A true Communistic Government (if one were to exist) would be ligitmate, meaning not a dictatorial. Again, "Democracy is as essential to Communism as blood is to the Body." Those tribal governements may or may not be in some form Democractic. However, because the rulers are close to the ruled (like neighbors), they are still very much answerable to the people. That makes them (atleast somewhat) Democratic, whereas a Dictatorship is in no way Democratic, because they are not answerable to the people.

 

[Marginal]

Yes, but, human nature being what it is, economic systems, that depend on universal altruism, like communism and socialism are doomed before they begin.

They all do.

With Communism, you have power too tightly consolidated in the state, and you have people in factories that don't care if they make a single widget cause they get the same allocation of gruel as the next guy etc, but stuff like trusting in businesses to self govern properly, not pollute 'cause it's cheaper, and so on out of the fear that people won't buy their products anymore is equally nuts.

 

[Sukerkin]

Which is why a Mixed Economy is best, like we used to have here before we eviscerated industry and privatised everything that should run for the public good.