Loki Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 I just don't think we're that country any more. Basic standards of living are at a level now where not enough people ever end up "uncomfortable" to group together and make a fuss. And by uncomfortable I mean starving to death on the streets, not having to cut back on their Sky subscriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted August 20, 2010 Author Share Posted August 20, 2010 I just don't think we're that country any more. Basic standards of living are at a level now where not enough people ever end up "uncomfortable" to group together and make a fuss. And by uncomfortable I mean starving to death on the streets, not having to cut back on their Sky subscriptions. A few years ago I would have been inclined to agree with you, Loki. Â I think some people are vastly underestimating the effect that these cuts are going to have on the working classes in this country though. When they actually start to take effect a Sky subscription will be the last thing on their minds. Â To be honest, something like this is actually a bit of a coup for anyone who thought that Socialism was pretty much dead in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 When useful people start marching the street and demanding change my opinion on the matter will change. Â Socialism has been coughing up blood for decades. Time will tell if there is life in the inferior system yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiralTap Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Coming from a semi-educated point of view; Socialism seems the better of the 2, however if I were a high paid proffessional I might disagree. Â Is it just me or does anyone else default to a Russian accent when reading the arguments for communism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Strange, I voted for "unsure" but my voted counted for "Socialism"! Â IMO, neither in its purest form is the best. Nearly every country in the world practices some form of mixed economy. One of the problems is that both "Capitalism" and "Socialism" is distorted by both supporters and detractors. Â I'm too tired to write a long post about it, but in general I believe a society needs a combination of individual and combined/communal efforts to reach its goals for the betterment of everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 Perhaps not entirely on-topic, but I thought this would be as good a place to post this as any;  Former miners' leader Arthur Scargill has been told he is being expelled from the National Union of Mineworkers.  Mr Scargill, who led the union through a bitter, year-long strike over pit closures in the 1980s, is among a number of people who have received letters saying they no longer qualify for membership.  Mr Scargill, the union's former president, has told friends he intends to fight the move,  He retained an honorary position within the NUM after standing down as a full-time official and has been engaged in work for the union.  Ken Capstick, who has worked for the union for 30 years and currently edits its Miner magazine, has also been told he is being expelled.  "We have been told that the reason we are being expelled is that we don't qualify under the union's rules," Mr Capstick told the Press Association.  "A number of us have been raising claims of financial irregularity in the union and I believe we are now being subjected to a witch-hunt because of this.  "We will definitely challenge this decision, which has been made on extremely spurious grounds." Source: The Independent  Now, whilst i'm certainly not a fan of the way Scargill decided to run things with the Socialist Labour Party after their split from the Labour party itself during the 90's, I think this is simply disgraceful.  Strange, I voted for "unsure" but my voted counted for "Socialism"! I rigged the poll, just to add a bit of capitalistic democracy to events Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Voted unsure but I'm a more of a neither. It's plainly clear neither work. Â We don't have capitalism in this country, in it's truest sense. If the banks were falling then they would have fallen instead of state intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted August 30, 2010 Author Share Posted August 30, 2010 Voted unsure but I'm a more of a neither. It's plainly clear neither work. Duane, have a look at this online book. Â It answers quite a few questions that someone such as yourself may have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Thanks, I'll have a butchers. Â I used to have myself down as a socialist, voted Socialist Labour, in last year's European Poll and was a paid up member of the Cuban solidarity campaign for a while. I guess it's also important to know the difference between Socialism and Communism. The problem is when it goes to a state's political system goes to an extreme and takes away the individual's freedoms. Â Fundamentally the most important things to me are truth, freedom and justice. Those 3 all tie in together. Trade unions might be for the workers but the people at the top could be corrupt. Â EDIT: Â In theory the idea of economic equality sounds good but it restricts freedom if everyone is only allowed a certain amount of financial wealth. Measures to help the less well off is fantastic. I'm all for the well fair state, although many abuse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 3, 2010 Author Share Posted September 3, 2010 In theory the idea of economic equality sounds good but it restricts freedom if everyone is only allowed a certain amount of financial wealth. And having something like 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the population doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 In theory the idea of economic equality sounds good but it restricts freedom if everyone is only allowed a certain amount of financial wealth. And having something like 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the population doesn't? Only if there's something other than laziness and thickness keeping people out of the 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 3, 2010 Author Share Posted September 3, 2010 Only if there's something other than laziness and thickness keeping people out of the 20%. Yeah, that'll be the reason why. Â You really should stick to the on-topic section mate. When it comes to something other than waxed men in their underwear, you really do know next to nothing it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 If all the money in the UK was evenly distributed, and all products and services unbiased [i.E/ company owners etcetera not at immediate advantage due to products required by others etc], does anyone actually doubt that within a few years it will be exactly the same?, or roughly at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 3, 2010 Author Share Posted September 3, 2010 If all the money in the UK was evenly distributed, and all products and services unbiased [i.E/ company owners etcetera not at immediate advantage due to products required by others etc], does anyone actually doubt that within a few years it will be exactly the same?, or roughly at the very least. Perhaps. Â But it certainly couldn't be any worse than it is just now, could it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimufctna24 Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 In theory the idea of economic equality sounds good but it restricts freedom if everyone is only allowed a certain amount of financial wealth. And having something like 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the population doesn't? Only if there's something other than laziness and thickness keeping people out of the 20%. I dont think its thats simple dude  Some people dont get the oppurtunitys others do, im pretty lucky being lower middle class I can manage to go to Uni and follow a career I want to do, other people dont have the resouces or chances that I have  The discrepancy between the rich and poor is absurd, its worse in America and Brazil and sooner or later if the gap becomes bigger with the smallest amount becoming richer and the grand percentage becoming even poorer, a social uprising could happen, im not saying a civil war or anything but more strikes in streets and people just saying enough is enough and bringing the country to a stand still, its happened on a small scale all ready with the strikes against the war (which I wish I had gone on) and the postal strike 2 or 3 years ago, if people get pushed to far they will protest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.