Which political view is best for Britain?

[Jippz]

Socialism, communism, capitalism etc.

[Jordy]

I'm rather confused by the poll.

Capitalism & Socialism are pretty much economic systems meanwhile Communism & Democracy are forms of government to an extent.

No brainer really, Capitalism is the only system which works, it's not perfect but there's nothing which is anywhere near as good. Democracy obviously works well as it's served the West very well for centuries and Communism is clearly a failure, just look at the Soviet Union.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree with Jordy, the options don't really make sense together. Socialism is and always has been a failure and is basically the same as communism, conservatism works socially and conservatism and liberalism work within capitalism. The failures of socialism have cost millions of lives and it is, in my opinion, the worst form of government possible.

[Jippz]

My apologies, i meant to make it multiple choice.

Just vote on whichever one you think is most important in the salvation of the country.

Merged by Luccy. (Forum Moderator): Please don't double post within the 15 minute edit time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We mean as in the options you have given, some conflict with others whilst others are left off. There are so many forms/mixes of political systems it can be hard to structure a poll like this, however i'd label myself as Thatcherite, Conservative, Liberal, Capitalist & Populist as my main ones. :)

Capitalism basically is democracy, capitalism allows people do set up business without government interference, and allows people to have freedom whereas socialism cripples the economy, criminalises the people and basically fails as it has in North Korea, former USSR, PROC under Chairman Mao and the United Kingdom in the 1970s. The idea of socialism sound fantastic to some, however the only thing socialism has done and will always do it spread around poverty, rather than eradicating it.

[Technologic]

They're not views, they're systems.


And none of them work.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They're not views, they're systems.


And none of them work.

Capitalism works, although not perfect it creates a system where you have to work for what you want, and you can set up your own enterprise and employ your own staff, create your own products which in turn creates a diverse economy.

Downturns in capitalism are needed in an economic system, collapse of growth provides a wealth melting pot which, by the time the next boom comes, more and different people are able to take advantage of it. The boom after this recession in another ten or so years will be even greater than the last boom, however after that boom as it reaches its peak it will collapse again, as is needed.

In economics if the incentive/ability to create profit isnt there, it won't work;- hence why socialism doesnt work.

[ifuseekamy]

I don't think you can mix economic systems with political systems, it's too oversimplified. Extreme systems, left/ring/up/down, never work. Countries like China have gone from feudalism to communism and proven that they don't work.

[Jippz]

They're not views, they're systems.


And none of them work.

Good point.
I'd say that socialism and communism are ideal, however in the words of Susan Sarandon "we don't live in that kind of a world".
Anything conservative, thatcherite, or remotely right wing in my opinion is too mediocre, and too much settling for minimum.

Isn't it better to stop a rich man from living in luxury, than to stop a more man from living?

The only way David Cameron is getting to power is by pointing out labour's faults. That's all well and good, but how can he prove he's going to do better?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Good point.
I'd say that socialism and communism are ideal, however in the words of Susan Sarandon "we don't live in that kind of a world".
Anything conservative, thatcherite, or remotely right wing in my opinion is too mediocre, and too much settling for minimum.

Isn't it better to stop a rich man from living in luxury, than to stop a more man from living?

The only way David Cameron is getting to power is by pointing out labour's faults. That's all well and good, but how can he prove he's going to do better?

It is not as simple as the point you made about a man living in luxury and a man living in poverty, hence why they (socialist states) have all failed and will continue to fail. If a man works for his luxury, its his luxary - its simple as that; no government has any right to take away that right from him.

The Conservatives have said what they are going to do, he cant prove anything unless hes in a position on power, however we can look back at history and look at 1979 under Labour and the state of the economy when the Conservatives left office in 1997.

Twice now Labour have let our economy go to ruin and failed to act to stop spiralling debt, it is now up to the Conservatives again to save us, lets just hope David Cameron succeeds.

[Jippz]

1 word:
Forehead.

[ifuseekamy]

Communism sounds good in theory because it's an idealistic utopia, like most political extremes.

[Jordy]

Good point.
I'd say that socialism and communism are ideal, however in the words of Susan Sarandon "we don't live in that kind of a world".
Anything conservative, thatcherite, or remotely right wing in my opinion is too mediocre, and too much settling for minimum.

Isn't it better to stop a rich man from living in luxury, than to stop a more man from living?

The only way David Cameron is getting to power is by pointing out labour's faults. That's all well and good, but how can he prove he's going to do better?It's all just ideologies, communism and socialism are perfect on paper but in reality, it's clear to see it doesn't work.

I'm afraid David Cameron doesn't need to prove he's better and come out with many policies, for a very long time, politics in Britain have just been the opposition party getting in once the public gets sick of the party in government. Rarely does it ever come down to things like "Policies". Michael Howard was the one with decent policies and look where that got him :P

[Jippz]

It's all just ideologies, communism and socialism are perfect on paper but in reality, it's clear to see it doesn't work.

I'm afraid David Cameron doesn't need to prove he's better and come out with many policies, for a very long time, politics in Britain have just been the opposition party getting in once the public gets sick of the party in government. Rarely does it ever come down to things like "Policies". Michael Howard was the one with decent policies and look where that got him :P
Yeah i completely agree. But I have to put these points forward, because i despise conservative. I couldn't vote for labour though because they are screwing things up. If i was old enough i'd vote socialist labour.
"My greatest achievement was new labour" - Margaret Thatcher

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah i completely agree. But I have to put these points forward, because i despise conservative. I couldn't vote for labour though because they are screwing things up. If i was old enough i'd vote socialist labour.
"My greatest achievement was new labour" - Margaret Thatcher

Why do you despise the conservativism yet support dangerous socialism may I ask?;- they saved the country from collapse under socialism which was rooting itself in our country. That probably was her greatest achievement, she destroyed socialism so much that Labour had to basically drop all of its core values to even seem electable.

[LuketheDuke]

Capitalisms a good system? Really? Hasnt this recession made people see what corruption it can lead to?

Socialisms given us the NHS and the opportunity for kids from working class backgrounds to go to Uni with funded support.

Both seem good ideas but power hungry morons twist the ideal into something its not. Blame the politicians not the concepts!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Capitalisms a good system? Really? Hasnt this recession made people see what corruption it can lead to?

Socialisms given us the NHS and the opportunity for kids from working class backgrounds to go to Uni with funded support.

Both seem good ideas but power hungry morons twist the ideal into something its not. Blame the politicians not the concepts!

I have explained why collapse is needed for new growth, for growth you need something to stimulate that growth, prices cannot rise forever otherwise currency losses its value. Corruption is more rife in socialist countrys, USSR, North Korea - look at the state of them, millions starved. The only good thing that 'socialism' produced was the NHS however i'd far rather have all the millions who died under socialism still alive than the NHS. You don't realise how lucky you are to live in a country like this compared to a socialist country.

In the words of Margaret Thatcher, would you rather the poor be poorer?

That is what socialism is, it doesnt work, never will and it is dead. We had a taste of socialism in this country in the 1970s, it led to power cuts, the United Kingdom losing influence, the economy in crisis, the country having to go to the IMF to beg for an emergency bailout, the unelected unions controlling the elected government, militantism like we saw in my home city of Liverpool. The country was crippled, more so than at any other point in its history.

[StefanWolves]

I have explained why collapse is needed for new growth, for growth you need something to stimulate that growth, prices cannot rise forever otherwise currency losses its value. Corruption is more rife in socialist countrys, USSR, North Korea - look at the state of them, millions starved. The only good thing that 'socialism' produced was the NHS however i'd far rather have all the millions who died under socialism still alive than the NHS. You don't realise how lucky you are to live in a country like this compared to a socialist country.

In the words of Margaret Thatcher, would you rather the poor be poorer?

That is what socialism is, it doesnt work, never will and it is dead. We had a taste of socialism in this country in the 1970s, it led to power cuts, the United Kingdom losing influence, the economy in crisis, the country having to go to the IMF to beg for an emergency bailout, the unelected unions controlling the elected government, militantism like we saw in my home city of Liverpool. The country was crippled, more so than at any other point in it
s history.

gosh.

stop turning every god damn thread into another god damned argument, this thread isn't about margret pissin thatcher lol.

anyway on topic, all this political stuff aside it's obviously democracy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

gosh.

stop turning every god damn thread into another god damned argument, this thread isn't about margret pissin thatcher lol.

anyway on topic, all this political stuff aside it's obviously democracy.

You are the one asking for a debate as you wanted in the last thread hence why your trying to lure me int again right now, as for my post and the subject itself; it has everything to do with Margaret Thatcher and history, as we are discussing political systems. The 1970s to 1980s were a battle between socialism and capitalism in the United Kingdom so it has everything to do with the topic. Luke made the point about the recession, I explained it - thats the whole point of a forum, to discuss and debate.

[StefanWolves]

You are the one asking for a debate as you wanted in the last thread hence why your trying to lure me int again right now, as for my post and the subject itself; it has everything to do with Margaret Thatcher and history, as we are discussing political systems. The 1970s to 1980s were a battle between socialism and capitalism in the United Kingdom so it has everything to do with the topic. Luke made the point about the recession, I explained it - thats the whole point of a forum, to discuss and debate.

you dont discuss and debate, you try to ram untrue facts and crap that people arent bothered about down peoples throats.

the sooner you learn that you can't brainwash people, the better.

and the true fact is that i can't be bothered to read half of your posts, i read the first line and think oh god i can't be bothered reading this bull, you make it perfectly clear what you're saying in the first line but then you try and back it up with complete and utter nonsense.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you dont discuss and debate, you try to ram untrue facts and crap that people arent bothered about down peoples throats.

the sooner you learn that you can't brainwash people, the better.

You are still at it, you have not once attempted to prove my argument wrong and when I ask why not, you carry on mumbling on the same "you make up stuff" - prove it then. You are looking for an argument yet have nothing to argue about.

That is the differnce between people like alexxxx, LukeTheDuke and you. They will say what they think and get their point across whereas you have nothing decent at all to say and seem determined to 'own' me over a habbo forum, when you have no idea about the orginal subject at hand hence why you are so reluctant to debate properly.

This thread is worth a read; http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=592294

[StefanWolves]

I think that thread is aimed at you mate, cough cough.

And I don't need to back up my OPINIONS, do I? no, I don't, my opinion of you would result in me probably being banned off the forum, so I'd rather keep it to myself.

Your constant arguing annoys the hell out of people in this forum, you're constantly on about the cons and thatcher, but you actually support ukip? make your mind up? not that annyone gives two flying ..... anyway.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Ciao.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think that thread is aimed at you mate, cough cough.

And I don't need to back up my OPINIONS, do I? no, I don't, my opinion of you would result in me probably being banned off the forum, so I'd rather keep it to myself.

Your constant arguing annoys the hell out of people in this forum, you're constantly on about the cons and thatcher, but you actually support ukip? make your mind up? not that annyone gives two flying ..... anyway.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Ciao.


So when I enter this forum do I automatically need to come pre-loaded with evidence of everything I say? I may not know a fat lot about politics, but like everything else, it is mostly based on opinion, and again, I don't need to back up my opinions with evidence.

If only you knew.

See ya dude.

I know it wasn't, as I wasn't the one who went totally off topic in regards to the last thread. Yes you do need opinions in threads like these if you are going to ridicule other members posts, otherwise your so called verdict of my posts is worthless, as they have all been so far. You have not once been able to enter any political debate/historical debate with an ounce of evidence for your opinion, infact you haven't even shown what your views are, yet you carry on a tirade against my posts, calling them rubbish.

To what you said on my opinion on the political partys, UKIP is thatcherism and the Conservatives are a more watered down version, I can support any number of partys I want and do not have to agree with every single thing that party says, anywho since when did you decide how many political stances I can have? - your right, nobody does care so why do you keep bringing it up?

You just destoyed your own point, you say I don't back my argument up (despite the fact I do) yet you have just said yourself (which I have kindly highlighted for your reading) that you don't need to back up your side because "like everything else, it is opinion", hypocrisy at its worst.

I just asked you to explain why you disagree with my views, you failed and continue to refuse to enter a proper and decent discussion; adios my friend and thats all I have to say on the matter.

[StefanWolves]

So when I enter this forum do I automatically need to come pre-loaded with evidence of everything I say? I may not know a fat lot about politics, but like everything else, it is mostly based on opinion, and again, I don't need to back up my opinions with evidence.

If only you knew.

See ya dude.


Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: I would be greatful if this thread could keep on-topic or it will be closed. Thanks.

[Jippz]

You are the one asking for a debate as you wanted in the last thread hence why your trying to lure me int again right now, as for my post and the subject itself; it has everything to do with Margaret Thatcher and history, as we are discussing political systems. The 1970s to 1980s were a battle between socialism and capitalism in the United Kingdom so it has everything to do with the topic. Luke made the point about the recession, I explained it - thats the whole point of a forum, to discuss and debate.

No i agree with wolf, you're putting your points across and we're putting forward ours. However you seem to get very vicious every time somebody says something you don't agree with. You make good points but in an immature fashion...:P.

[Jippz]

+rep wolf :)

Anyway on another note, you keep pressing forward the same point but not explaining. Give me an example of a way that socialism has killed, in western culture.

Edited by :Mobile (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not multiple post within the 15 minutes editing time.

[StefanWolves]

haha, thanks Jippz. ;)

Were are the same wave length!

+rep :)

[GommeInc]

Nothing like good old fashioned Gommunism :P

Capitalism is possibly the only working setup, because it doesn't really target people the same way as communism etc. (hard to explain, sort of like freedom but with obvious restraints). It's a very odd discussion though, very restrictive :P There's alot governments can learn from each of them and possibly make a sort of pseudo version made up of a mixture of each system.

[Jippz]

Yeah, in the last decade or so politicians seem to of settled for what creates less work for them. HA and look where that Golden Brown.

[Jippz]

You are still at it, you have not once attempted to prove my argument wrong and when I ask why not, you carry on mumbling on the same "you make up stuff" - prove it then. You are looking for an argument yet have nothing to argue about.

That is the differnce between people like alexxxx, LukeTheDuke and you. They will say what they think and get their point across whereas you have nothing decent at all to say and seem determined to 'own' me over a habbo forum, when you have no idea about the orginal subject at hand hence why you are so reluctant to debate properly.

This thread is worth a read; http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=592294

Undertaker you realise the irony of EVERYTHING you've said right?

Edited by :Mobile (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not multiple post during the 15 minutes editing time.

[Mickword]

LETS ALL JUST SAY COMMYS!

not thats i like them just lets say it!

[LuketheDuke]

so the economys just shrunk the most its done since the 1950's yet a weak strain of socialism that fell on hard times in 70's is all of a sudden worse.

and you mention unions controlling governments but look at the number of quangos who influence political policy who neither thatcher, major, blair or brown have regulated. Their the sort of organisations who have twisted the arms of politicians to not regulate our greedy, short sighted banks who have caused this mess and are now costing tax payers massive sums to pay for the damage they caused.

[Jippz]

so the economys just shrunk the most its done since the 1950's yet a weak strain of socialism that fell on hard times in 70's is all of a sudden worse.

and you mention unions controlling governments but look at the number of quangos who influence political policy who neither thatcher, major, blair or brown have regulated. Their the sort of organisations who have twisted the arms of politicians to not regulate our greedy, short sighted banks who have caused this mess and are now costing tax payers massive sums to pay for the damage they caused.

What he said.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah, in the last decade or so politicians seem to of settled for what creates less work for them. HA and look where that Golden Brown.

Care to give us an example?


No i agree with wolf, you're putting your points across and we're putting forward ours. However you seem to get very vicious every time somebody says something you don't agree with. You make good points but in an immature fashion...:P.

I am not being vicious at all, i'm merely discussing it. If discussing something is being vicious or questioning people on why they think socialism would work is vicious, then yes I am vicious. I am not the one being immature, I have asked Wolf time and time again that if he thinks my points are a load of rubbish, him to put some decent points across - he refuses to do so each time.


+rep wolf :)

Anyway on another note, you keep pressing forward the same point but not explaining. Give me an example of a way that socialism has killed, in western culture.

Hang on, the west is capitalist so no I cannot give a proper example of how socialism has killed people in the west, as the west has never been socialist. I can point to the near socialist state the United Kingdom was in in the 1970s and point to the mass poverty at that time.

Socialism has killed millions in socialist countrys, namely the Soivet Union, North Korea, Cuba and the Peoples Republic of China so I have indeed backed my side up, and none of you seem to be able to give me a reply to this.


Nothing like good old fashioned Gommunism :P

Capitalism is possibly the only working setup, because it doesn't really target people the same way as communism etc. (hard to explain, sort of like freedom but with obvious restraints). It's a very odd discussion though, very restrictive :P There's alot governments can learn from each of them and possibly make a sort of pseudo version made up of a mixture of each system.

Government interference as socialism proves does nothing good, it hampers the economy (USSR, Cuba, PROC under Mao, UK in 1970s etc) and when applied socially, creates a aura of a dictatorship because the state is the people in socialism, its like the chinese army is called Peoples Liberty Army or something, yet was deployed against the people during the Tianman Square unrest.

It uses the argument that big business is in control, yet all socialism is is a far more extreme version of control, its like Lenin and Stalin - so called champions of the people yet ruined the economies of Russia and the east and lived in palaces and eat large state dinners while their own people died. It is the same with Tony Blair and the Kinnocks, so called socialists yet own vast property empires and accept large pay sums from their jobs, along with their vast pension packets.


Undertaker you realise the irony of EVERYTHING you've said right?

I am explaining, you are now taking the same tone as Wolf is. You start putting your point across and we shall discuss it, I am waiting.


so the economys just shrunk the most its done since the 1950's yet a weak strain of socialism that fell on hard times in 70's is all of a sudden worse.

and you mention unions controlling governments but look at the number of quangos who influence political policy who neither thatcher, major, blair or brown have regulated. Their the sort of organisations who have twisted the arms of politicians to not regulate our greedy, short sighted banks who have caused this mess and are now costing tax payers massive sums to pay for the damage they caused.

The economy is far larger now than it was years ago so the downturn will be worse, thats common sense. Business employs the people, thats why governments need to listen to business because without business you do not have an economy, in turn you do not have jobs, in turn your country is in chaos. The people themselves took out these loans from the banks, any normal person with any common sense would not take out a loan to go on holiday. It is not up to the banks or the government to tell people when to take out loans, if that person make personal error then they lose out its as simple as that.

Nationalisation does not work, as proved in the 1970s, how many more winter of discontents do we need before this message sinks in?

[LuketheDuke]

What on earth are you talking about? This recession has been caused by banks lending massive amounts of money from one another that they couldnt pay back. If they were regulated someone would have noticed this and intervened to avoid recession.

Holiday loans? What?:S If a bank just lost a hell of a lot of money and your savings were tied up in that bank would you trust it? Id get my cash out ASAP and put it under my bed.

And can you please stop going on about the winter of discontent. It was labelled that by our sensational media because people wanted more money and the government wouldnt give it to them. So what do you blame for that, Unions which you hate or Callaghan who you hate? You cant lump both into the same argument as that doesnt make sense.

We've had one "winter of discontent" so why are you saying how many we need as its happened only once. What I dont need is high tax rates, bankers running arife with big bonus' and the good jobs going to kids whove been to private schools. All of which are the result of a capitalist Britain.

It ordepends how the system works.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What on earth are you talking about? This recession has been caused by banks lending massive amounts of money from one another that they couldnt pay back. If they were regulated someone would have noticed this and intervened to avoid recession.

Holiday loans? What?:S If a bank just lost a hell of a lot of money and your savings were tied up in that bank would you trust it? Id get my cash out ASAP and put it under my bed.

And can you please stop going on about the winter of discontent. It was labelled that by our sensational media because people wanted more money and the government wouldnt give it to them. So what do you blame for that, Unions which you hate or Callaghan who you hate? You cant lump both into the same argument as that doesnt make sense.

We've had one "winter of discontent" so why are you saying how many we need as its happened only once. What I dont need is high tax rates, bankers running arife with big bonus' and the good jobs going to kids whove been to private schools. All of which are the result of a capitalist Britain.

It ordepends how the system works.

The banks also lent out very easy loans to people which also led to their collapse, hence why they appealed to the banks because the banks knew they probably would not be able to pay those loans back. Banking isn't a clean business, but like all business it exists to do one thing and one thing only, make money.

I would not no, the holiday loans point is nothing to do with that. I am using that as an example of how easy it was to secure loans from the banks back then. Whether or not the banks behave like this and operate like this is irrelvent, at some point or other the economy (regulated or not) will partially collapse - in a capitalist way, this allows new growth whereas in the socialist way new growth never appears, just look back, again, at the 1970s in the United Kingdom when we had to appeal to the IMF.

I will not stop going on about the winter of discontent as it is a vital point to the discussion, none of you seem to be able to explain this. Our darkest point in modern economic history and i'll continue to bring it up and explain it until you can come up with an answer to this. The winter of disconent was caused both by the Callaghan governments and the unions, the problem has slowly been growing since after the second world war. The unions controlled the Callgahan government and kept pushing for expensive pay rises, of which the country could not afford. The Labour Party was powerless against them as it has powerful union members within, and also was funded by the unions. If James Callgahan would of stood up to the unions, as Edward Heath attempted to - he would of been removed from office, its as simple as that - the unions had the government in a bear hug.

In the 1970s we had power cuts, business wouldn't open here because of high taxes, people had no money to spend due to high taxes, the government was in debt and spending money on failing industry such as the mines, whilst also funding the government owned industry. Government was over bloated at this point in time, it was in everything and that is why nobody would invest in this country.

This led to this cycle;

High government tax and regulation > no business would open/business was closing > people losing jobs > people could not find new jobs > less tax being paid to the government > taxes then have to rise elsewhere to fund that gaping hole > more business closes... it continued like that.

Indeed we only had one winter of discontent, at the point when the country was on the verge of becoming socialist, that exactly being my point; we never want to return to that stage again under socialism.

[Catzsy]

The banks also lent out very easy loans to people which also led to their collapse, hence why they appealed to the banks because the banks knew they probably would not be able to pay those loans back. Banking isn't a clean business, but like all business it exists to do one thing and one thing only, make money.

I would not no, the holiday loans point is nothing to do with that. I am using that as an example of how easy it was to secure loans from the banks back then. Whether or not the banks behave like this and operate like this is irrelvent, at some point or other the economy (regulated or not) will partially collapse - in a capitalist way, this allows new growth whereas in the socialist way new growth never appears, just look back, again, at the 1970s in the United Kingdom when we had to appeal to the IMF.

I will not stop going on about the winter of discontent as it is a vital point to the discussion, none of you seem to be able to explain this. Our darkest point in modern economic history and i'll continue to bring it up and explain it until you can come up with an answer to this. The winter of disconent was caused both by the Callaghan governments and the unions, the problem has slowly been growing since after the second world war. The unions controlled the Callgahan government and kept pushing for expensive pay rises, of which the country could not afford. The Labour Party was powerless against them as it has powerful union members within, and also was funded by the unions. If James Callgahan would of stood up to the unions, as Edward Heath attempted to - he would of been removed from office, its as simple as that - the unions had the government in a bear hug.

In the 1970s we had power cuts, business wouldn't open here because of high taxes, people had no money to spend due to high taxes, the government was in debt and spending money on failing industry such as the mines, whilst also funding the government owned industry. Government was over bloated at this point in time, it was in everything and that is why nobody would invest in this country.

This led to this cycle;

High government tax and regulation > no business would open/business was closing > people losing jobs > people could not find new jobs > less tax being paid to the government > taxes then have to rise elsewhere to fund that gaping hole > more business closes... it continued like that.

Indeed we only had one winter of discontent, at the point when the country was on the verge of becoming socialist, that exactly being my point; we never want to return to that stage again under socialism.


You seem to have conveniently forgotten the Poll Tax Riots and Black Wedneday here, Dan. :eusa_whis


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

[-:Undertaker:-]

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the Poll Tax Riots and Black Wedneday here, Dan. :eusa_whis


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

They were not economic disasters such as the winter of discontent, in both them situations we never had to appeal to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for an emergency bail out which is the worst scenario. The Poll Tax riots have nothing to do economics, infact if anything; they show up the true violent face of socialism.

The topic of the European Fixed Mechanism has nothing to do with the subject of capitalism vs socialism, but i'll explain it anyway. :)

The unions fell from being the main power behind government to being beaten by the party they hated most, they lost their power and the economy recovered. My own city of Liverpool was ravaged by militantism in the 1970s and 1970s, it destroyed our reputation.

The poll tax riots were mainly organised by the unions which by that time were stripped of their powers - is that anyway to behave over taxes? - Labour introduces more taxes than the Conservatives ever did & raises taxes more than the Conservatives ever did, yet no one is protesting about it because its Labour - I think that tells us a lot, if your confused about poll tax here is it simply explained;

Before Poll Tax
Before Poll Tax, say if I and a group of five friends were living in your house but you owned the house, you would pay all of the 'council tax' for us all. That would mean the householder paying for the people who lived within the house, despite all of us equally using council services such as roads, rubbish collections and so forth.

After Poll Tax
After Poll Tax, say if it was the same scenario. We would all pay our individual taxes, meaning the unfair burden lifted from the household owner.

Which is fair?

As for Black Wednesday it just proves why I am against the European Union, the Conservatives should never have joined any European economic joint venture, however the good news was that when the Conservatives left office in 1997 - the economy was in amazing shape and government debt was very very low. Just compare this to 1979 when the economy was on its knees and around now, because at this point in time when Labour leave office in 2009/2010 they will be leaving behind a massive pile of debt which means that yet again, the Conservatives will have to clear up the mess made by Labour.

[LuketheDuke]

lol the first points you made reinforces the point that the banks were irresponsibly lending and not moderating what they did as in their interests it meant money. You say economies fall and decline but arguably this recession seems to get worse and worse, there was drops in 2001 and thats natural but inflation and mass unemployment are a throw back to Thatcher and worse. It isnt normal, we've been screwed as a nation by our financial so called "elite" and I say we regulate what they do to make sure this doesnt happen again.

Winter of Discontent was argued on pay dispute and living standards, dont you think its something to be admired that ordinary people stood up for themselves and ensured their quality of life improved for themselves and for their families? Impacts like that have shaped the way we live to do this day so ykno good on 'em

Also I wonder what your cycle sounds like? Oh wait yea it sounds like whats going on now!!!

[-:Undertaker:-]

lol the first points you made reinforces the point that the banks were irresponsibly lending and not moderating what they did as in their interests it meant money. You say economies fall and decline and arguably this is recession seems to get worse and worse, there was drops in 2001 and thats natural but inflation and mass unemployment are a throw back to Thatcher and worse. It isnt normal, we've been screwed as a nation by our financial so called "elite" and I say we regulate what they do to make sure this doesnt happen again.

Winter of Discontent was argued on pay dispute and living standards, dont you think its something to be admired that ordinary people stood up for themselves and ensured their quality of life improved for themselves and for their families? Impacts like that have shaped the way we live to do this day so ykno good on 'em

Also I wonder what your cycle sounds like? Oh wait yea it sounds like whats going on now!!!

It was Margaret Thatcher who brought down inflation after Labour left office, Inflation in 1975 was its highest point in modern history under Labour, at a staggering 24.2% (http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conversion/). The 1980s saw inflation brought down by Thatcher and the Conservatives and the economy improved drastically, so much so that London became one of the leading financial capitals of the world.

As for the regulation, it will happen again. Regulated or not this will happen again, again, again and again and nothing can stop that. Boom and bust are the basics of capitalism and will forever be, i'd rather weather short downturns than be living in a socialist state such as North Korea where food is scare, or even in a scenario like 1970s Britain when we had power cuts.

I do admire the winter of discontent, it is what brought down the Labour government and the ultimate downfall of the unions, and thank god we had it. It is a shame we ever reached that stage thanks to socialism, we should never have got into that situation.

The cycle is similar to what is going on now except there is one big difference, government tax has not yet reached levels as it was back in the 1970s and this downturn is a global downturn which we have weathered before, whereas the winter of discontent was this countrys economy going under because of the socialist grip on government and economy.

[LuketheDuke]

Mm but the economys shrunk the most since it did in the 50's, people are saying this could be far the worst crisis thats ever happened financially.

Your just grinding some sort of axe with this socialism thing and I dont get it. You say you respect the Trade Unions who stuck up for ordinary workers then you say your glad they got destroyed. You hate Brown but for this arguments sake you choose to ignore the damage thats been inflicted on this country to back up some other point.

Why cant you just admit that no one checking these banks and their gogo attitudes has cost us all. This is ultimately a flaw with Capitalism.

[Jippz]

have any of you read the tory leaflets? All of them just use the techniques of the media and take what's on the publics mind to manipulate into saying "Yeah. Labour bad. Big mean men. Get out my government."
Then i read the labour local elections leaflet, and it tells me exactly what he supports and exactly what he has done. But mostly, what he will do. The tories do tell us what they are about, yes. But not on the leaflets. Not on the posters. Not on the tv. Not in the media AT ALL. They tell us their policies in the website, and expect us to know from common knowledge. We have to do the leg work to find out if they are any better than labour, and 90 percent of people aren't really too fussed to do that.

[ifuseekamy]

Labour are about as socialist as the Tories are neoliberalists. Britons want the best of both worlds so both parties are closer to being centrist parties than the respective left and right they are often portrayed as. Ultimately that is what you need. Socialism fails because it assumes people are robots who aren't greedy and are happy to stay in the same financial position their entire lives. Capitalism fails because it assumes everyone is wealthy enough to live comfortably and that all businesses will flourish without economic regulation.

Our system is far from perfect but it would be a lot worse if it was firmly left or right wing.

[Catzsy]

They were not economic disasters such as the winter of discontent, in both them situations we never had to appeal to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for an emergency bail out which is the worst scenario. The Poll Tax riots have nothing to do economics, infact if anything; they show up the true violent face of socialism.

The topic of the European Fixed Mechanism has nothing to do with the subject of capitalism vs socialism, but i'll explain it anyway. :)

The unions fell from being the main power behind government to being beaten by the party they hated most, they lost their power and the economy recovered. My own city of Liverpool was ravaged by militantism in the 1970s and 1970s, it destroyed our reputation.

The poll tax riots were mainly organised by the unions which by that time were stripped of their powers - is that anyway to behave over taxes? - Labour introduces more taxes than the Conservatives ever did & raises taxes more than the Conservatives ever did, yet no one is protesting about it because its Labour - I think that tells us a lot, if your confused about poll tax here is it simply explained;

Before Poll Tax
Before Poll Tax, say if I and a group of five friends were living in your house but you owned the house, you would pay all of the 'council tax' for us all. That would mean the householder paying for the people who lived within the house, despite all of us equally using council services such as roads, rubbish collections and so forth.

After Poll Tax
After Poll Tax, say if it was the same scenario. We would all pay our individual taxes, meaning the unfair burden lifted from the household owner.

Which is fair?

As for Black Wednesday it just proves why I am against the European Union, the Conservatives should never have joined any European economic joint venture, however the good news was that when the Conservatives left office in 1997 - the economy was in amazing shape and government debt was very very low. Just compare this to 1979 when the economy was on its knees and around now, because at this point in time when Labour leave office in 2009/2010 they will be leaving behind a massive pile of debt which means that yet again, the Conservatives will have to clear up the mess made by Labour.

I think you will find that Black Wednesday was the darkest hour of the British economy with the government having to withdraw the pound from the ERM and the IMF being brought in.

As far as the Poll tax goes it was most definitely not just the unions it was probably one of the biggest UK wide protests ever seen with the majority of the people of this country against it. It brought down Thatcher and left Major having to scrap it very soon after he came to power.

[StefanWolves]

You tell him Catzsy!

[Jippz]

They were not economic disasters such as the winter of discontent, in both them situations we never had to appeal to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for an emergency bail out which is the worst scenario. The Poll Tax riots have nothing to do economics, infact if anything; they show up the true violent face of socialism.

The topic of the European Fixed Mechanism has nothing to do with the subject of capitalism vs socialism, but i'll explain it anyway. :)

The unions fell from being the main power behind government to being beaten by the party they hated most, they lost their power and the economy recovered. My own city of Liverpool was ravaged by militantism in the 1970s and 1970s, it destroyed our reputation.

The poll tax riots were mainly organised by the unions which by that time were stripped of their powers - is that anyway to behave over taxes? - Labour introduces more taxes than the Conservatives ever did & raises taxes more than the Conservatives ever did, yet no one is protesting about it because its Labour - I think that tells us a lot, if your confused about poll tax here is it simply explained;

Before Poll Tax
Before Poll Tax, say if I and a group of five friends were living in your house but you owned the house, you would pay all of the 'council tax' for us all. That would mean the householder paying for the people who lived within the house, despite all of us equally using council services such as roads, rubbish collections and so forth.

After Poll Tax
After Poll Tax, say if it was the same scenario. We would all pay our individual taxes, meaning the unfair burden lifted from the household owner.

Which is fair?

As for Black Wednesday it just proves why I am against the European Union, the Conservatives should never have joined any European economic joint venture, however the good news was that when the Conservatives left office in 1997 - the economy was in amazing shape and government debt was very very low. Just compare this to 1979 when the economy was on its knees and around now, because at this point in time when Labour leave office in 2009/2010 they will be leaving behind a massive pile of debt which means that yet again, the Conservatives will have to clear up the mess made by Labour.

The mess made by labour? Or the mess made by bad times and tories not helping?
I think it went a little like this "Labour's MPs should retire, do the decent thing"
*MPs retire*
"Look at them, they're falling apart!"
The tories don't want what's best for this country, they want what's best for them.
I mean, it was not just labour's MPs claiming expenses and nor was it every last one of them. The tories were just as bad, but they weren't in the direct line of fire so they could just keep slating labour. PFFT.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The mess made by labour? Or the mess made by bad times and tories not helping?
I think it went a little like this "Labour's MPs should retire, do the decent thing"
*MPs retire*
"Look at them, they're falling apart!"
The tories don't want what's best for this country, they want what's best for them.
I mean, it was not just labour's MPs claiming expenses and nor was it every last one of them. The tories were just as bad, but they weren't in the direct line of fire so they could just keep slating labour. PFFT.

You haven't provided any proof on socialism in the 1970s and why you think it would work, and you haven't replied either to my point of millions dead from socialism - when you are going to reply to these points?

As for party politics, no it wasn't Labours fault the downturn, however they have refused to cut spending when debt is rising, they have nationalised the banks with our money yet the banks are still not lending to small business and last of all they put us in a position of having no money before this crash, its like knowing a storm is coming but not taking an umbrella outside.

The Conservatives have not slated Labour over expenses, as neither party is in a position to do so. Where have you got this from? - oh you just made it up. Your right both were just as bad as eachother concerning expenses, but would you care to find me a source where the Conservative Party has a go at Labour over the expenses?

The Conservatives have criticised the government and the House of Commons for its handling of the issue, but they have noT labelled Labour corrupt as that would be hypocrisy at its worst.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Apoligies for the double post, I missed out Rosies post, could somebody kindly merge them? :)


I think you will find that Black Wednesday was the darkest hour of the British economy with the government having to withdraw the pound from the ERM and the IMF being brought in.

As far as the Poll tax goes it was most definitely not just the unions it was probably one of the biggest UK wide protests ever seen with the majority of the people of this country against it. It brought down Thatcher and left Major having to scrap it very soon after he came to power.

If you think Black Wednesday was the darkest hour of the British economy then you have no idea of economics at all. The IMF did not float the British economy at that time, we have only ever gone to the IMF once to ask for an emgency bailout and that was in 1979, under a socialist Labour government. The country was on its knees, nationwide blackouts today are unthinkable - it was the normal in the 1970s. Do you know what Europe called this country during that period?, the sick man of Europe.

The unions did organise those protests and the tax was actually fair, you youself haven't given your opinion on the matter as I explained as to whether you thought it was fair or not, most likely because you do actually think it was fair?. The only people against the poll tax were those who were selfish and did not want to pay their own way, the biggest protests this country saw were against Labour over the invasion of Iraq and not against Poll tax and Thatcher, so again wrong i'm afraid. Do you not think it speaks volumes when hateful people used violent protests over a tax which wasn't even a new tax, was just a tax reform?

Thatcher was not brought down by the poll tax she was brought down by her own party over the European Union, I hate to say it Rosie but it sounds like your making it up as you go along here or just reading what it says on wikipedia as that states it possibly contributed to the downfall of the Prime Minister Thatcher.


Mm but the economys shrunk the most since it did in the 50's, people are saying this could be far the worst crisis thats ever happened financially.

Your just grinding some sort of axe with this socialism thing and I dont get it. You say you respect the Trade Unions who stuck up for ordinary workers then you say your glad they got destroyed. You hate Brown but for this arguments sake you choose to ignore the damage thats been inflicted on this country to back up some other point.

Why cant you just admit that no one checking these banks and their gogo attitudes has cost us all. This is ultimately a flaw with Capitalism.

Why do you not understand that the unions controlled the democratically elected government in the 1970s and turned it into basic socialism with 80% tax rates on business and wages. It has cost us and it is a flaw, but i'd far rather have a downturn in capitalism once in a while than living in poverty under socialism.


have any of you read the tory leaflets? All of them just use the techniques of the media and take what's on the publics mind to manipulate into saying "Yeah. Labour bad. Big mean men. Get out my government."
Then i read the labour local elections leaflet, and it tells me exactly what he supports and exactly what he has done. But mostly, what he will do. The tories do tell us what they are about, yes. But not on the leaflets. Not on the posters. Not on the tv. Not in the media AT ALL. They tell us their policies in the website, and expect us to know from common knowledge. We have to do the leg work to find out if they are any better than labour, and 90 percent of people aren't really too fussed to do that.

The media are independant and can side with anyone they want, the most popular newspapers are right wing so I think it speaks volumes of public opinion on the subject. There is an option of a left wing newspaper, the guardian but the guardian is so unpopular as a left wing newspaper that it has to be subsidised just to keep running. You cannot argue with sales figures.

Labour also do not have adverts, all partys have political broadcasts at election time. The Conservatives are always in the media, so please stop making this up because they are, just like Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the BNP are.

[StefanWolves]

*REMOVED*

Edited by :Mobile (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post to cause arguments.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Removed

How do you find so much spare time to keep scanning the forum to see when i've wrote the crap down?;- more to the point why have you taken me off your ignore list, please do put me back on.


i wanted to remove you so i could see what crap you have been writing up on just lately.

who are you trying to impress may i ask? it isn't like david cameron is watching the forum.

btw i don't scan threads for what you have written, it simply comes up on subscribed threads in the usercp when people have posted in threads that i have written in, so i just check and read.

Alright, so now you've seen it I guess it is goodbye again?

I'm trying to impress no one, just discussing a subject properly just like Rosie, Luke and others are. If it was between you and me to try and impress someone in this thread though, i'm pretty certain i'd win outright. You do scan this thread, nobody makes you click here to post or read my posts and if you do read my posts and do not like them, then dont come back here, its as simple as that.

That is all I have to say about it (yet again) because it would be a great shame if you ruined yet another topical discussion.

[StefanWolves]

i wanted to remove you so i could see what crap you have been writing up on just lately.

who are you trying to impress may i ask? it isn't like david cameron is watching the forum.

btw i don't scan threads for what you have written, it simply comes up on subscribed threads in the usercp when people have posted in threads that i have written in, so i just check and read.

[Jordy]

Removed*REMOVED* everytime someone (usually undertaker) posts a well-structured argument and you then go on to personally attack him.

I don't really understand Poll tax at all hence why I'm not getting involved for once, I can freely admit that so I'm not going to argue for the sake of it or just copy what Wikipedia essentially says. Why can't you just keep out of arguments you know nothing about and come back when you do.

Edited by :Mobile (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not insult other members.

[StefanWolves]

*Removed*



Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please do not post to cause an argument. Thanks.

[Jippz]

You haven't provided any proof on socialism in the 1970s and why you think it would work, and you haven't replied either to my point of millions dead from socialism - when you are going to reply to these points?

As for party politics, no it wasn't Labours fault the downturn, however they have refused to cut spending when debt is rising, they have nationalised the banks with our money yet the banks are still not lending to small business and last of all they put us in a position of having no money before this crash, its like knowing a storm is coming but not taking an umbrella outside.

The Conservatives have not slated Labour over expenses, as neither party is in a position to do so. Where have you got this from? - oh you just made it up. Your right both were just as bad as eachother concerning expenses, but would you care to find me a source where the Conservative Party has a go at Labour over the expenses?

The Conservatives have criticised the government and the House of Commons for its handling of the issue, but they have noT labelled Labour corrupt as that would be hypocrisy at its worst.

Socialism rarely comes into power, so yes millions have died from it. Capitalism is a widely used system, so you tell me, how many people have died from capitalism?
How many poor men in the gutter? How many crackheads that 'don't deserve a second chance'? How many people who can't afford health insurance? Capitalism also kills. But because it doesn't kill on isolated shocking incidents nobody notices it, with socialism it's a socialist caused death. With Capitalism it's a death. The reason socialism has killed in the east is not because of the belief it is because of the people in power who it benefits.

It's like Gordon Brown is trying to sort the mess out while David Cameron stands there and shouts in his ear.

[Mentor]

To lazy to read entire thread but i will point out, old labor was socialist and we did pretty well under them. The NHS, welfair state and all those other great instritions we have in the UK are also socialist in princible. But being socialist doesnt take away from the fact we are also captitalist and a democrasy? so that poll makes no sense o.0

[-:Undertaker:-]

Socialism rarely comes into power, so yes millions have died from it. Capitalism is a widely used system, so you tell me, how many people have died from capitalism?
How many poor men in the gutter? How many crackheads that 'don't deserve a second chance'? How many people who can't afford health insurance? Capitalism also kills. But because it doesn't kill on isolated shocking incidents nobody notices it, with socialism it's a socialist caused death. With Capitalism it's a death. The reason socialism has killed in the east is not because of the belief it is because of the people in power who it benefits.

It's like Gordon Brown is trying to sort the mess out while David Cameron stands there and shouts in his ear.

People die under all systems, however the number who will of died under capitalism would be nothing compared to socialism, you only have to look at the state of the economies in socialist countrys. I have said it before and i'll say it again; capitalism isn't perfect, but its a damn sight better than socialism.

David Cameron has no power at this moment in time, he is leader of the opposition so the more he shouts, the more he is doing his job. That is the whole point of being HM Opposition. :)


To lazy to read entire thread but i will point out, old labor was socialist and we did pretty well under them. The NHS, welfair state and all those other great instritions we have in the UK are also socialist in princible. But being socialist doesnt take away from the fact we are also captitalist and a democrasy? so that poll makes no sense o.0

I agree, some socialist things in principal such as National Health Service and the Welfare system are perfect ideas if managed properly (which at the moment I do not think they are), they are the safety nets if you will, for everyone and they are well appreciated. However that is the best socialism really extends to in my view and in the view of history, big government just doesn't work and never will do.

The poll makes no sense aye, should of been generalised to a right wing, centre and left wing option/s.

[Jippz]

People die under all systems, however the number who will of died under capitalism would be nothing compared to socialism, you only have to look at the state of the economies in socialist countrys. I have said it before and i'll say it again; capitalism isn't perfect, but its a damn sight better than socialism.

David Cameron has no power at this moment in time, he is leader of the opposition so the more he shouts, the more he is doing his job. That is the whole point of being HM Opposition. :)

I don't like labour. Nor do i like conservative. I like what labour once was, because what it once was made our country a better place to live in. Have you seen SiCKO? That's what our country would've been like if we'd never had British Socialism. British Socialism saves lives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't like labour. Nor do i like conservative. I like what labour once was, because what it once was made our country a better place to live in. Have you seen SiCKO? That's what our country would've been like if we'd never had British Socialism. British Socialism saves lives.

That was not really socialism, socialism can last for so long but after a while it collapses as it cannot last. All socialist states are and have been left behind about one hundred years compared to other countrys. The only good thing 'socialism' brought to this country was the NHS and Welfare, the rest just set us back.

Just take a look at South Korea and North Korea.

[Jippz]

Like my ignored point before said, the rulers in the east that use socialism are corrupt and use it to their benefit. People in this country like the marvellous Tony Benn could save us.

[Mentor]

I agree, some socialist things in principal such as National Health Service and the Welfare system are perfect ideas if managed properly (which at the moment I do not think they are), they are the safety nets if you will, for everyone and they are well appreciated. However that is the best socialism really extends to in my view and in the view of history, big government just doesn't work and never will do.
Historically no system of governments ever lasted forever, big or small. I cant remember who said it, possibly Obama, but the point is valid. "It doesn't matter if a government is big or small, just that it works"

What i do think though is the powers a government can wield should be limited, for example basic human rights should not be something a government can get rid of on a whim (kinda like what labour is doing right now unfortunately)

Honestly though, my votes may well head off towards the pirate party if the uk version gets its act together and starts running. Not because i want them to win, but because them getting a noteworthy % in an election sends a powerful message to the bigger partys to rethink there stances on these issues. Primarily in respect to their policies on privacy and basic freedoms, as opposed to there views on copyright and patent laws (although i agree with a lot of this as well)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Like my ignored point before said, the rulers in the east that use socialism are corrupt and use it to their benefit. People in this country like the marvellous Tony Benn could save us.

Although I admire Tony Benn for standing up for what he believes, it wouldn't work. I can tell you now from reading history, in every socialist revolution they pledged to be different, to be a peoples socialism - it never was for the people, never ever was. When socialists raise their fist upwards, they mean more power to the state, not the people.


Historically no system of governments ever lasted forever, big or small. I cant remember who said it, possibly Obama, but the point is valid. "It doesn't matter if a government is big or small, just that it works"

What i do think though is the powers a government can wield should be limited, for example basic human rights should not be something a government can get rid of on a whim (kinda like what labour is doing right now unfortunately)

Honestly though, my votes may well head off towards the pirate party if the uk version gets its act together and starts running. Not because i want them to win, but because them getting a noteworthy % in an election sends a powerful message to the bigger partys to rethink there stances on these issues. Primarily in respect to their policies on privacy and basic freedoms, as opposed to there views on copyright and patent laws (although i agree with a lot of this as well)

It has been proven though, time and time again that big government always fails. It could survive to an extend but it depends on what the people think, one of the great things about Old Labour was that at least they didn't go as far into the police state frame of mind as New Labour has done, which had eroded our civil liberties to levels not even seen in the Soviet Union.

You have raised an issue I agree with you on a lot and is very important, and I think it will become more and more evident as the years roll on. I think this police state mind is Labours answer to modern socialism, and it must be stopped.

Although I support the Conservatives, i'm still weary about Cameron and his motives although i'm willing and hoping that he will be radical, i'm more to UKIP though as they want small government, basically what Thatcherism was.

[GommeInc]

To lazy to read entire thread but i will point out, old labor was socialist and we did pretty well under them. The NHS, welfair state and all those other great instritions we have in the UK are also socialist in princible. But being socialist doesnt take away from the fact we are also captitalist and a democrasy? so that poll makes no sense o.0
Indeed, it's rare to come across a government that is either/or, usually it's a random mix - democratic-capitalist-socialist-soverignity <-Sums up the UK (I think, might be missing or adding some that shouldn't be there). Don't/wouldn't pure capitalist countries collapse under a cloud of greed? Where no-one will do anything, only for profit?

I hate politics, none of it makes sense as it should do - small parties have good policies but get shunned because of the media moguls seen as the larger parties and the larger parties lack basic common sense and seem to make judgements based on false pretences causing all kinds of problems for the silent majority. I wonder what other European countries think and have as presidents (don't mention Italy :P).

[Mentor]

It has been proven though, time and time again that big government always fails. It could survive to an extend but it depends on what the people think, one of the great things about Old Labour was that at least they didn't go as far into the police state frame of mind as New Labour has done, which had eroded our civil liberties to levels not even seen in the Soviet Union.

You have raised an issue I agree with you on, and I think it will become more and more evident as the years roll on. I think this police state mind is Labours answer to modern socialism, and it must be stopped.

Although I support the Conservatives, i'm still weary about Cameron and his motives although i'm willing and hoping that he will be radical, i'm more to UKIP though as they want small government, basically what Thatcherism was.
Its been proven little government always fails too, no government so far has really lasted any length of time. So size is a pretty mute issue.

What i will agree with you on is that old labour was a great party who's views i support even now. New labour seems to being using 1984 as their guide on how to model a country, which is deeply worrying. Half of the justification is ridiculous too, How the idea we need to removal large chunks of are basic rights in order to stay safe from terrorists is able to fly in a country that was in a conflict with the IRA for the better part of a century is mind boggling..

[-:Undertaker:-]

Indeed, it's rare to come across a government that is either/or, usually it's a random mix - democratic-capitalist-socialist-soverignity <-Sums up the UK (I think, might be missing or adding some that shouldn't be there). Don't/wouldn't pure capitalist countries collapse under a cloud of greed? Where no-one will do anything, only for profit?

I suppose it'd be how you divide it up, we are purely capitalist I guess with the economy and certainly countrys such as South Korea are and it works, its not great but it does work.

Socially we're a mix, however welfare state can also be seen as a safety net, rather than a socialist organisation. I suppose its how you manage that organisation, if the NHS is controlled by givernment and has targets imposed on it constantly as it is now, then yes i'd say its socialist. If it is run seperatly from government, and made smaller and less centralised, i'd say it follows a conservative model.

[Jippz]

That's because good people haven't been given a shot at socialism. I mean, jeez, it's not even that old. Socialism so far has been used to corrupt benefit. Because capitalism just benefits rich people in general the only people it kills are 'worthless'

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's because good people haven't been given a shot at socialism. I mean, jeez, it's not even that old. Socialism so far has been used to corrupt benefit. Because capitalism just benefits rich people in general the only people it kills are 'worthless'

You cannot say that though, for the millions who died under it you cannot just say "lets give it another try" - we gave it a try, it failed.

Capitalism does not benefit just rich people and kills nobody. Does your dad work for a business/own a bussines? - or does anybody you know own a business?. Infact, have you ever bought something like sweets, and sold them on to someone for a higher price?

If so, then that is capitalism.

[Jippz]

That's an admirable PART of capitalism.
You're clearly just somebody who follows the media blindly. I mean, your signature says it all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That IS capitalism, the basic of capitalism, the core belief of capitalism. To make profit and for individual freedom in that area. The aspects I mentioned seem to apply to you, so you say you would need honest true socialists for it to work, yet you yourself have capitalist elements already in you.

I do not follow the media blindly, what has Big Brother got to do with the subject anyway?

[Jippz]

Big brother is a perfect example of the downfall of society. Each housemate has been picked to play on your tastes, and distastes. Each shot used to manipulate your thoughts. Each leaflet used to sway you from Lab.... oops, i found a similarity.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Big brother is a perfect example of the downfall of society. Each housemate has been picked to play on your tastes, and distastes. Each shot used to manipulate your thoughts. Each leaflet used to sway you from Lab.... oops, i found a similarity.

..so whats your solution, ban everything against Labour? :rolleyes:

You are going right off the subject now, Big Brother has nothing to do with it (besides the fact sometimes it feels like we're living in a Big Brother state) with Labour eroding our civil liberties.

I don't need a leaflet, David Cameron or the Daily Mail to tell me how awful this government is doing, I can pretty much make my own mind up thank you just like I do not need to read the Guardian to hear how the evil little tories might possibly hand us over to the mighty billionares - oh wait, Labour has already done that. :P

[Jippz]

Nah, i was just slating big brother in general. You should read Dead Famous

[Pazza]

Nah, i was just slating big brother in general. You should read Dead Famous

I'VE READ IT :D

[Mentor]

You cannot say that though, for the millions who died under it you cannot just say "lets give it another try" - we gave it a try, it failed.
No ones ever died directly due to socialism? Socialism is just about taking social responsibility for those in your community less fortunate than yourself. Old labour was am socialist party out and out. New labour on the other hand is just re-branded conservatives, while conservatives under camron have just come re-branded labour. Both are way to center for my likeing, these days they may as well be one party.


Capitalism does not benefit just rich people and kills nobody. Does your dad work for a business/own a bussines? - or does anybody you know own a business?. Infact, have you ever bought something like sweets, and sold them on to someone for a higher price?
Its killed a lot more than socialism? Pure capitalism is the government who leaves people to die on the streets because they cant afford medical help, and lets old people die in the gutter if they cant afford houseing.
Socialist policys like we have in Britain add a very important saftey net in my opinion, sure this can be abused, but its pros far outweight its cons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No ones ever died directly due to socialism? Socialism is just about taking social responsibility for those in your community less fortunate than yourself. Old labour was am socialist party out and out. New labour on the other hand is just re-branded conservatives, while conservatives under camron have just come re-branded labour. Both are way to center for my likeing, these days they may as well be one party.


Its killed a lot more than socialism? Pure capitalism is the government who leaves people to die on the streets because they cant afford medical help, and lets old people die in the gutter if they cant afford houseing.
Socialist policys like we have in Britain add a very important saftey net in my opinion, sure this can be abused, but its pros far outweight its cons.

They have, the purges it had against so called 'enemies of the state' and the poverty caused by socialism. Socialism may say it is that but it is not, as Thatcher said; there is no such thing as society. If you lose your home, who do you rely on? - the state. If you need welfare who do you rely on? - the state.

It has not, hardly any country is ever fully capitalist, there is always aid/welfare in capitalist countrys at various levels. Those who died in the gulags, died trying to cross the Berlin Wall and so on died to try and get into a capitalist society.

Its often people dont know how lucky they are here in the western world.

[Jippz]

No ones ever died directly due to socialism? Socialism is just about taking social responsibility for those in your community less fortunate than yourself. Old labour was am socialist party out and out. New labour on the other hand is just re-branded conservatives, while conservatives under camron have just come re-branded labour. Both are way to center for my likeing, these days they may as well be one party.


Its killed a lot more than socialism? Pure capitalism is the government who leaves people to die on the streets because they cant afford medical help, and lets old people die in the gutter if they cant afford houseing.
Socialist policys like we have in Britain add a very important saftey net in my opinion, sure this can be abused, but its pros far outweight its cons.

I've been trying to say this. Capitalism has killed far more than socialism, but socialism's failures seem to be recorded far more.
+rep

[-:Undertaker:-]

I've been trying to say this. Capitalism has killed far more than socialism, but socialism's failures seem to be recorded far more.
+rep

Come on then, where have the hundreds of millions of people who have apparently died under capitalism gone to?. The mass graves across the world in socialist countrys says it all, if you think capitalism has killed hundreds of millions of people like socialism then you need to read up on your history.

[LuketheDuke]

Iraq.

lot of people died for very suspect, greedy motives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Iraq.

lot of people died for very suspect, greedy motives.

That, although I disagree with it so much and so many levels; it was a war, people die in wars. The purges we are talking about. Although I believe Iraq was better under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party they still had mass graves of their people, and the Ba'ath Party is socialist. To even match the amount of dead via socialism you would need many, many Iraq Wars.

The Iraqis killed were not killed because they were 'enemies of the state', they died as the result of a war/invasion.

[Jordy]

Actually the deaths in socialism are hardly ever recorded, the governments are ever so secretive it's difficult to get any reliable news out of the likes of China, it has improved in the last 5-10 years dramatically but to be fair I wouldn't be surprised if they've had some major incidents go unnoticed in the last few decades. Tiananmen square is a good example of this, possibly 3000 killed by the "Peoples" army in the "Peoples" republic, who even knows how many died? I can't see any examples of capitalism killing on mass it's own people.

Capitalism doesn't kill it's own people which is more important than anything when it comes to governments.

[LuketheDuke]

British troops were sent into Iraq under false pretences, some have died for the lies fed to them and for what? Oil reserves.

Capitalism can manifest greed and we see that everyday. Crime caused by money, social hireachy determined by how big your wallet is, happiness seems to ride on the thing.

Its wrong to say socialism as an ideal is a bad thing as it isnt, people twist such a thing and make it something it isnt. The same happens with Capitalism and people have made that point clearly so its naive to dismiss it completely.

[-:Undertaker:-]

British troops were sent into Iraq under false pretences, some have died for the lies fed to them and for what? Oil reserves.

Capitalism can manifest greed and we see that everyday. Crime caused by money, social hireachy determined by how big your wallet is, happiness seems to ride on the thing.

Its wrong to say socialism as an ideal is a bad thing as it isnt, people twist such a thing and make it something it isnt. The same happens with Capitalism and people have made that point clearly so its naive to dismiss it completely.

Social hierarchy exists under and system, infact under a capitalist system it is more equal and spread out as in a socialist country you have everyone poor, with the few at the top having the power and the money. In a capitalist country you have the majority well off and able to live a comfortable life with luxaries and a decent house and most of all; the vast majority of people have bread on the table when they arrive home.

Socialism hasn't been twisted at all into something it isn't, we can all see it failed and always has failed at every chance its been given.

In a capitalist system if you have a brain, work hard - the chances are you will better yourself off compared to someone who is lazy and would rather sit about all day living off the state - that is as fair as it can get whereas in a socialist country, it doesn't reward hard work at all. Why would you train to be a doctor to recieve a equal life standard to someone who is a dustman? - you wouldn't.

[Jordy]

We all agree the Iraqi invasion was wrong and also that capitalism isn't perfect. I can also concede that communism is a very good ideology, but sadly humans have things like "aspirations" where they want to be better than the rest, not to be equal.

In socialist countries you have poverty on a whole new level to that of a capitalist society, in China and North Korea you have people dying of starvation and same goes for Russia because of it's Soviet days. You may get the elderly struggling to pay bills in this country but we don't have millions of entire families starving.

The only reason you get less crime in socialist countries is because they've got brutal punishments throughout, in China there's about 80 things which warrant the death sentence if I remember correctly. Crime exists no matter what the economic scale, it's the punishments which stop the crime. For example in Saudi Arabia, a capitalist country, for robbery you'd get your hand chopped off, the robbery rates in Saudi Arabia are minuscule as a result. I'm not saying we should implement such strong punishments, the point is that crime does not depend on the economic system and crime exists because humans "aspire" to be better.

[Coheed&Cambria]

I'm rather confused by the poll.

Capitalism & Socialism are pretty much economic systems meanwhile Communism & Democracy are forms of government to an extent.

No brainer really, Capitalism is the only system which works, it's not perfect but there's nothing which is anywhere near as good. Democracy obviously works well as it's served the West very well for centuries and Communism is clearly a failure, just look at the Soviet Union.

Totally agree.

[Mentor]

They have, the purges it had against so called 'enemies of the state' and the poverty caused by socialism. Socialism may say it is that but it is not, as Thatcher said; there is no such thing as society. If you lose your home, who do you rely on? - the state. If you need welfare who do you rely on? - the state.
This never happened, unless your confusing the so called communist (a totally different system) in russia? Which never even came close to communism in its correct form?
I think being a dicatorship was the issue with that, same with with the Natzis?

I'm also guessing you choose to ignore the part where after communism ended and russia and its former parts became capitalist about the 100s or millions of old folks whos died as the state was no longer looking after them. Left to die on the streets - capitalism sure never killed anyone o.0


It has not, hardly any country is ever fully capitalist, there is always aid/welfare in capitalist countrys at various levels. Those who died in the gulags, died trying to cross the Berlin Wall and so on died to try and get into a capitalist society.
From Germany - about as far from a socialist country as is imaginable?. Britain, we were the socialists?

[Jordy]

This never happened, unless your confusing the so called communist (a totally different system) in russia? Which never even came close to communism in its correct form?
I think being a dicatorship was the issue with that, same with with the Natzis?

I'm also guessing you choose to ignore the part where after communism ended and russia and its former parts became capitalist about the 100s or millions of old folks whos died as the state was no longer looking after them. Left to die on the streets - capitalism sure never killed anyone o.0


From Germany - about as far from a socialist country as is imaginable?. Britain, we were the socialists?Oh come on you know what he meant. West germany was very capitalist, as is the current germany. East germany however was very socialist as it was run by the Soviet Union. The UK was very close to becoming a socialist state in the 1970s also.

As for all these people dying after communism, it just proves that even capitalism can't do enough to correct the socialism. The Soviet Union was communist for 80 years, the nations were completely crippled and bankrupt, Capitalism can't just sort it all immediately and make everything jolly.

Just shows the devastation of socialism can't be easily sorted ;)

[-:Undertaker:-]

This never happened, unless your confusing the so called communist (a totally different system) in russia? Which never even came close to communism in its correct form?
I think being a dicatorship was the issue with that, same with with the Natzis?

I'm also guessing you choose to ignore the part where after communism ended and russia and its former parts became capitalist about the 100s or millions of old folks whos died as the state was no longer looking after them. Left to die on the streets - capitalism sure never killed anyone o.0


From Germany - about as far from a socialist country as is imaginable?. Britain, we were the socialists?

The Soivet Union was socialist, socialism and communism are basically the same system. There is no correct form of socialism/communism, it doesn't allow other partys/capitalist ideas/business to set up to therefore it is a dictatorship. There have been so many countrys that have tried socialism and it has failed every time, in one way it does what its supposed to do by making everyone poor and hungry, so I guess you could say everyone did end up equal under socialism, poor or dead.

Where are all these mass starvations/deaths then when communism collapsed across the east? - we've never heard of them and as far as I know they certainly didn't happen, life has never been better in the east and was only held back because of socialism - how else do you explain the difference that was from western europe and eastern europe?

Infact even today West Germany is still having to subsidise East Germany because of the mess socialism made on that part of the country, and they predict that if socialism in North Korea collapses and Korea is once again united, the South will have near-economic collapse because of the investment it will have to pump into North Korea.

As for the facist Third Reich, facism is a mix of both socialism and capitalism. Britain before the end of world war two was very capitalist, after world war two nearly everything was nationalised and post-war decline set in which saw the Empire fall apart and this country fall behind others, from a world power to a weak power - until the 1980s when capitalism saved us.

[Jippz]

The Soivet Union was socialist, socialism and communism are basically the same system. There is no correct form of socialism/communism, it doesn't allow other partys/capitalist ideas/business to set up to therefore it is a dictatorship. There have been so many countrys that have tried socialism and it has failed every time, in one way it does what its supposed to do by making everyone poor and hungry, so I guess you could say everyone did end up equal under socialism, poor or dead.

Where are all these mass starvations/deaths then when communism collapsed across the east? - we've never heard of them and as far as I know they certainly didn't happen, life has never been better in the east and was only held back because of socialism - how else do you explain the difference that was from western europe and eastern europe?

Infact even today West Germany is still having to subsidise East Germany because of the mess socialism made on that part of the country, and they predict that if socialism in North Korea collapses and Korea is once again united, the South will have near-economic collapse because of the investment it will have to pump into North Korea.

As for the facist Third Reich, facism is a mix of both socialism and capitalism. Britain before the end of world war two was very capitalist, after world war two nearly everything was nationalised and post-war decline set in which saw the Empire fall apart and this country fall behind others, from a world power to a weak power - until the 1980s when capitalism saved us.
To say they are basically the same thing is incredibly ignorant. I'm a socialist and i strongly disagree with the extremes of communism. And btw it's spelled fascist.

[Jordy]

To say they are basically the same thing is incredibly ignorant. I'm a socialist and i strongly disagree with the extremes of communism. And btw it's spelled fascist.Well the only real examples of socialism are in the form of communist governments, all of which are failures. Although socialism has never truly been tried in a real democracy, logic dictates that because it's never been a success in the past so it's not worth trying out.

Britain in the 70s was close to socialism and I hardly need to point out how badly the country was doing then, going to the IMF, being controlled by unions, continual strikes and virtually bankrupt while all decent businesses were moving abroad.

[-:Undertaker:-]

To say they are basically the same thing is incredibly ignorant. I'm a socialist and i strongly disagree with the extremes of communism. And btw it's spelled fascist.

The nations we called communist were actually socialist, North Korea has socialist in it formal name, the USSR means Union of Soviet Socialist Republics so no, its not incredibly ignorant at all. The forms of socialism and communismk are practically the same so much so that I cant even think of a significant difference between the two.


Well the only real examples of socialism are in the form of communist governments, all of which are failures. Although socialism has never truly been tried in a real democracy, logic dictates that because it's never been a success in the past so it's not worth trying out.

Britain in the 70s was close to socialism and I hardly need to point out how badly the country was doing then, going to the IMF, being controlled by unions, continual strikes and virtually bankrupt while all decent businesses were moving abroad.

According to the socialists on here we should try it again, however when there are nationwide blackouts, food shortages and general decay, not to mentioning their pranets businesses/shops being nationalised and taken away by the government - they'd soon be singing a different tune.

Socialism is pure greed, the idea that because you cant/havent got something like your own business, no one else should have either - so arrogant.

[Jippz]

The most common argument i've come across for capitalism is that whilst socialism looks good on paper there are too many money-hungry people in the world. However you seem to be one of those arrogant people who actually would rather poor people die than rich people have to settle for merely living.

[luce]

Well i don't think this is really going to work because it's all a matter of opinon if we could all agree on one then there would be no need for a debate? You have also missed out so many ways of running a country on there.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The most common argument i've come across for capitalism is that whilst socialism looks good on paper there are too many money-hungry people in the world. However you seem to be one of those arrogant people who actually would rather poor people die than rich people have to settle for merely living.

All you have to say is that, despite numerous examples of how people in socialist countrys are actually worse off than those in capitalist countrys?

[Jippz]

I am not saying that it has worked, i'm saying that if we were lead by people who were socialist for just reasons then it could work.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am not saying that it has worked, i'm saying that if we were lead by people who were socialist for just reasons then it could work.

..however thats against human nature, we, as humans, always want to better ourselves. Nobody would train to be a doctor, paying for university, spending hours upon hours studying only at the end of it, to gain a job which has the same salary as a binman and to live in a house just as good as a binmans house is.

In conclusion of that, its pointless even considering or supporting socialism as it can never ever work.

[Jordy]

I am not saying that it has worked, i'm saying that if we were lead by people who were socialist for just reasons then it could work.History suggests socialism is a complete failure though, there's no reason at all to believe it could work. One of my favourite ever quotes has to be... "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

We're coming up with historical events showing socialism doesn't work, your posts are entirely based on an ideology which is the first step to debating politics but you need to know the history as evidence to persuade others.

[LuketheDuke]

if guys think socialism sucks then take a good look at where capitalisms got us.

[GommeInc]

No system is perfect - Loads of countries have a mixture of different systems, usually a mix of capitalism and socialism = Britain. The NHS would not exist in a capitalist frame, because it goes against many capitalist beliefs - the NHS is free healthcare for all citizens of the nation - "free" being the keyword. Same with the law, the law revolves around everyone being treated as equals - in a capitalist state, it could be solved just by paying your way through breaking laws which only exists in America (to an extent).

[Jordy]

if guys think socialism sucks then take a good look at where capitalisms got us.I don't see people starving in the UK? I'd rather live in a capitalist society than any other.

[-:Undertaker:-]

if guys think socialism sucks then take a good look at where capitalisms got us.

Where has it got us?

Lets think, medicines, technogly, democracy - EVERYTHING has developed thanks to the economic miracle that capitalism is. Do you have a house?, are members of your family employed by private business?, do any of your family own private business?, do your family vote? - if the answer is yes to any one of those questions, its built your life which is far better than those poor souls trapped in the socialist cycle of dictatorship, poverty and death.

Why can you not look at the economics?

Compare;

South Korea to North Korea
United States to Soviet Union
United Kingdom (1970s) to United Kingdom (1980s+)

..now come back and tell me which one sucks.

[alexxxxx]

socialism =/= communism.

I cba to read the whole thread, only just come back from holiday.

Most countries in Europe, UK included are socialists, to lesser or greater extents. Go to the USA and see one of the most truely capitalist countries on the planet to find that they spend the most on healthcare, yet recieve relatively average treatment, find that some cities have near 3rd-world unemployment levels (see New Orleans), that the poor are desperately poor and that the rich live in another world. Then also see the crime that comes with it. That's what happens in a system like that.

The "best" way in my opinion is the way that many of our european neighbours use, a capitalist free market with PR, with good workers' rights and emphasis on improving productivity in the economy, even if this means large investment by the government in transport, health. Some may say that large scale spending by the governement is expensive, but also the governement are more accountable to the public than private business. Health care, for example, is relatively inexpensive compared to the US, yet we have better care and we live longer on average. Trains, we pay the most in Europe, yet get the worst service, look at Switzerland, public ownership over much of the railways and much better services. Using market mechanisms can work in the service sector. Look at the French road system. The Autoroutes are operated and maintained by private companies (not sure if owned, but maybe) and they are in good service. Our road system isn't too bad, but could be improved.

Outright either way doesn't work, you have to use a mixture so you get the best of both.

[LuketheDuke]

hum if you know anything about the USSR then it was a Communist State which had a Communist constitution. it was manipulated by leaders like Stalin to make people believe it was a socialist society which gave people the inclination to think they were politically empowered. Socialism is different to the ideology of Communism as it doesnt rest its principles on one leader and your struggling to understand that Undertaker.

As for your vendetta against Labour you also dont look at circumstances, for instance the post war economic decline which no one identified with until Callaghan realised action needed to be taken. Events shape PMs and their governments, if Callaghan dealt with the Falklands War Im sure hed have a much better write up.

And yes Capitalism does suck, look at big business' and how they exploit people, look at how the banks have shrunk our economy, 4 million children live in poverty in the UK. Just because your well off it doesnt mean that makes the system ok.

[Jordy]

hum if you know anything about the USSR then it was a Communist State which had a Communist constitution. it was manipulated by leaders like Stalin to make people believe it was a socialist society which gave people the inclination to think they were politically empowered. Socialism is different to the ideology of Communism as it doesnt rest its principles on one leader and your struggling to understand that Undertaker.

As for your vendetta against Labour you also dont look at circumstances, for instance the post war economic decline which no one identified with until Callaghan realised action needed to be taken. Events shape PMs and their governments, if Callaghan dealt with the Falklands War Im sure hed have a much better write up.

And yes Capitalism does suck, look at big business' and how they exploit people, look at how the banks have shrunk our economy, 4 million children live in poverty in the UK. Just because your well off it doesnt mean that makes the system ok.4 million children in poverty indeed, Labour have been in government for over 10 years and they still haven't sorted it, yet they're far more socialist than the conservative party? Good work Labour :rolleyes:

Poverty in the UK is in relation to how much people earn, if the majority of the UK earned a massive £250 an hour, then the people earning £100 would be in 'Poverty'. It is therefore impossible to eradicate what we think of poverty in the UK, it will always be there.

Poverty in China, The Soviet Union and North Korea is a completely different story however, that's poverty as in people starving and dying of easily curable things because their hospitals lack resources.

+rep alexxxx for that post btw

[-:Undertaker:-]

hum if you know anything about the USSR then it was a Communist State which had a Communist constitution. it was manipulated by leaders like Stalin to make people believe it was a socialist society which gave people the inclination to think they were politically empowered. Socialism is different to the ideology of Communism as it doesnt rest its principles on one leader and your struggling to understand that Undertaker.

As for your vendetta against Labour you also dont look at circumstances, for instance the post war economic decline which no one identified with until Callaghan realised action needed to be taken. Events shape PMs and their governments, if Callaghan dealt with the Falklands War Im sure hed have a much better write up.

And yes Capitalism does suck, look at big business' and how they exploit people, look at how the banks have shrunk our economy, 4 million children live in poverty in the UK. Just because your well off it doesnt mean that makes the system ok.

No, it was SOCIALIST. You cant keep dodging the failures of the world - they were socialist. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is not different to communism, they are the same. Communism was not supposed to rest of the principles of one person, hence why the Tsar was so hated by the communists.

You are wrong yet again, have you ever heard of James Callaghans famous quote which was summed up into "crisis?, what crisis!?" when the winter of discontent was mouting up. Here are his exact words "I don't think other people in the world would share the view [that] there is mounting chaos" - words of a total idiot. As for the Falklands, by that time their most likely wouldn't of been a government, the military was reported to of been thinking of a coup as the crisis was that bad. The unions would never of allowed the United Kingdom to go and retain the islands as socialism hates imperialism.

Why have Labour not sorted this out?
As for the issue, they all get fed. That is not real poverty, the point is that they get fed and clothed, life isn't perfect for anyone but i'm sure they would rather live in this country and be fed than to have the conditions people are suffering right now in North Korea.

You haven't answered my questions on the prevous pages, or compared what I asked you to compare; so I ask you to go back and answer them, and compare those situations.

You are so lucky to live in a free capitalist society, in the words of Margaret Thatcher yet again which you do not seem to be able to reply to; "would you rather the poor be poorer?"

[LuketheDuke]

a lot of these counter arguments seem to be assumptions and personal inclination towards certain ideas. Im not a labour supporter or a socialist but I hate when people say Socialism doesnt work. The matter of the fact is a Communist Party tried to create a Socialist society in Russia and it led to them corrupting democracy and warring with the social elite who constantly undermined them. In Britain we had a government with Socialist ideas but events conspired against them and they rightly failed, Thatcher is not the 2nd coming of Christ just someone who fell on good economic fortune, much like Tony Blair when he came into office but as long as people have money they'll happily act like sheep.


Which leads me onto the Child Poverty which the above two posters seemed to mock, if Britain is much greater than the countries which you have mocked than why do we have the highest child poverty rates in the modern industrial world?

My point is people are quick to lament socialism for all its apparant ills but Capitalism isnt perfect by a long stretch either. I havent called anybody an "idiot" and by all means I know that socialism is an easily corruptable system but play devils advocate and its counterpart isnt a whole lot better.

and btw Id rather have a job than get "poorer". also this threads a bit long in the tooth now so thats my two cence on this one, il leave most people to disagree with me on another post.

[-:Undertaker:-]

a lot of these counter arguments seem to be assumptions and personal inclination towards certain ideas. Im not a labour supporter or a socialist but I hate when people say Socialism doesnt work. The matter of the fact is a Communist Party tried to create a Socialist society in Russia and it led to them corrupting democracy and warring with the social elite who constantly undermined them. In Britain we had a government with Socialist ideas but events conspired against them and they rightly failed, Thatcher is not the 2nd coming of Christ just someone who fell on good economic fortune, much like Tony Blair when he came into office but as long as people have money they'll happily act like sheep.

Which leads me onto the Child Poverty which the above two posters seemed to mock, if Britain is much greater than the countries which you have mocked than why do we have the highest child poverty rates in the modern industrial world?

My point is people are quick to lament socialism for all its apparant ills but Capitalism isnt perfect by a long stretch either. I havent called anybody an "idiot" and by all means I know that socialism is an easily corruptable system but play devils advocate and its counterpart isnt a whole lot better.

and btw Id rather have a job than get "poorer". also this threads a bit long in the tooth now so thats my two cence on this one, il leave most people to disagree with me on another post.

You have no idea or concept of history then, you dismiss all the examples me and Jordy have given and proved of how socialism has failed time and time again. If the USSR was communist and if socialism was totally different, why would they call themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - because they were socialist.

Thatcher is the second coming of chris in British twenty century politics, Churchill saved us from facism and she saved us from socialism. Tony Blair only inherited her economic legacy.

Britain has a high poverty rate because of the jump that had to be made in the 1980s to move all classes of people top higher standards of living. The second point is that a lot of these people prefer to stay on the welfare system and do not see the point in working and improving their familys conditions when the state pays for it. That is why the welfare system needs to be sorted out - something which Labour has failed to fix.

We have all agreed that capitalism isn't perfect, the point we are making and what we have proved time and time again is that capitalism is a thousand times better than socialism. I never said you called anybody an idiot, I was calling James Callgahan an idiot and you haven't replied to my points about him either.

You would rather have a job yes, and good because that shows you are taking advantage of the capitalist conservative society we live in. The people of the Soviet Union also wanted to work and the people in 1970s United Kingdom wanted to work, hence why they threw the shackles of socialism off.

[LuketheDuke]

quick reply to Undertakers post.

Please stop insulting me with all this "you have no sense of blah blah" just because I disagree with you, it really isnt pleasant and we're all entitled to our own opinions. Suprisingly what I think is just as valid as what you think.

Look up the USSR and look what the sole political party was that governed it. Also look up what Gulags are.

Everything else in your post I dont understand as Im not even sure how your linking this stuff together, I get how you like Thatcher but Im pretty sure social development has continued since 1990 so please stop contributing stuff to that lady.

Jobs are jobs, what on earth has that got to do with political systems. If there were no jobs thatd be a Bill and Ted society.

[-:Undertaker:-]

quick reply to Undertakers post.

Please stop insulting me with all this "you have no sense of blah blah" just because I disagree with you, it really isnt pleasant and we're all entitled to our own opinions. Suprisingly what I think is just as valid as what you think.

Look up the USSR and look what the sole political party was that governed it. Also look up what Gulags are.

Everything else in your post I dont understand as Im not even sure how your linking this stuff together, I get how you like Thatcher but Im pretty sure social development has continued since 1990 so please stop contributing stuff to that lady.

Jobs are jobs, what on earth has that got to do with political systems. If there were no jobs thatd be a Bill and Ted society.

You refuse to reply properly to my points, which points to the fact you dont seem to understand the topic fully. I do know what gulags are, and the fact that the Communist Party ruled the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics just proves my point more so, that socialism and communism are the same.

It all stems back to the 1980s my friend, without the reforms she brought in the country would not of been able to afford anything right now just like we couldnt just before she got in, why we had to appeal to the IMF. That is why the 1970s/1980s+ discussion is vital to this topic, because it was a fight between capitalism and socialism, of which capitalism won.

Jobs have everything to do with political systems, whether you work for the state (socialism) and the state owns all business and private enterprise (socialism) or whether you can set up your own business (capitalism) and create jobs through profit (capitalism).

[LuketheDuke]

Nah I read stuff like this which tells me that they're different.

http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

And that loan from the IMF helped Britain whether it was bad or not from your point of view. Like the transition from Major to Blair, the economy wasnt in a bad of a state as some people would think.

A jobs a job, you work and you get paid.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You have just linked me to one of the most biased sites you could possibly of linked me to, of course socialists now dont want anything to do with the former Soviet Union because if they used the USSR as an example of socialism then everyone would just laugh at them, not that they dont anyway.

We got to the stage where we had to loan from the IMF, do you realise how bad that is? - loaning from the IMF is basically the net which stops a country collapsing fully, we were bankrupt.

You ignored my point on the jobs in the last post, its a vital part of capitalism against socialism.

[LuketheDuke]

lol wat. that article is explaining what the differences are in an in depth manner. It isnt concerned with bias against this or that just an informative article from people who've actually read the Communist Manifesto.

And your saying I ignore things!:eusa_danc

[-:Undertaker:-]

lol wat. that article is explaining what the differences are in an in depth manner. It isnt concerned with bias against this or that just an informative article from people who've actually read the Communist Manifesto.

And your saying I ignore things!:eusa_danc

The article is from a marxist view, its like a pro-EU site could explain the European Union in full depth - doesn't mean anything it says is truthful. The only real difference that article points out is how the stage of capitalism should be moved away from, the article is complete tripe as I would expect from a Marxist article/site.

The article is rubbish, infact it even states that the two are basically the same on the full transition to communism; "Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

If you do not think they are anywhere near the same, why then did the Communist Party rule the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics?

[alexxxxx]

as for those talking about poverty, i haven't had personal experience, though I see those from the poorer areas of town and you can tell they obviously don't eat right or enough, the housing is dreadful and it looks very difficult to better themselves. a sort of social-poverty.

[-:Undertaker:-]

as for those talking about poverty, i haven't had personal experience, though I see those from the poorer areas of town and you can tell they obviously don't eat right or enough, the housing is dreadful and it looks very difficult to better themselves. a sort of social-poverty.

Those areas (I know type you mean) tend to be post-war housing, the new towns which were built in the 1950s/1960s and have failed basically and damaged larger cities such as Liverpool as populations were taken away from the inner city. I think with areas like those they need investment which can be taken away from other areas (burocrats, European Union - anything really.. there loads of areas where funding could be diverted to areas such as these) and work with local business to grow there.

It is a shame they were ever built really, many victorian houses which could of been returned to former grandeour were destroyed leaving brownfield sites in citys across the United Kingdom. Liverpool is going to continue to suffer for decades to come as other cities populations keep rising, Liverpools is expected to stay the same until the 2030s all because of those new towns.

It can be difficult to better yourself when in a situation like that, but it all comes down to getting out there and doing it, especially when it comes down to financial management because debts are often what hold the ones who want to work back.

[Nxrissa]

um im confussed ll