Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

Originally Posted by All_I_Want

Far be it from me to agree with balleh, but ……….

I say, what have I done or said to deserve that comment!?

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Balleh

My dear old chap, you argue for a socio-political system but systems have to be defined and then managed.

All I’m asking is how you propose to do that “on a realistic basis�.

So far, answer comes there none.

Fairy nuff, my dear old chap. Since we happen to be in the unholy grip of an inherently destructive Capitalist system, why don't you define that and how its management will coincide with the wishes, hopes and well-being of future generations.

I'll then contribute the same on Socialism. Fair exchange?

MsG

Your argument is back to front, my friend.

We are where we are, so if you wish to change what you consider to be an unacceptable situation it is up to you to explain your alternative - in detail.

Originally Posted by Balleh

Your argument is back to front, my friend.

We are where we are, so if you wish to change what you consider to be an unacceptable situation it is up to you to explain your alternative - in detail.

Oh dear! With responses like that you're merely strengthening the prevailing view of you that you're just a condescending, arrogant cünt who thinks that s/he's better than anybody else. A view supported by your use of such phrases as "my friend" and "my dear chap".

It's you who've intruded upon this discussion, "my dear old chap", and thus it would only be right and proper for you to lay out your claims for the ostensible superiority of Capitalism over Socialism. Only then will I be able to gauge the accuracy and sincerity of your arguments. Once you've done that, we can then debate the merits and drawbacks of the respective systems.

I know that's not what you wanted to hear, since you were dead set on "dissecting" anything I have to say on Socialism with the usual Capitalist arguments and thus proving how "superior" you are - as well as (in your mind) hopefully playing to your audience and proving what a "whizz you are. Well, it's not going to happen like that. I've come across just too many self-important bird-brains like you to fall for it again.

Either put up or fück off!

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

That's a fair one, although plenty of other folks can imagine a more than viable alternative. It's called Socialism.

If socialism is such a viable alternative to capitalism than how come it never was a success in the past and people never "got it right"?

As I've said before in this thread - I'd really like to know the practical road to socialism. You must have thoughts on this surely?

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Originally Posted by Bugsy

…

… explain this "human nature" in the context of evolutionary psychology, the development of mankind and modern society.

Do you believe in a just society Bugsy; a serious question?

*ahem*

Originally Posted by Bugsy

It's you who've intruded upon this discussion, "my dear old chap", and thus it would only be right and proper for you to lay out your claims for the ostensible superiority of Capitalism over Socialism. Only then will I be able to gauge the accuracy and sincerity of your arguments. Once you've done that, we can then debate the merits and drawbacks of the respective systems.

Dont really want to rain on your parade, but the thread title is the "problems facing modern socialists".

Surely you want to create a new thread called "Why Capitalism is crap and why Socialism is so much better".

After you Comrade Bugsy!

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Balleh

Your argument is back to front, my friend.

We are where we are, so if you wish to change what you consider to be an unacceptable situation it is up to you to explain your alternative - in detail.

Oh dear! With responses like that you're merely strengthening the prevailing view of you that you're just a condescending, arrogant cünt who thinks that s/he's better than anybody else. A view supported by your use of such phrases as "my friend" and "my dear chap".

It's you who've intruded upon this discussion, "my dear old chap", and thus it would only be right and proper for you to lay out your claims for the ostensible superiority of Capitalism over Socialism. Only then will I be able to gauge the accuracy and sincerity of your arguments. Once you've done that, we can then debate the merits and drawbacks of the respective systems.

I know that's not what you wanted to hear, since you were dead set on "dissecting" anything I have to say on Socialism with the usual Capitalist arguments and thus proving how "superior" you are - as well as (in your mind) hopefully playing to your audience and proving what a "whizz you are. Well, it's not going to happen like that. I've come across just too many self-important bird-brains like you to fall for it again.

Either put up or fück off!

MsG

So what is the socialist answer - other than to say shut up or fcuk off of course, "you capitalist superior" something?

Originally Posted by Ord_Sgt

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Balleh

Your argument is back to front, my friend.

We are where we are, so if you wish to change what you consider to be an unacceptable situation it is up to you to explain your alternative - in detail.

Oh dear! With responses like that you're merely strengthening the prevailing view of you that you're just a condescending, arrogant cünt who thinks that s/he's better than anybody else. A view supported by your use of such phrases as "my friend" and "my dear chap".

It's you who've intruded upon this discussion, "my dear old chap", and thus it would only be right and proper for you to lay out your claims for the ostensible superiority of Capitalism over Socialism. Only then will I be able to gauge the accuracy and sincerity of your arguments. Once you've done that, we can then debate the merits and drawbacks of the respective systems.

I know that's not what you wanted to hear, since you were dead set on "dissecting" anything I have to say on Socialism with the usual Capitalist arguments and thus proving how "superior" you are - as well as (in your mind) hopefully playing to your audience and proving what a "whizz you are. Well, it's not going to happen like that. I've come across just too many self-important bird-brains like you to fall for it again.

Either put up or fück off!

MsG

So what is the socialist answer - other than to say shut up or fcuk off of course, "you capitalist superior" something?

I hate editing but I have to say Bugsy, your boxhead umlouts are impressive as hell. Do they seek you out as they do the scarlet pimpernel for your cleverness?

Originally Posted by Ord_Sgt

I hate editing but I have to say Bugsy, your boxhead umlouts are impressive as hell. Do they seek you out as they do the scarlet pimpernel for your cleverness?

I fucking hate umlauts. My fucking hatered for umlauts is only surpassed by my fucking hatered of esszet. fucking hell just type ue instead of putting fucking stupid dots on top.

Originally Posted by ctauch

Originally Posted by Ord_Sgt

I hate editing but I have to say Bugsy, your boxhead umlouts are impressive as hell. Do they seek you out as they do the scarlet pimpernel for your cleverness?

I fucking hate umlauts. My fucking hatered for umlauts is only surpassed by my fucking hatered of esszet. fucking hell just type ue instead of putting fucking stupid dots on top.

We are brothers

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Originally Posted by Bugsy

…

… explain this "human nature" in the context of evolutionary psychology, the development of mankind and modern society.

Do you believe in a just society Bugsy; a serious question?

*ahem*

My apologies, Boomers, I neglected to answer your important question. Yes, I do believe in a just society. I believe that the same basic emotions of decency that, in earlier times, caused us to shy away from attacking old folks and anybody smaller than ourselves are the same ones that prompted outrage when we discovered that all the Brit MPs were freeloading off our backs - even though they honked that it was all "within the rules".

I also believe in an equal society, in which every person is accepted and recognised for what s/he is, and not solely for her/his potential to provide an unearned income for others.

Folks forget very easily indeed, but it wasn't that long ago (well into the first part of the 20th Century) that the "upper class" looked down on those who actually had to work for a living, while they lazed around enjoying the fruits of such labour. This mindset lingers on today, and these are the very folks who lead the shouting about benefit scroungers. How cynically hypocritical can you get?

But there's no cosmic law that says things have to stay the same, and just because the present system is as it is, it doesn't mean that it can't be changed to a system which divides the rewards more equally among those who earn them. It would stabilise the more advanced countries and provide a blueprint for developing nations.

MsG

Damn you, Bugsy.

Just when I am about to give ARRSE up yet again as an utter waste of time, somebody goes and posts something thought provoking, well argued and worthwhile, that makes me validate and question my own beliefs.

I hate you I hate you I hate you.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Balleh

Your argument is back to front, my friend.

We are where we are, so if you wish to change what you consider to be an unacceptable situation it is up to you to explain your alternative - in detail.

Oh dear! With responses like that you're merely strengthening the prevailing view of you that you're just a condescending, arrogant cünt who thinks that s/he's better than anybody else. A view supported by your use of such phrases as "my friend" and "my dear chap".

It's you who've intruded upon this discussion, "my dear old chap", and thus it would only be right and proper for you to lay out your claims for the ostensible superiority of Capitalism over Socialism. Only then will I be able to gauge the accuracy and sincerity of your arguments. Once you've done that, we can then debate the merits and drawbacks of the respective systems.

I know that's not what you wanted to hear, since you were dead set on "dissecting" anything I have to say on Socialism with the usual Capitalist arguments and thus proving how "superior" you are - as well as (in your mind) hopefully playing to your audience and proving what a "whizz you are. Well, it's not going to happen like that. I've come across just too many self-important bird-brains like you to fall for it again.

Either put up or fück off!

MsG

Ah, now I get it.

As the author of this topic you consider that those who disagree with you should shut up.

It’s not a particularly attractive attitude but it is at least consistent with the authoritarian implications of your comment “We (the "We" being generic) need a socio-political system that mirrors our individual hopes, aspirations and dreams on a realistic basis.�.

Originally Posted by Balleh

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Balleh

Your argument is back to front, my friend.

We are where we are, so if you wish to change what you consider to be an unacceptable situation it is up to you to explain your alternative - in detail.

Oh dear! With responses like that you're merely strengthening the prevailing view of you that you're just a condescending, arrogant cünt who thinks that s/he's better than anybody else. A view supported by your use of such phrases as "my friend" and "my dear chap".

It's you who've intruded upon this discussion, "my dear old chap", and thus it would only be right and proper for you to lay out your claims for the ostensible superiority of Capitalism over Socialism. Only then will I be able to gauge the accuracy and sincerity of your arguments. Once you've done that, we can then debate the merits and drawbacks of the respective systems.

I know that's not what you wanted to hear, since you were dead set on "dissecting" anything I have to say on Socialism with the usual Capitalist arguments and thus proving how "superior" you are - as well as (in your mind) hopefully playing to your audience and proving what a "whizz you are. Well, it's not going to happen like that. I've come across just too many self-important bird-brains like you to fall for it again.

Either put up or fück off!

MsG

Ah, now I get it.

As the author of this topic you consider that those who disagree with you should shut up.

It’s not a particularly attractive attitude but it is at least consistent with the authoritarian implications of your comment “We (the "We" being generic) need a socio-political system that mirrors our individual hopes, aspirations and dreams on a realistic basis.�.

No, Bugsy is just displaying the classic socialist mantra - I am right, I know whats good for everybody, and if you dont agree you will be sent of to the salt mines. Its like throwing shiit at the moon - good fun but totaly pointless.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Originally Posted by Bugsy

…

… explain this "human nature" in the context of evolutionary psychology, the development of mankind and modern society.

Do you believe in a just society Bugsy; a serious question?

*ahem*

My apologies, Boomers, I neglected to answer your important question. Yes, I do believe in a just society. I believe that the same basic emotions of decency that, in earlier times, caused us to shy away from attacking old folks and anybody smaller than ourselves are the same ones that prompted outrage when we discovered that all the Brit MPs were freeloading off our backs - even though they honked that it was all "within the rules".

I also believe in an equal society, in which every person is accepted and recognised for what s/he is, and not solely for her/his potential to provide an unearned income for others.

Folks forget very easily indeed, but it wasn't that long ago (well into the first part of the 20th Century) that the "upper class" looked down on those who actually had to work for a living, while they lazed around enjoying the fruits of such labour. This mindset lingers on today, and these are the very folks who lead the shouting about benefit scroungers. How cynically hypocritical can you get?
But there's no cosmic law that says things have to stay the same, and just because the present system is as it is, it doesn't mean that it can't be changed to a system which divides the rewards more equally among those who earn them. It would stabilise the more advanced countries and provide a blueprint for developing nations.

MsG

Really? I thought it was the over taxed and put down Middle classes who were starting to complain about work shy scroungers. I've yet to see a report of a real member of the early 20th Century "Upper class" complaining about their taxes propping up work shy scroungers.

To be honest the only mumbling tends to be about the rather unfair imposition of Inheritance tax. Just think some poor sods have spent generations building a collection of art, property and land, only to have it wiped out by a tax designed purely and simply to destroy a social class that the left wing love to hate.

Makes it even funnier when that sadly brain dead muppet Dennis Skinner whinges about someone selling THEIR property to pay Inheritance taxes that Mr.Skinner's beloved Old Labour created.

And the best bit is that because of the current Dear leader's own policies when acting as Der Iron Chancellor the very people who voted for the failed Neu Arbeit experiment in 1997 are now paying the same tax on houses they bought years back when houses had a real value and didn't cost 3 wage packages over 99 years to buy.

Oh the irony.....

And WTF does "divides the rewards more equally among those who earn them." mean?

Does that mean that the ex coal miner who invented Hesco should divide Company profits amogest his work force? They didn't invent the stuff, he did, he went out and found the money, sold the idea, touted around trade fairs and put his neck on the line. So why should he divide the profits equally amongest his work force? No problems with paying good wages, good benefits, bonuses and all that, but why should he give away the earnings of his property?