Jump to content

 

 

Bigoted language shame of would-be SNP MP


Recommended Posts

The main problem IMHO is that people associate the idea of communism or socialism with ultimately failed "experiments" of that "political system" in largely poor if not third rate European or Middle/South American countries. More often than not, the idea became corrupted by political and personal agendas, quests for and attaempts at retaining power, no matter what. Thus you end up with Stalin and the like, suppresion of liberal opinion et al. But once people start pointing those and that out, they would have to remind themselves about the realities and figures on the other side of the "Wall" as well. Or the reality that is out there now and makes your everyday life a joy to behold. There is a reason why 20 to 40% of the former (and current) East Germans still give their votes to the "socialist" (though Britons and West Germans would usually say "communist" (which is wrong)) party at national and local elections, not because they liked Stalin or Breshnev or Honecker, the Wall and all that, but because they know that there was much more to Socialism than that.

 

Anyway, I currently have no time to dwell on that at any great length, though it is worthwhile to look behind the veil and especially the way life in the Soviet Union or East Germany is being portrayed these days. It would do well to look at where and when "socialism" developed, what financial and industrial, i.e. economic background they had at the time in the respective countries. How they developed over time and where they are now.

 

Thank you for your post.

 

These "failed experiments" have failed. So there must be something inherently wrong. Is there a modern, successful socialist nation? I can't think of any. I could be wrong.

 

Retention of power is inherent IMO because it's all about the state taking control of everything. I prefer a more individualist, capitalist system (Darwinist).

 

I don't doubt there is more to it, but there is no successful socialist state that comes to mind. It is interesting that modern (East) Germans tend to vote that way.

Edited by Rousseau
Link to post
Share on other sites

The SNP are unrealistic is most things. It's all about blame and giving people what they want regardless of it being realistic. Their track record so far is hardly cause for confidence.

 

Conservatives have been unspecific in how they will pay for the £8b in NHS spending -- I'm not sure if it's £8b over 5 years or £8b per year? I'm not anti-austerity: there are always cuts. National debt will not reduce until we cut the deficit. They can sell off some nationalised institutions, although I'm not sure whats left, perhaps our Lloyds stake?

Discussion about the deficit has lost long since become detached from actually doing something about the deficit, IMHO. Without the population learning to shit gold and diamonds, the SNP spending plans won't be realised. But nobody's managed to cut their way out of a recession yet: for the Tories it's become a sign of political virility and an ideology mission to roll back the state's frontiers (carefully ignoring that the problems have absolutely nothing to do with the size of the state).

There's not much left to privatise and what does it achieve apart from a bit of public accountancy sleight of hand. Feel better after the post office sell-off? Nation's economy improved at a stroke? Better postal service? Yer arse...

Edited by Oleg_Mcnoleg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion about the deficit has lost long since become detached from actually doing something about the deficit, IMHO. Without the population learning to shit gold and diamonds, the SNP spending plans won't be realised. But nobody's managed to cut their way out of a recession yet: for the Tories it's become a sign of political virility and an ideology mission to roll back the state's frontiers (carefully ignoring that the problems have absolutely nothing to do with the size of the state).

 

Have the Tories not cut us out of a recession?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion about the deficit has lost long since become detached from actually doing something about the deficit, IMHO. Without the population learning to shit gold and diamonds, the SNP spending plans won't be realised. But nobody's managed to cut their way out of a recession yet: for the Tories it's become a sign of political virility and an ideology mission to roll back the state's frontiers (carefully ignoring that the problems have absolutely nothing to do with the size of the state).

There's not much left to privatise and what does it achieve apart from a bit of public accountancy sleight of hand. Feel better after the post office sell-off? Nation's economy improved at a stroke? Better postal service? Yer arse...

 

Most interested to hear more about the part highlighted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your post.

 

These "failed experiments" have failed. So there must be something inherently wrong. Is there a modern, successful socialist nation? I can't think of any. I could be wrong.

 

Retention of power is inherent IMO because it's all about the state taking control of everything. I prefer a more individualist, capitalist system (Darwinist).

 

I don't doubt there is more to it, but there is no successful socialist state that comes to mind. It is interesting that modern (East) Germans tend to vote that way.

 

Again, look where socialism first took root. The rest is self-explanatory. Capitalism in its current form developed in the strongest nations of Europe, then the US of A, over the course of roughly 300 years.

 

And obviously, you seem to forget the one socialist experiment still on full throttle (though the direction is somewhat dubious - from a socialist point of view), built on an ancient nation far to the east. It is just one incarnation of how socialism might work under the regional circumstances ... and by far not one to sing praises about. But as I said above, there is not just one shiny version of capitalism either, so we should not pretend that capitalism is the only real or good or even best option out there.

Edited by der Berliner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, look where socialism first took root. The rest is self-explanatory. Capitalism in its current form developed in the strongest nations of Europe, then the US of A, over the course of roughly 300 years.

 

And obviously, you seem to forget the one socialist experiment still on full throttle (though the direction is somewhat dubious - from a socialist point of view), built on an ancient nation far to the east. It is just one incarnation of how socialism might work under the regional circumstances ... and by far not one to sing praises about. But as I said above, there is not just one shiny version of capitalism either, so we should not pretend that capitalism is the only real or good or even best option out there.

 

Are they not the strongest nations because capitalism took root? I'm not suggesting Capitalism is the best system. I prefer it because it is more Darwinist, which is more natural and beneficial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.