Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
19 Aug 15
12:57
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
Socialism has become a dirty word. Say it in THE USA and your in real trouble.
Linking Labour with the unions is akin to stepping in a cow pat. Never mind that it was the unions that formed the Labour party. OK in the seventies the unions ramped up the silly strike quota. They certainly don't want you to forget that. But without the unions 95 percent of people would still be in hovels and sweeping the streets for the gentry.
All the other candidates don't want Corbyn because the banks don't want him. They don't want to lose their gravy train sales of RBS and the post office. They like the extra billions floating into their pockets.
Linking Labour with the unions is akin to stepping in a cow pat. Never mind that it was the unions that formed the Labour party. OK in the seventies the unions ramped up the silly strike quota. They certainly don't want you to forget that. But without the unions 95 percent of people would still be in hovels and sweeping the streets for the gentry.
All the other candidates don't want Corbyn because the banks don't want him. They don't want to lose their gravy train sales of RBS and the post office. They like the extra billions floating into their pockets.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 31
|
By:
I cannot take a man seriously who wears a vest in summer!
|
|
By:
Its on a par with - Mr Cameron have you ever been educated at Eton or know anyone that has ?
|
|
By:
The other candidates dont want Corbyn has they are intelligent enough to understand his economic plan would spell ruin for this country and extreme hardship for those the Labour party should be helping.
How anyone thinks he is remotely credible I just dont understand. |
|
By:
After watching Maggie being Whisked away in a Taxi, do you really think the Leader of any Party has much Power?,
They are Only the Bankers Puppets. |
|
By:
Are you a Labour voter Dothcinite?
|
|
By:
I could be if they had policies that were financially sensible.
|
|
By:
i think people want someone who actually stands for something and has beliefs.
the core of the leadership election seems to be boiling down to whether people want a "a row of spadbot mannikins in suits" (thanks george monbiot) dictating policy to win over wavering centre ground voters or whether the party should actually have some core values with a leader who stands for something. he wont win in 2020, but then would any of the others? I suspect he may help labour in the long term, and may well surprise many with how attractive he is to the young voters, who are being brutally f*cked in the arse, a demographic whose voter turnout i suspect will change dramatically over the next 10 years. |
|
By:
So you might vote Labour if they elect one of the other three, Dotch?
|
|
By:
What are his core values though. He just pledges to make everything so much better for ordinary people whilst proposing a policy that will create huge inflation that will hurt the poorest and weakest most. He has great soundbites but his figures are plucked from the sky and most of what he is saying simply wont happen.
Does anyone really think he can nationalize the utilities. What percentage of his fantasy figures for tax breaks to companies could feasibly be cut without crushing business investment? He is just a liar telling gullible people what they want to hear. |
|
By:
I would vote for Kendall and I always liked Burnham although he is coming across very badly at the moment. I am unsure about him now. I dont like Cooper.
|
|
By:
Socialism has become a dirty word.
might have something to do with the 100 million they killed last century, and the billions they keep in poverty and servitude. Say it in THE USA and your in real trouble. a stupid statement, overtly socialist polititians (de blasio, sanders etc) and their supporters are common in the US, they aren't the ones targeted by federal institutions like the IRS, they are more likely the ones targeting opposition to the left using these agencies. on the other hand most covert socialists reimage their brand to distance themselves from its negative historical associations and to broaden their voter base, like when obama goes into preacher mode where he does his MLK impersonations and pretends he's a christian. |
|
By:
I accept the failure of communist/socialism to date polybot
But I am still one myself and still see it as the World's only hope We just need to get it right that is all, China are now a good example, though not necessarily in the past under Mao |
|
By:
Inflation hits those on fixed incomes like Pensioners, my father died a bitter man in the 70's.
I would give Trade Unions power but not to the point they harm society. They would be required by law to co operate with a communist/socialist government |
|
By:
We just need to get it right that is all,
yes, I'm fully aware of the pathetic excuses. I'm sure all the young mothers holding their dead babies in venezuelan hospitals are all thinking "lets keep trying this human experimentation, one more roll of the dice, over a century of misery and failure* but I can feel a minor victory on the horizon" *experienced primarily by the Untermensch, or the non-apparatchik |
|
By:
Inflation hits those on fixed incomes like Pensioners, my father died a bitter man in the 70's.
so he didn't have to deal with death squads rounding up dissidents? or a corrupt totalitarian government which harvests the organs of it enemies, treats its citiens like slaves and destroys cultures that have stood for thousands of years (yes, I understand you are a big fan of the chinese communist party) instead he was mostly concerned that a welfare state (that he voted for?) reduced the once great british economy to an international joke which meant he could purchase fewer pork scratchings with his pound. he sounds like a right coont. |
|
By:
what complete and utter bollox.
|
|
By:
might have something to do with the 100 million they killed last century, and the billions they keep in poverty and servitude
whoever 'they' are. The leaders? The richest? You have a serious lack of understanding of the definition of the word socialism. |
|
By:
I really do try not to get involved on this forum and don't read much of it, but every so often I look in and it reminds me instantly how much some of you are so wrong yet think you're so clever.
I'm not talking about opinion but about corrupting facts and ignoring things that don't suit your current drivel. It's always the same people. The escapees from the politics forum. |
|
By:
what complete and utter bollox.
Translation: I genuinely can't come up with any argument and am unfamiliar with logic and reason, but as it runs contra to my indoctrination, I will desperately resort to words like "bollux" because it makes me "feel" better. |
|
By:
whoever 'they' are.
Is this your version of "it depends what the meaning of "is" is?  |
|
By:
The leaders? The richest?
you seem confused on your own refutation.  |
|
By:
You have a serious lack of understanding of the definition of the word socialism.
I'm well aware of the definition, it's the consequences you seem to be oblivious of. |
|
By:
I really do try not to get involved on this forum and don't read much of it...
I'm guessing you prefer most things in a simplified and abbreviated form, including factual or logical responces. |
|
By:
Definition of Socialism from the OED:
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Quite simple really. Nothing to do with trades unions, or death squads, or communism. The consequences of rampant capitalism have been no less harmful have they? Consequences and grief comes from individuals, greed and psychopathy. Across all societies, all political beliefs. Most people who like the idea of a socialist government merely wish to see a fairer society. The objections to it in your world, seem to include; death squads, mothers holding dead babies, billions kept in poverty and servitude. The world's grief is neither unique to, nor caused by, socialism. |
|
By:
Incidentally, I am one of the few on here who hasn't been remotely indoctrinated.
|
|
By:
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Translation: NO individual human rights. Oh and by the way, when we say "regulated by the community", it actually means "regulated by the state (or Party)". |
|
By:
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
This children's fantasy has failed in every iteration for the entirety of its existence, but don't worry mug punters, that just means it's due for a big win soon.  |
|
By:
The world's grief is neither unique to, nor caused by, socialism.
The world's grief is also neither unique to, nor caused by, pedophilia. I guess you think that's also a great reason to support it? If there was such a thing as "the world's grief". Just making up clumsy catch phrases isn't an argument, it's a slogan. And unfortunately, for billions socialism has caused immense grief. |
|
By:
>>A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
in other words state control |
|
By:
Like Study says, bollox.
|
|
By:
listen - all that sharing of ownership stuff actually would be the ultimate (not 'final - ' no , definitely not 'the final - ') solution to all our ills : but human beings are a failed species not long for this earth, all due to their uncontrollable selfishness and greed. If people really did do unto others and they would have done uuto them, then all cruelty and malice would be gone. But they're a fck-up the human race, and they couldn't pull it off. Aww, great shame. Let's have another throw of the dice.
|