Question for socialists

[MarillionFan]

Where does socialism provide a "civilised country"?

It doesn't. It does of course make people bone idle. Where the state spends money and provides a minimum for all then parts of society become lazy. Of course then you have less productivity causing less abundance which in turn destroys the middle classes. So effectively there is less money to go around for the poor so they become poorer and more destitute, so then some bright socialist comes along, sells your gold / borrows more money and then we're all poor & homeless.

[KimberleyChris]

"Where does socialism provide a "civilised country"?

Well. no party has the monopoly on civilisation.

What I find hard to understand is how some of the more right-wing posters on this site can dare to infer that they are stating 'the tory view' with their own breed of 'nastyism'.

I am not actually a member of the Conservative Party, but I do know a few as my politics are pretty close to theirs.

They are decent right-thinking people who simply believe that 'the rising tide floats all boats'.

At least two of them are vociferous in their view that the entire Thatcher era is the Conservative Party's 'CV stain'. They hold that it cost the party millions of votes among the upper - 'artisan'- working class, and probably led to the party's slaughter in three general elections.

It's time to realise that the old policies are now so much removed from the standpoint of the Conservative Party that the current front bench would consider them a lunatic fringe, to be exiled.

[Mich the Tester]

Right or left politics won't make a society 'civilised'. A 'civilised society' can probably have a right wing or a left wing government, within reasonable bounds, and remain 'civilised'.

Right, now to find a civilised society. This might take a while.

[MarillionFan]

Right or left politics won't make a society 'civilised'. A 'civilised society' can probably have a right wing or a left wing government, within reasonable bounds, and remain 'civilised'.

Right, now to find a civilised society. This might take a while.

<Godwins Law>

Adolf Hitler started off a socialist.

</Godwins Law>

[DodgyAgent]

"Where does socialism provide a "civilised country"?

Well. no party has the monopoly on civilisation.

What I find hard to understand is how some of the more right-wing posters on this site can dare to infer that they are stating 'the tory view' with their own breed of 'nastyism'.

I am not actually a member of the Conservative Party, but I do know a few as my politics are pretty close to theirs.

They are decent right-thinking people who simply believe that 'the rising tide floats all boats'.

At least two of them are vociferous in their view that the entire Thatcher era is the Conservative Party's 'CV stain'. They hold that it cost the party millions of votes among the upper - 'artisan'- working class, and probably led to the party's slaughter in three general elections.

It's time to realise that the old policies are now so much removed from the standpoint of the Conservative Party that the current front bench would consider them a lunatic fringe, to be exiled.

The challenge of socialism is how to sustain wealth creation and provide a genuine good quality of life for lower earners.

Socialists are trapped in a dogma that is driven by envy of the rich, and envy of people who are successful (rich or not). They are deeply insecure people who feel a need to show themselves as being caring and virtuous when they are actually nothing of the sort. Instead of emulating or bettering others they want to knock them down - hardly a panacea for helping others.

Money is power. having money means you don't have to accept poor service on anything. You do not have to accept for instance the education that is thrust upon your children, you can choose your own. Socialists hate this.

There are some real challenges out there that need addressing such as why are public services so awful and why is so much money and power in the hands of so few? The reasons are clear - public services are run for the benefit of those who work in them and administer them - not for the benefit for those who consume them. Socialists have a sense of entitlement and they spend more effort in securing this entitlement than doing what they should be doing - which is delivering services of the highest quality. Instead the socialists heap more and more protection laws on their public sector employees to keep them safe within their own incompetencies.

It should be that the quality of life for someone in a low pay job be of a high quality in terms of education for kids, healthcare and safety. It should not be necessary to earn shed loads of money except to buy "luxury goods and services".

Unfortunately the state is so utterly cruel and incompetent that so many of us devote our working lives and tax arrangements to keeping out of its clutches. The socialists call this greed - how dare they.

[Mich the Tester]

The challenge of socialism is how to sustain wealth creation and provide a genuine good quality of life for lower earners.

Socialists are trapped in a dogma that is driven by envy of the rich, and envy of people who are successful (rich or not). They are deeply insecure people who feel a need to show themselves as being caring and virtuous when they are actually nothing of the sort. Instead of emulating or bettering others they want to knock them down - hardly a panacea for helping others.

Money is power. having money means you don't have to accept poor service on anything. You do not have to accept for instance the education that is thrust upon your children, you can choose your own. Socialists hate this.

There are some real challenges out there that need addressing such as why are public services so awful? The reasons are clear - they are run for the benefit of those who work in them and administer them - not for the benefit for those who consume them. Socialists have a sens eof entitlement and they spend more effort in securing this entitlement than doing waht they should be doing - which is delivering services of the highest quality. Instead the socialists heap more and more protection laws on their public sector employees to keep them safe within their own incompetencies.

It should be that the quality of life for someone in a low pay job be of a high quality in terms of education for kids, healthcare and safety. It should not be necessary to earn shed loads of money except to buy "luxury goods and services".

Unfortunately the state is so utterly cruel and incompetent that so many of us devote our working lives and tax arrangements to keeping out of its clutches. The socialists call this greed - how dare they.

Bloody hell DA, don't use up all of your brain cells in go.

[MarillionFan]

Bloody hell DA, don't use up all of your brain cells in go.

WHS

I've had to have a lie down.

Dodgy Agent 1 - Fitz & that other hippy fella 0

[DodgyAgent]

WHS

I've had to have a lie down.

Dodgy Agent 1 - Fitz & that other hippy fella 0

Shall I go on?

[KimberleyChris]

Re: DodgyAgent

Agreed, mainly.

It depends how you define socialism. People of other 'shades' are very good at saying 'socialism is this' and 'socialism is that', accusing everybody else of being Nazis, Communists etc.

I would hold that David Cameron is a socialist by my definition, so was William Hague and John Major. I think that 'one-nation' conservatism is just another form of socialism, (i.e. the running of a society where people are not allowed to fall too far because of misfortune etc) but with an emphasis on the generation of progressive wealth to pay for the essental services that none of them even suggested threatening.

If you take the very narrow view of what socialism is (i.e. state control and regulation of everything) then that is not even the policy of the Labour party any more, let alone the Conservatives.

The only reason I disliked the last Labour government was 'micro-laws'... a trend towards making everything either illegal or compulsory with a fine either way. That's why I sat on my hands at the last election.

[DodgyAgent]

Re: DodgyAgent

Agreed, mainly.

It depends how you define socialism. People of other 'shades' are very good at saying 'socialism is this' and 'socialism is that', accusing everybody else of being Nazis, Communists etc.

I would hold that David Cameron is a socialist by my definition, so was William Hague and John Major. I think that 'one-nation' conservatism is just another form of socialism, (i.e. the running of a society where people are not allowed to fall too far because of misfortune etc) but with an emphasis on the generation of progressive wealth to pay for the essental services that none of them even suggested threatening.

If you take the very narrow view of what socialism is (i.e. state control and regulation of everything) then that is not even the policy of the Labour party any more, let alone the Conservatives.

The only reason I disliked the last Labour government was 'micro-laws'... a trend towards making everything either illegal or compulsory with a fine either way. That's why I sat on my hands at the last election.

If labour want to get back into power they need to talk to me