Democractic Socialism?

[Pigeon]

Educated is a bit of a loaded term though isnt it? Indoctrinated?

Probably another thread in itself, that. I just mean literate, able to analyse information, that sort of thing.

By definition, a society that encouraged ignorance couldn't be a democratic one, surely?

 

[scawenb]

We all know how people can be manipulated by the press, education, tradition, etc. Even the most literate and well educated.

 

[tbaldwin]

We all know how people can be manipulated by the press, education, tradition, etc. Even the most literate and well educated.

I agree with Pigeon it probably is another thread...But i think its a bit dangerous the "We all know how people can be manipulated by the press etc"

If you dont trust the majority who do you trust? Who decides who has been manipulated????

I put my faith in the majority.

 

[mk12]

exactly tbaldwin. So called "uneducated" people have taken their lives, workplaces, localities under control before, without needing "educated" people to run things for them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

all people with the surname "baldwin" should be interned in camps.

I believe that the majority of people do hold that view.

Mr Baldwin, kindly take yourself along to Yarl's Wood internment centre for processing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But if the majority are against me would it be right for me to assemble my troops and just take power?

You are a self-professed "authoritarian", aren't you?

 

[Pigeon]

I agree with Pigeon

But i think its a bit dangerous the "We all know how people can be manipulated by the press etc"

Oddly enough, I seem to remember you starting a thread a couple of weeks back bemoaning the fact that people seemed to care more about yer man off Top Gear than they do about Darfur. You blamed manipulation by the press.

 

[Pigeon]

I believe that the majority of people do hold that view.

Poll?

 

[Pigeon]

So called "uneducated" people have taken their lives, workplaces, localities under control before...

"So-called" by whom?

 

[mk12]

"I've no idea how any society could possibly be considered democratic unless the population was educated"

 

[Pigeon]

"I've no idea how any society could possibly be considered democratic unless the population was educated"

This proves that I think (hypothetical, mind) people who have managed to take control of their lives, workplaces etc are uneducated how...?

 

[mk12]

because non-literate people were often amongst those who took affairs into their own hands...and established democratic bodies.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Poll?

Nah, it'd get binned as a "call-out" thread.

 

[tbaldwin]

You are a self-professed "authoritarian", aren't you?

Yes but i believe in the authority of the majority not a elite minority.
Its hardly a suprise that somebody who has admitted to working in the home office under Anne Widdecombe has certain problems with the idea of anybody referring to themselves as Authoritarian...

I believe that people themselves should decide important issues not some educated elite. Obviously you have a very different view. You think that the majority can not be trusted.

 

[tbaldwin]

Oddly enough, I seem to remember you starting a thread a couple of weeks back bemoaning the fact that people seemed to care more about yer man off Top Gear than they do about Darfur. You blamed manipulation by the press.

I am arguing that giving people more of a say is the only way to change things for the better...Some people think that giving power to the masses is dangerous etc and others of us believe the more power people are given the better things will be.

My thread you mentioned wasnt just talking about people in general but mentioned how many people on urban75 had posted on the Top Gear thread and how the Guardian had been covering the 2 stories.

I think the way Darfur is covered shows up the news management that unites most of the media....I also think that the media subtely push the idea that the majority of people should never be trusted. The Independent and the Mail may seem like poles apart on some issues but on the main issue they are United...EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THEIR PLACE>

 

[lewislewis]

The far-left in the UK will be screwed for as long as the SWP remains it's most vocal representative.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes but i believe in the authority of the majority not a elite minority.

The "authority of the majority" or "majority rule" as it is otherwise known, has nothing to do with being authoritarian.

heres the dictionary definition of "authoritarian for you, again.

Authoritarian: adj. setting authority above liberty.

Its hardly a suprise that somebody who has admitted to working in the home office under Anne Widdecombe has certain problems with the idea of anybody referring to themselves as Authoritarian...

Poor balders. Have you had yourself tested for dementia lately?
After all, it can't be more than a month since I and a couple of other Urbanites who have worked or do work for the Civil Service explained in long and boring detail to you that you work for a department, not for a minister. Ministers change frequently, the departments don't.

Comes to something when you're so fucked for a reply that you have to disinter that one again.

I believe that people themselves should decide important issues not some educated elite. Obviously you have a very different view. You think that the majority can not be trusted.

Actually, unlike you, I don't presume to know what other people think (you may have notice that I don't litter my sentences with claims yto speak for "most people" like you do), so it's strange that you, who claim to know the minds of others can be so totally wrong about what I think.

Me, I firmly believe that majority rule can be trusted. If people take up the tools they require to govern themselves (i.e. knowledge) then I have faith that their decisions would be representative than many of the decisions taken by our current government.

Don't give up the day job to go into the mind-reading business. You're fucking atrocious at it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The far-left in the UK will be screwed for as long as the SWP remains it's most vocal representative.

TBF I'd modify that a bit to read;

"The far-left in the UK will be screwed for as long as the majority politically motivated people mistakenly perceive the SWP as representing anything to do with left-wing politics anymore."

Just my humble opinion, of course.

 

[tbaldwin]

Poor balders. Have you had yourself tested for dementia lately?
After all, it can't be more than a month since I and a couple of other Urbanites who have worked or do work for the Civil Service explained in long and boring detail to you that you work for a department, not for a minister. Ministers change frequently, the departments don't.

.

What im pointing out is your view of authoritarianism is likely to be influenced by your time working in the home office under Anne Widdecombe. And whatever way you try and dress it up,you were happy to work under an extremely shit Home secretary.
Your "I was only doing my Job" wank only impresses wankers.....

 

[Random]

And whatever way you try and dress it up,you were happy to work under an extremely shit Home secretary.
Your "I was only doing my Job" wank only impresses wankers.....

Do you think that, under a Conservative government, all hundreds of thousands of civil servants should all quit their jobs?

 

[tbaldwin]

Do you think that, under a Conservative government, all hundreds of thousands of civil servants should all quit their jobs?

No....But i think that somebody prepared to work under Anne Widdecombe as Home Secretary...Given her record in that Job......Is on dodgy territory when they try to adopt the moral high ground...

 

[Random]

No....But i think that somebody prepared to work under Anne Widdecombe as Home Secretary...Given her record in that Job......Is on dodgy territory when they try to adopt the moral high ground...

Does this include everyone working in the Assets Recovery Agency, Criminal Records Bureau, Forensic Science Service, Prison Service and Identity and Passport Service, or just those over a certain rank?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What im pointing out is your view of authoritarianism is likely to be influenced by your time working in the home office under Anne Widdecombe.

Why would I be influenced?
Oh, and you're not pointing something out, your attempting a smear. Big difference.

And whatever way you try and dress it up,you were happy to work under an extremely shit Home secretary.

And you know how I felt and what I did HOW?

Again, you're attempting a smear. it's childish and pathetic. Rather like you actually.

Your "I was only doing my Job" wank only impresses wankers.....

I'm not aware I've ever said "I was only doing my job", in fact I'm certain I haven't.

Oh dear, three attempts at smearing, and all three of them based completely on shite assumptions made by a twat.

What a sad wanker you are, balders.

 

[tbaldwin]

Random..What are you trying to ask here..About the NO? or about me thinking VP is on dodgy territory when it comes to the moral high ground?

 

[tbaldwin]

And you know how I felt and what I did HOW?

.

So you were happy or not to work under Anne Widdecombe when pregnant women were giving birth in chains?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No....But i think that somebody prepared to work under Anne Widdecombe as Home Secretary...Given her record in that Job......Is on dodgy territory when they try to adopt the moral high ground...

Really?

I'd be fascinated to read your exegesis of exactly whay that's the case.

Not that I expect you to be able to make any kind of critically-informed statement, that's not your style. You prefer the snide remark and crafty sneer to facts, don't you balders?

 

[Random]

Random..What are you trying to ask here..About the NO? or about me thinking VP is on dodgy territory when it comes to the moral high ground?

Well most of the departments that I've mentioned don't really work with the home secretary - are you saying that VP was a close colleague of Widders, or senior in the HO?

 

[tbaldwin]

Really?

I'd be fascinated to read your exegesis of exactly whay that's the case.

Not that I expect you to be able to make any kind of critically-informed statement, that's not your style. You prefer the snide remark and crafty sneer to facts, don't you balders?

You had the choice to carry on working for the Home Office under Anne Widdecombe or find another job....You decided to carry on taking the money...

 

[ViolentPanda]

So you were happy or not to work under Anne Widdecombe when pregnant women were giving birth in chains?

How's that relevant?

Ah, you assume it's relevant, don't you? Even though you've been told time and again how the structure of the Civil Service operates, and how personnel don't work for ministers but for departments. You've decided to pluck an issue out of the air to try and smear me with.

Do yourself a favour and listen to people like WoW who can give (and have given you) chapter and verse on the Civil Service, otherwise you make yourself look an arsehole.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You had the choice to carry on working for the Home Office under Anne Widdecombe or find another job....You decided to carry on taking the money...

I asked you a question. Have the courtesy of at least attempting to answer it, please.