Socialism without the masses.
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
oh really? You've got on terms of intimate personal acquaintance with all 56 million of the british people. you know them ALL that well?tbaldwin said:
Let me put you out of your misery; you do NOT - in any way - speak for the masses, you speak for yourself alone. Like every other bugger.
furthermore, such a claim is usually beloved by far-right demagogues.
ahh...it's all making sense now.
Red Jezza said:
Your wrong... as usual...
The majority of people in this country are far more in line with my thinking than that of most people on urban75. Most people want a redistribution of wealth and they also want tougher punishments for anti social crime etc.....
I am the MAN OF THE PEOPLE, and you dont know whether to Love me or Hate me for it....
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
Oh REALLY? And you can prove all this, with hard, indisputable evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt? like you've personally voxpopped all 56 million of them, have you?tbaldwin said:
alternatively, when do they let you out of the silly shop?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
tbaldwin as "Everyman". There's a chilling thought!!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
balders, the only people you're a man of are the ones they don't allow to play with sharp implements....tbaldwin said:
any People you could possibly be a Man of are ones I'd like to see Interned on the Falklands for the common good
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Red Jezza said:
That isn't very fair to the penguins, Jezza.
How about Easter Island instead?
tbaldwin said:
I don't think people want socialism in this country, well certainly not the majority anyway. The majority of people believe in private ownership, private property, relatively unfettered free enterprise and stuff like that. Most people believe in some form of capitalism - this is why all the main parties offer only mild to moderate restraints to unfettered capitalism and won't strangle free enterpise and do away with most private property rights.
Do you think that what you deem to be socialism has ever existed in any country at anytime? If so, what country was that in? North Korea, the USSR, China, Cuba, where??? Where did/does it exist and did/do the majority of people in that country support it? You see, as far as I can tell, socialism as found in the USSR, North Korea etc... etc... has almost always existed without the majority of people supporting it and has been up held through totalitarianism. Many people claiming to be socialists would reply to this by saying that the regimes I meantioned weren't socialist at all, they'd say that without being able to tell me which countries are/were. So does what you deem to be socialism exist, has it existed in any place for any large period of time. Also, what do you thnik socialism is, no need to go into any detail. If you answer that for me perhaps I might be able to answer as to wheither it needs majority support or not.
Bear, Interesting post.....
I think most people want a fairer world...The way they see it might differ quite abit,but most people are socialistic to an extent in their thinking. No man is an island and most people recognise the need for getting along with others as best as possible..
I am no fan of eastern european style socialism, i think Cuba is slightly better but am certainly no expert....
Socialism has to be supported by a majority thats why i totally reject the Liberal supremacists who seem to have total disregard for the views of the majority of the people.
Sadly in the UK so called Socialist groups have always been a shit mixture of Stalinism and Liberalism. Both believe in a wanky kind of socialism from above that doesnt work..
New Labour in truth are a lot closer to their critics on the Left than either would care to admit.. Neither of them trust the will of the people..
But in one important respect NL are better they at least have tried to be popular and for too many lefties the whole idea of populism to them is a dirty word.
I think most people want a fairer world...The way they see it might differ quite abit,but most people are socialistic to an extent in their thinking. No man is an island and most people recognise the need for getting along with others as best as possible..
I am no fan of eastern european style socialism, i think Cuba is slightly better but am certainly no expert....
Socialism has to be supported by a majority thats why i totally reject the Liberal supremacists who seem to have total disregard for the views of the majority of the people.
Sadly in the UK so called Socialist groups have always been a shit mixture of Stalinism and Liberalism. Both believe in a wanky kind of socialism from above that doesnt work..
New Labour in truth are a lot closer to their critics on the Left than either would care to admit.. Neither of them trust the will of the people..
But in one important respect NL are better they at least have tried to be popular and for too many lefties the whole idea of populism to them is a dirty word.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
Quoted for posterity.
fishfingerer
sultan of cringe
I've heard that one or two countries have adopted crackpot socialist ideas like collective bargaining, workers rights, the abolition of child labour, the 8 hour day, universal suffrage, free healthcare and education, paid holidays, the weekend and a load of other crazy stuff over the last few years. Send in the yeomanry.Bear said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Pigeon said:
Only the last four words though.
On his forehead.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
One wonders though, how long apathetic acceptance of the status quo would last in the face of serious economic and/or environmental hardship?
tbaldwin said:
Most people would certainly claim be believe the world should be more fair - but they wouldn't think economic equality (or anything like it) was fair. For example, if the government were to prevent people setting up private businesses and profiting from them most folks would say the government was being unfair by preventing someone from doing this. The majority of people would probably think it was fair (or at the very least acceptable) for someone to become a millionaire through any of the following and more -
1. Inheriting large sums of money.
2. Winning the lottery and other types of gambling.
3. Starting up a successful company (EDITED TO ADD: MOST FOLKS WOULD PROBABLY THINK THIS ONE WAS COMMENDABLE).
4. Investing in the stock market.
5. Rises in the price of housing bought years ago.
Granted, they might like to see fat cats banned from paying themselves huge bonus when they fuck a company up, or they might like to see the ultra rich taxed more, but that's not socialism. That's just progressive income tax and company chairmen not being allowed to reward themselves for failure. Those are restraints to fetter capitalism, not socialism.
Anyway, what I am saying is if you think the kind of socialism you'd like to see can only be implemented with public support, then you can't have this socialism at the moment because the people don't support it. Unless of course the type of socialism you'd like to see implemented includes people being able to inherit large amounts of money, people being able to become millionaires through setting up private businesses and/or investing in them and private property rights... But I can't see how such as system could be called socialism to be honest, because it's just fettered capitalism. I think capitalism is here to stay until we find a better alternative and I don't think anyone has, nor do I think it will be discovered in my life time.
Bear.
I think people are prepared to go along with income and wage differentials to a degree.
They dont want to see lazy bastards getting as much as people working hard. So to a degree i think your right. BUT most people want to see a fairer world they dont want to see poverty or starvation either in the UK or abroad and that would be a start.
Socialism is not an overnight solution or a magic wand but its a way of recognising that people collectivelly can make the world a better place.....
I think people are prepared to go along with income and wage differentials to a degree.
They dont want to see lazy bastards getting as much as people working hard. So to a degree i think your right. BUT most people want to see a fairer world they dont want to see poverty or starvation either in the UK or abroad and that would be a start.
Socialism is not an overnight solution or a magic wand but its a way of recognising that people collectivelly can make the world a better place.....
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
You can't stand anything that contradicts your worldview, can you?
I notice you're extremely familiar with that song. Bit of a theme tune for you, is it?
tbaldwin said:
People go along with income differences to a very, very large degree. They are happy for billionare Russian businessmen to come over here and buy rich football clubs for goodness sakes. My point is that they are okay with one person having that much wealth. That's a huge degree.
The problem isn't that most people don't object to poverty and starvation (they do), the problem is they don't want anything done about it if it effects them and their standard of living which it often will. The problem is people are selfish. France is a good example of what I'm talking about, they think its a shame that third world farmers are in poverty but they are not prepared to do anything about if it means they have to make sacrifices with farm substities and what have you.
People act more caring and compassionate than they really are. Its not what they say that's important its what they do. I know someone who says it breaks his heart to see homeless people but really when he talks about tax and stuff like that it's clear that he is nothing but an ignorant right-wing selfish fuckwit who doesn't believe his taxes should be spent on school since he doesn't have kids and doesn't believe in a free health service either. Yet it would be easy to believe he cared, but when it came to the choice it would be all about no #1.
You say people don't want to see lazy bastards getting as much money as people working hard. Again, that's true, but there is another side to it. The other side being that people only resent that if they're the ones working hard, and, if the option presents its self to be a lazy bastard and still get money a lot of them would take it.
People on the receiving end will change nothing if the harbour aspirations about being on the other side.
Peoples natures are part of the problem. For things to change peoples attitudes would have to change. That could happen but it will take ages. The battle for change is against attitudes, not politicans.
Bear said:
Good post overall but especially the last bit... Politicians are easy to scapegoat but it is pointless...
But i think in some respects your wrong. ATTITUDES are not fixed...
And human nature isnt either, we are all a mixture of attitudes,fears etc.
If people are confident that if they back social change it is going to actually work they will in large numbers.
But people are warey, they see how money is wasted and they dont like it.....
Most people want number 1 to feel good about themselves they dont want to feel either like A Selfish bastards or B Mugs...
The Job is to appeal to their good side with workable alternatives....
Similar threads
