magnkarl Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 21 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: Assuming Corbyn is a 'wine buddy', what's worse, being a wine buddy? Or selling arms. Why should both be 'ashamed' when one party is doing something far more destructive. In my eyes selling arms is way worse, however if a friend of mine murdered hundreds of people and I was in a position to influence that or distance myself from it I'd certainly do that. I would definitely not be silent like Corbyn is, because at the end of the day he's gone on and on about Venezuela being a "great example" of socialism working well before. Now when it's gone horribly down the drain (like most other socialist states) the silence speaks a thousand words really. I wonder how many countries have gone sour under socialism while Corbyn has been a grown up, the number must be considerable. Off the top of my head. Yugoslavia - Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Kosovo Afghanistan Albania Angola All ex-Soviet states (15 states at the time, more countries in modern terms) All states not part of the Soviet union but under Soviet control (Poland, East Germany, Czech, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania) Benin Burma Cambodia Congo Cape Verde Ethiopia Egypt Grenada Iraq Libya Mozambique Somalia Syria Sudan North Vietnam Yemen Venezuela The list for current active socialist states is meanwhile getting shorter and shorter. Marxist-Leninist: China (doing a soft landing - converting to market driven economics) Cuba Laos Vietnam North Korea (although scrubbed their country of the words Marx and Lenin in the 90's) Variants of socialism: Bangladesh Guinea-Bissau Guyana India (albeit also moving away from socialism) Nepal Portugal Sri Lanka Tanzania Something is not going right for socialism.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 30 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: Assuming Corbyn is a 'wine buddy', what's worse, being a wine buddy? Or selling arms. Why should both be 'ashamed' when one party is doing something far more destructive. we've been the words second biggest arms dealer for many years , since at least the 90's if not longer... interestingly it's a heavily subsidised industry so I guess we are all helping to fund it indirectly !! So , other than the fact the government is now Tory and thus at the helm I'm not really sure how any side / party can claim any moral high ground on this subject ... though I believe labour did pledge in their manifesto to stop dealing with those countries with human rights abuse records , but that remains to be seen if it was a commitment or an aspiration in 2001 our very own government shut down an enquiry investigation arms sales to Saudi ( sound familiar ? ) , we've sold arms to Iraq to Israel and Something like 22 of the top 30 offenders i guess the industry is what it is , as a country , we have to either say it's morally wrong and get out the business , or take the view if they don't buy it from us they will only buy it from someone else and thus take the money and don't act shocked when a despot we sold arms to uses them for oppression !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 9 hours ago, magnkarl said: Off the top of my head. Have you managed to talk to that lecturer yet, the one duped by the fake racist photoshopping? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 59 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Have you managed to talk to that lecturer yet, the one duped by the fake racist photoshopping? Nope, not yet. I don't think I'll ever talk to him either. However due process has been followed and his material has not been accepted for our rotation. I presume he might have meant to use the picture in another way, as it is propaganda from someone right leaning, but he wasn't at all clear enough about that. Villatalk to the rescue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 14 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Nope, not yet. I don't think I'll ever talk to him either. However due process has been followed and his material has not been accepted for our rotation. I presume he might have meant to use the picture in another way, as it is propaganda from someone right leaning, but he wasn't at all clear enough about that. Villatalk to the rescue. Quote I presume he might have meant to use the picture in another way, as it is propaganda from someone right leaning, but he wasn't at all clear enough about that. Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted August 13, 2017 Moderator Share Posted August 13, 2017 12 hours ago, magnkarl said: However due process has been followed and his material has not been accepted for our rotation. I presume he might have meant to use the picture in another way, as it is propaganda from someone right leaning. Ah well, better luck next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 13 hours ago, magnkarl said: Nope, not yet. I don't think I'll ever talk to him either. However due process has been followed and his material has not been accepted for our rotation. I presume he might have meant to use the picture in another way, as it is propaganda from someone right leaning, but he wasn't at all clear enough about that. Villatalk to the rescue. If he wants a case study of somebody unwittingly spreading political propaganda because they didn't think to check the truth behind it, I've got an example he might want to use... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 On 12/08/2017 at 11:34, magnkarl said: In my eyes selling arms is way worse, however if a friend of mine murdered hundreds of people and I was in a position to influence that or distance myself from it I'd certainly do that. I would definitely not be silent like Corbyn is, because at the end of the day he's gone on and on about Venezuela being a "great example" of socialism working well before. Now when it's gone horribly down the drain (like most other socialist states) the silence speaks a thousand words really. I wonder how many countries have gone sour under socialism while Corbyn has been a grown up, the number must be considerable. Off the top of my head. Yugoslavia - Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Kosovo Afghanistan Albania Angola All ex-Soviet states (15 states at the time, more countries in modern terms) All states not part of the Soviet union but under Soviet control (Poland, East Germany, Czech, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania) Benin Burma Cambodia Congo Cape Verde Ethiopia Egypt Grenada Iraq Libya Mozambique Somalia Syria Sudan North Vietnam Yemen Venezuela The list for current active socialist states is meanwhile getting shorter and shorter. Marxist-Leninist: China (doing a soft landing - converting to market driven economics) Cuba Laos Vietnam North Korea (although scrubbed their country of the words Marx and Lenin in the 90's) Variants of socialism: Bangladesh Guinea-Bissau Guyana India (albeit also moving away from socialism) Nepal Portugal Sri Lanka Tanzania Something is not going right for socialism.. You forgot the UK from the list. Is that an example of socialist success or failure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 (edited) On 8/13/2017 at 16:43, darrenm said: You forgot the UK from the list. Is that an example of socialist success or failure? Again, I think you are mixing up your definitions. A strong, supportive state doesn't equate socialism. Some left leaning people in the UK thinks that because we have a state that supports its populace we're a socialist country. Socialism: 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. UK: Constitutional monarchy\parliamentary democracy. Socialism has very little to do with our policies, unless you think that we are somehow the same as Venezuela\China\Laos\Vietnam? Edited August 15, 2017 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 I'd say that's a (too) narrow definition of socialism. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 1 hour ago, magnkarl said: Again, I think you are mixing up your definitions. A strong, supportive state doesn't equate socialism. Some left leaning people in the UK thinks that because we have a state that supports its populace we're a socialist country. Socialism: 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. UK: Constitutional monarchy\parliamentary democracy. Socialism has very little to do with our policies, unless you think that we are somehow the same as Venezuela\China\Laos\Vietnam? Again? When was the last time? The UK is absolutely socialist. The state owns: The health service The road infrastructure The rail infrastructure Banks State broadcaster Postage service Weather forecast service There's plenty of previously state owned companies that have been privatised, so judging purely by infrastructure, we were more socialist than we currently are but still a mix. But socialism is basically a social concept. It's about cooperation and sharing, rather than individualism. With the social care we have in this country, benefits, state support, welfare, everything, we're absolutely, definitely socialist. I'm afraid I think you're mixing up your definitions, evidenced by your misunderstanding of conflating a political ideology with a type of government. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 15, 2017 Moderator Share Posted August 15, 2017 1 hour ago, darrenm said: Again? When was the last time? The UK is absolutely socialist. The state owns: The health service The road infrastructure The rail infrastructure Banks State broadcaster Postage service Weather forecast service There's plenty of previously state owned companies that have been privatised, so judging purely by infrastructure, we were more socialist than we currently are but still a mix. But socialism is basically a social concept. It's about cooperation and sharing, rather than individualism. With the social care we have in this country, benefits, state support, welfare, everything, we're absolutely, definitely socialist. I'm afraid I think you're mixing up your definitions, evidenced by your misunderstanding of conflating a political ideology with a type of government. Erm they sold off that damn post office a little while ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, darrenm said: The state owns: The health service The road infrastructure The rail infrastructure Banks State broadcaster Postage service Not for long! That's quite a complicated subject, I think Okay Bits of some of them The Beeb isn't a state broadcaster Royal Mail? Didn't they get rid of their last shares in it a year or two back? Edited August 15, 2017 by snowychap spelling - complicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 56 minutes ago, snowychap said: Not for long! That's quite a comlicated subject, I think Okay Bits of some of them The Beeb isn't a state broadcaster Royal Mail? Didn't they get rid of their last shares in it a year or two back? I didn't say every bit of every one! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 25 minutes ago, darrenm said: I didn't say every bit of every one! ;-) Okay. So a country that sells off almost all assets is socialist? I think you are confusing a liberal democracy for socialism. Rather than saying "we're socialist because of free this and that, and the state owns so much!", you should be looking at the countries that actually subscribe to socialism. What do you call Venezuela, China, North Korea, Vietnam, if we're socialist? They are the definition of socialism (by Oxford's standards) - our left wing politicians aren't even close to being socialist, but rather something similar to the pick and mix variety of politics seen in Scandinavia where they subscribe to free health care, roads etc. even though they have conservative governments. Tax was employed as a way to help the population in certain countries way before Marx started writing his theories, so the whole "we're socialist because of NHS" argument is not really valid. It's always been cool to call yourself a socialist though - very few people actually know that this entails something completely different to a pretty liberal society that we enjoy in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 15, 2017 Moderator Share Posted August 15, 2017 14 minutes ago, magnkarl said: What do you call Venezuela, China, North Korea, Vietnam Socialist wouln't be a word that immediately sprung to mind. 16 minutes ago, magnkarl said: very few people actually know that this entails As you yourself prove 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post El Zen Posted August 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted August 15, 2017 A dictionary will hardly provide a useful definition for such a complex term as socialism. Your narrow definition ignores centuries of history and countless volumes of camparative political theory, not to mention common practice. Socialism is several hundred different things. It's a catch-all phrase. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Tax was employed as a way to help the population in certain countries way before Marx started writing his theories, so the whole "we're socialist because of NHS" argument is not really valid. What on earth are you on about here? Quote What do you call Venezuela A despotic kleptocracy Quote China Single-party, authoritarian, state-capitalist. Quote North Korea A dictatorship running a (poorly) centrally-planned economy. Quote Vietnam Single-party, authoritarian, state-capitalist. You seem very fond of quoting a dictionary definition of socialism but, as alluded to by others, e.g. @Michelsen, such a thing isn't particularly helpful in discussing a very broad subject. It's much too simplistic - an accusation which I would also level at my labelling, above. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 2 hours ago, magnkarl said: Okay. So a country that sells off almost all assets is socialist? Actually, the point I was originally making was in response to your list of socialist countries gone bad. That the UK was always quite socialist and still is to an extent was my general point and that we've done OK out of it, and that the steady move to neoliberal capitalism from Thatcher onwards only seems to have changed things for the worse while Nordic socialism seems to have blossomed while we rejected it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) On 8/15/2017 at 20:13, darrenm said: Actually, the point I was originally making was in response to your list of socialist countries gone bad. That the UK was always quite socialist and still is to an extent was my general point and that we've done OK out of it, and that the steady move to neoliberal capitalism from Thatcher onwards only seems to have changed things for the worse while Nordic socialism seems to have blossomed while we rejected it. Do you mean Nordic capitalism or Nordic social democracy? None of the Nordic states are socialist. Socialists like to believe so, but it couldn't be further from the truth. All three countries have some of the freest market policies in the world and have had these policies for a very long time. Sweden is the only country in the Nordics that experimented lightly with socialism in the 70's and 80's. They quickly turned away from it because their country went from being rich to having the second slowest rate of growth in Europe in 1971 after introducing planned economics. Since 1991 when they went back to a free market model they went back up to being amongst the top 5 countries in Western Europe in GDP growth terms. There is no such thing as Nordic socialism - it's a term people like Bernie Sanders have made up about the rather conservative capitalistic way that Norway, Sweden and Denmark run their countries. If you consider yourself a socialist I'd suggest you read up on the Nordic model rather than the spin stories that people like Jeremy and Bernie like to tell you about it. Edited August 17, 2017 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts