You can split anarchism into anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism depending on the economic system underpinning it.
However, it wasn't anarcho-capitalists protesting
March in London on the 26th?
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
You can split anarchism into anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism depending on the economic system underpinning it.
However, it wasn't anarcho-capitalists protesting
Do you mind if I ask what you do Doph and were you where educated?
I read Chemistry and Computing at Plymouth Uni, and now work for the UK's biggest mobile phone provider.
Please don't tell me you're saying that it's only the socialists that are the unreasonable ones? Or is it ok to be an anarchist, as long as you surrender to the might of capitalism?
No, both groups of anarchists are pretty unreasonable, although ironically, it's the anarcho-socialists (or anarcho-syndicalists if you prefer) who have to do bizarre mental gymnastics to balance their 'state free' society with a state provider for everything....
sorted
let the funds flow free!
i am off to protest at spending cuts. clearly they are not needed
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Hearing some of the rioters accents and seeing the gear and apparel they had, they seemed in the majority to be bored children of well to do parents in all honestly, so more than likely leaning to the right rather than the left and a need for rebellion so more Liberal than Labour or Tory.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your irrationality and ignorance of the problems which leads to stupid, irrelevant and unworkable solutions is not a fault with everyone else. Please learn what is actually happening.
As for the NHS standards going back to 1990s Tory levels, time to treat was quicker then
no it wasnt i posted the figures in another thread in SC a while back, which showed that by 2001 waiting times had drastically reduced and that they were at their highest in 1992!!!
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I love how you managed to include an advertisement in there
Not to derail the thread even more, but the whole point of anarcho-socialism/communism/anarchism is that there is no need for a state to provide any of those things, because time would have brought an end to scarcity. And blah, blah, blah.
As for the anarcho-capitalists, I suppose it's not unreasonable for them to support a system because they feel it satisfies their thirst for unfettered competition, when there is seldom a system in existence that does less for it?
All the same, let's get back to the Miliband bashing, please.
no it wasnt i posted the figures in another thread in SC a while back, which showed that by 2001 waiting times had drastically reduced and that they were at their highest in 1992!!!
Depends how you measure it. Average time to treatment actually rose under Labour when taken across everything. What labour did was reduce the very long waits, but at the expense of making everyone else wait longer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-waiting-times-rise-under-labour-791334.html
The long and short of it is that its a pretty useless affair to even debate it , much like the religion threads, minds are made up and nothing said by anyone here is going to change anothers opinion on here.
Those people who are anti-tory, anti-cuts, anti-haves (never quite understood that one entirely, I've worked hard my whole life to give my family and I the high standard of living that we have, seems odd for people to be against me for that, I can only come to the conclusion that its jealousy.) , those people have already settled on their view that its all wrong. (I was quite surprised to see one of the protesters yesterday say in an interview that they feel there is no need for any cuts in anything at all. I mean really?? Nothing?? Truly? Absolutely nothing should be cut and everything will be fine? Classic head-sand.)
On the other hand, those people who are pro-cuts, pro-tory, etc etc , those people have also already settled on their view that such things are needed. This thread could go on for another 5000 pages, data and figures and policies can be quoted, requoted and pasted time and again by both sides and still won't change anyone's viewpoint. The two "sides" are firmly entrenched now.
Those people who are anti-tory, anti-cuts, anti-haves (never quite understood that one entirely, I've worked hard my whole life to give my family and I the high standard of living that we have, seems odd for people to be against me for that, I can only come to the conclusion that its jealousy.) , those people have already settled on their view that its all wrong. (I was quite surprised to see one of the protesters yesterday say in an interview that they feel there is no need for any cuts in anything at all. I mean really?? Nothing?? Truly? Absolutely nothing should be cut and everything will be fine? Classic head-sand.)
On the other hand, those people who are pro-cuts, pro-tory, etc etc , those people have also already settled on their view that such things are needed. This thread could go on for another 5000 pages, data and figures and policies can be quoted, requoted and pasted time and again by both sides and still won't change anyone's viewpoint. The two "sides" are firmly entrenched now.
You really missed the point
Perhaps you should have explained your position more clearly then.
Not to derail the thread even more, but the whole point of anarcho-socialism/communism/anarchism is that there is no need for a state to provide any of those things, because time would have brought an end to scarcity. And blah, blah, blah.
As for the anarcho-capitalists, I suppose it's not unreasonable for them to support a system because they feel it satisfies their thirst for unfettered competition, when there is seldom a system in existence that does less for it?
All the same, let's get back to the Miliband bashing, please.
Yeah, that's what they say, then you start asking how they are going to manage scarcity and it all becomes very state-like...
The only difference being that unlike religion, those of us who say the cuts are necessary, can prove our case with cold hard facts and figures. The people saying the cuts are 'too deep' or even not necessary at all, are simply wrong and we can prove it.
Actually you can't because it is not a black and white situation, a lot of what the government are talking about are projections, estimates and gambles. The only thing that is certain is that public spending cuts are necessary - by how much, when and on what is what's being argued about here.
Which is why it is such a shame that a credible deficit reduction plan is not being offered by those opposing the cuts. Labour have never offered anything approaching detail of their plans. The lib Dems did, but as many of their supporters never actually read their manifesto (as is clear from the NHS reforms, which were in both the tory and lib dem manifestos prior to the election), it is largely pointless, not to mention that that sovereign debt crisis in Europe did change the landscape in the run up to the election...
I would love to see properly costed alternatives, that involve bringing public spending down to sustainable levels (around 40% of GDP) within a timeframe that won't spook the market, and will support growth. The problem is one hasn't come.
Do you mind if I ask what you do Doph and were you where educated?
Dolph was educated at Parkside Community College, and now has a suitably prestigious job with Plymouth City Council. He votes UKIP when nobody is looking.
Anarchy is demonstrably not a left-wing position; it resides at the extreme end of the libertarian philosophy to which Dolph himself subscribes.
Ed Balls just said they would reduce the debt to 50% by the time it takes the Tories to eliminate it. Since Labour usually misses its targets that would probably be 70%, by which time another downturn could be looming and we need to borrow hard all over again