![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
stockhausen isn't interested in the environment at all, he just pretends to be. If he was, he would not have scrapped a car in order to purchase a brand new car imported from the other side of the world.
Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
stockhausen isn't interested in the environment at all, he just pretends to be. If he was, he would not have scrapped a car in order to purchase a brand new car imported from the other side of the world.
Man of Honour
Can't say I'm surprised really.
Soldato
Have to be one to be the other really.
Socialism on there would be the bottom left corner really, if not more of a curve than a single point.
Indeed, Labour have never been Liberal...
I'd also note that you don't have to be left wing to not screw the working classesLeft wing thinking just requires you to believe that only the government can help people and that the government owns all the money...
In a way, yes. And it's a testament to what's wrong with society today that people can lie about what they believe in when so much is at stake.
Have to be one to be the other really.
Socialism on there would be the bottom left corner really, if not more of a curve than a single point.
If you're going to post from the political compass, at least get the positioning right.
The bottom left corner is not socialism, it's anarcho-syndicalism. Top left is communism, bottom right is anarcho-capitalism, and the top right is authoritarian freemarketism.
Socialism is somewhere in the mid point on the left economically, and varies on the social scale depending on the particular brand of socialism involved.
Who is lying about what they believe in?
Have to be one to be the other really.
Socialism on there would be the bottom left corner really, if not more of a curve than a single point.
In a way, yes. And it's a testament to what's wrong with society today that people can lie about what they believe in when so much is at stake.
What Dolph said....
Soldato
Which is why i described it as a curve. Anarcho-syndicalism really is a branch of socialism anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find an anarcho-syndicalist who wouldn't call themselves a socialist.
Anybody who says that they are left when really they're centre-mid right are lying. I thought that was pretty self explanatory.
No offense, but you've proven time and time again in discussions that your definition of socialism doesn't match that used by the rest of the world... Lots of people call themselves socialists, it in no way means they are.
That's what I hoped you meant. You do realise the reason why there are no major UK parties on the left of that graph any more, don't you?
Soldato
And you keep failing to realise that modern socialism has grown far beyond a shady definition in some forgotten paragraph of Marx's book. Have a face to face talk with a modern socialist about what they think, then reevaluate your definition based on that.
Exactly why we need labour to go back there.
Socialism involves the means of production being owned, managed and run by the workers or the state. Effectively it refers to a state managed economy.
That's all there is to it. Whatever other beliefs are tacked on are not part of 'socialism'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://www.answers.com/topic/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
Even ignoring the marxism version of socialism (which I have not referred to once) the result remains the same.
If you read beyond the first sentence of that definition, you get a point I would be inclined to bring up.
"A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labour, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude;[4] often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labour expended or individual contribution."
First of all, I can't believe that's one sentence. Secondly, a free market economy, and a socialist economy are not mutually exclusive. Just as a capitalist economy and a free market economy are not necessarily one and the same. One could draw attention at capitalism's tendency to create monopolies and thus abolishing the concept of a free market in it's wake (just one example). This is all covered in Capital Volume 1, which anyone with a fleeting interest in economics should have read.
indeed, but that doesn't really change my point about the position of 'socialism' on the political compass. in fact, it confirms to an even greater degree that socialism does not sit at the bottom left of the graph.
If I were to plot 'socialism' on the graph, then it would definitely sit in the upper left quadrant. I would just make the point that it's a word used to describe a wealth of different systems, not all of which maybe so easy to plot.
The key point is that socialism actually refers to economic setup, not to a specific social position, and not a massively extreme economic setup in most guises.
Soldato
This thread has been great imagine 7000+ posts about politics Im sure this thread has encouraged people who would not normally vote to go out and vote.
It's no surprise that labour were booted out funny to see the same people saying for the tories what was said for new labour in 1997. Although the swing wasn't as great I think that the tories will probably be given 2 terms at it (if they can avoid all the sleeze that affected their party the last time) then it'll be back to a new labour again...
Still good on OCUK forumites for finally talking about politics....
every give themselves a pat on the back.
Least you aren't arguing about which language you should speak yet...; (see belgium it's a right mess due to 3 small communes/gemeentes.
It's no surprise that labour were booted out funny to see the same people saying for the tories what was said for new labour in 1997. Although the swing wasn't as great I think that the tories will probably be given 2 terms at it (if they can avoid all the sleeze that affected their party the last time) then it'll be back to a new labour again...
Still good on OCUK forumites for finally talking about politics....
every give themselves a pat on the back.
Least you aren't arguing about which language you should speak yet...; (see belgium it's a right mess due to 3 small communes/gemeentes.
Caporegime
Initially, I wanted a minority Conservative administration, but having digested (I think) the weeks events,I feel better that we have cooperation, it should (could) bring something new to our system......
I'm not holding my breath though.......
Time will tell.
I'm not holding my breath though.......
Time will tell.
Soldato
Proof they are stupid. After all the damage Labour has done....
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 907
At first I wanted a Tory Minority government, then when the negotiations begun I thought there was a small chance but it could be pulled off and hoped such a pact could happen.
But then Brown resigned as Labour leader, immediately my entire view changed and I felt Clegg was likely the reason for his resignation and I wanted the Tories to go back into opposition to wait out the inevitable collapse of the Rainbow Coalition before ruining all of them.
Of course though whoever had the decision of putting Ed Balls in charge of Labours negotiations really didn't want them to happen.
Now I will cautiously await the new government and hope the economy keeps growing, the cuts bring down the deficit and hope it doesn't collapse. Meanwhile I hope Labour doesn't rebuild quickly.
But then Brown resigned as Labour leader, immediately my entire view changed and I felt Clegg was likely the reason for his resignation and I wanted the Tories to go back into opposition to wait out the inevitable collapse of the Rainbow Coalition before ruining all of them.
Of course though whoever had the decision of putting Ed Balls in charge of Labours negotiations really didn't want them to happen.
Now I will cautiously await the new government and hope the economy keeps growing, the cuts bring down the deficit and hope it doesn't collapse. Meanwhile I hope Labour doesn't rebuild quickly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...alition-wins-public-approval-in-ICM-poll.html
Interesting ICM/Telegraph poll supporting the coalition.
Interesting ICM/Telegraph poll supporting the coalition.