OH MY GOD ITS THEM STRIKERS KILLING CHILDREN AGAIN!!!!
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
OH MY GOD ITS THEM STRIKERS KILLING CHILDREN AGAIN!!!!
You can have left wing socialist libertarians or a right wing libertarians - authoritarianism can also be left or right wing.
This country is not left wing, Labour are not left wing, neither is Tory or the Lib-Dems, we range from centre to centre-right.
The only left wing political group we have (with any seats) is the green party.
You are forgetting that political views have more than two dimensions.
This country is not left wing, Labour are not left wing, neither is Tory or the Lib-Dems, we range from centre to centre-right.
The only left wing political group we have (with any seats) is the green party.
You are forgetting that political views have more than two dimensions.
Public opinion will in this case always go against in this case I think. When the public sector goes on strike again and more horror stories come out about old grannies falling over in their flats and not being able to get an abulance for 5 + hours etc, the public will enetually have stomached enough union crap and likely want the government to crush them.
This was based on opinion polls regarding the Miners strike in the 80's
You can see as the strikes dragged on they garnered less and less public favour and support, the same thing will be seen again today if strikes carry on in the public sector.
I know polls can be misleading, but what I am trying to present here is wy public opinion will always end up going negative by continued disrutpion due to public sector workers striking
Hmm, I guess it depends on where you take your view of socialism from - but from my understanding a fascist (usually above the law) leader is not very compatible with reducing hierarchy & increasing equality.
"As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs"
Socialism is from my understanding is a socio-economic system, encompassing both economic & social issues. (similar to communism).
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Are you having a laugh or do you actually mean that? have you even heard of "the night of the long knives"?
I'll give you that we was elected, but in a broken democracy.
then you understand wrong.
By the forcible aquistition and control of the means of production. Socialism doesn't have a monopoly on owning the means of production you know.
'The Labour Party is a centre-left democratic socialist party in the United Kingdom'
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Not as I understand it.
You can talk about a socialist system in terms of economics, politics, sociology etc. One could say that a government has socialist economic policies or fascist economic policies.
Fascist systems have specific economic system tenets and so does socialist systems. They are both very similar and this is largely due to the fact that when we have a relationship between the state and aspects of the economy the relationship is usually both ways.
Some hard line socialists refuse to admit that the NHS is socialist service. They claim that as the "means of production" is not under "social ownership" that it is not socialist. This specific definition of socialism is not fully agreed upon. The more commonly agreed upon definition of socialism is any good or service that is supplied by the state via taxation that could otherwise be funded by private capital for profit. When these socialist (in "my" definition) goods and services are actually "privatised" to such an extent that they operate for profit but retain the advantages of a socialist good or service then they can be defined as fascist.
What we would call an organisation that has "social ownership" of its means of production a type of partnership in the capitalist systems. Just because an organisation has owners of the business that operate the business does not make it socialist.
It is all just isms at the end of the day, these words were created to try and summarize complicated political and economic ideologies. I mean look the socialist wikipedia page has no reference to the word authoritarianism, that should say enough for wikipedia's understanding of the isms.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
In name only. In policy they're anything but. The days when they could actually be considered to be at all left of centre ended with the removal of Clause IV.
Labour are left wing in terms of never coming across a problem that can't be solved by government spending.
They just aren't socialist as they had to move away from state ownership of firms due to the public not wanting it any more.
He only does it to get a response from people and time and time again they do, they play straight into his hands.
It is brilliant.
Indeed
"We are seeking urgent legal advice about what further action we can take against him and the BBC, and whether or not his comments should be referred to the police."
haha, some people need to chill out and stop being so sensitive.
Nice label.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
By the slimist of margins.
'The Labour Party is a minutely left of center democratic aspirant socialist party in the United Kingdom' would be a better description - I'll go edit wiki now.
maybe in the 80's but now they talk the same crap as every other party. Political parties today are fickle and will simply spout what they think the baying crowds want to hear. On occasion they go against the grain against a backlash of public fury, but mostly they are all now homogeneous.
New labour was definitely not typical of a centre left party, it was more of a capitalist working mans party.
Would have thought you would be too busy using membership fees to persue clarkson through the courts for speaking his mind haha
Left wing does not specifically mean trying to solve problems with government spending.
(this quote isn't aimed at you, I'm confident you already know this)
"In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist generally refer to support for social change to create a more egalitarian society.They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relatively to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities"
The last point I agree, they are not socialist, the government does not own anything any-more.
I'm left wing by the fact I do wish to create a more egalitarian society & I do have a genuine concern for those in society who are disadvantage - but there is no connect to being left-wing & wishing to waste money on pointless & futile projects.
American society is incredibly right wing & have managed to build up an impressive national debt, they have also attempted to spend there way out of these problems (without a hint of leftism).
Well, New Labour did have a policy of pursuing equality of outcome, although they did do it by trying to reduce everyone to the low level (as seen in education) rather than trying to raise the bottom up.
I believe in equality of opportunity combined with personal responsibility for making the most of it, rather than equality of outcome, and the two are largely incompatible.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Would have thought you would be too busy using membership fees to persue clarkson through the courts for speaking his mind haha
I think Clarkson is a national treasure
I'd actually be much more willing to consider removing much of the support for the long term unemployed (assuming we had fantastic equality of opportunity) - but unfortunately this isn't anything that can be fixed in a generation.
I agree with one thing, equality of outcome isn't the best method - as you need to solve the problem at source - not patch it up once it's too late.
I just don't agree with some conservatives who simply deny that inequality of opportunity is a problem, or that it even exists (when it clearly & objectivity does).
Ironically I tend to agree with the target of the more moderate conservatives - to stop people from growing up with no aspirations & living in poverty off benefits forever.
Just for different reasons & I'd prefer a solution which caused the least amount of suffering to the innocent (when children are involved for example).