Jump to content

Are all Socialists/left wingers delusional, unrealistic or just plain stupid? Discuss


Dibden Purlieu Saint

Recommended Posts

Not at all a loaded question!

 

Unrealistic is probably the right point though.

 

Socialists try to work against human nature by stipulating a system that is utterly fair for all, providing equal opportunity for all and equal chance for all. Human nature itself will always undermine such nobel ideals. Besides which, the captalist system they seak to use to make it possible could never support these dreams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all a loaded question!

 

Unrealistic is probably the right point though.

 

Socialists try to work against human nature by stipulating a system that is utterly fair for all, providing equal opportunity for all and equal chance for all. Human nature itself will always undermine such nobel ideals. Besides which, the captalist system they seak to use to make it possible could never support these dreams.

 

It was once written, that if you put three people on a deserted island, one will become the leader. Equality does not exist, so neither can the socialist/communist concept!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres a huge difference between equality of opportunity - an equal chance in life to make of it what you can - and enforced levelling down of adults. Singapore has the first system - excellent education and healthcare provided by the state - but very little in the way of social welfare or pensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wondered how long it would take for the cretin to appear.

 

I notice you have no agrument against the the very truthful point I make. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Margaret Thatcher sums it perfectly in this video...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was once written, that if you put three people on a deserted island, one will become the leader. Equality does not exist, so neither can the socialist/communist concept!

 

If it was written somewhere by someone it must be true. That's how it works, if you write something it instantly becomes a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice you have no agrument against the the very truthful point I make. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Margaret Thatcher sums it perfectly in this video...

 

 

She is utterly right.

 

Sadly though, due to the need to slim down the rediculously inflated public sectors there will probably be a point of the poor becoming poorer in the next few years. Of course that's the tories/collation's fault though! It would be far too much to see that the standard of living rise under the champagne socialists was always unsustainable given the lack of domestic industry.

Edited by Colinjb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is utterly right.

 

Sadly though, due to the need to slim down the rediculously inflated public sectors there will probably be a point of the poor becoming poorer in the next few years. Of course that's the tories/collation's fault though! It would be far too much to see that the standard of living rise under the champagne socialists was always unsustainable given the lack of domestic industry.

 

Standards of living did not rise under Labour, levels of personal debt did. Brown told everyone boom and bust was a thing of the past so people copied him and kept spending on the never never. It was all fake. I'm glad we're now living in an age of austerity because it has brought some realism back. If you want something save up for it - that is what our parents and grandparents did and that simple economic principle should govern the finances of the government too.

 

People talk about reducing the deficit, but that is just the tip of th iceberg - the real problem is the debt and the interest on the debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Capitalism is a philosophy of greed, the creed of avarice, and the gospel of hate. It's inherent value is to subjugate the majority for the benefit of the minority. It is the cult of materialistic gluttony.

 

True Socialism is founded in the principle that all men are created equal, it builds on this with the altruistic creed that each should have the same opportunity, and takes a realistic position on materialism - that everybody is entitled to food, clean water, health, secure housing, and the right to work to support themselves and their dependents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism is a philosophy of greed, the creed of avarice, and the gospel of hate. It's inherent value is to subjugate the majority for the benefit of the minority. It is the cult of materialistic gluttony.

 

True Socialism is founded in the principle that all men are created equal, it builds on this with the altruistic creed that each should have the same opportunity, and takes a realistic position on materialism - that everybody is entitled to food, clean water, health, secure housing, and the right to work to support themselves and their dependents.

 

Give some examples of sucessful Socialist countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with socialism is that there is no motivation to suceed. Why work hard at school, university etc to get a good education and become a doctor, scientist, lawyer etc. when the state is just going to take all your hard earned cash and give it to other people. You might as well just sit at home mooching off benefits.

 

I can't think of a single socialist state which has been a success by any stretch of the imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standards of living did not rise under Labour, levels of personal debt did.

 

One and the same in this concept. People felt the standard of living was better because they could buy more stuff.

 

That they couldn't really afford it is almost irrelevant. They will just blame the nasty people who won't let them continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you measure 'success' by fiscal performance alone, there are bound to be 'successful' capitalist countries, ( though I doubt they would currently include Eire, Greece, or Portugal ). However, the majority of countries around the world, whatever their political affiliation, would classify as failures because of the exploitative consumption of the western 'civilisation'. The dominance of the G8 distorts everything. But even with all the wealth creation, there are still significant levels of deprivation and poverty, even in the archetypal market economies.

If you earn over £21k pa you are in the richest 5% of the world's population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with socialism is that there is no motivation to suceed. Why work hard at school, university etc to get a good education and become a doctor, scientist, lawyer etc. when the state is just going to take all your hard earned cash and give it to other people. You might as well just sit at home mooching off benefits.

If you measure 'success' by materialism and accrued wealth & possessions you may be correct, but consider this :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11950843

 

Once you have all that you absolutely need, why not gain the 'feel good factor' of helping as many others as possible ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when did facism come into this..?

 

Yeah. Capitalism and Fascism are not the same thing. It's just an easy slander to associate. Not all capitalists demand violent conflict and despise individualism... far from it.

Edited by Colinjb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for this extensive list. Shhhhhhhh.

 

All the successful economies are regulated market based. NONE are unbridled capitalism and NONE are totally socialist. Both these threads are based on a specious premise. The only real argument is just how much regulation and redistribution of wealth there should be. And before somebody says none, which one of the fuc kwits will - total deregulation - you know where old ladies die in the street and goods are shoddy and dangerous, is bad for business - you just end up with a free for all race to the bottom - which successful international companies refuse to take part in .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})