Off Topic Political Debate

I quite like the description of Ed I heard earlier "the less bright brother".. Well it made me laugh

 

Can you try and answer the simple question. Which country is the nearest in reflecting your green/ socialist views, no waffle please.

 

The question should not be about socialism or capitalism, but the exercise of power. Many of the so called Socialist states put too much power in the hands of individuals. In Western democracies too much power is in the hands of top business people. The creation of the Premier League is an obvious example. The best sort of society is one that reduces the power imbalances as much as possible.

 

Nice swerve and nice mixing of parallel drawing. Co-operation in nature and Evolution are hardly related - except that successful community is more likely to survive and thus pass on their genetic material. But you can find examples in nature that you would seem Capialist than Socialist - do worker bees own the right to control production.
Very cleaver at the end swapping Socialist for Democracy...or wax that a slip?

 

I'm sorry Superhorns, but I think this is a silly question. Cologne, of course, may disagree and have an answer for you. The nation state is designed to control people. There is no such thing as a good nation state, just a less bad one. Unfortunately, it is probably a necessary evil because, without it, control of people falls into the hands of the strongest and/or richest. Benevolent dictators are thin on the ground.

 

My point re education is not an intellectual argument .
FACT ...self serving, greedy Tories twist the truth and basically repeat lies.
A better informed electorate would be able to see through these lies ... and realise they are being conned . .Have I mention the Sun "newspaper" ?
Ok ,I suspect a few of you tory boys on here are doing alright ...nice house , nice cars, nice holidays ,nice pensions , nice golf clubs, blah ,blah, blah ...congratulations I'm sure you deserve it . ( only a little sarcasm intended ) .
Sadly , a great number of people in our nation are really struggling . A lot of those folk have had to rely on the state through ill health .. A stroke for example could hit any one of us at any time ... and setting aside premature death we will all grow old .
Conservatives seem to lack genuine compassion and although many of them have huge wealth , they only seem to think about money and getting more of it for themselves .

How about abolishing inheritance completely . At end of life ,residual wealth could be placed into creating the worlds best health , welfare and education systems .
The country would be a fairer place ...those individuals who genuinely worked hard would do well and be left with a warm sense of achievement ...sorted !

 

No you do not have to comment on Venezuela but I respectfully suggest you look at it as a very current and excellent example of the implementation of socialist principles and do not avoid the reality of the misery imposed on society by "socialist" states (Venezuela is the definition of 21st century socialism). The fact that these principles fail in execution because they are contrary to human nature is well demonstrated by this and all the other pseudo socialist experiments. I do not advocate anarchy and agree the state must place the infrastructure for individuals/groups/society to achieve. The difference between us appears to be that I believe in minimal state intervention with the majority of decision and income resting with the populace whereas you appear to be advocating individuals working for the state and the state having the power to decide on what is given to who. The reality of socialist systems is that they rely on keeping the poor poor and increasing fear and state reliance, this is the case in Venezuela, this is the case in the FSU. Following from earlier debate here I decided to question nationals in East Germany when I was there earlier this month on the relative merits of the old system versus the post wall down. I was met with incredulity as to the question as there is no contest in the locals minds the current system is so much better. The key is not letting the radical right get a big foothold though.

 

I'm interested to delve into your definition of "socialist"? You appear to be saying that having any state makes a system partially socialist? Responsible government I opine is integral to both systems. My own opinion of socialism is that it is a system designed to pool resources for the entire social group (country in the large scale or even global but can come down to area and family units) whereas capitalism is system designed to build capital within a unit be it family, town, country or global. The focus on building capital and relying on the good side of human nature (philantropy) for distribution in my mind is better for society than attempting to as prime objective work for the state and allow them to decide on distribution. It comes down to the fact that state is always run by politicians in whichever system and by definition politicians are corrupt.

 

It is not a silly question. I genuinely would like an example where these socialist ideals actually work for the majority of the people without excessive control from the state. I have provided a standard, the UK, which I think, with all its faults, is hard to beat. Please kindly provide an alternative.

 

Nick Clegg really is the only one to have got to grips with this coalition lark isn't he? Cameron and Milliband seem intent on making promises which they will probably have to break within hours of the results if they want to be PM.

There could be some rather "interesting" alliances either way - much as many will be worried by the prospect of a labour/ SNP/ Lib Dem / Green pact the thought of Tory / UKIP and DUP is eevry bit as concerning in many ways. They'll probably end up banning football on a Sunday...

 

Can a worker bee survive if he tries to compete with all other bees ? You are right in saying elsewhere that Socialism works better in small units - all the more reason to decentralize and break up the larger countries. Real change comes from below. It comes from communities or individuals deciding which system they want to live in and then building that around them - and then hoping that their example inspires others to do the same - until eventually you have a loose association of communes etc. (which you may term as something like a country). Change does not come about through waiting for political parties to 'change things from above' because they will always want to hang onto power. You, and others are asking me to name my 'perfect' state. All I can say is that this does not exist, because humans are not perfect. I do not think that there can be one system which is suited for all countries. An example here is Germany which has always had a more 'active' state, when it comes to economics, than the UK. The neo liberal model adopted in the UK. would sit very uneasily in Germany. The question should be 'which country would you personally like to live in ?`, in answer to which I would probably answer Switzerland (because I speak German already) - make of that what you will. It is the most democratic country in the World. I am not advocating my ideal state as a solution for the UK, because countries develop their systems in accordance with their own history. Others on here have said that Britain works, and I say look again. Britain has the most unequal distribution of wealth in Europe - the second oldest housing stock (badly insulated ) in Europe - more teenage drinkers, underage pregnancies and street muggings than anywhere else in Europe. A totally unworkable and undemocratic political system where no government actually has the support of the people. Please can we start there. I have my 'ideal' but I am aware that it will probably remain just that - it is also conditioned as much by my religious beliefs (and therefore difficult to argue with).

 

Unfortunately Britain has no tradition of coalition government and so it will be difficult at first. But it could be the case that Britain never again has a 'majority' for one party. I can understand why some people are worried about a strong SNP presence in Westminster (possibly the 3rd biggest party), and possibly based on a smaller share of the UK vote than what the Green Party gets. Imagine the SNP sitting there with 35-40 seats based on about 4% of the UK national vote - and then compare that to the Green result. This could be the spark which finally propels us to PR. Really the SNP presence is no more incongruous than UKIP sitting in the European parliament. Personally I hope that a Labour - Lib.-Green-SDLP alliance will be enough without the SNP.

 

Relying on philanthropy is too open to chance. It may have worked in days gone by (eg. the 19th Century when there were more practicing Christians around) but it would be difficult now.

 

You are not quite right cologne in saying that the UK has no tradition of coalition government. All of the 1930's had a coalition, of Conservatives, Labour and Liberals. The members of that coalition moved around a bit, there were even Liberals standing as coalition candidates, but it did exist right up to the war.

 

The usual lefty liberal cliches get trotted out again. As someone who would fit into your aim as "doing alright" (well apart from the golf clubs as that game bores me intensely) - I am rather proud that coming from a council estate in Hemel, I have been able, with the support of my old mum and dad and then my own family, to have become a citizen that rarely relies on the state and actually contributes rather a lot back. I am more than happy to pay my taxes to benefit those who are less fortunate or going through hard times and would be OK to pay more in national insurance to improve the NHS. I do not consider myself a Conservative (with a capital C), but I would be more aligned to their policies as I believe that those that can support themsleves should and contribute to support those that cannot - painting tories as evil money grabbing heartless bastards just gets in the way of informed debate.

 

Eldest daughter went to St Johns - a very rich college and it showed; my other daughter went to .... Worcester where she studied Law. As you say both beautiful places and the City of Spires itself is great.
I have watched intermittently the election coverage but have not been able to be motivated by any. I will vote only because I believe it is a duty. Can't say I particularly like or dislike any party - what does turn me off is the negative comments and campaigning and I do not like generalised slagging off of groups of people - and I include the super-rich and bankers in this. People who do that are exhibiting the same biased behaviour as racists, religious hatred, homophobia etc. You cannot label and generalise people. Sure many in society have an undeserved privileged position and I understand the desire to make them contribute a greater percentage to society as a whole - but it is not their fault they were born into that position any more than it is the fault of the poor or sick that they have problems. Attacking them and denigrating them and their children serves no purpose. We should all think how we would feel if others decided we were super-rich (as we are compared to 90% of the world population) and so proposed to take vast amounts off us to give to starving millions

 

It is refreshing for you to admit that no country has managed to evolve to suit your ideal socialist manner and that human nature prevents this, which is not unsurprising.

You quote Switzerland as a country you would like to live but haven't they been complicit with huge amounts of money laundering, tax fiddling and dodgy bank accounts? They seem to be friends with the worst of the capitalist and socialist systems around the world.

Ironically It was pressure from Cameron and Osborne which helped to force them to be more transparent.

I'm sure there are a lot worse places in Europe than the UK for muggings etc.

The UK has a lot going for it, the best recent growth in Europe, one of the lowest unemployment rates, the best place to start a business and freedom to spout rubbish on a football forum.

I was in a pub last night talking to some French people which were part of my wife's french class. They were astonished at the ease in which they could start a business in the UK without the huge amount of red tape and financial burdens inflicted on them in their own country.

No wonder there are so many of them moving to the UK. Of course once they make their fortunes they will return to France to enjoy the splendid benefits of living there. Unfortunately many will be unaffordable in the long term unless they take their heads out of the sand.

Supporters of the SNP should look at France's economic model as 'the one I baked earlier' and chuck it in the bin!!

 

I think you missed my point Cologne, I would not ask you to name a perfect state as I do not believe it exists or has ever existed. I absolutely agree that we should break up larger state structures, that is why i supported Scottish
Independence and I would exit the EU tomorrow. Where we would differ is that I do not believe the commune system you describe would work in the modern world. It may have worked where the majority people essentially just worked on the production of food and there were just a few "services" required - the Smith, the Thatcher etc. In today's world it is just not sustainable. I would also agree with your assessment of Britain though.