Off Topic Political Debate

My reference to a 'small government' is the relative lowering of the percentage of GDP used for public spending, letting tax payers keep more of their own earned money.

 

Or even a government made up of pygmies !

 

Just to add a bit of spice to our definitions of Socialism - Karl Marx assumed that taxation would be unnecessary after the advent of socialism & looked forward to the 'withering away of the state`.

 

Maybe we should be looking for a more accurate definition of the word 'democracy'. It is a word often used but very rarely defined. We are told, repeatedly, that we have 'it' - or is convincing people that they have something the best way of stopping them fighting to gain it ? I have always thought that everything created by humans had a natural life cycle ie. birth - growth - decay - death, if that is true then countries are either 'democratizing` or have already reached a post democratic phase - or is it a case that as soon as we say 'we have it' it is gone. Some people would say that 'Socialism' and 'democracy' are one and the same thing - because a country cannot be called a thorough democracy until every aspect of its organization is governed by that principle - ie. you have democracy in the army, in the schools, and in all parts of the production process (Something only possible with worker cooperatives) ! Just food for thought.

 

At one time there were many worker cooperatives in these rural parts, but they have largely disappeared. The farmers would sell their grain to the coop, buy the fertilizer that they spread on the fields from them, and even set up banks such as Credit Agricole. It stopped working when they found out that they could get much better prices by selling to or buying from private companies, and today I will drive past the huge and empty grain store that they once used.

 

Sounds like reality getting in the way of what seems like a good idea on the surface. I can understand that grouping together should produce more bargaining power but these things always fall down due the differing work ethics of its constituents, i.e. some are lazy buggers.

Of course in cologne's world they would have all been brainwashed first to prevent any possible idea of taking responsibility for looking after ones own family first.

 

You're making a great deal of assumptions here about my World. Also, there is no one system which has a monopoly on brainwashing.

 

Cologne,

Those contacts you have in the ex GDR would know the right people to put these ex comrades back on the right path to socialist utopia. Where are the stasi when you need them.

 

Sorry to butt in... but isn't that the Tory mantra?

 

yes

 

If your only goal on here is to deliberately misunderstand everything which I write - make snide comments at every turn coupled with personal abuse then we have nothing left to debate. These are open boards where you must always be prepared for a whole range of political opinion. I have already stated that the GDR was not a socialist state in the way that I understand socialism - yet you choose to deliberately misunderstand everything to suit your own purposes.

 

Is there really any need for the continual snide remarks? Personally I don't really see it adding anything to the debate and it's not really in keeping with the general spirit of this board.

 

The German Democratic Republic was ruled by the SOCIALIST Unity Party of Germany. Perhaps you turn a blind eye to the numerous examples where socialism becomes a one party dictatorial state. In most hard socialist states you would not have the privilege to debate politics in an open forum.

 

And so, having found one state which called itself socialist - you could have picked another from the Nazi period ! You choose to blame every other form of socialist for this - effectively bringing people like Ed Balls or Hollande under the same banner and tarring under the same brush as the Staasi. Maybe the whole 'democratic' World is suspect because of the existence of the People's Democratic Republic of the Congo ? In the same way, and under the same logic, I can accuse every single Christian in the World as having been an accomplice of the inquisition. Would that be logical of me to do that ? Our debate is now truly at an end because it has simply become a question of me refusing to rise to your provocations.

 

My feeling is that the only -ism politicians commit to these days is pragmatism, in particular taking a fairly ad hoc approach to each issue in the hope that any stance they take will not reduce their chances of staying in power. It's perhaps a response to a recognition that the UK is a collection of different individuals living in diverse communities where the cultures and economies result in differing priorities. It would perhaps make voting easier if each party had a clearly defined ideology but that's simply not the reality now, assuming it ever was. It would be an interesting challenge to try and find a philosophy which a significant majority could sign up to but I suspect it would end up with very general ambitions - competence, transparency, tolerance, opportunities for all perhaps - which would simply sound like idealism.

 

The Nazi's were The NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS' PARTY!!!

 

I'm reminded of a Not the 9 OClock News sketch where one of them was reading a bed time story which ended "and the wicked witch was dead, there were no more taxes and everybody lived happily ever after" The voice over then says "that was a party political broadcast for the SDP".

 

That, however, did not make them socialists. They simply appropriated the name...as many Freedom Parties around the world have.

 

That is really uncalled for...... and all rather banal
can we talk about real issues please in a respectful way as we have done for a long time .......

 

They certainly started out as socialists. Hitler boasted that the 'whole of National Socialism was based on Marx.