Here comes the payback

[wilts rover]

I'd much rather America was the main power in the world than the alternative Russia or China. Then again I can see why lefties have a different view. Russia and China operate much more in line with their political outlook.

America has faults (far too many people believe in God for one) but on the whole it does try to be a force for good. I doubt you'd be able to say the same of Russia and China if one of them ever becomes the world's premier power. The day may come soon as China continues to power ahead at a rapid rate of knots. When it does, you lefties will be left ruing the day.

Sandy ignore daft Bob. Most of us Brits love your country.

Long live America!!!

Have you been asleep for the past 25 years? The Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. Since then Russia with it's oligarchs and Putin's dictatorial rule, is proving to be the atypical right-wing fascist state you aspire for us!

I'm sorry you've lost me there (not for the first time). Where have I ever said I want us to be like Russia? Evidence man. Where is it?

What about China? I notice you don't disagree with me on that one. At last we've found something we agree on.

Get in.

 

That's the same for all parties after an election. Labour have gained 30,000 new members since the defeat.

I'd much rather America was the main power in the world than the alternative Russia or China. Then again I can see why lefties have a different view. Russia and China operate much more in line with their political outlook.

America has faults (far too many people believe in God for one) but on the whole it does try to be a force for good. I doubt you'd be able to say the same of Russia and China if one of them ever becomes the world's premier power. The day may come soon as China continues to power ahead at a rapid rate of knots. When it does, you lefties will be left ruing the day.

Sandy ignore daft Bob. Most of us Brits love your country.

Long live America!!!

Have you been asleep for the past 25 years? The Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. Since then Russia with it's oligarchs and Putin's dictatorial rule, is proving to be the atypical right-wing fascist state you aspire for us!

I'm sorry you've lost me there (not for the first time). Where have I ever said I want us to be like Russia? Evidence man. Where is it?

What about China? I notice you don't disagree with me on that one. At last we've found something we agree on.

Get in.

Mick, Russia and China certainly don't operate anywhere near the same way as our left of centre Labour party.
Russia is run by right wing mobsters and fascists and well China seems to have embraced a sort of capitalism. In that Billy was correct ; you asserted that the lefties as you put it had more in common with Russia and China. That is far from the case and never has the Labour party in this country worked like the Soviet/Russian fascists nor the Chinese post Mao and their 21st century all-engulfing counterparts. Why do you not read the words he has written in response to your assertion ? 

I beg to differ. Left unchecked Labour hardcore lefties would love the country to be run like China. In China the government manages and controls the economy. Many of the domestic companies are owned and run by the government. Recently, the Chinese economy has become more geared towards capitalism, but is still officially socialist.

Russia is more of a mixed bag these days but until relatively recently they operated pretty much like China.

Both countries have at long last realised that capitalism is the way forward. They both have a very long way to go just like the Labour party.

Countries that are communist (like China) consider themselves to be socialist. Russia is now a semi-presidential country which is still trying to shake off the many socialist shackles inherited from the recent past when it was part of the Soviet Union.

To prove the point here is a list of all the countries that claim to be socialist. Communist China leads the way. It is interesting to note that socialist countries only start doing better for themselves when they embrace capitalism. Labour need to learn this lesson and dump the toxic socialist brand if they ever want to be taken seriously again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

We'll soon know the fate of the Labour party. If they elect one of the old socialist guard such as Yvette (sour-faced) Cooper or Andy (lack of personality) Burnham they are finished.

I don't think they realise how close they are to being wiped out. Scotland should be a stark reminder as to how quickly things can change. They've not just got the Tories to worry about. UKIP are making huge inroads into their support and they better do something pretty damn quick to reverse this trend or they've had it.

I don't think they are capable of turning it around and fully expect UKIP to replace them as the main opposition within the next 10 years.

Get in.

What a load of rubbish. Do you actually know what socialism is or do you just look it up on Wikipedia?

So is Russia a country that operates in line with a leftie political outlook or not then?

[IC1967]

Look it's very simple. Socialism is only one small step from communism. Many of the people in Labour have more in common with communism than they do capitalism. 

That is their fundamental problem and is why they will be finished soon if they don't make a radical change in their philosophy.

[wilts rover]

And right-wing politics is only one small step from fascism - and some people say that many people involved in the Conservatives and UKIP are the wrong side of that line.

Wrong again, I suggest you go do a bit more research on Wikipedia before attempting to debate with me as all you do is make yourself look a fool, socialism is a democratic political ideology - communism rejects democracy for armed force.

About the answer to my previous question....again...

[IC1967]

And right-wing politics is only one small step from fascism - and some people say that many people involved in the Conservatives and UKIP are the wrong side of that line.

Wrong again, I suggest you go do a bit more research on Wikipedia before attempting to debate with me as all you do is make yourself look a fool, socialism is a democratic political ideology - communism rejects democracy for armed force.

About the answer to my previous question....again...

Look. I only answer questions if they are not silly.

How do you reconcile your silly definition of socialism and communism with the fact that China And Vietnam both declare themselves as socialist and are run by communist parties? Indeed Vietnam likes to be known as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Now unlike you my questions are not silly. However given your past track record I won't be holding my breath for an answer.

[River Don]

I was going to say 'sadly, I saw Mick's post above' quoted in Glyn's post, but actually, it's given me the biggest laugh I've had this month so far. UKIP will become the main opposition party within 10 years? Lol. I think you need to go back to school Mick. Single issue parties and movements prosper on, er, single issues.  Oh, and don't you remember the last 'new' political party, that was also going to break the mould of British politics and set us all on a new direction? Best get your history book out again Mick. It's an instructive reference point. Mind you, the lesson will, no doubt, pass you by as usual.

BobG

You are typical of the complacency that bedevils the Labour party. You claim to know your history. What a laugh. You completely ignore recent history. What has happened to Labour in Scotland in the last 5 years? They've been wiped out by a nationalist party. What type of party are UKIP? They are mainly English nationalists.

It beggars belief that you lefties can't see the writing is on the wall. Unless Labour move to the right they are finished. They are already finished in Scotland and they've managed that in less than 5 years. I'm being very generous saying the same thing will happen in England in 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in 5 years. May I remind you of my excellent predictive powers.

Labour's only hope of moving forward is if they elect Chuka Umuna and he is able to move the party to the right. Andy Burnham his main rival would be a disaster.

Lets hope Burnham wins.

IC1967

I wouldn't write Burnham off, he's a decent bloke who I think is quite a centrist. Umunna, is an Obamma clone and I think he could easily be seen as too metropolitan and too slick.

For me the Labour Party have got to convince Dan Jarvis that now is the time and he's got to take the opportunity.

[wilts rover]

Good grief, you really dont know anything about world politics do you. As I wrote previously, socialism is a democratic political ideology - communism is the imposition of that ideology by force. China and Vietnam being perfect examples of that, both of them having civil wars for years that the Communists eventually won.

What is silly about the question; is Russia a country that operates in line with a leftie political outlook or not? Seems a simple and straight forward question to me.

[River Don]

Interestingly Farage has just said this minute on QT that Dan Jarvis is the candidate Conservatives would fear.

[IC1967]

Good grief, you really dont know anything about world politics do you. As I wrote previously, socialism is a democratic political ideology - communism is the imposition of that ideology by force. China and Vietnam being perfect examples of that, both of them having civil wars for years that the Communists eventually won.

What is silly about the question; is Russia a country that operates in line with a leftie political outlook or not? Seems a simple and straight forward question to me.

Your definitions are a load of old cock. When I've got a bit more time I'll post the proper definitions so people can see how similar both are. I repeat, I don't answer silly questions.

[hoolahoop]

Good grief, you really dont know anything about world politics do you. As I wrote previously, socialism is a democratic political ideology - communism is the imposition of that ideology by force. China and Vietnam being perfect examples of that, both of them having civil wars for years that the Communists eventually won.

What is silly about the question; is Russia a country that operates in line with a leftie political outlook or not? Seems a simple and straight forward question to me.

Your definitions are a load of old cock. When I've got a bit more time I'll post the proper definitions so people can see how similar both are. I repeat, I don't answer silly questions.

Loosely speaking wilts has already done that . whatever any of our political persuasions those remain the basic interpretations of each system.

Please don't bore the pants of us all with more plagiarised quotes purporting to be your own work ....it's boring the pants of us and is highly insulting. Most of the forum members that allow you to debate with them are both educated and have been taught how to use search engines for information.
Back off occasionally Mick ; if your counter-argument is wrong then hold your hands up. We won't shoot you ffs !

[IC1967]

Good grief, you really dont know anything about world politics do you. As I wrote previously, socialism is a democratic political ideology - communism is the imposition of that ideology by force. China and Vietnam being perfect examples of that, both of them having civil wars for years that the Communists eventually won.

What is silly about the question; is Russia a country that operates in line with a leftie political outlook or not? Seems a simple and straight forward question to me.

Your definitions are a load of old cock. When I've got a bit more time I'll post the proper definitions so people can see how similar both are. I repeat, I don't answer silly questions.

Right it's time to show how ludicrous your definitions are. Here are the proper definitions:

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Communism is a social and economic system in which all property and means of production is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

So as any right-minded person can see, both ideologies are very similar.

Now get an abject apology sorted for trying to deceive people. Get on with it man.

[BobG]

He's never responded to reason Hools. I tried that more than once. It's a shame, but there's no escaping the fact that he's our Resident Idiot.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Let me guess.

Another thread on a specific topic has spiralled into a a set of masturbatory pronouncements from the Micktionary and Mickipedia?

Is that about right?

[IC1967]

Good grief, you really dont know anything about world politics do you. As I wrote previously, socialism is a democratic political ideology - communism is the imposition of that ideology by force. China and Vietnam being perfect examples of that, both of them having civil wars for years that the Communists eventually won.

What is silly about the question; is Russia a country that operates in line with a leftie political outlook or not? Seems a simple and straight forward question to me.

I've highlighted the bit in bold that is so ridiculous it isn't true.

How on earth can a democratic political ideology be imposed by force? You really have come up with the most stupid statement I've ever read on this forum (and believe me there are plenty to choose from).

Just admit you haven't got a clue what you're talking about (unlike me). Get an abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about the matter.

Come on man. Get on with it. You know you should.

[IC1967]

He's never responded to reason Hools. I tried that more than once. It's a shame, but there's no escaping the fact that he's our Resident Idiot.

BobG

Look daft Bob. Over the last few days you managed to stop insulting me. You are now showing signs of resuming where you left off when we were all fearing for your mental health. Just ignore me. It's not easy for you (and Billy) to come to terms with the fact that you have met your intellectual superior. Get over it. I'm sure there must be someone out there that is intellectually superior to me but I haven't come across them yet.

When I do I will admit it. I can't say fairer than that.

IC1967

[IC1967]

Let me guess.

Another thread on a specific topic has spiralled into a a set of masturbatory pronouncements from the Micktionary and Mickipedia?

Is that about right?

Look. You're starting to display the same homo erotic tendencies that daft Bob was recently displaying. Luckily for you both we have a society that is far more tolerant of your sexual preferences. I just wish you wouldn't abuse this tolerance by shoving it in the faces of those of us that are straight.

[hoolahoop]

He's never responded to reason Hools. I tried that more than once. It's a shame, but there's no escaping the fact that he's our Resident Idiot.

BobG

Shame is Bob that
he hijacks good topics and basically wrecks them with in his own self- opinionated manner. If only he would try to debate without his old buddy  ( Wikipedia ) ; we could get our teeth into proper debates.
Mick , please think and read the posts that other forum users write. I am sure that you can but have come to the conclusion that you are completely delusional - stop taking those drugs and listen (read) what others have to say. It will stop you looking a right cock in future.

Final point , realise there are "grey" areas in life, overlaps if you like ; far more "grey" than black or white . That's why we have a forum !

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola.

You're an admirable liberal mate, but sometimes the "let's all be friends and act like grown ups" approach doesn't have the traction that you might hope it would.

[The Red Baron]

Interestingly Farage has just said this minute on QT that Dan Jarvis is the candidate Conservatives would fear.

There's a lot about Jarvis that reminds me of a young Tony Blair. He probably needs to get a serious Shadow job under his belt though. If you recall Blair made a big impact as Shadow Home Sec.

[hoolahoop]

Hoola.

You're an admirable liberal mate, but sometimes the "let's all be friends and act like grown ups" approach doesn't have the traction that you might hope it would.

I will take that as a compliment Billy  although even Liberals tire of listening to diatribes from the likes of Mick.
Just think of the great movers and shakers from what is a fantastic Whig/Liberal history. We had proper Prime Ministers .....Peel, Palmerston, Asquith, Gladstone, Lloyd - George, Churchill and many more. Proper Parliamentarians who protected the people from the Conservatives. These weren't just limp-wristed folk they were modernisers of their age , leaders with charisma. What do we have now ...  shite, the people we have now are frightened of their own shadow.

Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Garage would never have had the attributes to climb to the top in those days  .

We need to be inspired left , centre or bloody right but its just not there in our faux leaders

Anyway rant over, 'bout Mick and his w**kfest over Garage and Cameron. It's no surprise that they can be thought of together is it ?
 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola

It's the downside of democracy. Successful leaders today have to be adept at LOOKING in control and giving a message that sounds believable, whilst also finding time to play with their kids and smile for the cameras, and to be able to eat bacon sandwiches without looking like a social misfit. It's not about proper leadership and proper detailed thinking. It's about the appearance of leadership and being able to sell a line.

Whilst the idea of holding leaders to account is fine in principle, I think our society and media have gone way off the end of the scale on this. We scrutinise every word, every slip, every non-verbal communication nuance and as a result, we naturally get politicians who have to play that game. Personally, I think the whole satire industry, starting with That Was The Week That Was in the 60s and accelerating from there has been deeply corrosive. It's led us into a "politics as spectator sport" environment, where even the "serious" commentators (Paxman, Humphries) see there job as being to entertain viewers by trying to trip politicians up, instead of trying to help educate the public by really getting into details and policies. You need to have a system that pricks and deflates politicians, but not a system that ONLY does that.

As I've said times many, Churchill would be kebabbed these days. A depressive alcoholic with a face like a smacked arse who didn't even know which way round to stick his fingers up in a Victory sign. He wouldn't get within a hundred miles of No10 these days. He'd be a figure of derision.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

I agree. Any candidate as a potential PM should have served time learning the ropes in senior roles beforehand.

But it didn't do Cameron any harm. His track record before taking over as Leader of the Opposition was a few years as a Conservative party research and SpAd, 2 years as a backbencher, 2 years as a VERY junior shadow minister and 6 months as Shadow Business Secretary. Quite barmy that we expect people with such a sparse track record to lead the country.

[IC1967]

Hoola.

You're an admirable liberal mate, but sometimes the "let's all be friends and act like grown ups" approach doesn't have the traction that you might hope it would.

I will take that as a compliment Billy  although even Liberals tire of listening to diatribes from the likes of Mick.
Just think of the great movers and shakers from what is a fantastic Whig/Liberal history. We had proper Prime Ministers .....Peel, Palmerston, Asquith, Gladstone, Lloyd - George, Churchill and many more. Proper Parliamentarians who protected the people from the Conservatives. These weren't just limp-wristed folk they were modernisers of their age , leaders with charisma. What do we have now ...  shite, the people we have now are frightened of their own shadow.

Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Garage would never have had the attributes to climb to the top in those days  .

We need to be inspired left , centre or bloody right but its just not there in our faux leaders

Anyway rant over, 'bout Mick and his w**kfest over Garage and Cameron. It's no surprise that they can be thought of together is it ?

Another one with homo erotic tendencies.

[wilts rover]

Good grief, you really dont know anything about world politics do you. As I wrote previously, socialism is a democratic political ideology - communism is the imposition of that ideology by force. China and Vietnam being perfect examples of that, both of them having civil wars for years that the Communists eventually won.

What is silly about the question; is Russia a country that operates in line with a leftie political outlook or not? Seems a simple and straight forward question to me.

Your definitions are a load of old cock. When I've got a bit more time I'll post the proper definitions so people can see how similar both are. I repeat, I don't answer silly questions.

Right it's time to show how ludicrous your definitions are. Here are the proper definitions:

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Communism is a social and economic system in which all property and means of production is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

So as any right-minded person can see, both ideologies are very similar.

Now get an abject apology sorted for trying to deceive people. Get on with it man.

Is that it! Is that your definition of socialism and communism!!! If you are being serious that is certainly one of, if not the most ludicrous posts on here.

What about this:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win


and this
a condition of society in which there should be neither rich nor poor, neither master nor master's man, neither idle nor overworked, neither brain­slack brain workers, nor heart­sick hand workers, in a word, in which all men would be living in equality of condition, and would manage their affairs unwastefully, and with the full consciousness that harm to one would mean harm to all

or to plagerise another website listing the differences:

Philosophy    
Communism
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance.
Socialism   
From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

Definition    
Communism
International theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state. Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.    
Socialism
A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.

Ideas    
Communism
All people are the same and therefore classes make no sense. The government should own all means of production and land and also everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally.    
Socialism
All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.

Key elements    
Communism
Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the "proletariat", common ownership of the tools of production, no private property. equality between genders and all people, international focus. anti-democratic. One party system.    
Socialism
Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. "Production for use": useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.

Economic System    
Communism
The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance.    
Socialism
The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.

Political System    
Communism
Usually takes the form of totalitarianism as Marx described in The Communist Manifesto. Cronyism common.    
Socialism
Can coexist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some (Social Democrats) advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Leninists advocate "Democratic centralism."

Private Property    
Communism
Abolished. The concept of property is negated and replaced with the concept of commons and ownership with "usership".    
Socialism
Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State but with worker control.

Economic coordination    
Communism
Economic planning coordinates all decisions regarding investment, production and resource allocation. Planning is done in terms of physical units instead of money.    
Socialism
Planned-socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.

Religion    
Communism
Abolished - all religious and metaphysics is rejected.    
Socialism
Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.

Ownership structure    
Communism
The means of production are commonly-owned, meaning no entity or individual owns productive property. Importance is ascribed to "usership" over "ownership".    
Socialism
The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in Public-ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative-ownership models).

Social Structure    
Communism
All class distinctions are eliminated.    
Socialism
Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than class distinctions. Some mobility.

Free Choice    
Communism
Either the collective "vote" or the state's rulers make economic and political decisions for everyone else.    
Socialism
Religion, jobs, & marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare & education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.

Way of Change    
Communism
Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.    
Socialism
Workers in a socialist state are the nominal agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by the State on behalf of workers can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.

Discrimination    
Communism
In theory, all members of the state are considered equal.    
Socialism
The people are considered equal; laws are made when necessary to protect people from discrimination. Immigration is often tightly controlled.

I shall now expect two apologies from you, one for the slur of my character and the other for your complete lack of knowledge.

[IC1967]

 

[Glyn_Wigley]

Anything longer or more detailed than an aphoristic soundbite and Mick instantly switches off I'm afraid. You can tell by the quality of the websites he plunders.

[IC1967]

 

[wilts rover]

For someone who doesnt know the difference between the political philosophies of Karl Marx and William Morris that's one of your more intelligent posts. I suggest you keep to a similar level in future.

[IC1967]

 

[hoolahoop]

The ideology of UKIP is ,......... presumably.

[wilts rover]

No need to take it that seriously Mick, just because you have been shown to be foolish and defeated in an argument by me...again...I don't expect you to top yourself. An apology is all that is required.