Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Of course that's right!:ross: What was the first nation to put a man in space again...oh...oh, it was the Soviet Union. Let's not generalise too much chappies.:-"
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Socialists
- Thread starter southstand1882
- Start date
Of course that's right!:ross: What was the first nation to put a man in space again...oh...oh, it was the Soviet Union. Let's not generalise too much chappies.:-"
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Wasn't dear old Clement a socialist then?:-" The national health is one of the great humanitarian reforms in human history, I would never describe it as a failure.
He was, but could only operate his theft within a capitalist society - it wouldn't work without one.
As for the NHS, it's one of the many reasons why we're in so much debt.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
Russia :ross:
The average Russian drinks the equivalent of 32 pints of pure alcohol per year, and about 500,000 die each year from drinking
That's like the entire population of Bath, Guildford, York, Slough and Oxford drinking themselves to death EVERY YEAR.
On New Years Day 2013, Russia are going to classify Beer as alcoholic for the very first time! Until now its been considered a "foodstuff" as it has less than 10% ABV.
EDIT: Apparently they'll give you $10,000 for having a second child in Russia, because too many people die every year!
The average Russian drinks the equivalent of 32 pints of pure alcohol per year, and about 500,000 die each year from drinking
That's like the entire population of Bath, Guildford, York, Slough and Oxford drinking themselves to death EVERY YEAR.
On New Years Day 2013, Russia are going to classify Beer as alcoholic for the very first time! Until now its been considered a "foodstuff" as it has less than 10% ABV.
EDIT: Apparently they'll give you $10,000 for having a second child in Russia, because too many people die every year!
Last edited:
Eriktheviking
Goran Bunjevcevic
Yes but that was a state initiated idea, for the good of the nation. In fact, the space race (Russuin) was a capitalist venture in a socialist society. Its intent was to show the rest of the world its power and wealth. It was more of a political statement than anything.
When im talking about a barrier to development i mean the every day living conditions of the population. I cant think of one socialist state/country where much of the population does not live in poverty and the ruling 'people' live in wealth.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I think i am one of the best placed people on this board to talk about russia as i have a home in liepaja in latvia which is of course part of the former soviet block. I do not know one latvian that has anything good to say about Moscow or russia. I know lots of them as well, if money was made in that period and i can see no evidence of it then the people certainly did not recieve it.
Spending money on a space race does not convince me either. Would suggest you watch the movie goodybe lenin if you think the soviet union was good, people were crossing the border to get into the west not the east, that should tell you all you need to know about what people want when they have the freeedom to choose.
Spending money on a space race does not convince me either. Would suggest you watch the movie goodybe lenin if you think the soviet union was good, people were crossing the border to get into the west not the east, that should tell you all you need to know about what people want when they have the freeedom to choose.
Eriktheviking
Goran Bunjevcevic
Id agree with that Chich, some of my family are from Ukraine and some from Germany, from the proper communist era as well. They said the same thing. In fact, my Grandad, when he was alive, hated the Russians.
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
Funny how the socialists don't create anti capitalist threads every week or so like you get from the other side.
Eriktheviking
Goran Bunjevcevic
if they tried, they would get shot. Look at the middle east, it is happening.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
Thank fudge for capitalist tax payers. They do make life much easier for your hardworking leftie.
BBC staff paid to move to Salford
A total of 850 BBC staff have been given £11 million to cover the cost of estate agents’ fees, stamp duty, furnishings, rent and other bills. Staff have also been given lump sums, worth 10 per cent of their salary, to encourage them to move.
The figures obtained show that more than 170 staff have taken advantage of the “assisted relocation” package, under which they sell their homes and the BBC covers moving costs. It (the tax payer) has spent £1.2 million on stamp duty; £740,846 on estate agents’ fees; £497,617 on removals; £350,000 on legal fees and £305,962 on furnishings.
Staff have received a further £682,285 in one-off payment incentives to move to the North. The highest individual payment was £90,605.
A further 174 staff have taken advantage of a halfway-house deal, officially called a “remote location allowance”, under which they keep their main home in London and have rent and some of their travel expenses paid.
Each member of staff is given an allowance of up to £3,390 a month before tax, equivalent to £40,680 a year. To date, this has cost the corporation £3.3 million.
Workers were told Salford is a “different kettle of fish” from the London headquarters. Earlier this year they were offered security guards to escort them to their cars and tram stops after work.
I wonder how much it would cost to persuade Chichester to move up north
BBC staff paid to move to Salford
A total of 850 BBC staff have been given £11 million to cover the cost of estate agents’ fees, stamp duty, furnishings, rent and other bills. Staff have also been given lump sums, worth 10 per cent of their salary, to encourage them to move.
The figures obtained show that more than 170 staff have taken advantage of the “assisted relocation” package, under which they sell their homes and the BBC covers moving costs. It (the tax payer) has spent £1.2 million on stamp duty; £740,846 on estate agents’ fees; £497,617 on removals; £350,000 on legal fees and £305,962 on furnishings.
Staff have received a further £682,285 in one-off payment incentives to move to the North. The highest individual payment was £90,605.
A further 174 staff have taken advantage of a halfway-house deal, officially called a “remote location allowance”, under which they keep their main home in London and have rent and some of their travel expenses paid.
Each member of staff is given an allowance of up to £3,390 a month before tax, equivalent to £40,680 a year. To date, this has cost the corporation £3.3 million.
Workers were told Salford is a “different kettle of fish” from the London headquarters. Earlier this year they were offered security guards to escort them to their cars and tram stops after work.
I wonder how much it would cost to persuade Chichester to move up north
What did they get if they didnt move? Any redundancy package?
Personally, I'd pay money not to have to move up north.
But this sort of thing happens a lot, any company I have worked for offer far better terms than the bbc relocation allowance.
Daisuk
Les Medley
I'm not going to defend socialism in any way in this thread, but to say that capitalism is doing anything in favor of human/societal development would be a downright lie. We might become more comfortable, especially in the west, with all the brick we accumulate to assist us and entertain us in our everyday lives, but we're moving farther and farther away from one of the absolute basic principles of any living organism in the universe - don't take more than you need. We're over-consuming big-time, and doing so mainly thanks to (well, ever since "we" started to cultivate the land in a larger scale) the industrial revolution and capitalism, which in turn, as we all know, is ruining the living conditions for all humans on planet earth faster than we can perceive (although some stubborn idiotic right wing extremists will be stupid enough to debate this).
It might not be a big deal for our generation, we're all going to die anyway. But it's ironic that an entire breed of a species are willing to get extinct in pursuit of "happiness", socalled "freedom" and "luxury". These pursuits, by and large products of our capitalistic system.
We're the only animal on planet earth that lives this way. We are the only animal who consciously are destroying our own habitat. And we're doing so much thanks to these false ideas about development. Sure, it's a lot of fun being able to drive a remote controlled robot around on Mars, very interesting, but wouldn't it be a better idea to gather a bunch of influential people and make a much improved and functional version of the Kyoto protocol first? Wouldn't we then have a bigger chance of being able to discover space at a later time, instead of having to fight extreme weather and living conditions?
Socialism hasn't proved to be a good system to live by, but neither has capitalism.
Skinhead in a Suit
John Scales
jts1882
Dean Richards
Isn't it part of the capitalist system that a government doesn't have to balance the books. Its possible to run a sustainable small deficit in a growing economy. A government can also "print money" and because of the money multiplier the money available is not equal to the money created by the central bank (2+2 does not equal 4 in fractional reserve banking).
So comparing household finances to government finances is not appropriate because we live in a capitalist system.
So comparing household finances to government finances is not appropriate because we live in a capitalist system.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
And therein lies the beauty of capitalism Golfball.
A private company can spend whatever it wants on relocation fees.
A public company is accountable to its shareholders (it's tax payers if you will).
If I invested in a public company and found out it was hiring security guards to walk its employees to their cars, I would vote with my feet.
I would raise objections at the AGM, or more likely, I would invest in a better company. One that doesn't hire sniveling fudgetards that need security to walk outside.
I should imagine many other investors would follow suit, particularly if they found out its workers were being paid £40K a year to maintain two houses.
Under capitalism, that company would struggle to attract investment. Eventually it would be replaced by a better company, with less extravagant policies.
Now a system where I'm forced to invest my hard earned cash, irrespective of company behaviour.....well that just sounds very queer indeed. Not sure I like it at all.
You're twisting my melons man, you know you talk so hip man, your twisting my (mars)melons... =D>
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
I think the brick has hit the fan now mate. There's nothing sustainable about the deficit and debt that we have.
The debt is £1 trillion.
Interest payments on the debt is £43 billion pounds per year.
If we paid down the debt at a rate of £1 per second, it would take us 32,000 years to pay it off.
Do you honestly think that's sustainable?
The debt is increasing by £2 billion per week. Or approximately 64 more years of payments at £1 per second, EVERY WEEK.
Have you ever heard a politician speak honestly about the vastness of the problem?
I wonder why?
Amazing statistics, that I don't think many people have quite got to grips with. YET!
We are in the brick for a long, long, long time, if we continue to behave like reckless socialists.
Last edited:
Eriktheviking
Goran Bunjevcevic
Good points, and valid, but i fear you are moving to a different paradigm of political systems and focusing more on the ethical aspects of a political system which are only applicable to the to attitudes and beliefs to each individual.
Socialism, capitalism or any political system will not solve any of the worlds problems. A political system will generally only dictate as to how we will go about solving the problem, which, in its broadest terms, would be to either throw money at it through technology (generally acquired through research and the quest for knowledge which may be aligned with capitalism) or through controlling our resources.
The political system of choice will not solve the problems you cited but i agree, capitalism has created them. But then, some may argue that capitalism can provide the answers too.
Skinhead in a Suit
John Scales
Excellent post too.
To be frank, I am getting sick and tired of political dogma. Why can't you run a country by being pragmatic rather than sticking to pre-conceived set of principals and using them to frame your every point? Just get the job done. With the debt problem being discussed, why not raise taxes a bit overall AND cut spending. The gun problem in America could be reduced (not fixed - don't think anyone knows how to do that) by limiting the types of weapons/ammunition you can buy AND increasing mental health services. Socialism and Capitalism both have appealing qualities. Why is it so hard for any politician to get elected while proposing a bit of both systems? Why does it HAVE to be one or the other?!!!
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Socialism as I knew it will never exist, and probably never existed much beyond an ideal as the likes of Wilson weren't exactly the proletariat and had little interest being as such.
Modern society does not allow for things such as empathy or social support to be seen as positives. In fact, such behaviour publicly displayed is seen as 'weak' and 'supporting scum' and what-not...such a shame...
No-one wants to support cheats and layabouts, but in a society there will always be a few like this, and I have always found it incomprehensible how they should be allowed to ruin it for society at large.
I agree with Skinhead's point above, 100% on the money, and in this day and age it's perhaps the only hope we have of having anything remotely approaching a 'civilized' society as opposed to one which continues to ghettoize poverty, minorities and immigrants, whether by definition or tangible treatment.
BTW, anyone who wants to come in and start shouting 'lefty' at me can fudge right off before they get started. I will give as good as I get. No flower power here pal!
:barnet::lol:
Modern society does not allow for things such as empathy or social support to be seen as positives. In fact, such behaviour publicly displayed is seen as 'weak' and 'supporting scum' and what-not...such a shame...
No-one wants to support cheats and layabouts, but in a society there will always be a few like this, and I have always found it incomprehensible how they should be allowed to ruin it for society at large.
I agree with Skinhead's point above, 100% on the money, and in this day and age it's perhaps the only hope we have of having anything remotely approaching a 'civilized' society as opposed to one which continues to ghettoize poverty, minorities and immigrants, whether by definition or tangible treatment.
BTW, anyone who wants to come in and start shouting 'lefty' at me can fudge right off before they get started. I will give as good as I get. No flower power here pal!
:barnet::lol: