Warning: Illegal string offset 'html' in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php on line 909

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 114

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 127

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 136

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 137

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 141
Socialism etc. - HSN forum - Page 2

Jump to content


Socialism etc.


160 replies to this topic

#21 ermd

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2005 - 06:54 PM

QUOTE(chicken licking @ Feb 23 2005, 10:20 AM)
Does socialism mean the equality of all people. Money is shared between all. Market forces doesn't drive the economy. It's what the rulers/leader determine what is *good* for the people - the artificial manipulation of what is needed.
View Post


Socialism is about the revolution of the working class, the party are seen simply as a tool of the workers. Infact, under Socialism, the party is ultimately aimed for the destruction of itself, when the state "withers away."

And NO socialist country has ever existed, so you are tying to imply it hasn't worked I'll tell you, it's never been implemented.

#22 Kevin_Kilbane

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2005 - 07:19 PM

I wouldn't say its anti-doctors etc - their policy is just that the more rich you are the greater proportion of tax you pay. In a government under the SSP bin men obviously wouldn't be getting the same wages as doctors or anything, not even close.


Surely its anti-doctors then. Doctors earn more than binmen i.e. are more richer than binmen therefore they are being made to pay more tax. This surely means their is an "anti" feeling against Doctors.


I know so people who live in cheap housing but holidays are the sort of thing they really splash out on. You don't know the exact details of what Tommy Sheridan does for his holidays anyway. You're only going by hearsay

I do know what he does for his holidays. He will be going on a very expensive holiday. Not like a trip to England or a couple of weeks abroad is it?

As for these people you know, they can hardly be that poor when they have a couple of k to spend on a holiday.


RAGE Socialism is about the revoluition of the working class, the party are seen simply as a tool of the workers. Infact, under Socialism, the party is ultimately aimed for the destruciton of itself, when the state "withers away."

And how would this benefit a country? Capitalism is fine. Its worked for 100's of years and will continue to work well. Shove yer socialism up yer ars3

#23 chicken licking

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 23 February 2005 - 09:13 PM

QUOTE(ermdeviation @ Feb 23 2005, 07:54 PM)
QUOTE(chicken licking @ Feb 23 2005, 10:20 AM)
Does socialism mean the equality of all people. Money is shared between all. Market forces doesn't drive the economy. It's what the rulers/leader determine what is *good* for the people - the artificial manipulation of what is needed.

View Post



RAGE mad.gif Socialism is about the revoluition of the working class, the party are seen simply as a tool of the workers. Infact, under Socialism, the party is ultimately aimed for the destruciton of itself, when the state "withers away."

And NO socialist country has ever existed, so you are tying to imply it hasn't worked I'll tell you, it's never been implemented.

View Post


Keep your flaming hair on.

Socialism is a thinly disguised word for communism. It is to appear less threatening but has the traits of the communist ideas.

#24 superstar

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Location:Angus
  • Gender:Female

Posted 23 February 2005 - 09:51 PM

QUOTE(chicken licking @ Feb 23 2005, 09:13 PM)
Socialism is a thinly disguised word for communism. It is to appear less threatening but has the traits of the communist ideas.

View Post



I hardly think socialism is anywhere near communism cum off it! U clearly have no clue wot socialism or communisim , for that matter is, b4 u cum out with tht!

#25 chicken licking

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 23 February 2005 - 09:53 PM

So tell me the difference.

#26 superstar

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Location:Angus
  • Gender:Female

Posted 23 February 2005 - 10:07 PM

Well socialism is "Political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Meaning that every1 has a social responsibility to each other.Tht it is unfair for the poor to get poorer as the rich get richer!

Communisim is "a society where all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."

This would mean that every1 is the same, earn the same and everything is owned by the state!

Socialism doesnt advocate such things therefore there is a clear and consise difference!!!!!!!


#27 Dave

    Ruler (but not owner) of hsn

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,252 posts
  • Location:kilmarnock(ok kilmaurs)
  • Interests:programming, exercising, brass band, using this board
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2005 - 10:26 PM

well i am with Chicken Licking on this. Although i am well aware of what you are saying superstar. If you look at the tone, words and symbolism in the extreame left of this country..basically the SSP its screams, to me anyway, communism under the guise of socialism

If i am not here i am somewhere else



#28 ermd

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2005 - 10:43 PM

It depends whose point of view you look at it from. "The Father Of Socialism" Karl Marx, says that socialism is simply the in-between stage between capitalism and communism where the workers have overthrown the ruling capitalists class and replaced it with their own "worker's state." Marx says that slowly the socialist state will "wither away" which would leave you with a stateless state, as such. Communists believe that socialism MUST be an inbetween stage to provide the infrastructure for communism to then exist. Anarcho-communists on the other hand, belive that communism is an immediate solution and that ANY state is a repressive tool for the leaders.

In modern politics however, there has been a trend towards watered down versions of socialism with ideas like the welfare state being brought into more centrist parties (post-war Labour are a good example).

Neither socialism nor communism have ever existed properly on earth so far. The closest examples we see are Cuba for socialism and mid 30's Spain for anarcho-communism. In Cuba, however, there is still a single head of state in power, although a lot of power is entrusted to the worker's unions and trade syndicates. In the Spanish example, there was no government during this period, and no army either. This only lasted a short time before a ruthless fascist took power, leading to my own belief that an intermediary stage between capitalism and communism would be required.

#29 bred

    Brendan

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,215 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh
  • Interests:I have just graduated with a 2:1 in Geography [MA (Hons)] from The University of Edinburgh. I like sports: swimming, cycling, snowboarding, running, football, mountain biking and also travelling and photography.
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2005 - 10:44 PM

QUOTE(Kevin_Kilbane @ Feb 23 2005, 07:19 PM)
Surely its anti-doctors then.  Doctors earn more than binmen i.e. are more richer than binmen therefore they are being made to pay more tax.  This surely means their is an "anti" feeling against Doctors.

No, I don't agree with your logic that doctors paying more tax than bin men is "anti-doctor". Doctors have much more disposable income than bin men and after tax the difference would still be significant.

QUOTE
I do know what he does for his holidays.  He will be going on a very expensive holiday.  Not like a trip to England or a couple of weeks abroad is it?

As for these people you know, they can hardly be that poor when they have a couple of k to spend on a holiday. 


His wife worked in the airline industry for 17 years so she probably has air miles or something. Anyway, there are a number of ways he could pay for/have acquired a holiday. 20k year + his wife's salary isn't that little. I think this is quite a weak argument.


QUOTE
And how would this benefit a country? Capitalism is fine.  Its worked for 100's of years and will continue to work well.  Shove yer socialism up yer ars3

View Post


How well capitalism is working is a matter of opinion. Most of us in this country are certainly doing alright in comparison with others, although we're in nothing like a perfect society.
Please vote for me! (Brendan Howard, 5th from bottom, only 1 vote required): http://answers.polld...m/poll/2330393/

#30 ermd

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2005 - 10:47 PM

QUOTE(superstar @ Feb 23 2005, 10:07 PM)
Communisim is "a society where all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."

This would mean that every1 is the same, earn the same and everything is owned by the state!
Socialism doesnt advocate such things therefore there is a clear and consise difference!!!!!!!

View Post



This is a common misconception. Under a fully fledged communist society, money would be abolished. Even under an incomplete communist society, everyone would NOT earn the same. As you say: "contributes and receives according to their ability and needs." Therefore, someone who has 6 children and an amputated limb would receive what they need, and someone who is single and fit as a butcher's dog would receive what they need.

#31 ermd

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:10 PM

QUOTE(Kevin_Kilbane @ Feb 23 2005, 07:19 PM)
And how would this benefit a country? Capitalism is fine.  Its worked for 100's of years and will continue to work well.  Shove yer socialism up yer ars3

View Post



Capitalism is fine? You think it works? If it works, why is their large amounts of crime, poverty, unemployment..eeh? Why are 4 billion people denied the basic rights of food, water, education and shelter. No, my friend, capitalism works fine FOR YOU. That is it's strength. When the rich are in power, capitalism keeps them there and keeps them happy.

Of course, the medieval kings, queens and knights all thought feudalism worked just fine didn't they? It's the nature of the ruling class. Read up and get some evidence before joining an argument.

#32 Kevin_Kilbane

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:43 PM

QUOTE(bred2k4 @ Feb 23 2005, 10:44 PM)
QUOTE(Kevin_Kilbane @ Feb 23 2005, 07:19 PM)
Surely its anti-doctors then.  Doctors earn more than binmen i.e. are more richer than binmen therefore they are being made to pay more tax.  This surely means their is an "anti" feeling against Doctors.

No, I don't agree with your logic that doctors paying more tax than bin men is "anti-doctor". Doctors have much more disposable income than bin men and after tax the difference would still be significant.

QUOTE
I do know what he does for his holidays.  He will be going on a very expensive holiday.  Not like a trip to England or a couple of weeks abroad is it?

As for these people you know, they can hardly be that poor when they have a couple of k to spend on a holiday. 


His wife worked in the airline industry for 17 years so she probably has air miles or something. Anyway, there are a number of ways he could pay for/have acquired a holiday. 20k year + his wife's salary isn't that little. I think this is quite a weak argument.

View Post



Not a weak argument. If he was so poor he wouldn't be able to go these holidays. But, he has got two salaries so how can he really say he is knowing what full poverty is like? He's not.

Also, you've not answered my question about the "poor people". How can they afford to go on a VERY expensive holiday if they are so poor? Double standards perhaps?

As for doctors, how can you not see its anti-doctors. The Doctors play the most vital part in society and therefore deserve to earn a large chunk of their wages. Yet, are getting penalised for saving lifes etc by getting huge taxes imposed on them. Say the tax rate is over 50% for salaries over 50k while salaries belwo that is 5%. A Doctor while end up with having HALF of his/her salary while the binman who is earning 10k a year will only lose 500 pounds. Even thought the Doctor makes a far more vital contribution to society than the Bin Man. VERY Anti-doctor. Also, if you tax the "rich", a vast majority of the people who earn quite a good salary will have once been "poor" so are you penalising "your peolpe" for making a go of life? Yes.

#33 Kevin_Kilbane

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:58 PM

QUOTE(ermdeviation @ Feb 23 2005, 11:10 PM)
QUOTE(Kevin_Kilbane @ Feb 23 2005, 07:19 PM)
And how would this benefit a country? Capitalism is fine.  Its worked for 100's of years and will continue to work well.  Shove yer socialism up yer ars3

View Post



Capitalism is fine? You think it works? If it works, why is their large amounts of crime, poverty, unemployment..eeh? Why are 4 billion people denied the basic rights of food, water, education and shelter. No, my friend, capitalism works fine FOR YOU. That is it's strength. When the rich are in power, capitalism keeps them there and keeps them happy.

Of course, the medieval kings, queens and knights all thought feudalism worked just fine didn't they? It's the nature of the ruling class. Read up and get some evidence before joining an argument.

View Post



If you are trying to tell me I am rich, you'll be in for a surprise. My family has one salary support 3 persons, so to call me rich is a load of pish. Capitalism has helped me fine though. It has given me a good education and hopefully will help me make some money.

Capitalism is fine. How isn't it?

Without capitalism Britain wouldn't have a Welfare State. Britain is one of the only countries in world which has a universal and comprehsive system of benefits to cover all of the most vunreable. In addition to this, it as a FREE at the point of use Health Service and let's not forget that education costs nothing. Oh, but this is all bad because it has been brougt around because of Capitalism? I think - my friend -you wil find that a lot of the MPs who pushed for reform in the early 1900's were once very poor themselves and when they were in poor seen that there was a need for reform.

So capitalism is at fault for 4 billion people being unemployed? Well, if we talk about the UK, Capitalism has helped to create many jobs and you'll find there is a shortage of labour to fill jobs. Without a capitalist state, we wouldnt be able to attract FDI from large US/European/Asian firms because they wouldnt want to set up in a country where there profits are heavily taxed.

As for crime? Capitalism hasn't caused crime. Crime has always existed and always will regardless of socialism or capitalism.

Poverty - how can capitalism be at fault for the Physical Characteristics of countries? It can't. Poverty in many LEDCs has been down to the fact the land is poor so farming is not an option or the climate is too inhospitable to grow stuff.

Explain the advantages of Socialism. I see nothing except that at first the working class worker might be better off, but for how long? Not very. Soon some workers will earn more than others and so will become "a higher class". So much for that.

If you hate a Capitalist state so much why don't you go to Cuba or China to stay then you'll see how "brilliant" it is. How much poverty is there in Cuba? A family friend went there in Summer and the place is so poor they were asked to give all their toileteries to the locals. Oh but capitalism's crap isn't it?

I bet you will be one of these idiots causing trouble at the G8 Summit or were out protesting against the war in Iraq. Explain to why it isnt good to have a man who butchered/murdered/exterminated his own people (not just a 1000 or 2000 but millions) removed from power?

#34 bred

    Brendan

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,215 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh
  • Interests:I have just graduated with a 2:1 in Geography [MA (Hons)] from The University of Edinburgh. I like sports: swimming, cycling, snowboarding, running, football, mountain biking and also travelling and photography.
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 February 2005 - 08:03 AM

QUOTE(Kevin_Kilbane @ Feb 23 2005, 11:43 PM)

Not a weak argument.  If he was so poor he wouldn't be able to go these holidays.  But, he has got two salaries so how can he really say he is knowing what full poverty is like? He's not.


When did he say he knows exactly what "full poverty" is like? Take another example, the holocaust. We know quite a lot about what went on but we will never be able to fully comprehend how absolutely disgusting the things that went on were.

QUOTE
Also, you've not answered my question about the "poor people".  How can they afford to go on a VERY expensive holiday if they are so poor? Double standards perhaps?


Very poor people who aren't given aid by anyone obviously can't afford a very expensive holiday.

QUOTE
As for doctors, how can you not see its anti-doctors.  The Doctors play the most vital part in society and therefore deserve to earn a large chunk of their wages.  Yet, are getting penalised for saving lifes etc by getting huge taxes imposed on them.  Say the tax rate is over 50% for salaries over 50k while salaries belwo that is 5%.  A Doctor while end up with having HALF of his/her salary while the binman who is earning 10k a year will only lose 500 pounds.  Even thought the Doctor makes a far more vital contribution to society than the Bin Man.  VERY Anti-doctor.  Also, if you tax the "rich", a vast majority of the people who earn quite a good salary will have once been "poor" so are you penalising "your peolpe" for making a go of life? Yes.

View Post



There is no point in making up figures.
Here’s an example: Take one quite well-known household in Scotland: the McConnell family. They have a combined income of £208,000 a year. Their council tax bill last year was £1,545. Now, it's ridiculous that a worker on £10,000 or £12,000 would be paying more than half what the First Minister's household is paying but on an income 20 times less. Under our system the McConnells would pay £27,000. The point being that they would not be struggling to make ends meet on the remaining £180,000. But they pay more so the poor pay less (from scotsman.com).
Please vote for me! (Brendan Howard, 5th from bottom, only 1 vote required): http://answers.polld...m/poll/2330393/

#35 superstar

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Location:Angus
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 February 2005 - 03:27 PM

QUOTE(ermdeviation @ Feb 23 2005, 11:10 PM)
QUOTE(Kevin_Kilbane @ Feb 23 2005, 07:19 PM)
And how would this benefit a country? Capitalism is fine.  Its worked for 100's of years and will continue to work well.  Shove yer socialism up yer ars3

View Post



Capitalism is fine? You think it works? If it works, why is their large amounts of crime, poverty, unemployment..eeh? Why are 4 billion people denied the basic rights of food, water, education and shelter. No, my friend, capitalism works fine FOR YOU. That is it's strength. When the rich are in power, capitalism keeps them there and keeps them happy.

Of course, the medieval kings, queens and knights all thought feudalism worked just fine didn't they? It's the nature of the ruling class. Read up and get some evidence before joining an argument.

View Post



All of tht is very true and i have to say it is clear that capitalism does nothing to protect the poor and those most marginalised in society. It totally ignores them and they are just left while other can make millions. This is unjust and any reasonable person can surely see that!


#36 ermd

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 24 February 2005 - 07:48 PM

QUOTE(Kevin_Kilbane @ Feb 23 2005, 11:58 PM)
If you hate a Capitalist state so much why don't you go to Cuba or China to stay then you'll see how "brilliant" it is.  How much poverty is there in Cuba? A family friend went there in Summer and the place is so poor they were asked to give all their toileteries to the locals.  Oh but capitalism's crap isn't it?

I bet you will be one of these idiots causing trouble at the G8 Summit or were out protesting against the war in Iraq.  Explain to why it isnt good to have a man who butchered/murdered/exterminated his own people (not just a 1000 or 2000 but millions) removed from power?

View Post



Neither Cuba nor China are socialist countries. Don't be so stupid as to say that. Cuba has a ruling dictator and China is state-capitalist. Look on your consumer goods. How many say "made in China"? There is a massive middle class in China, and still a very poor agrarian population.

Socialism has never existed so how can anyone say "it doesn't work"?

As for the Iraq war, look up yer figures please smile.gif Saddam Hussein killed around 300,000 during his reign. And the majority of these were in the Iran-Iraq war, in which the West provided WMDs TO Iraq. I strongly disagree with his policies, but the USA cannot jsut invade countries at will. Especially when their action was against the will of the UN security council.

#37 superstar

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Location:Angus
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 February 2005 - 10:17 PM

QUOTE(ermdeviation @ Feb 24 2005, 07:48 PM)
As for the Iraq war, look up yer figures please smile.gif Saddam Hussein killed around 300,000 during his reign. And the majority of these were in the Iran-Iraq war, in which the West provided WMDs TO Iraq. I strongly disagree with his policies, but the USA cannot jsut invade countries at will. Especially when their action was against the will of the UN security council.

View Post



Yeah especially when the legal advice was made up on a sofa and never properly written down, it would never stand up, should it be challenged in court.


#38 Kevin_Kilbane

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 24 February 2005 - 10:42 PM

Ive seen on the news the millions of kurds he killed.

China's a communist country as is Cuba. Dont kid yourself its not. It is.

#39 Dave

    Ruler (but not owner) of hsn

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,252 posts
  • Location:kilmarnock(ok kilmaurs)
  • Interests:programming, exercising, brass band, using this board
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2005 - 09:57 AM

we are all very well aware of china being communist however they have a captialist economy with communist ideals in the community which to some extent is more dangerous to the outside world because they actually have some money

If i am not here i am somewhere else



#40 superstar

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Location:Angus
  • Gender:Female

Posted 25 February 2005 - 07:18 PM

China is emphatically not a communist country because

1. Its all capitalist n richey rich in Beijing - Not communist
2. In the countryside people are living in poverty with no food or anything - Not communist as in a communist society every1 is supposed to be the same , earn the same etctec!

They only thing communist about China is the restrictions placed on the peoples human rights and civil liberties and the police state!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users