|
|
Post by sheepy on May 3, 2023 21:03:21 GMT
Populism is the truest form of democracy, because you have left wing populism or right wing populism is immaterial, to get a policy you think is a good/great policy you need to win over a majority of the public in a referendum, which then your elected representatives put in place without their own interference for meeting their own ends, you can throw in the mix whatever you wish but without a majority of the public behind it, it will never happen.
Incidentally that being the main reason the globalists hate it. Because it gives everyone a choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 3, 2023 21:13:52 GMT
I’m confusing nothing . Communism needs to be imposed and dissidents need to be silenced. Russia and China were not pretend communism they were default communism. Cuba has had about 80 years to become a Marxist utopia. It’s a dump and most people in Havana are either hustlers or poor in my experience . I spoke to a few and they hate , fucking hate the government. Sorry to break the news to you, but the UK was a dump 70 years after capitalism was introduced. In fact, wasn't there a famine around that time? Wasn't a large part of the female population selling their bodies on the streets just to eat? Weren't families living in workhouses or slums? Going further afield, weren't Indians being strapped to cannons and then blown to pieces? Well nice of you to remind us, but as you have tried to bring history and everyday politics into populism as a way of showing your fear of democracy, populism is pure genius. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 3, 2023 21:26:12 GMT
Ooo, I think I know this one sir. Does it have anything to do with potatoes? Yeah. Doc seems to think that the UK wasn't a capitalist country at the time. I dont really see what Potato Blight has to do with Capitalism - perhaps its allergic to Socialism? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:19:20 GMT
Yeah. Doc seems to think that the UK wasn't a capitalist country at the time. I dont really see what Potato Blight has to do with Capitalism - perhaps its allergic to Socialism? 'In the early 1840s the UK was relatively less affected than the rest of Europe. Yet thousands of working-class people still starved to death, including in England, Scotland and Wales, in part as it had become illegal to give poor people aid.*' People in England, Scotland and Wales were dying from starvation because of the 1834 Poor Law, Doc. So, capitalist laws also starved people. And let's not forget the starving children who were hanged for stealing food under the Bloody Code. *Vernon, James (2007). "Chpts. 1-3". Hunger: A Modern History. Harvard University Press. Polanyi, Karl (2002). "Chpts 1-12, esp chpt 8". The Great Transformation. Beacon Press. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2023 8:20:39 GMT
The most devout full-time EUphile troll is also a raving Communist. Odd really, but I hear mental health is an issue thesedays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:23:04 GMT
The most devout full-time EUphile troll is also a raving Communist. Odd really, but I hear mental health is an issue thesedays. Compare and contrast the living conditions of the ordinary person under early communism and early capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:26:09 GMT
I thought you were trying to rebut me? My original statement was that Marx's notion of ideal social organisation (as you outlined) doesn't function. The mass-murder of millions of people in acts of democide is a slight giveaway. Name a Marxist country where mass murder occurred? Are you referring to Stalinist and Maoist countries? Now, demonstrate that early capitalism was any better. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2023 8:33:31 GMT
The mass-murder of millions of people in acts of democide is a slight giveaway. Name a Marxist country where mass murder occurred? Are you referring to Stalinist and Maoist countries? Now, demonstrate that early capitalism was any better. There was also Pol Pot. Early Capitalism may not have cared about people dying if they could not fend for themselves but I am not aware they actually went out of their way to bump off as many people as possible. Usually the killing revolves around religion which confuses the whole issue and in fact removes Capitalism from being the root cause of problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:39:25 GMT
Name a Marxist country where mass murder occurred? Are you referring to Stalinist and Maoist countries? Now, demonstrate that early capitalism was any better. There was also Pol Pot. Early Capitalism may not have cared about people dying if they could not fend for themselves but I am not aware they actually went out of their way to bump off as many people as possible. Usually the killing revolves around religion which confuses the whole issue and in fact removes Capitalism from being the root cause of problems. Paul Pot wasn't a Marxist. His regime was even worse than imperialist capitalist regimes (which were also responsible for the deaths of millions). |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2023 8:42:48 GMT
There was also Pol Pot. Early Capitalism may not have cared about people dying if they could not fend for themselves but I am not aware they actually went out of their way to bump off as many people as possible. Usually the killing revolves around religion which confuses the whole issue and in fact removes Capitalism from being the root cause of problems. Paul Pot wasn't a Marxist. His regime was even worse than imperialist capitalist regimes (which were also responsible for the deaths of millions). Pol Pot is described as a Marxist-Leninist, now you have included Imperialism. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:43:17 GMT
Most of the above is opinion. It wouldn't advance things if I were to offer a mere contrary opinion as a rebuttal. Moving on to what is more than mere opinion in your post: class struggle is obviously an element of how the world works. I believe you made comments to that effect quite recently, saying that a lot of the current division in the UK was a class conflict. What 'rubber-room' contortions are you talking about? I thought you were trying to rebut me? My original statement was that Marx's notion of ideal social organisation (as you outlined) doesn't function. I don't see that you've rebutted Marx's claim that capitalism would follow a socialist trajectory. Is the UK currently overrun with Victorian street urchins? Are the workhouses still up and running? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 8:44:07 GMT
The trick here is the category. If people starve to death outside a communist regime, the deaths are ascribed to 'the capitalist system'. Of course, this is nonsense. In fact, to a significant degree, the converse is true, large numbers of people not starving to death are a result of the 'capitalist system'. Communism is infamous for taking situations that were imperfect, but more or less 'rubbing along' and quickly turning them into epic disasters that made the previous 'early capitalism' suffering look like a picnic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:44:30 GMT
Paul Pot wasn't a Marxist. His regime was even worse than imperialist capitalist regimes (which were also responsible for the deaths of millions). Pol Pot is described as a Marxist-Leninist, now you have included Imperialism. Why? What idiot described Pol Pot as a Marxist? Did he introduce democracy into Cambodia? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:45:40 GMT
The trick here is the category. If people starve to death outside a communist regime, the deaths are ascribed to 'the capitalist system'. Of course, this is nonsense. In fact, to a significant degree, the converse is true, large numbers of people not starving to death are a result of the 'capitalist system'. Communism is infamous for taking situations that were imperfect, but more or less 'rubbing along' and quickly turning them into epic disasters that made the previous 'early capitalism' suffering look like a picnic. Really? Things were 'rubbing along' in early capitalism, were they? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 8:51:33 GMT
I thought you were trying to rebut me? My original statement was that Marx's notion of ideal social organisation (as you outlined) doesn't function. I don't see that you've rebutted Marx's claim that capitalism would follow a socialist trajectory. This is very secondary to the primary issue of whether socialism works. Marx's prediction holds no meaning if socialism is unworkable. In that case, all he is predicting is an eventual collapse, i.e. the most uncontroversial social prediction that can be made. |
|
