|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 20:03:33 GMT
In the end it did, what you fail to realise is that the Empire was intent to improve and therefore imposed but the outcome was what we are looking at. So we are back to balance that you keep shying away from. No, it didn't. It couldn't be clearer that it didn't. Democracy came to India despite the British Empire, not because of it. The British Empire strongly resisted democracy in India. India enetered the modern world on structures created by the British in India, not on the Mughal Empire structures. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 20:04:37 GMT
So, you agree that anyone who claims that Britain exported democracy to India is talking nonsense, don't you? Because we both know that when the Indians demanded that the will of the majority of their people be implemented, they were told they could not have that, don't we? No, because in the end it did because the will of the majority got their way. Again we are talking about some 70 years ago. The will of the majority got its way despite the British Empire, not because of it. The Empire denied the average Indian a democratic vote. Your claim that Britain should be proud of its democratic legacy in the Empire in based on nothing whatsoever. The Empire resisted democracy in India. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 20:05:37 GMT
So, you agree that anyone who claims that Britain exported democracy to India is talking nonsense, don't you? Because we both know that when the Indians demanded that the will of the majority of their people be implemented, they were told they could not have that, don't we? No, because in the end it did because the will of the majority got their way. Again we are talking about some 70 years ago. India got democracy only after it expelled the anti-democratic British Empire. The Empire was an obstacle to democracy in India, not a facilitator. Democracy only became possible after Britain's expulsion. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 20:38:14 GMT
I’m going to stop this for a while . Darlene is getting a bit boring . And besides, you're losing again. Don’t be silly Darlene . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 20:44:12 GMT
Democracy equals socialism? Lol. Craft guild’s developing into unions equals communism Darlene? lol. A health service based on a levy equals …”.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.” Our class struggle lead to a more democratic society not a collectivist one. Its the way you tell ‘em Darlene . Somebody in the college bar has been having you on 😁 How dull, Ben Dover. For every law you claim is capitalist in China, there are 100 laws in the West curbing the right to make a profit. The West is becoming increasingly socialist, and it has a good deal more socialist oriented laws than China has capitalist oriented laws. So, which is winning, Ben Dover? Capitalism or socialism? Don’t be daft Darlene . I don’t claim China has become a state controlled capitalist state , it’s a fact . Capitalism in the west has adapted and thrived. Communism has always failed ( like your lame arguments) . Modern capitalist democracy doesn’t equate to socialism . 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.” Now back to the college bar with you . |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 18, 2023 21:27:38 GMT
Morals dont come into what is the law or not - if you have property and are stripped of that property then you should have compensation. Personally I have no wish to live in a country that arbitrarily strips citizens of their property - the Germans did that in the 1930's and that was roundly condemned at the time. But each to their own - if you support arbitrary confiscation then feel free. Your country will no longer be a free country though. Bullshit! 'Property' can and should be arbitrarily stripped where the 'owner' never had a moral right to it. No compensation is required. Things are compensated by customs all the time. The real evil wasn't stripping the slave owners of their 'property', it was recognising that human beings could be property in the first place. As I said - your country is perfectly at liberty to do as it wishes. The UK however is built on law - and we do not have property Laws (or any Laws) that can be overridden by individual views of morality. Would your country allow individual views on the morality of abortion or homosexuality to legally abolish Laws allowing them? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 21:51:37 GMT
Bullshit! 'Property' can and should be arbitrarily stripped where the 'owner' never had a moral right to it. No compensation is required. Things are compensated by customs all the time. The real evil wasn't stripping the slave owners of their 'property', it was recognising that human beings could be property in the first place. As I said - your country is perfectly at liberty to do as it wishes. The UK however is built on law - and we do not have property Laws (or any Laws) that can be overridden by individual views of morality. Would your country allow individual views on the morality of abortion or homosexuality to legally abolish Laws allowing them? Doc, how old were you when you left school? Every law can be overridden. The golden rule of the constitution is that every law can be overridden. The people of the UK can override any law through their elected representatives. How did the people acquire the right to have their will put into law through their elected representatives, Doc? Did they acquire that right through capitalist market forces, or did they acquire that right as a result of left-wing agitation (class struggle)? It's a serious question, Doc. That's the ultimate irony. Every good thing the gammons associate with capitalism (such as democracy and the higher standards of living generated by institutions such as the NHS) is not actually the product of capitalist market forces at all, but the product of class struggle. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 19, 2023 5:58:58 GMT
How dull, Ben Dover. For every law you claim is capitalist in China, there are 100 laws in the West curbing the right to make a profit. The West is becoming increasingly socialist, and it has a good deal more socialist oriented laws than China has capitalist oriented laws. So, which is winning, Ben Dover? Capitalism or socialism? Don’t be daft Darlene . I don’t claim China has become a state controlled capitalist state , it’s a fact . Capitalism in the west has adapted and thrived. Communism has always failed ( like your lame arguments) . Modern capitalist democracy doesn’t equate to socialism . 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.” Now back to the college bar with you . Communism is state ownership of the means of production. Socialism isn't. Countries like Sweden are socialist, and the means of production are not in state hands. If you maintain that socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, perhaps you can explain what the difference between socialism and capitalism are. When you've done that, you can explain how capitalist market forces created democracy for the average Brit, the NHS, and increased workers' rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 19, 2023 6:27:40 GMT
As I said - your country is perfectly at liberty to do as it wishes. The UK however is built on law - and we do not have property Laws (or any Laws) that can be overridden by individual views of morality. Would your country allow individual views on the morality of abortion or homosexuality to legally abolish Laws allowing them? Doc, how old were you when you left school? Every law can be overridden. The golden rule of the constitution is that every law can be overridden. The people of the UK can override any law through their elected representatives. How did the people acquire the right to have their will put into law through their elected representatives, Doc? Did they acquire that right through capitalist market forces, or did they acquire that right as a result of left-wing agitation (class struggle)? It's a serious question, Doc. That's the ultimate irony. Every good thing the gammons associate with capitalism (such as democracy and the higher standards of living generated by institutions such as the NHS) is not actually the product of capitalist market forces at all, but the product of class struggle. Which has nothing at all to do with the point being made. You want to overturn centuries of Property Law because you think its not moral - which is fair enough and you are welcome to try it out in your country. I prefer so-called morality to stay out of it and uphold a legal system that has served us well over the years. The idea that it should be acceptable for the State to confiscate private property without compensation is a rather foreign idea that I would hope would not be entertained in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 19, 2023 7:17:22 GMT
Doc, how old were you when you left school? Every law can be overridden. The golden rule of the constitution is that every law can be overridden. The people of the UK can override any law through their elected representatives. How did the people acquire the right to have their will put into law through their elected representatives, Doc? Did they acquire that right through capitalist market forces, or did they acquire that right as a result of left-wing agitation (class struggle)? It's a serious question, Doc. That's the ultimate irony. Every good thing the gammons associate with capitalism (such as democracy and the higher standards of living generated by institutions such as the NHS) is not actually the product of capitalist market forces at all, but the product of class struggle. Which has nothing at all to do with the point being made. You want to overturn centuries of Property Law because you think its not moral - which is fair enough and you are welcome to try it out in your country. I prefer so-called morality to stay out of it and uphold a legal system that has served us well over the years. The idea that it should be acceptable for the State to confiscate private property without compensation is a rather foreign idea that I would hope would not be entertained in the UK. 1) It says a lot about you that you think it is wrong that slave owners should not be compensated for losing their slaves, but you see no problem with the fact that the slaves themselves received no compensation. 2) Property can be acquired without compensation to the ‘owner’ in the UK. For example, a squatter can acquire your property by adverse possession, and there is no legal requirement for compensation. It happens all the time. The state can also acquire property by adverse possession. 3) Unlike other European countries (see Germany, for example), there is no constitutional protection of property in the UK. 4) You have failed to explain how capitalist market forces were responsible for the extension of the franchise to the ordinary person, fundamental labour rights, and the NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 19, 2023 8:14:34 GMT
Don’t be daft Darlene . I don’t claim China has become a state controlled capitalist state , it’s a fact . Capitalism in the west has adapted and thrived. Communism has always failed ( like your lame arguments) . Modern capitalist democracy doesn’t equate to socialism . 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.” Now back to the college bar with you . Communism is state ownership of the means of production. Socialism isn't. Countries like Sweden are socialist, and the means of production are not in state hands. If you maintain that socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, perhaps you can explain what the difference between socialism and capitalism are. When you've done that, you can explain how capitalist market forces created democracy for the average Brit, the NHS, and increased workers' rights. Nope.Socialism is defined as I posted . Socialism isn’t whatever you feel like it is . Stop wriggling . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 19, 2023 8:17:54 GMT
Communism is state ownership of the means of production. Socialism isn't. Countries like Sweden are socialist, and the means of production are not in state hands. If you maintain that socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, perhaps you can explain what the difference between socialism and capitalism are. When you've done that, you can explain how capitalist market forces created democracy for the average Brit, the NHS, and increased workers' rights. Nope.Socialism is defined as I posted . Socialism isn’t whatever you feel like it is . Stop wriggling . So, what's the difference between socialism and communism? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 19, 2023 8:18:12 GMT
Communism is state ownership of the means of production. Socialism isn't. Countries like Sweden are socialist, and the means of production are not in state hands. If you maintain that socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, perhaps you can explain what the difference between socialism and capitalism are. When you've done that, you can explain how capitalist market forces created democracy for the average Brit, the NHS, and increased workers' rights. Nope.Socialism is defined as I posted . Socialism isn’t whatever you feel like it is . Stop wriggling . Ooh the socialists are coming for you Bentley. Good job the Capitalists don't feed you line as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 19, 2023 8:19:08 GMT
Nope.Socialism is defined as I posted . Socialism isn’t whatever you feel like it is . Stop wriggling . Ooh the socialists are coming for you Bentley. Good job the Capitalists don't feed you line as well. At last, the forum's philosopher poet has arrived! |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 19, 2023 8:31:01 GMT
Nope.Socialism is defined as I posted . Socialism isn’t whatever you feel like it is . Stop wriggling . So, what's the difference between socialism and communism? lefties defining Socialism = lefties gaslighting . Communism = no private property. Socialism = communism lite. It covers a broader range . It could mean some might be able to own a business or property . When lefties manipulate the definition enough to claim higher wages and NHS is a sign of a socialist state then it becomes meaningless. So I don’t accept that socialism = what you want it to be . Socialism is a collective society where the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. That definition will accommodate some private ownership but it doesn’t include a Sweden or the UK Darlene . |
|
