You were supposed to ask them why they hate democracy so much seeing as how they wish they could overthrow the gov't and install the once down trodden proletariat.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK: over 10,000 march against Iraq war The idea of "totalitarianism" is dead. In no way can any government - nor *has* any government in the past been able to - completely control its population from the top down. Now, you can argue that said government can use a heavy hand to institute its policies on its citizenry, but there are always those within those societies who can and do flaunt those policies in either public or private life. Using the term "authoritarianism" might be a more worthwhile endeavor. Whether or not that pertains to this discussion is debatable, though.
OK, no attacks of glib comments from me now. I am really confused. There seems to be something I've noticed in a few of your anti-communist or anti-socialist posts that baffles me. Can you answer some questions and maybe help clarify your position? a) Is there something inherently wrong with a government that maintains partial control over key resources (nuclear power, mining rights, healthcare) or public services (airlines, railways, healthcare)? b) Is it possible for a "socialist" (ie, one who advocates some of the above) - is it possible for them to believe in democracy? If 80% of a country believes as a socialist does, then should the country be socialist, say with a socialist democratic parliamentary system? c) Can there be benevolent socialism - a government that doesn't repeat the numerous bloody actions of previous communist or socialist dictatorships? Quite honestly, I have no idea how you might answer these questions.
Why is their desire for an elected Socialist/Marxist government in place of the current one here in the UK analogous with a hatred for democracy? Actually ... don't answer that. It isn't and your attempts to evade that basic reality would just taint all of us who were here to witness it with the same stench of stupidity.
Intellectual Dishonesty Its clear your definitions are suited only for your POV, and not for shared public dialogue or debate. How can you submit the following (from the Swedish Constitution) is not "straight socialist?" Article 2 (1) Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and for the freedom and dignity of the individual. (2) The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the individual shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it shall be incumbent upon the public administration to secure the right to work, housing and education, and to promote social care and social security and a good living environment. (3) The public administration shall promote the ideals of democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society. The public administration shall guarantee equal rights to men and women and protect the private and family lives of the individual. (4) Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own. See, the problem is that in Sweden there lies a perfect example of socialism fully flourishing and working well, so you shift your definition thereof around Sweden as to not acknowledge socialism. That's very acrobatic, but not intellectually honest.
Re: Intellectual Dishonesty All that says is that there will opportunity,democracy (IMO true socialist societies are run by The Party),and equal worth. The only thing "socialist" about this how it says it will "secure the right" to work education etc. This is social democracy plain and simple.
Manny is definitely correct. Sweden is hardly the ideal example of socialism. It's a mixed economy with a considerable amount of income inequality, though nothing egregious like the USA.
Re: Re: Intellectual Dishonesty Therein may lay the problem. I, for one, do not perceive that "socialism" requires totalitarian rule by The Party or a dictator. My perception of countries like Sweden as a socialist democracy appear to be successful examples of socialist government - w/o the evils of totalitarianism and political intolerance. I'm guessing that most "socialists" agree with my version, not yours - but I could definitely be wrong. When I say socailism ain't bad, I mean sweden aint bad. Russia was bad. As you certainly showed, the numerous failures of socialist totalitarian states have pretty much killed any liklihood of anyone viewing those as socialist successes. Maybe I'll ask around and find out if a few "socialists" agree with me, of view their creed more along the lines of how you do. Perhaps you could do the same. One or both of us could be really shocked. Things are much clearer now and I understand your vehemence better. thanks for the intelligent reply.
Of course it's socialism, it just doesn't suit manny's silly little pastiche of the notion, replete with ghoulish dictators, large furry hats and bread queues in the Siberian winter. 'Socialism', as his charicature of what remains essentially a political creed should correctly be labelled, has nothing to do with the socialist state as it is conceived of by modern, democratic socialists. Nor is a state in which socialist policies have successfully been enacted not socialist in its fundamental disposition. Equally, a state that has not managed to achieve some of the more fanciful notions of Marx's work (a 150-year old political treatise written by a middle-class boffin in mid-Victorian London ... ) can be socialist without having achieved, for instance, full income parity. Only the fringe extreme views the path to socialist governance as one characterised by class warfare, punitive action against the elite and all the other hot air and purile nonsense that people like manny imagine everyone to the left of Margaret Thatcher is continuallly willing upon the civilised world. Only the fringe elements of any political persuasion ever lives up to the naff, hyperbolic depictions people like manny use to tar people whose views differ from their own. I notice on another thread that he bridled at being called a 'brownshirt' ...
Sweden has a fairly low captial gains tax rate, much lower than the UK. I suspect Universal would be horrified if he discovered that a small number of Swedes own 1/5 of the nation's wealth. An interesting form of socialism.
It is an interesting form of Socialism, yes. It's positively intruiging. Whisper it quietly in Manny's presence, but maybe this is a working model of what in this day and age can reasonably be called socialism and can successfully sit as a fundament of statehood without becoming 'Socialism'. Maybe this form of socialism is, to a large extent, the socialism Marx and Engels would recognise as valuable to a society's health and progression, warts, inequalities and impurities notwithstanding? Given that their socialism has nothing to do with the 'Socialism' practiced by manny's favourite historical bogeymen.
10,000 people march in a city with a metro population of about 11 million. Aka about 0.0009% of the pouplation. Who gives a flying *#*#*#*#*#*#?
Well, it depends if their all copiously moustachioed 'Socialists' or not. Because if they are, manny *#*#*#*#ing cares - he gets in a right old lather.