Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "The Guardian"
channel.
-
165
-
100
-
99
-
91
-
52
-
49
-
38
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
31
-
30
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
"His policies lifted millions out of abject poverty and misery. He represented a break from years of corrupt regimes with often dire human rights records. His achievements were won in the face of an attempted military coup, an aggressively hostile media, and bitter foreign critics." -Owen Jones pays tribute to Hugo Chávez and the socialist economic miracle he brought about in Venezuela [Independent 6 March 2013]
Before being elected president, Hugo Chávez first attempted to take power by military coup in 1992.
In 2008, Human Rights Watch accused Chávez and his administration of engaging in discrimination on political grounds, eroding the independence of the judiciary, and of engaging in ''policies that have undercut journalists' freedom of expression, workers' freedom of association, and civil society's ability to promote human rights in Venezuela''. Chávez kicked them out of the country.
Despite being oil rich, the disastrous policies of the socialist government (praised by both Owen Jones and Jeremy Corbyn) have led to desperate food shortages, a crises in health care, and a serious shortage of other basic supplies. This has led to food riots on the streets, and what is known as the “Maduro Diet”.
The Venezuelan health minister, Anotnieta Caporale, was recently sacked because she released a report on the 30% increase in infant mortality and the staggering 65% rise in women dying in childbirth since the last time the government compiled data.
So, having lied about the Chávez regimes' human rights record, praised the complete destruction of the Venezuelan economy, ignored the arrest of opposition leaders, and helped whitewash the Chávez governments' crackdown on opposition media, Owen Jones would now very much like you to vote for another 'anti-imperialist' socialist fuckwit.
So you too can benefit from a complete breakdown in society just like our comrades in Venezuela.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
The far right in the UK are a joke. Always have been. I'm way more concerned about the rise of the far left. With populists like George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, and Jeremy Corbyn. They play identity politics to the extreme. Have made alliances with Islamist extremists. Normalised anti-Semitism. And aren't afraid to use violence and intimidation when it suits their cause.
Unlike the far left, its easy to see the far right for what it is. Afraid and resentful, they are too unimaginative to be deceitful. However, the far left are very different. They are much more subtle about how they go about things. As they have been throughout history. For example, the 'Stop the War Coalition' was basically a front for the Socialists Worker's Party. Members of its leadership are fanatically pro the Iranian regime. And anti-NATO. They also form other front organisations with 'anti-fascist' sounding names in order to appear like the good guys. As well as being anti-NATO, they are anti the US, pro-Putin, anti-EU, supporters and apologists for the worst of tyrants, and as far back as the second world war (when, for example, the British Communist Party actively worked against the war effort-until soviet Russia was invaded) have always made common cause with the UK's enemies.
There is actually little difference between the far left and the far right when it comes to politics. There never has been. They are both isolationist. Both passive when it comes to defending the interests of the UK. Both anti 'globalisation' (and, of course, anti TTIP). Both ant-Semitic. Both sympathetic to the UK's enemies (whether they be Islamists, the IRA, the ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Castro, or Vladimir Putin). Both contemptuous of liberal democracy. And both vindictive, hateful, and intolerant of anyone who disagrees.
Jeremy Corbyn is now the leader of the Labour Party. He is all those things. And worse.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Falling living standards would, of course, have much to do with spending cuts. But thats as far as some people are prepared to go. They won't attempt to recognise the massive debt the country is in. £39 billion a year wasted on debt interest repayments - thats more than the housing and environment budget combined. And something like a quarter of the entire NHS budget. So when people complain about the lack of affordable housing, they should know why.
And mass immigration impacts on the poorest of society. They end up competing with immigrants for cheap housing. And social housing. And often find themselves undercut when it comes to wages. While the middle class Guardian types see mass immigration in terms of how much less it will cost them to order a latte at Starbucks. Or how much cheaper they can get their bins emptied.
Immigrants from poor parts of the EU move to the UK to make a better life for themselves. So when they get here they start off on the bottom rung of the ladder. But they bring with them a work ethic that comes with leaving your home country and having to learn a different language. They end up living in poor areas. That's who that lady who had apparently never heard of Brexit, and people like her, people with mental health problems, drug problems, end up competing with. And they can't.
Very few people blame immigrants for falling living standards. They blame immigration policy. 300,000 extra people coming into the country every year is bound to have an impact. And its not just on local cuisine. But on things like services, the same services that poorer people rely on, more than the comfortably off.
And you can argue that public services need to be better funded, but then that takes us right back to square one again - National debt. The money isn't there.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Nesrine Malik clearly hasn't watched much Guardian content. As the aim of the 'progressive' (radical) left is well known. It is to appropriate a legitimate social concern, then use it as a shield to further their own political agenda. It enables them to call those who disagree with them 'racist', 'homophobe', 'xenophobe', 'transphobe', 'Islamophobe', or 'misogynist'.
Yanis Varoufakis, the ex-Greek finance minister, is a classic example of this. As a committed leftist he became secretary of the Black Students Alliance while studying in the UK. He justified this by saying that, according to his PhD supervisor Monojit Chatterjee, "...black was a political term and, as a Greek, on the grounds of ethnicity he had as much reason to be there as anyone else."
If skin colour is political, then you can't argue against that politics without being branded a racist.
Another example was the supposed BLM demonstration at Heathrow Airport. The idea that the politics of airport expansion should be 'racialized' is ludicrous. But that is exactly what they did. And for a very good reason.
The objective of the radical left has always been to create division within society. Class warfare is now dead and buried. So they must switch their focus to other subsections of society in order to gain power. The aim is not to solve the problem. But to make it worse. By doing so they steadily build up influence and authority. Without ever having to seek a democratic mandate to do so. Until finally they are forcing university professors to undergo compulsory political education.
But if one person's skin colour is political, or their gender, or their sexuality. Then all peoples skin colour, gender, and sexuality, are political. Do we really want to live in a world like that?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
And those oligarchs are now the billionaires who support Putin. Or what do you think Putin would have done differently? Would he have continued with the communist system? The communist system was the reason why the Russian economy collapsed!
According to the IMF, World Bank, and the Central Intelligence Agency, Russia comes below Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic in GDP per Capita. All those nations suffered under Russian occupation for decades after the war. But all are now democratic. Unlike Russia. And unlike Russia, their economies are not dependent on energy sales.
The Arab Spring began in Tunisia. An Ally of the west. There it was a success. It spread to Egypt. An ally of the west. Not so successful. If the West plotted to bring down governments, why do it in allied nations? In fact, it was only once the Arab Spring happened in non Western allied nations that war was the result.
In Libya, Gaddafi was desperate to hang on to power. And was prepared to see his nation burn. The same is happening in Syria today. And what is your answer there? To support Assad's regime? The war has gone on for over six years now. Rather than shortening the war as Western intervention undoubtedly did in Libya, Russia has prolonged the war. And the death and destruction far exceeds anything in Libya. By contrast, Libya is in a far better position.
You can argue your case with Libya's GDP. But somehow I doubt that those who took up the fight to remove Gaddafi's terrorist regime would take much notice of you.
You could, I guess claim that all those Libyans were, in fact, NATO and CIA operatives in disguise. But that's hardly credible. Whichever way you look at it, Libyans wanted rid of Gaddafi and the only viable way was the use of force. But then that's what happens when you live in a dictatorship.
Perhaps you should tell us about the thousands more who have died in Syria by Russian airstrikes. And for what? Another forty years of blood-drenched Assad dictatorship? Is that all you have to offer? More corruption, brutal oppression, and injustice?
THERE IS YOUR DICTATORSHIP. That is what Russia is fighting for.
And I'm sure you live in the US. For some reason, Putin's most vocal fans are all desperately keen to tell us how they live in the west. And not Russia.
Putin's regime is built on lies. It's rotten from the bottom up. You talk of Saudi Arabia, but Russia has not one single ally that is democratic. Even its closest European neighbours want nothing to do with it. Because whereas you might not agree with fighting for political freedom, even fewer people agree with bombing the shit out of Syria for a mass murdering despot like Assad.
3
-
It's funny that you should blame western sanctions for Russia's apparent economic stagnation. Because Russian counter sanctions were designed to harm the west in retaliation. And yet those Eastern European countries, such as Poland and the Baltics, who have far closer trade links to Russia than the rest of Europe, still out perform Russia economically!
You ask who was to blame for the war in Libya. Gaddafi. He was in charge. He was dictator. Perhaps he should've stepped down when his people demanded it? After all, what do you think would have happened in Tunisia if Ben Ali had refused to step down?
And are you seriously claiming that Libya is worse off than Syria?
Gaddafi had to rely on foreign mercenaries to fight his own people. Rather like Assad has to rely on Russians to bomb his own people. But obviously, when Russia is involved and its propping up its mass murdering puppet dictator, the excuse is ''Of course civilian casualties will happen''.
Six years and Russia has done nothing in Syria, but make itself a laughing stock by sailing its antiquated carrier into the Mediterranean, crashing a few of its jets, then dragging it back home again.
And whereas the West may have gone to war against the taliban, saddam, and Gaddafi, who does Russia go to war against? Ukraine (a democracy), Georgia (a democracy). While at the same time making war in Chechnya (for a second time-and to install a puppet dictator) and Syria (to prop up a puppet dictator). And those are only Putin's wars.
And we can all put in quotes from the Guardian:
''Russia has been directly and repeatedly accused of war crimes at the UN security council in an unusually blunt session, as hopes of any form of ceasefire were flattened by the scale and ferocity of the Syrian regime’s assault on eastern Aleppo.''
''The war crimes accusations centred on the widespread use of bunker-busting and incendiary bombs on the 275,000 civilians living in the rebel-held east of the city, weapons that Moscow’s accusers say were dropped by Russian aircraft. “
''Bunker-busting bombs, more suited to destroying military installations, are now destroying homes, decimating bomb shelters, crippling, maiming, killing dozens, if not hundreds,” Matthew Rycroft, the UK ambassador to the UN, said during the emergency security council session on Syria on Sunday.“Incendiary munitions, indiscriminate in their reach, are being dropped on to civilian areas so that, yet again, Aleppo is burning. And to cap it all, water supplies, so vital to millions, are now being targeted, depriving water to those most in need. In short, it is difficult to deny that Russia is partnering with the Syrian regime to carry out war crimes.”''
-September 2016
Don't hear any concern from KGB Colonel Putin over his, or Assad's, actions in Syria!
But then I guess war is ok when Russia is propping up one of its mass murdering puppet dictators. It's just not ok when its about taking out mass murdering dictators!
Let's be honest here. You're trolling for Putin. I'm still waiting for you to tell me you're ex US military. And to copy paste that notorious Russian Troll list of American wars since 1945!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Playing racial based politics is always a bad thing. Apart from the nonsensical idea that all people of a certain skin colour think this way or that, it can backfire badly. Which in many cases it has. I was perhaps too lenient when it came to my description of the twat in the video. Because it amazes me that he clearly hasn't thought his argument thro.
The danger is that what he is saying is bollox. And most people can see this. So if we don't call it out for the bollox it is, what happens when some far right asshole comes along and calls it out? How are you going to argue against him?
I don't believe that one person's skin colour entitles them to speak for everyone else of the same skin colour. I don't believe that one person with a particular skin colour cannot empathise and represent someone of a different skin colour. But if you do, then the racists have got it right. Then having a non-white MP, minister, mayor, or PM representing white constituents is bad for those white constituents. So you better vote for skin colour and not the man or woman.
As to parliament representing a wider range of 'groups'. Without getting too sociological, there will always be winners in all sections of society. And winners at different things. Not everybody has the self discipline or physical ability needed to become a top athlete. Not everybody has the talent and skill needed to be a successful artist or musician. So those that do make it to the top can never be representative of the vast majority of us.
The same is true when it comes to politics (and especially business). Basically, most people are not prepared to put in the time and dedication to politics as all successful politicians do. And you don't have to agree with their politics to recognise that there are many local politicians who work just as hard who never get anywhere near the top.
So in politics, just like in everything else, what you have is very hard working, dedicated, and self disciplined people at the top. And those people tend to be successful people. It will always be that way. No matter what system you try to implement. And in a democracy this is not a problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Then by your own argument, the EU itself must be built on what it is NOT rather than what it is. It is a club that defines itself by who is a member. And who is not a member. And that is based around the European cultural identity. We can see this in the way that Europe is fine with 'freedom of movement' between European nations. But not with freedom of movement that includes non European nations.
In a truly multicultural society, where unlike, for example, eastern Europe, the UK has a large population of non-European ethnic minorities, that loyalty to European culture is not there. Unlike most of Europe, the UK has always been a global player. And its diverse population and ties to non European cultures proves this. That is why the UK has not seen the rise of the far right, as many other European countries have
Altho, I will admit that the rise of le Pen in France rather undermines my argument a bit, as France also has a large non-European population. Or, perhaps, you could also say it actually supports my argument.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Corbyn's red lines are:
◾Fair migration system for UK business and communities
◾Retaining strong, collaborative relationship with EU
◾Protecting national security and tackling cross-border crime
◾Delivering for all nations and regions of the UK
◾Protecting workers' rights and employment protections
◾Ensuring same benefits currently enjoyed within single market
Now, the first line has nothing to do with Brexit at all. The second very much depends on Brussels. The third, again has nothing to do with Brexit (Corbyn would fail on this completely btw). Neither does the forth. Or the Fifth. And the sixth 'Ensuring same benefits currently enjoyed within single market' is impossible unless the other side agree. And they have stated clearly that they won't.
So clearly Commissar Corbyn is playing politics at the expense of getting the best deal for the UK. So when I ask 'what happens if Brussels says no (to ensuring the same benefits currently enjoyed within the single market), and you say ''er, none of that makes sense'' it shows you haven't the slightest clue of what Corbyn is demanding.
As for your complete lack of confidence in the UK's ability to make trade deals with America and India and Jamaica and Australia, I would simply ask, if Australia, Jamaica, India, and the US can make trade deals, then why not us?
And spare me the NHS Fear Campaign. Labour play that card during EVERY SINGLE ELECTION!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+John Constantine. How about before we go to the Yalta Conference, we stop off on the way at communist Russia's alliance with Nazi Germany and its invasion of Poland in 1939?
Stalin could have had his 'buffer' state then. And it would've been a very effective buffer state, seeing as both France and Britain were prepared to guarantee its sovereignty. But that's not what the soviets wanted. Their invasion of Finland and the Baltics had proved this. They wanted to expand. They wanted war.
And why do you think the soviets would've wanted war? You know something of how and when the revolution got started, I assume? Check back a little further to the birth of the soviet state in Russia. How it came about. And ask yourself why Stalin would've wanted a border with Germany. If he was thinking defensively.
Russia began the war alongside their Nazi German allies. The soviets were entitled to nothing. Eastern Europe is not a collection of buffer states. They are countries with as much right to independence as Russia or any country in Europe. As soviet Russia's invasion of Czechoslovakia and Hungry showed, they weren't buffer states. They were part of soviet Russia's empire.
You can mention the number of Russian casualties. But so what? The communists butchered their way thro Russia, the Baltics, Ukraine, and Poland (even the gestapo were impressed by their brutality in Poland!) resulting in well over 20 million deaths! Before the war had even properly got started.
And since when has casualty numbers justified military annexation anyhow? Germany had over 7 million war casualties. Should they have been able to cash them in for Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Czechoslovakia at the end of the war?
Far from the capitalist west arming, supplying, and allying with Nazi Germany, it was that other genocidal ideology who is responsible for that: Communism. And, if you were to ask who benefitted from the war, you would just have to take a look at a map of Europe in 1950 or whenever. And the answer would be clear.
So to claim that Stalin was no imperialist is factually wrong. He started the war alongside his Nazi allies. And ended it with an empire bigger than Russia's Tsarist empire . And far, far, more savage and brutal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Zeitgeist If, as you claim, eastern Europe was occupied by the 'soviet union' and not Russia, and the soviet union no longer exists, then by what right has Russia to demand anything from the territories the soviet union formally occupied?
You have already claimed that it was not Russia who occupied those countries. And that Russia was just part of the soviet union like any other part. If that is the case, then it it's just a question of one half of the soviet union wishing to join NATO. While the other half doesn't.
And where does punishment come into it? Eastern European countries simply wish to make their own alliances and pursue their own self interest. Just as Russia continues to do. Does Poland demand that Russia consult Warsaw before Putin makes alliances with the Chinese? Do the Lithuanians claim the right to dictate Russian foreign policy with Iran? After all, they were as much part of the USSR, yes?
In 1991, when Boris Yeltsin raised the question of Russia entering NATO, did Belarus invade Moscow? When Putin said in March 2000 that ''...We believe we can talk about a more profound integration with NATO'' and said he couldn't see any reason why Russia should not join NATO, did Ukraine invade southern Russia?
Why not? After all, someone in the US had given a verbal promise not to expand NATO, right? And Russia was, after all, just a part of the USSR like any other country.
Your problem is that you care nothing for the rights and freedoms of eastern European countries. You are just desperate to appease Putin because he threatens war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Aaron Paul After the breakup of the soviet empire there were many Russians who found themselves in newly independent countries. Unwilling to return to Russia (after all, as you said many had been born where they lived), they were also unwilling to give up their Russian identity.
After the collapse of the Third Reich many Germans found themselves in the same position. Nazi Germany had encouraged German colonisation of eastern Europe in an attempt to snuff out occupied eastern European culture. And as I'm sure you know, they were ejected with the fall of Hitler's Germany.
The two examples are not exactly the same. German families were literally given the choice of whichever house they wanted. And the owners were then forcefully 'removed'. I haven't heard that the same happened with Russian 'colonisers' of the Baltics. But it is a fact that Russia worked hard to stamp out the cultures of those it occupied. And like much of eastern Europe, Latvia suffered terribly under Russian occupation.
So while the two situations are not entirely the same, the results are that there are many Russians still living in eastern Europe who do not consider themselves citizens of the country they live in. And just as the kremlin did in Transnistria in the early 90's, Putin is more than willing to use those Russian minorities to cause trouble (as he did in Ukraine).
The situation requires a fine balance of fairness, and understanding of Latvia's recent history and a recognition that Latvia and the other Baltic nations have a right to exist. And to make their own policies on Latvian citizenship.
As for NATO enlargement, there never was any agreement on not to expand eastwards. It was not mentioned in any treaty or document. As Russia had no right to demand anything from the countries they had occupied for so long. And besides, Putin himself at one time brought up the possibility of Russia joining NATO sometime in the future. He didn't feel the need to ask permission from Belarus or China, so why should the Baltics have worried about getting permission from Russia before joining NATO?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Aaron Paul The reason why the OSCE didn't want anything to do with Putin's fake referendum is because it was illegal and vastly corrupt even by Russia's standards. Besides, if the OSCE had monitored the 'vote' there, what is to stop them doing it in, say, Kaliningrad after a German invasion? Anyone could pick apart Europe by annexing ethnic enclaves. You could pick apart Russia easily.
Kosovo had to wait years for its independence. It followed a long and very bloody war. While Crimea wasn't getting independence. It was simply annexed by Russia.
As to your possible alternate Ukrainian reality, you forgot the part when Yanukovych ordered Russian nationalists to gun down Ukrainians on the streets of their own capital city. You forgot the vast corruption (even by Ukrainian standards-Transparency International named President Yanukovych as the top example of corruption in the world). You forgot his breaking of the Ukrainian constitution. And you forgot the broken promise.
And that promise was for Ukraine to seek an Association Agreement with the EU. Putin's big mistake was to offer an ultimatum. You can either trade with Europe. Or trade with Russia. You can't do both. In order the ratchet up the pressure, Putin changed Russia's customs regulations on imports from Ukraine. So that in August 2013, the Russian Custom Service stopped all goods coming in from Ukraine.
Ukrainian's were given the choice between the EU (with all its faults) and Putin's 'Customs Union' of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, Did they want to be another Estonia or Poland. Or a Belarus? Ukrainians chose the EU.
In any western democracy, if a president or prime minister used armed thugs bussed in from an ethic enclave to kidnap, beat, and shoot people down on the street, they would've lost power overnight. But that is exactly what Yanukovych did. Then when an agreement had been signed with opposition groups that would have allowed him to remain in power, Yanukovych lost his nerve and fled the country. Calling on Russia to send in troops to reinstate him to power.
It was too late for Yanukovych's regime. But the Russians invaded anyway. They annexed Crimea outright. And crossed the border into eastern Ukraine, seized public buildings, and handed them over to far right nationalist Russian gangs. The evidence that the Russians were there is overwhelming. The so called government of the 'People's Republics' were even headed by ex-Russian military.
So now we have pretty much the same as what happened in Moldova and Georgia. Nationalist Russian separatists armed and financed by the kremlin. Another war. Relations between Russia and Ukraine ruined for a generation. Yet another enemy added to the Kremlin's long list. A reinvigorated NATO. And all because of Putin's zero sum foreign policy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
JDrakeify Germany is able to have strong labour laws because it operates within a protectionist economy. The EU. Europe could not compete with the Chinese or other Asian countries in an open market. So it puts up trade barriers. Which the EU is threatening to do to the UK. So, in that instance, it would be beneficial to the UK to undercut EU corporation tax and regulation.
Remember, the UK originally joined the common market. When there was no talk of a European parliament, single currency, open borders, European law, or ever closer union. These are all things that have come about, not thro economic reasons, but because of political reasons.
The UK still wants to be part of that single market (as the polls show). The market it originally joined back in the 70's. It just doesn't want the political union.
The proof that the EU is a political project, rather than an economic one, is that in order to punish the UK for leaving (and dissuade others from doing so), it is prepared to eject the UK from its single market. Something that will undoubtedly harm the EU economy itself.
So, in this instance where the EU is prepared to harm us and itself simply for political reasons, we are within our rights to act solely within our own interests. In other words, you cannot preach international economic solidarity while you use economics as a political weapon.
And nobody said capitalism was supposed to be fair. But it is. It's far fairer than, for instance, the socialist economic model. Where power is in the hands of a political elite, rather than in the hands of the individual. Remember, large multinational corporations are simply successful small businesses. And in a free society people are free to buy their products or not. Just as people are free to work for them or not.
Large multinational companies don't just spring out of nowhere. They are the result of decades or more of planning, investment, innovation, and risk taking. Most have outside investors. Shareholders, lenders, banks, and pension funds. All expecting their cut of the profits. Profits aren't simply hoarded away in a giant safe at the top of their corporate HQ. They have the future to be concerned about. Because if they get it wrong, its not just the top man that loses his job.
I know you already know this. But your argument seems to be ''now that you're a success, you're public property. And we get to decide how much of your own profit you can keep!"
But in a free society, taxation cannot be about redistribution. After all, taxation is not redistribution. Taxation is about paying for the services that a first world society demands and needs. You can argue for redistribution. And say that you will use the tax system to do it. But that is not something that can be imposed on a free society without first getting its consent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Considering that when socialism is tried, and when it inevitably fails, it is disowned by socialists (the same with communism), what socialism and/or communism actually is, and how it would actually be implemented, varies depending on who you talk to (rather like a religion).
So, lets take it that socialism/communism is at its most basic the 'worker owning the means of production'. Collectivisation. Yes?
Collectivisation requires the individual to be subservient to the group. Rather like a worker ant. The product of his labour is not his, but the property of the 'collective'.
Now, considering a libertarian believes in freedom of choice, political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment (cut and paste job), how could a libertarian be part of a collective in a communist state?
Surely the ownership of the individuals time and labour would be considered his own if you were a libertarian? You could, of course, claim that the libertarian is at liberty to voluntarily join a collective. But then a libertarian would also be at liberty to voluntarily join a one party fascist state. At which point, the label 'libertarian' would cease to have any meaning at all.
So basically, the word 'libertarian' when put next to the description of someone who is a communist is simply meaningless. It just means the person has, of his own free will, decided to opt for communism.
Well, duh!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Connor Ovington You said ''...you have no idea on the strain when we're kicking out foregins left, right and center''
Then I asked you how many foreign doctors were being kicked out. You now say... none.
But by the tone of your comment, it seemed very much like the Gestapo were rounding people up in cattle trucks?
As for the 'increase in hate crime', the reality is that the definition of a hate crime is now so wide that all it takes is for someone to believe a hate crime has been committed, for it to be investigated as a hate crime.
For example, in a speech, Amber Rudd, the home secretary suggested tightening rules that allow UK firms to recruit workers from overseas. The police then investigated the 'incident' as being a suspected hate crime.
After the referendum, an anti-hate crime website (no doubt hoping to drum up some custom) polled the specific question ''Have you been a victim of hate crime since the EU referendum?''
It was enough for you to reply 'yes', for that to be reported by the news media as evidence of a rise in hate crime since the referendum. No police report filed. No investigation. No prosecution. Just a statistic.
The news media made much of the murder of a Polish man. But where was the evidence that the murder was at all linked to the EU referendum? Channel 4 News led with a story of a heated road rage incident, where a guy shouted 'Fuck off back to where you come from!" That, apparently, was a hate crime. And somehow connected to the EU referendum.
Now we know that anti-Semitism has been on the rise. And anti-Islamic hate crime also. But that is in line with the rest of Europe. In fact the area with the largest increase in anti-Islamic hate crime has been London (not long ago the BBC reported hate crime against Muslims had increased threefold within the capitol). And London, as we know, voted to remain within the EU. So, I guess that proves remain voters hate Muslims, yeah?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Danny Walker My point was, that even if the whole population of Qatar are not all millionaires, the problem there is certainly not one of poverty. The same is true of Saudi Arabia. In fact, poverty does not figure in the reasons why individuals in the west join and fight for Islamist groups.
It cannot be because of injustice either. Altho that certainly helps to bring about discontent. And, as in Syria, discontent is the ideal breeding ground for Islamic fascism.
So the problem must be one of ideology. And we know where that ideology comes from. And it has nothing to do with the west. Quite the opposite. After all, you don't blow yourself up in the middle of a crowded Afghan marketplace unless you truly believe you will end up sitting at the right hand of mohammed. The reality is, that elites in the middle east and among other Islamic regions fear the power of islam as much as the west does. If not more.
Grievance against the west is a strong recruiting tool. And useful too. Because many Arab governments spend a lot of effort on channelling discount away from them. And towards the west and Israel.
Then we have the Useful Idiots at home. The ones like this Theo Padnos. Who do their best to convince muslims in the west that they are desperately oppressed. And that the Islamic worlds problems can all be laid at the feet of the west. Or Israel.
I think I'm right in saying that Theo Padnos is a convert to Islam. So of course, he couldn't possibly lay the blame where blame lies. And Owen Jones, a keen supporter of any anti-western grievance, isn't about to ask him any difficult questions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There never has been any such time in history as 'pre-capitalism'. In such a situation where 'everyone works on the land', there would still have been a bartering system even if no currency was involved.
And yes. Poverty is relative. But not everyone needs to run their own international corporation. And you don't measure poverty against multi-billion dollar businesses. There would have still been (real) poverty in your mythological 'pre-capitalist' history. And with no large corporations, there would have been no modern medicines. No research into disease. You would have died at thirty two. Of toothache.
=(
People in the west are living longer, healthier, and enjoying a higher standard of living than at any time in human history. And no system has, or will ever be able, to do away with 'power relations'. But once again, in the free capitalist west, we see generations growing up with more freedoms, rights, and privileges than ever before.
And 'Unpaid domestic labour'? You mean looking after yourself and your family, surely? And who should pay a woman (or a man for that matter) to clear up their own mess at home? You? Me?
Nah.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I haven't deleted any comments.
The phrase 'means of production' in Marxist jargon may only include tools, machinery, buildings, and capital. But then Marxism is a deeply flawed political theory. My argument is that the worker himself is the means of production. The tools, machinery, buildings etc. didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were built. By people.
Nothing gets done without the worker. In a capitalist economy, the worker is recognised as being part of the means of production. He owns his own time. And may hire himself out to an employer in return for a wage.
In capitalism, the worker truly does own the means of production. He owns the results of his own labour. In the communist system, the results of his labour suddenly become 'the means of production' and are then taken from him by the state. This theft is poorly justified by defining the 'state' as being 'the worker'.
Only, as I have already pointed out, that is an impossibility. The state cannot be the worker, because not everyone agrees. The mantra 'the workers own the means of production' is simply political spin. And defining the means of production in such a narrow way is all part of the spin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's well known that Assad buys oil from ISIS. Maybe not in Russia, but then if they have such a piss poor grasp on what is going on as you do, they won't know what everyone else knows.
Up until recently, the FSA have been the only group fighting the spread of ISIS. While Assad and the Russians have concentrated their attacks on the FSA. But you better tell the Russians that the FSA are ISIS, because they've been holding talks with them Kazakhstan! Putin talks to ISIS now does he?
There are no US troops occupying Ukraine. Plenty of Russian troops there tho. The Ukrainians keep capturing them! And when it comes to corruption, I hardly think Russia can be pointing fingers at Ukraine. Russia is ruled by secret policemen, thugs, and crooks!
You mean to say the Ukrainians are as happy to live on their knees as the Russians? I don't think so. Putin poured billions more than the US did into Ukrainian politics. Corrupting Ukraine's elections so badly they had to be re-run! The Russians even aided assassination attempts against Yanukovych's political opponents! Just like they do in Russia!
And no, they weren't Georgian troops. It was before the Russian invasion even started. Russian attack helicopters lunched an unprovoked attacks on Georgian civilians.
Assad is no 'progressive'. He's just a tyrant like all Russia's other allies. Like I said, Russia only ever goes to war to prop up it's puppet dictators. Either that, or it attacks its neighbours. And annexes their territory. Then ethnically cleanses the area as it did in occupied Georgian territory, east Ukraine, and Crimea.
Still bitching about your collapsed Russian empire, I see? Worried about US bases? Maybe you should stop invading your neighbours, then you might actually have normal relations with them? You lost! People want democracy! Not your KGB secret police crook and his genocidal puppets!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The far right are at least upfront about their hatreds. And you can see them coming a mile off. But with the mainstream left having been hijacked by the extreme left, we now have hatred sold as virtuous morality and the legitimisation of political violence.
No party campaigned on a platform of white Identity politics, for the far right, or in support of islamophobia during the referendum. But it is a fact that the present Labour leadership supported IRA terrorism, supports Islamist terrorism, and makes allies of anti-Semites, Stalinists, and supporters of the Iranian regime.
If the far right has crawled out from under their rock, then it is a direct result of the left playing identity politics with race, religion, and sexuality. Anything that gives them a seat at the table. And it's hard not to imagine that any rise of the far right is exactly the result they wanted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Absolutely. Good role models are vital for any young generation (and older ones too). The trouble is, that is not something that can be socially engineered by the political class. And neither should it be (-actually it can. But we don't want that) Unfortunately, those who do have the ability to influence such things have tended to push a culture of grievance, victimhood, helplessness, and lack of self-responsibility. More often than not the buzz word is 'disenfranchisement' (which basically means 'the majority don't agree with me')
Sure, society isn't equal. But then it never has been and never can be. Some people are born with disability. Some people are born with a natural talent for mathematics, or art, or athletics. Some people are born into wealthy families. Some are born into families who couldn't give a shit. So when you talk about 'inequality' you are talking about a whole range of issues outside the control of those who manage society.
And do we really need or want parliament to be more representative? If the majority aren't prepared to put in the work and dedication required to make it to the top in politics, or business, or anything else (maybe they have other priorities), do we really want them in the top jobs? After all, if you were investing your savings into a start up business, who would you trust more. The guy who puts in the effort? Or the guy that just turns up?
Saying you want to eradicate poverty is a noble aim. And we can all argue about the best way to bring that about (that is what most politics is-we all agree on the destination, but argue about which direction is best). The problem starts when you compare the top 1% against everyone else. Then call that 'inequality'.
And we don't have to look to far back into history to see the results of engineering society to eradicate inequality to see how that will turn out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** In an ideal world it wouldn't hurt. But like I said results speak for themselves. And as I'm sure you're aware, the economy is not an exact science. So in the end it comes down to who people trust the most.
As for disenfranchisement. The definition is: To deprive (someone) of a right or privilege. To deprive (a place) of the right to send a representative to Parliament. To deprive (someone) of the rights and privileges of a free inhabitant of a borough, city, or country. (I know u know this already, I'm just pointing out how the word is being misused).
None of this applies to modern day UK. People simply disagree on how things should be run. And that is nothing new, surely.
And I would have to disagree that advances of humanity cannot be attributed to the right to vote. The only other thing that comes close, is war. Democracy is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Each individual politician or political party must sell themselves to the voter in order to gain power. And once in power they have a self interest in keeping the good name of their 'brand'. And the only way they can do that is to focus on the needs of those who can vote for them.
There's this Rumanian youtuber called Vee. You might have heard of him. Idk. Anyhow, he's a bit too much to the right for my liking, but he makes some good points now and again. He's just old enough to remember how things were in Rumania under Ceausescu. He talks about the history of his country. About how, before communist dictatorship, Bucharest was known as Little Paris (I forget the exact term but u get the idea). He talks about how the fountain pen was invented by a Rumanian. Then goes on to list the achievements under communism. None.
Because non-democracies have no incentive to better the lives of their people. They have no free press or independent judiciary. All the things that a democracy needs. They have no rule of law, only what is most convenient for those in power. And, ultimately, who would invest in a country where those in power can take everything you own or have worked for away?
Churchill's quote wasn't a criticism of democracy. Because he knew that everyone who holds power always wants more time. And even the worst of dictators don't consider themselves to be bad. They just believe the ends justify the means. And they can get away with that because they have no opposition.
I think I've just written you a novel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is Wikipedia on the first Italian fascist manifesto 6 June 1919.
'...The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925), with all opposition parties banned or disbanded; proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of "National Councils" of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate. The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management. equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics, and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their profits. It also called for the creation of a short-service national militia to serve defensive duties, nationalization of the armaments industry, and a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive.'
This could be any manifesto on the left or right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, the UK does have a pretty strong hand. The UK market is as important to the EU as the US market. In other words, it trades as much with the UK as it does the US. Meanwhile, the UK's biggest single market is the US. And, thanks to the EU, we don't presently have a trade deal with the US.
The EU, and those who support it against the UK, will try to sell the lie that the UK desperately needs a trade deal with the EU. And yet we don't have a trade deal with our biggest single trading partner?
It's also not in the EU's interest to piss off perhaps the second largest contributor to NATO. Presently, the UK contributes sizable forces to Europe's defence in the east. So making an enemy of the Brits at a time when Putin is redrawing the map of Europe is not wise at all. There was a very good reason why May mentioned the UK's roll in Europe's defence.
Every time Europe's chief Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, opens his mouth he increases support for the governments tough line on Brexit talks. Unless, of course, you're a Limp Dem. Or a supporter of Jeremy 'Wave The White Flag' Corbyn and his confused shadow cabinet. In which case you back the opposing side against the UK, obviously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't tend to watch them. But I have seen many people of all skin colours talking about their health. And at no time did I think ''Well, they look different to me. I can't possibly have anything in common with them!"
How do people of colour tend to be more marginalized? Are they refused health care because of their skin colour?
The UK is a majority white country. If you lived in Japan, you would expect to see Japanese people as being the 'default human beings'.
And what issues are particular to 'people of colour'? Can't be anorexia or bulimia can it? And are there issues particular to non-blacks, or non Asians? Clearly there must be.
And if experiences of white people in society are not the same as the experiences of black, Asian, etc. people, then you have your answer as to why there are very few programs discussing 'non white health issues'. The majority of people in the UK are white. And they couldn't possibly have empathy with non whites.
In fact, if we are to take your claims seriously, and accept that the experiences of white people are not the same as black or Asian people, etc, then non-white people would be overrepresented in the media. As the UK is a majority white country.
Non-white people would most certainly be over represented in politics. As non-whites are the minority in most constituencies. And people of one skin colour couldn't possibly vote for someone of another skin colour (because their experiences are not the same).
So, following your argument, we better get rid of all those non white tv presenters, doctors, teachers, politicians, etc. And forget about ever having a non-white prime minister. After all, how could he or she possibly represent white people in a majority white country?
Are you prepared for that type of segregation? Because if what you say is true, then the racists are right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
++John Constantine. And now we get to the part of your post where you show your true colours. You quote Donald Trump. ''Obama and Hilary are the founders of ISIS''
Obviously, the fact that this is untrue doesn't bother you. Your pathological hatred of an imagined 'western imperialism' means that you will quote anyone, even a billionaire globalist, if he says something that justifies your claims.
This is why you are also willing to wade thro the blood and corpses of the Syrian war to point the finger at Saudi Arabia (western ally-convenient target). And, of course, Israel (you are a Corbyn supporter, after all!).
It's not Assad _that's_ at fault, its them others!
It's western imperialism again, isn't it? Its never Stalin, or Castro, or Mao, or Gaddafi, or Saddam, or the ayatollah, or Assad, or Kim, or Pol Pot, or Ho Chi Minh. Its the one place where people actually have all those rights, freedoms, and privileges that, no doubt, you claim you want.
So much for your 'revolution'.
Communism is the problem. Its not because it has just been badly implemented. It's what happens in a one party state. I will assume that you're no just some worthless little cunt that wants to round up everyone who disagrees with you and put them in a gulag concentration camp (altho you're happy to defend exactly that), and instead think that you have at least thought critically about some things.
You might feel that it is unjust that wealthy individuals and corporations get to employ millions of people. Too much power in the hands of a small elite (the 1%), you might think. They can hire and fire people. People that they don't much like. So, if that is the case, I ask you, WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO GIVE THAT POWER TO A ONE PARTY STATE?
What could go wrong, right? I mean, its not like anything bad has ever happened?
1
-
+John Constantine. Quite clearly I have addressed your claim that communism is not an oppressive and imperialistic ideology. I have pointed to the fact that it was spread throughout Europe by conquest. Enforced thro violence (the soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and Hungry). And it attempted to spread further (Vietnam/Korea).
The idea that soviet Russia had any legitimate claim to annex territory simply because of fear of its neighbours, is to argue the same case for nazi German's invasion and annexation of Polish territory. The fascists feared the communists, as much as the communists feared the fascists. And just like Russia, Germany too had been attacked by its neighbours.
The weakness of your argument as to the wests non intervention in Germany is glaringly obvious by your own defence of soviet Russia. You say that the west was aware of the nazi concentration camps and of the other horrors that went on. This is true. But it is also true that the west was aware of the gulag concentration camps under the soviets. And of the soviet ethnic cleansing that went on in Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics, as well as in Russia itself.
And yet why aren't you arguing that the west should have invaded soviet Russia? Is it really as simple to you as fascisms victims matter. But communisms victims must be ignored, or worse, denied?
The victims of the soviet system far outnumber those of the nazis. But you justify soviet action as being born out of necessity. You say this was because it was threatened by its enemies (every communist regime, every dictatorship, uses this same excuse). It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there might be good reason to be an enemy of communism and all the evils that come with it.
Have you heard of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact? And its secret clause that divided Europe up between the fascists and the communists? I think it was only in the 90s that Russia finally admitted its existence. Altho it had been known about for long before that.
It was not the case that Germany invaded Poland, forcing the soviets into their own invasion of Poland. Ribbentrop was invited TO MOSCOW. And that is where the plan for the invasion and partition of Poland was formalised.
Communism was as big a threat to Europe as fascism. Soviet Russia began the war as an ally of nazi Germany. It started the war along with nazi Germany. It invaded an annexed territory just as nazi Germany. But unlike nazi Germany. It won. And half of Europe paid the price.
1
-
+John Constantine. But communism can only ever exist thro a one party state. You could only ever appropriate the property, and the right to own property, and the 'means of production', thro a one party state system.
You do realise what that means, don't you? It means, EVERYTHING is controlled and run by the government. That 1% of the elite that control everything that you are so concerned about, GET'S SMALLER. Not only do they run the government, the police, the courts, the army, the budget, education, and health. They now employ everyone. They now run all the media. Every business. Every factory. Every school. Every store. They, THE GOVERNMENT pays your wages and decides where you work.
And where is the opposition media in a communist state? Where are the lawyers? THEY WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT!
You don't even trust the tories we have in power now. In the system we have now. Are you really telling me that you want to give politicians even more power and authority?
And don't try to hide behind what the US did in Chile. I can point to what we have in the west. I can say it is worth fighting for. And hundreds of thousands of Syrians would agree with me. What can you point to? Where is your communist utopia?
Politically, your communist ideals amount to a whole heap of worthless shit. Economically, they amount to a whole lot less. Millions of 'enemies of the revolution' are put to death. Concentration camps are filled up with counterrevolutionaries. But, despite that enormous cost, what have you got to show for it?
In other words, how are you measuring the worth of your ideology if not by its results?
Saudi Arabia may be a backwards and repressive dictatorship, but Assad is worse. Kim is worse. Saddam was worse. Stalin was worse. Mao was worse. Pol Pot was worse. You express sympathy for the soviet empire because it had enemies. But then so does the Saudi regime.
Yup, they stone adulterers. They murder gays. They don't allow women to drive. They don't hold free elections. They have a fuckin appalling human rights record. But guess what, they're not presently killing their own people in the numbers that, say, the Assad regime is. In other words, one the list of world priorities, they are not number one.
The Arab spring actually showed very well how the world works. It began in Tunisia, an ally of the west. And because of western influence, Ben Ali, its dictator, was forced out of power. Egypt was also an ally of the west, and altho its uprising wasn't successful, it avoided war.
The two places where the tyrants clung onto power, where war was guaranteed, Libya and Syria, were the two countries where the west had no influence.
You think that the west should've stayed out of Libya. But what do you actually base that argument on?
It can't be because you care about Libya's future. It's people believed it had no future under Gaddafi. Can't be because you care about Libyan casualties. Unless you make the ludicrous claim that the war would have stopped on the very same day it did without western intervention. It can't be because you think that Libya is worse off today, because the uprising had already begun. You had no say in that. That was the decision of the Libyan people. You just had to decide which way to jump.
If your problem is that Libya is a mess today (at least it's not as bad as Syria), then your argument is with the Libyan people. What an ungrateful bunch of fuckers! Would you have been prepared to have argued the case for the continuation of the Gaddafi regime, I wonder?
I would dearly have loved to have seen that. Would you have waved your revolutionary flag while you did so? Would you have talked about the inevitability of a revolution? Would you have complained about the power all being in the hands of a tiny elite?
Hardly likely. Not if you were arguing _in_ favour of the status quo.
Some revolutionary you turn out to be!
1
-
+John Constantine. You've clearly got it all figured out. But unfortunately, it doesn't begin well. You start by saying you would legalise state theft. You would appropriate property without compensation. Which essentially means that individuals or companies would no longer invest in the country (after all, what company would invest in a country if their investment is likely to be stolen from them?).
This is the fatal weakness of communism. There is certainly no communist system that runs as efficiently as the capitalist system. So economically speaking, the state ownership of 'the means of production' is a step backwards. In other words, you would be taking away the basic freedom of an individual to profit from their labour for no good reason other than for ideologies sake.
You then go on to further erode the individual's rights by saying that you would set a limit on the amount of money they are allowed to make. No doubt this comes about by the mistaken belief that those who are economically successful (the boss class) just sit about all day with their feet up on their big desks smoking fat cigars and hiring and firing people at their leisure.
The only trouble is that this idea is utter bollox. The people who you are punishing, and therefore discouraging, are among the hardest working in society. The most motivated. And they would leave. You say ''Let's see how many emigrate if there are no home companies to poach them for higher wages''. But they would leave the country altogether. And, as I'm assuming that you want the best of higher education, the brightest and most motivated of those out of higher education would follow them (lets see you dream up a way of forcing them to pay extra on their visa when they have nothing-perhaps you could do an IQ test?)
You're not talking equality of opportunity here. But equality of outcome. You have set a narrow margin of what you have deemed acceptable success. And you will use the state to inforce it.
This is not a utopian society you are dreaming of. But an authoritarian society. As has been proved time and time again, the economics of your system would be of no benefit to wider society. In fact, it would be quite the opposite. So why do it?
The real reason is, of course, the need for control. You might like reading your anarchist writers. They allow you to see yourself as anti-establishment. But at heart you are an authoritarian. You want what you consider to be a perfect society. And you are very much prepared to limit people's freedoms in order for that to come about.
You have shown your vindictiveness (and therefor unfitness to be trusted with authority) against those who disagree with you here: ''...For those that do elect to leave - good riddance. They will have to pay for an exit visa to leave the country as well, calculated at a rate to include refunds to the state for the benefits they have accrued from health and education and compensation for their economic crimes if they have been bankers and traders'' (what if they had private healthcare and/or education-which most will?).
Chilling words. You have in those few sentences created a system whereby the law can be changed retrospectively in order for you to enact vengeance on those you have a prejudice against (it goes without saying that their only crime would have been to be non-state bankers and traders). And so now you cant even leave your dystopia without being fleeced on the way out. Getting to look more and more like Cuba with each sentence!
Predicting economic crashes sometime in the future is as easy as predicting war. And populist politics and the promise of a perfect society are nothing new. But except for small groups of deluded self-proclaimed radicalists, the world is moving towards capitalism. Not away from it. And the results are undeniable. Take a look at China. Millions have been lifted out of (real) poverty with the ditching of the old outdated reactionary authoritarian ideology of state control.
No doubt this is disheartening to you. Because you want to control society. You don't see the rule of law as a way to safeguard the rights of individuals. But as a weapon of control. Which is exactly how all dictatorships begin. Your ideas have been tried over and over with the same predictable results. And its not a good sign that, just like all dictatorships, you simply blame others for its failings.
1
-
''...It would be the lawful appropriation of wealth that has been either unfairly amassed or in need of redistribution''
So you would have to apply the law retrospectively in order to make something that was legal at the time, suddenly illegal now. And then use that retrospective law to 'appropriate' (steal lawfully earned money or property) from individuals. Dress it up in as fancy words as you like, its still misuse of the law.
Then I read further. And altho we're only three paragraphs in, I see this ''...Any Board of Directors instituting such policies will be deemed to be commiting acts of Economic Sabotage against the people which would be made criminal offenses of the highest order''
Pretty sickening stuff. Why is it that you types always hide your own prejudices with phrases such as 'enemies of the people'? Do you really know fuck all about the evils of the ideology you're advocating? 'Economic Sabotage' is straight out of the history books. And when your workers utopia fails miserably, which it inevitably would, you'd be looking for scapegoats. And prosecuting your opponents on acts of treason against the masses.
''They will be co-opted to help the implementation of what we want to achieve. They know the alternatives are acts of criminal sabotage''.
In your authoritarian state, everyone would be subservient to 'The People' (the state). The rights of the individual would be taken away. And this would be justified as being in the best interests of 'The People' (the state).
You claim this is a third way. But no it isn't. It's old. It's been tried many times before. It's communism.
The west is successful because it guarantees the right of the individual. And the rule of law is there to protect their rights and freedoms. Not to direct their lives. That is an abuse of power.
The reason why communism fails so brutally is shown in your thinking. Because once you stop treating people as individuals with minds and opinions and priorities of their own, and instead label them as simply cogs in the machine that drives the state, then anything 'in the name of The People' (the state) becomes permissible.
What you have there is fascism. Which is no different from communism (two sides of the same coin). The individual is expendable. A slave to the state.
And if you are prepared to take the rights and freedoms of the individual away in the name of the 'greater good', then you are following in the footsteps of every other fascist/communist dictatorship that came before you.
Like I said, you enjoy reading 'anarchist' writers because it allows you to indulge in the fantasy of being somehow anti-establishment. But you aren't that at all, are you? You're quite the opposite. You're an authoritarian.
1
-
You clearly are a communist. And an authoritarian. You play at being anti-establishment, but your real goal is to implement your fascist one party state. Your contempt for democracy is all too clear. You talk about revolution. But why would there be a need for a revolution in a free democracy?
The answer is that people aren't voting the way you want them to. So, rather than admit that the majority don't want the childish badly constructed plan you have mapped out for them, you need to claim that democracy doesn't really exist. And that the system we have now is simply a sham.
The only problem you have is that results speak for themselves. Capitalism has lifted millions out of real world poverty. We now enjoy better living standards, rights, freedoms, and privileges than ever before in human history. But you want to turn the clock back to the old authoritarian style of doing things. Arbitrary laws. Subservience to the state. The removal of personal rights and freedoms. And eventual full on dictatorship.
Obviously, you would do away with democratic accountability. That much is clear by your contempt for what we have now. Your inability to recognise true dictatorships, such as in Cuba under Castro, is not a good sign.
''...[the Castro regime] is a popular government and has done an enormous amount to lift it from being the brothel of US capitalists and has given free health care and education to its people''
And again ''...its even clearer than Cuba that the regime was very popular with most of the people''
In other words; The Castro regime is popular. No need for free elections.
You're like something out of the history books. I've studied pre-revolutionary Russia, and post-revolutionary Russia. And the words you speak and the phrases you use, are pretty much the same as the Leninists and Trotskyists and Stalinists.
Communism was built on lies. It was neither economically viable (let alone successful) nor socially beneficial (very much the opposite). So in order to try and sell it to the masses, its supporters, like you, have to pretend it isn't communism. In other words, you have to lie.
1
-
+John Constantine. You are correct. I don't like authoritarianism. I don't like communists or fascists. Their ideologies are built on hatred. To me, you are no better than the extreme right.
Estimates to the number of victims of the Castro regime in Cuba are around 70,000. Today, Chile is considered one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations. Whereas over fifty years on from Castro coming to power, Cuba is still dirt poor. With only the regime elites enjoying the benefit of the 'revolution'.
Not interested in your refighting of old battles. The minors unions were militarised by the far left. And the fact that you would use the disaster that was Hillsborough is just another example of how low you will go.
The riots in 2011 were simply the opportunistic criminal element of society jumping on the bandwagon of the police shooting of a local criminal. Austerity measures hadn't even begun. And it was only once the majority (the 99%) began to fight back against the looters, arsonists, and various other criminals, that the riots stopped. That's real people power for you!
I have no problem looking at my own ethics. I can say that just as during world war 2 the free democratic west allied alongside the evil of soviet Russia in order to defeat another evil, so too did the west do the same during the cold war.
And the results speak for themselves. The free democratic west is as strong as ever. But apart from a few dinosaurs who still peddle the myths of Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Castroism, where is your glorious communist revolution now?
You are reduced to working out of the gutter. Apologists for the very worst of regimes. Skulking about the fringes of criminality. Third-rate rabble rousers spreading hate, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Willing to work with anyone. With absolutely fuck all to show for decades of promoting a dead and buried ideology that never was.
1
-
Like I said, whereas Chile has moved on, Cuba is still suffering from the brutality of the Castro regime. It's funny how you continue to blame the US for the crimes of Castro's 'revolution'. All that aid the soviets poured into the country. And Cuba was and still is free to trade with whoever it likes. Just not with the US. But then why would it want to? Why would the superior communist system need to rely on trade with the hated capitalist west? With its worst enemy?
The reality has always been that the trade embargo by the US is just a smokescreen for the incompetence of the Castro regime and its unworkable system. Cuba is dirt poor. Have you seen their hospitals? Have you seen their housing? That's real genuine poverty. While the rich and vastly corrupt revolutionary regime elites live a life of luxury.
Oh, right. I forgot. You're a useful idiot. You believe everything that is told to you by a one party dictatorship that controls all media and stamps out any dissenting opposition. What a sucker.
And yes, if you attempted to enforce your authoritarian fascist system on the UK, I would have no problem in apposing that. I don't believe you have the right to dictate to people how they live their lives. I don't believe you have the right to force your oppressive dystopia on others.
North Korea is as true to the communist system as any communist regime could be. In North Korea, the state controls everything. They are both your government, your employer, your law courts, your media. They tell you where to work and how much you will get paid. They tell you where you will live. They tell you what you will eat (the government hands out rations). They tell you what you can read. What entertainment you can watch (there is no privately owned media). They control what you wear (the government decides what is acceptable and fashionable). They even dictate how you can cut your own hair.
Really. You'd love it there. You could drive around in a government car with the rest of the useful idiots and tell everyone there just how lucky they are not to live in the capitalist west. You could even help spread the regimes propaganda about how the US was responsible for the Korean war. They'd treat you like a VIP. You'd get to feel important. People would listen to you. They'd have to.
As for China, you do know that since the regime switched to a more capitalistic system, its lifted millions of Chinese out of real world poverty? Isn't that an improvement? They now get to enjoy a lifestyle that you take for granted. And better still, once you ditch the oppressive communist system and open up to capitalism, you turn everyone into consumers!
Now the people begin to realise that they have a choice. They don't need the government to tell them what to wear of where to work or what they can do with their time. And eventually, once the middle classes are large enough, what's left of the communist system will be ditched and consigned to the same dark corner of history as it has been in Europe.
That's one of the reasons why communist dictatorships, like North Korea or Cuba or the Soviet Empire, try their best to keep the people under control. They like to limit what they read and what they watch. Because otherwise people start asking questions. And then the game is up.
Still desperately clinging on to the riots in 2011 like they were some kind of revolutionary movement, are we? The looting and burning of people's homes and businesses wasn't big enough a clue as to what they really were? Mark Duggan was a revolutionary? A hero of the downtrodden 99%? Sad.
You're just dreaming of a revolution that will never happen. Democracy creates stability. Its strength is that you don't need to have a revolution to kick out an unpopular government. Once enough people want rid of it, they just have to vote it out of power.
Boring, I know. You don't get to break windows and loot stores and set fire to police cars. You don't get to play the romantic anarchist. But in the long run it makes for better government. And it means that you don't have to have fighting on the streets every decade or so.
Trouble for you is that rather than just banging on about Pinochet and Chile and Hillsborough and Scargill and the minors, you'd actually have to have an alternative system that others would want to vote for. You'd have to convince them it would work. You don't like austerity, you say? Then perhaps some kind of new tax to pay for everything you promise in your communist utopia? You could call it the Poll Tax. Don't like that? Then plant a magic money tree or learn how to turn lead into gold.
Then perhaps people might trust you to run a local council for a while. Just to see if you're up to it. It would be boring. You'd have to deal with everyday problems. And people wouldn't be interested in hearing how the US kicked out the leftists in Chile. Or how you stopped someone rich from being quite so rich. They'd just want their bins emptied.
Not interested in your fantasies concerning MI5 or MI6. But I guess it makes you feel rebellious and edgy if you make believe they give a shit about you or your 'revolution'. They don't. Nor does anyone else. You're whole worthless ideology is a joke.
1
-
Cuba doesn't actually have free education. Because it's all paid for out of tax. Just as it is in the UK and the US. The Cuban regime isn't giving anything away for free. Because the money comes from the Cuban people. Same with health care. That has suffered badly thro decades of underfunding.
You say that your policy would be to allow investment to take place abroad, but not at the expense of any investment here. So are you assuming you'll have some resources left over to invest overseas? Who decides what is or is not at the expense of internal investment? Your commission? Will they be prosecuted for economic sabotage if they get it wrong?
No, wait. Because who would know, right? You'd control all the media. No one would ever know.
And yeah, there is always saboteurs in Cuba. Much like in your dystopia, anyone who disagrees with the State is a saboteur. Lenin did the same. And Trotsky. And Stalin.
You clearly know fuck all about anything you're talking about. Crime and corruption were endemic under communism. As was real poverty. So bad, they even had to have night curfews. Obviously, crime rates were never admitted to. Because there was no opposition media. There was no opposition. They were all sitting in jail.
To answer your question, if I believed that a political party in power were to introduce authoritarian laws, lock up those they don't like, and take away people's rights and freedoms, yes. I would be against them. This is not as big as deal as you would like it to be. Had people resisted Hitler's national socialist party in 1930's Germany, who knows what might have been averted?
Will there be economic crashes in the future? Of course. And the exact same thing would happen under your system. Only, of course, what with the State running everything, it would be far more disastrous. Your command economy, and that's what it is-even tho you're too stupid to realise it, would be totally dependent on the decisions of a very small political elite.
And who would be around to criticize that elite? You say you would allow political opposition. But who would support them and how? You couldn't set up your own newspaper (the printing press revolutionised European politics-all newspapers would now be in the hands of the State). You couldn't set up your own media (there goes the freedom of speech).
Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. But despite the untold misery, poverty, oppression, death, and destruction that Marx unleased on the world (or perhaps because of it), you still think it will work. Because this time you will get it right.
I doubt that very much. Your bitter, cynical, and divisive ideology remains in the past. Where it belongs. Along with the sad, resentful lunatics who preach it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If this lady's ex-partner was on here complaining about David Cameron's views on one parent families, I would have the exact same opinion.The issues surrounding one parent families are well known. And there is much evidence that they have a detrimental effect on wider society. This is not the fault of David Cameron. Or the government. Because, as you can imagine, no one in their right mind would want any government telling them who, and who not, to have kids with.
If she is having no problems raising her children, then what is she complaining about? If, on the other hand, she is, then who, ultimately, should take responsibility? She can blame her partner. But it would still have been her choice to have children with him. So while this lady is on here flaunting her grievances, in this matter at least, she has no one but herself to blame. Not David Cameron. Not the Tories. Not the government. And not Society. Only herself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Zeitgeist Yes. I have heard the 'leaked' phone call. In the call, the Estonian foreign minister, Urmas Paet said he had been told snipers responsible for killing police and civilians in Kiev were protest movement provocateurs rather than supporters of then-president Viktor Yanukovych. Ashton responds: "I didn't know … Gosh."
During the conversation, Paet quoted a woman named Olga – who the Russian media identified as Olga Bogomolets, a doctor – blaming snipers from the opposition shooting the protesters.
However, Olga Bogomolets, the doctor, who allegedly claimed that protesters and Berkut troops came under fire from the same source, said she had not told Paet that policemen and protesters had been killed in the same manner, that she did not imply that the opposition was implicated in the killings, and that the government informed her that an investigation had been started
The Estonian foreign ministry said: "Foreign minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground. We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition's involvement in the violence."
Who knows what really went on? But it's certain that Russian special forces were on the ground there. Just as they were, and are, in eastern Ukraine. Moreover, we do know that police units had been given the order to kill protestors. We saw them. And I believe (altho I'd have to check), that Yanukovych's own security adviser at that time was Russian.
So you would have to ask yourself why it would've been necessary for the 'opposition' to snipe at the demonstrators. When the police were already shooting them dead in full view of the worlds media?.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+James Johnson.
Corbyn says he would never push the button. So, unless the labour party scraps trident, the UK would be paying for a useless nuclear deterrent. Well done Commissar Corbyn, you've managed to have the worst of both worlds.
He has called the IRA his friends. He mixes it with Hamas. His chancellor believes that the IRA's 'sacrifice' (planting bombs in places where there are civilians-a war crime-then running away) should be honoured. I know, you'll pretend that he was in some way responsible for the Good Friday Agreement. But he wasn't. He was very much on one side. And besides, if political violence is acceptable for one, its acceptable for all, yeah?
He is close allies with the Iranian apologists in the leadership of the so-called Stop the War Coalition (the reason why you will never see demonstrations by the STWC against Assad or Russian actions in Syria). He has also worked for the Iranian regime's Press TV propaganda channel.
He is good friends with George Galloway. The two always sat together in the Commons. How do you not know that Corbyn is a friend of Galloway?
We don't know his policies. He says he will spend a shit load of cash and somehow hope that will wipe out the UK's debt. He announces one policy one day. Then his party bin it the next. Free giveaways are more his style. They're popular, and he only ever likes to be associated with popular giveaways. Everyone gets more holidays! Fuck the cost to the economy! Because like all socialists, he's very good at giving away other people's money.
The guy is a fraud. He talks like nobody but Jeremy Corbyn has a conscience. He doesn't like war. Good for him. Nobody does. Nobody, not even ISIS, would want to fight if they could get what they want without fighting. But that doesn't answer the difficult questions that need an answer when you are the one with the responsibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uros L Stalin was every bit as bad as Hitler. The war in the east was simply between two mass murdering genocidal dictatorships. So why should anyone care about those Russians who fought for Stalin? They were as bad as the Germans who fought for Hitler.
The history of Russia's soviet empire is just one long list of misery, oppression, and genocide. I have sympathy for the millions of Russians who were victims of Stalin's murderous regime. Just as I have sympathy for the Germans who were victims of Hitler. But it was the western allies that brought freedom to Europe. Those unlucky enough to have been 'liberated' by the Russians continued to suffer until the final collapse of Russia's soviet empire.
Stalin's alliance with Hitler served Russia well up until the German invasion. Stalin added more territories to his empire. Expanding his brutal regime into Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and others. The Russians carried out mass deportations of whole ethnic groups and wiped out anyone who opposed them.
The brutality of the Russian occupation was such that, when the Germans began their invasion of Russia, many Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians were only too happy to join the fight alongside Hitler. And the same can be said for many Ukrainians who fought for Germany. This is of course something that many Russian propagandists like to highlight. 'The Ukrainian's joined the nazis'. But they conveniently ignore the history behind it. Because like the Baltics, if you know Ukraine's history, and what Russia did there, you'd know why they joined Germany.
For eastern Europe there was no liberation after the war. They remained part of Stalin's empire. When the Russians returned to the Baltics, they exacted a terrible revenge against the people there. The numbers of people who were exiled to gulag concentration camps in Siberia run into the hundreds of thousands. And remember, the Baltics have only ever had a small population.
But of course, if you already knew all of this, you would understand why the Baltics and eastern Europe in general don't want Russia back. And you would understand why they don't trust a KGB man in the kremlin. And as we can all see what Putin is doing in Ukraine and Syria, and what he did to Chechnya and Georgia, you would also understand why they are correct in thinking that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uros L Saddam was a dictator. One of the worst. People often say that dictators bring stability. But they don't. Saddam didn't. Gaddafi didn't. And Assad didn't. Because eventually, if people can't get rid of a leader by legal means, they will take to the streets and do it by force.
It happened in Russia several times. It happened recently in Syria, Tunisia, and Libya. If they're lucky, and they fight for it, they get something better in its place. Often they get something worse. Either way, they suffer decades of dictatorship. And the cost of having to remove it.
That's the beauty of being able to elect your government. You can get rid of it peacefully and without cost to life.
One of the ways to tell if you live in a dictatorship is whether or not the media can criticize those who hold power. In the west, that's normal. You can watch CNN, Fox, BBC, whatever, and they all freely criticize the government.
No media in Iraq or Syria or Libya or North Korea would have ever dared to have done that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow. Who knew ending wars was as easy as 'stop pissing people off'? How would that work then? Like, in Syria? Or Libya? Or Afghanistan? Because us desperately not pissing people off won't stop the bad guys there, will it?
Oh, shit! I made a moral judgement! I said 'Bad Guys'! I forgot it's all relative now, yes? Don't want to be culturally imperialist! Someone comes along and takes your kids away to force them to fight for the Jihadist cause, who are we to say that's not right?
And, yeah. It has to be the fault of the west. Because there was no history anywhere in the world until the west arrived. No wars. No conflict. Nothing. It was a haven of tranquillity. And then there's the age old Leftist conspiracy: It's all down to those evil capitalists. Funnily enough, that was what many on the far left said about fighting Hitler.
The fact that dictators like Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad, were armed, not by the west, but by the soviets isn't important. In fact, if you were to look at the countries effected by the Arab Spring you would notice that the regimes that were closest to the west (Tunisia, Egypt) managed to avoid war (Tunisia removed their dictator, Egypt still has a way to go). Whereas, those regimes where the west had no influence at all (Iran, Syria, Libya) either erupted into all out war or the Arab Spring was quickly stamped out.
I suggest that if you were in Syria or Benghazi, and you heard that ISIS or Gaddafi was on his way to your town, you would not see the fight against them as 'expanding wars'. You talk as if there is no cost to inaction. But there is. History shows us there is.
Corbyn may think he can try diplomacy. But what has he got that ISIS or Gaddafi or Assad can't take? Do you think these people are playing? Dangerously naive.
In the meantime I would rather have a party that will make necessary decisions. Unpopular, but necessary realistic decisions. Because I don't want the country to get worse. And it can. If you think we have austerity now, take a look at Greece. Go take a look at Venezuela. Because wringing your hands over mass unemployment and hospitals running out of drugs, and food riots won't make any difference to reality then.
1
-
It could very well be that the Conservatives are an evil subhuman species that lack normal human empathy, and who want to kill off as many people as possible. Just because. Or, it could actually be down to the fact that this country has massive debts. And in order for our economy not to collapse completely, we need to be making cuts.
I have no idea what documentary you are talking about. But nothing you have said refutes my claim. In Syria you have a war that has gone on for six years. Because not only does Iran back Assad, but also Russia. And those countries have no interest in the rights of their own citizens. Let alone the rights of others.
''...Question, if you or your kids got drafted into a war that you didn't agree with... as in WW2, any able bodied man over a certain age is now in the war... isn't it the same?''
In asking that question, you have proved my earlier point. That the left now stands for nothing. To you, fighting for ISIS or the Taliban is basically the same thing as fighting against fascism. You are unable to make a moral judgement between the two. As, to you, all morality is subjective.
So now you cannot see the difference between fighting against fascism. And fighting for fascism. Because to pick a side, and to make a moral judgement, would require you to admit that sacrifice for the greater good (in this case, safeguarding our rights and freedoms against political or religious fascism), is sometimes a necessity.
Your logic is driven by the need to avoid necessary sacrifice. So to you, all things are negotiable. They must be. You believe that you can negotiate with ISIS or the Taliban, or fascism in general, because to fight against them would require you to make a moral judgement against them. And to follow that judgement thro. At which point there would be consequences. And you'll do anything to avoid responsibility for the consequences.
Of course, it goes without saying that in the above case, you expect it to be others who live with the consequences of negotiation with the Taliban or with ISIS, rather than you (the Afghans or the Libyans or the Syrians). It's enough for you to mention Saudi Arabia for your conscience to be clear. The fight is going on in Afghanistan and Syria and Libya, but you can't get involved there because you say we'd have to declare war on Saudi Arabia as well (???). Any excuse.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the economic consequences of ignoring the massive debt we are in today, there is no negotiation. You are dealing with economic reality. The numbers do not add up. And no matter how much you plead or beg or how often you point out the rusted paintwork in your local park, the numbers will still not add up.
You can't avoid this one. You might like to think we can. You might like to think that everyone can have everything, and we can all go on spending what we do not have and there will be no consequences. But I don't believe you. And thankfully most people agree with me. Because we know that 'sorry, we got it wrong' won't undo the consequences of you doing nothing. As usual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Legislative Assembly of the Russian Leningrad Region has prepared a draft law that would essentially prohibit children younger than 14 years old to use social media, Russian lawmaker Vladimir Petrov said.
MOSCOW — According to the draft bill, the administration of social services would have to check the identity of everyone who wants to register, including both Russian and foreign citizens. Violation of the law would be punishable by a fine of 100,000-300,000 rubles ($1,790-$5,360) for the owner of the website and of 1,000-3,000 rubles for the user.
"For the sake of public security we need to introduce the principle of general verification of all users [They want to know where you live], and that is only possible from the moment a citizen gets a passport, at 14 years of age. No one is trying to introduce censorship or limit the freedom of speech, verification and strict identity control will only increase the value of public opinion and virtual communication," Petrov said, as quoted by the Russian Izvestia newspaper.
Users would also be allowed to only create one page under their real names, with the violation punishable by fines both for the website and the user. Several other restrictions would be introduced for the users under 18, such as the ban on selling any goods to minors via social media.
The draft bill also prohibits spreading information about unauthorized rallies and demonstrations, as well as publishing other people’s correspondence without their consent. [No publishing incriminating emails]
According to the newspaper, the draft bill is expected to be introduced to the State Duma on Wednesday
-Sputnik News
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Brad Hinburg. I apologize. I actually meant to say £30,000 a year. The average national wage is around about £28,000. And that is not poverty.
Nevertheless, it is not true that a tax haven is a place where progressive taxation is barely levied at all. You simply need to undercut taxation in other similar countries. Scotland's SNP had the same idea in cutting corporation tax in Scotland to attract more investment, for example.
If, on the other hand, we are talking about attracting super rich individuals to the UK, then, as the Super rich do not tend to use public services such as the NHS, and the state schooling system etc, but still pay in to them, there would be no overall loss of tax income.
That is putting it extremely crudely, I admit. But there is a reason why high taxation on the wealthy doesn't always bring in as much money as lower taxation. And that is because the super wealthy are the most economically mobile in society.
If Brussels were to play dirty over the UK's exit of the EU, then we would be under no obligation not to undercut the EU's taxation policy. If it worked, that is.
My point is, that it sounds pretty retarded to simply stick to the redundant political dogma of 'tax the rich until the pips squeak' if it brings in less cash.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lenin was a cold blooded genocidal killer. And Marx was wrong on everything. So its not hard to see why Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin went the way they did. Marxism is all about the subjugation of the individual to the state. Altho, of course, it's not called a state.
That's how a lot of Leftist thinking works. Don't like the idea of a state? Rename it something else. Job done. The state no longer exists. Marxism is built on lies. And Marxists are expert liars. Especially to themselves.
Capitalist democracy is far superior. Capitalism and democracy work best together. Because, just like a salesman selling his product, political parties must sell their product to the people. And no one wants sell faulty goods. Or they go out of business.
Marxism is all about power and control. And that's what Marxists want above all else. Control. The capitalist system is seen as too chaotic. People are free to live how they please. Which is like garlic to a vampire to a Marxist.
The massive flaw in Marx's thinking (a flaw that has cost the lives and caused misery of many many millions) is that, whereas capitalism separates the state from how the individual profits from his labour, Marxism does the opposite.
So Marxists complain about global corporations having too much power, when they themselves want that power. And much much more. Because, if we are not to trust the big corporations. And if we are not to trust those in political power. Then ffs, why would we give those in political power the power of the big corporations too?
You are effectively making those who govern (and who therefore have the power of the state behind them) your employer. But more than that, you are making them the only employer. In a one party state. So now the same people who make and enforce the laws employ you, set your wages, decide where you live, educate you, decide what you read and what you watch. They even decide what food you eat! What could go wrong, right?
It's wide open to abuse. Which is why every single time it has been tried, it has been a pitiful disaster. And only a deeply flawed mind could concoct such a bad system. A deeply flawed mind. And an arrogant one. Arrogant to assume that he has the right to control the lives of others, and to decide what's best.
And that's what Marxist's want above all else. Control. Which is why they hate independent media. I know Christopher hates independent media. Because he can't control it. For all Christopher's talk of 'free thought', he actually means people should think the way he does. As an example, this is a quote from Christopher from another post:
''...We need mandatory politics educations for all students as well as a system that encourages free thought''
Have you ever read a more chilling sentence in your life? If you read history, you would instantly recognise the type of people who say such things.
1
-
Christopher Stewart Within a free capitalist society the worker has ownership of his own time. Therefore, he is at liberty to use that time to his own personal benefit. So, once again, taken at its most basic, he can decide to use his time (labour) to benefit himself.
You can say that in a capitalist system the worker doesn't actually own the product of his labour (a worker who makes cars doesn't own the car, he is paid for making it). But then the same would apply in a collective car factory (the worker doesn't own the car either).
So what is the difference between capitalism and communism?
The difference is, that in a capitalist system, the worker is free to use the results of his labour (his wages) to set up his own small business. And others are free to work for him. And in turn be paid for their time (labour).
Yes. The worker is beholden to work for his survival. But then can you think of a system where that would not be the case? Slavery, perhaps?
What the value of his labour is worth is dependent on what people are willing to pay. If his skills are particularly valuable to society, then he will be paid more for his time than others.
The next part of your post is a bit more complicated. Mainly because you have declared that in a 'libertarian socialist' society, there is no state. Once again, we have the problem with definitions. What is a state? And who decides what it is?
Ignoring that. You go on to claim that in such a society the ''...individual has total control over their private life''. What are you defining as his 'private life'? His time? How much of an individuals time is his own? Surely, if I were to ask a libertarian, the answer would be 'all of it', yes?
Secondly, you appear to be suffering from the Marxist belief that the 'boss' class do no work. While that may be true when it comes to physical labour (but certainly not always), it is actually a pretty juvenile view of how the world works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
''no one is taking away a persons right to profit from there own labour. except the capitalist boss''
That is exactly what you are advocating.
''...You wish to live in a society where artists have to conform to what a market wants. where market interactions are an indicator of how "talented" an artist or writer is. or how "innovative" a new inventor is.''
Yes. What is the market at its most basic? Buyers. Customers. People. So your question actually reads ''...You wish to live in a society where artists have to conform to what people_want. Where _people decide how "talented" an artist or writer is. Or how "innovative" a new inventor is''
What is wrong with that? I thought the whole idea of Marxism was to empower the people? Is that not true?
''...I want equality of opportunity for all . make a society where the athlete can train...''
The first part of that sentence is in contradiction to the last, surely? What makes an athlete, an athlete? Physical prowess. But all people are not physically equal.
''...or the writer can hone his craft without the need to conform to what markets [people] demand''
Well, ok. So what's stopping them? People have the freedom to spend months writing a novel that no fucker wants to read. We have that now, don't we?
''...in fact theres a consistent theme of artists being attracted to left wing ideologies which I'm sure even you will admit. this is because art isn't necessarily about money.''
That is very true. But all people are not equally artistically talented. Therefore, if we want a world where all are equal, perhaps we should prohibit artists from making a profit from their work. Somehow I'm guessing not many would sign up to that tho.
''...Van Gogh was an abject failure within his own lifetime, so by your own economic system whats the point?''
Idk. Did anyone ask him? Either way, whatever his answer might have been that should not stop other artists from making a profit.
''...but if you reduce art or athleticism to success or failure on market terms like you're doing, your ancap paradise is going to have shite choons m8.''
But isn't good art or music subjective? What is your answer here? Are you advocating that we should do away with art or athletics altogether. Or are you saying that all athletes and artists should be paid for their work regardless of their ability and/or talent? I can see why some artists might be attracted to that idea, yes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
''...Blah blah blah, rich toffs, blah blah blah, evil bankers, blah blah blah, hated tories, blah blah blah, downtrodden working classes, blah blah blah, glorious revolution, blah blah blah, inevitable fuck up''
Sounds like what its always sounded like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zak H No, nobody promised to spend £350 million on the NHS. The leave campaign was made up of people from all parties and none. You seem not to be aware that it was a referendum. Not an election. In other words, THERE WAS NO MANIFESTO.
Where any money saved from having to pay huge amounts of cash to Brussels every year went depends on who is in government. The point was, that being outside the EU means we can decide where to spend our own tax money.
Edgy concept, I know. But plenty of other countries do this.
''As for dangerous foreign nationals, that is yet another assumption. Of course there are threats but the current immigration crisis is largely fueled the refugee crisis. It is not just torture they fear, but death itself. I'd say a bit of human compassion is required in these situations instead of a 'tough shit' attitude''
We are talking of individuals who are a threat to the country. NOT refugees as a whole. If people were confident that the government could expel those who are plotting terrorist attacks, or who support terrorism, or who commit crimes while they are here, then it would go a long way in helping the cause of refugees. At present, once you step foot on UK soil, you are here for good, no matter what you do.
So yeah. If you come here and wish to support jihadism against us. Or commit any other crime (and I don't just mean shoplifting). Then tough shit if you get sent back!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CJTaylor 87 War for an oil pipeline? How can that be? After all, the Arab spring started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt. Both allies of the west. If the war in Syria was just a western plot to topple Assad and build a pipeline, why begin the uprising in western allied nations?
And Assad brought stability? You mean, right up until the moment he didn't, don't you? Surely that's like saying, this boat floats... Until it sinks.
You also seem to have forgotten that all three, Saddam, Gaddafi, and the Assad regime were enthusiastic supporters of terrorism. And that a least two, Saddam and Gaddafi, brought war and destabilisation to their regions. So most certainly couldn't be described as stabilising regimes.
We know the answer to the problem in Syria. And that's for Assad to step down. He should've done. Right at the beginning. Unfortunately, unlike in Tunisia or Egypt, he had allies that were quite prepared to back him if he went medieval on his own population. So he stuck around. Knowing that both Russia and Iran would stick by him no matter what. And so you have Assad and Putin fighting till the very last Syrian.
And the bonus is, that Syrians are fleeing their country into the west! And what with Putin's funding of extremist far right parties in Europe, that all helps to spread destabilisation there as well.
Its like killing two birds with one stone!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feudalism, like slavery, never existed as an economic system in of itself (to my knowledge anyhow. Altho I'm willing to believe that may have been the case in the Aztec empire or someplace like that at some point. idk enough about south American history to say). In other words, you had the capitalist system working alongside it. For instance, you had freemen, artisans, mercenaries, moneylenders, the merchant class, etc. And they all expected to be paid for their services. After all, that was the very reason why the nobility and the churches raised their own taxes. You could point to Tsarist Russia, I supposed. The peasant classes had to work for free for a certain number of days on their master's land. And got the weekends off or whatever to work for themselves. That system pretty much continued right up until the revolution. But even then you still had the professional classes who worked for themselves.
I was gonna put in a bit about a command economy here. But I can't now be bothered. All that matters is that its shit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You seem surprised that labour is the means of production. If not, how then do things get built? How does the produce get farmed? Do these things come into being by themselves independently of manual labour and/or time? You seem to be quoting a mantra without even thinking about what you are saying.
You even said it yourself ''...A feudal serf generally owns the means of production, but not the land...''
Well, if the land isn't the means of production. And now, according to you, the serf isn't the means of production. Then what the fuck is
the means of production? Magic beans?
Under communism, nobody owns anything but the (one party) state. And as history has proved time and again, all communist theory inevitably evolves into tyranny. Essentially it teaches that private ownership of industry leads to a corrupt boss class. If that is true then, you certainly don't want to hand it over to a one party state. One party states already have more than enough power as it is. You want them to now decide where you work and how much you get paid too?
How stupid are you?
The workers own shit. They don't own the factory or the machinery or the tools. The one party state does. You can be a gullible idiot and buy into the 'workers are the state' propaganda. But its just meaningless Marxist bollox. How are the workers anymore 'the state' than in a multi-party democracy?
How can a one party state possibly represent everyone? In a multi-party liberal democracy any party must sell itself to the electorate if they want power. And the existence of opposition parties means that no party in government can afford to abuse their power without risking the loss of that power.
How can a one party state possibly represent everyone? You live in a liberal democracy. And I'm betting that you don't see the current government as representing you. What is there to prevent the one party state from abusing its power? The media? The media is controlled by the one party state. The courts? The courts are controlled by the one party state. The unions? The unions are controlled by the one party state.
You can afford to piss off your boss in a capitalist system. Because you can always go work for someone else. But you sure as hell better not piss off the one party state because they are your boss. They're the only boss. And they control everything. The courts, the police, the health care system, education, the stores. There is no one else.
So maybe you ought to stop being so naive. And go rethink the whole 'under communism the workers own the means of production' bullshit. You read it somewhere. It sounded cool and you got the tee-shirt. But its worthless bullcrap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
''...After only a few weeks of lectures (at the university of Essex), Varoufakis switched his degree to mathematics. Whilst at the University of Essex he joined a variety of political organisations including ComSoc (the University Communist Society) and the Troops Out Movement, which campaigned for a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. He also became involved with the African National Congress, Palestine Liberation Organization, and other organisations such as those in solidarity with Chile. Varoufakis was also elected as secretary of the Black Students Alliance, a choice that caused some controversy (given that he is not black) to which he responded by telling them, according to his PhD supervisor Monojit Chatterjee, "that black was a political term and, as a Greek, on the grounds of ethnicity he had as much reason to be there as anyone else.'' Wikipedia.
''Black was a political term and, as a Greek, on the grounds of ethnicity he had as much reason to be there as anyone else''
See what I'm saying?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
shannon Rice If 'austerity' (which we presently don't have) doesn't work, then why are the IMF and ECB advocating austerity in Greece? Shouldn't they be massively increasing Greek borrowing, rather then the opposite?
What Corbyn is advocating, massive state spending on infrastructure, is most certainly no golden rule. Success relies on many factors. Many outside government control. And there are plenty of economists that argue that it actually damages the private sector. The sector that makes the profit. That creates the employment. That pays the taxes. That provides the public services.
Add to that the fact that Corbyn has never run or managed anything in his entire 'career', and you have lights out for the UK.
As for the rest of what you said, I have no idea what 'empowering ourselves, each and everyone of us, together, democratically' means. And I suspect neither do you. No offence, but it just sounds like vacuous bullcrap to me. And that's not gonna pay the bills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see. So wanting democratic accountability is now the preserve of the nationalists? I guess that would include the SNP? ...Oh, no. Wait. Because wanting control over those who govern you is only acceptable when it's the left who has the control. So much for democracy.
And yes, you've already done your sneering about cheap Union Jacks.
You talk about Le Pen, Wilders, Trump, Putin, etc, and I would agree with you. I detest them, more than I detest you. But you are the very reason why they are gaining popularity. Because you can only piss on people for so long before they take offence.
I see no English nationalism. All I see is a shrill sanctimonious and hate-filled left that has lurched so far to the extremes that it has completely lost the plot. I'm glad May is where she is. And I'm glad that Farage came along when he did. Because looking at the alternative, at the le pen's, PAGIDA's, Trump's, and Wilders, it could all be very different.
1
-
The reality is that if you are a member of the EU, you do indeed give up democratic accountability. The UK is a minority in the EU parliament. And the EU parliament legislates for all member states. Making the UK a minority in its own governance.
The test of any democratic system is can you get rid of those who govern over you? And as far as the EU is concerned, the answer is no. There are no if's or but's. The lack of democratic accountability is not excused simply because some people don't like the present government. And therefore think it acceptable to ignore the democratic process.
And you couldn't be more wrong about the lurch to the right. Socially, there is little difference between the Conservatives and Labour before Corbyn and his clowns took over. Can you think of any?
It is not the UK that has lurched to the far right. But the Labour party that has lurched to the far left. You now have the shadow chancellor reading from Mao's little red book. You have the demand for equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. You have 'inequality' rather than 'poverty'. You have a Labour party made up of Trots and useful idiots. And you are left wondering why the rest of us aren't following?
You complain about the attitude "forriners wot don't speak English on the bus". But have you ever considered why that might be important? A society is not simply a random collection of people dropped haphazardly about a landmass. Shared values do matter to people. Language does matter to people. After all, why do you think that politicians on both the left and right talk about 'communities'?
You say that May is 'desperate to appease the Brexiters'. You mean she is carrying out the will of UK voter, surely? In a way that, no doubt, you would expect the prime minister to do if the remain side had won. Yes, Brexit means Brexit. It means the UK leaves the EU. It means that the UK voter elects a sovereign parliament. And UK law is sovereign in the UK.
And what is so bad about the cross of St George? Or a nodding bulldog bobble-head? Is that your worst nightmare? That, (gasp!) people should actually take pride in their nation? I see a lot of hysteria from the hard left about the rise of the hard right, but I don't see the evidence. Not in mainstream politics. The tories aren't the far right. Neither are UKIP.
Certainly there has been a backlash against Islam. I'm no fan of the ideology, but its sickening to see how some are willing to dehumanise a whole (varied) group of people simply as 'the Muslims'. This has encouraged the far right all across the western world. But again, this is because the right people are not saying the right things. When you refuse to say the truth, when you lie to hide reality, no matter whether you do that for understandable reasons, all it takes is for someone like Trump, or le Pen to come along and say what everyone knows to be the truth, and suddenly they are the only ones talking sense.
All I see is a very vocal hate-filled extreme left doing what the extreme left has always done. And that is to denounce their mainstream political opponents as fascist. And we know from history that has always been their favoured tactic. But its very dangerous to be doing that. Because if you call the tories and UKIP 'the far right', and most people can see quite clearly that they are not, then what are you going to call your le Pen's and PEGIDA's?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let me ask you a question. Have the BNP leadership ever advocated terrorism? Have the BNP leadership ever supported political violence against their opposition? Have the BNP leadership ever been sentenced for acts of terrorism? The answer is no. But we don't need to wait for any of that happen to recognise what they truly are.
It's stretching plausible deniability to say that, with both Corbyn's and McDonnell's history, they are not political extremists. Judging them by their past actions, that is exactly what they are. After all, if you can judge a man by the company he keeps, what does that say about the present Labour leadership?
Hatred of your (moderate) political opponents is a sign of extremism. If Laura Pidcock was a better person, she wouldn't go there. I don't believe it is a coincidence that, while loudly signalling the virtues of tolerance and respect, Corbyn encourages, and has always encouraged, the exact opposite.
It doesn't matter to me how popular Corbyn is, I'm not willing to go along with revisionism just for the sake of the party. I don't believe that voting for him is an automatic ticket to communist dictatorship. But then I don't believe that voting Trump results in fascism. I do believe, however, in the slippery slope theory. And the idea that if you justify political violence, others will follow your lead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
France and Britain were guilty of nothing more than not going to war with Germany over Czechoslovakia. But then, neither did Russia. Whereas both France and Britain eventually did declare war on Germany, Russia willingly allied with Hitler and the two carved up Europe between them.
The Russians actually helped build the nazi war machine that was eventually turned against them. As the two co-operated closely in the development of armored vehicles at Kama, near Kazan in the USSR. This allowed Germany to circumnavigate the Versailles Treaty that prohibited tank development inside Germany.
Stalin actually wanted Germany and the western allies to go to war. That is why he delayed his invasion of Poland (the invasion he had planned along with nazi Germany) until 2 weeks after the German invasion. And it worked. As the western allies, France and Britain, declared war on Germany. Not Russia.
The soviet union was a one party state. Just as in nazi Germany, all research and development was conducted under orders of the party. Including its space program.
Soviet estimate of the number of German POW's who died in captivity are around 350,000. German estimates, however, are around 1 million. After the Battle of Stalingrad, for example, where the Soviets captured 91,000 German troops, in total only 5,000 survived Russian captivity.
The German military used the Soviet Union's refusal to sign the Geneva Convention as a reason for not providing the necessities of life to Soviet POWs. And the Soviets similarly killed Axis prisoners or used them as slave labour.
In fact, many soviet POW's released from German captivity were immediately sent to Stalin's gulag concentration camps. As they were seen as having turned traitor against the glorious soviet empire.
Estimates of Stalin's mass genocides range from 20 million or higher. Whole areas were ethnically cleansed. Ask anyone from the Baltics, or anywhere that suffered under Russian occupation.
1
-
France and Britain managed to get Hitler to sign up to an agreement that gave Germany the Sudetenland. They thought they had avoided war. But Hitler took the rest anyway. There was, of course, nothing to prevent Russia from doing what you criticize France and Britain for not doing. And that is, to guarantee the territorial integrity of the whole of Czechoslovakia. And go to war with Germany. But it didn't. And in a year's time, Russia and Germany were allies.
And both France and Britain went war in 1914 in defence of little Slavic countries.
What you may think of France and Britain's lack of preparation for war makes no difference to the fact that both countries declared war on Germany in response to Hitler's invasion of Poland.
If everyone was aware of what Hitler had said about taking Russia, then why did Russia ally with him? And the fact that Russia had such a high casualty rate doesn't make Russia more of a victim than, say, Poland, or the Baltics, or Finland. Russia was like a thief who falls victim to theft.
''USSR took Nazi scientists at gun point, and they were not given vast freedom and lots of money like their SS counterparts''
Russia has its own SS. The NKVD. They impressed even the gestapo by their brutality in occupied Poland.
Unlike Stalin, the western allies signed the Geneva convention. And I certainly wouldn't take soviet figures seriously. Remember, it wasn't until the 1990's the Russia finally admitted to the Katyn massacre in Poland (carried out by the NKVD).
Of course you would deny the true horror of Stalin's crimes. Just as some still deny the true horror of Hitler's crimes. Just as there were those in Germany that claimed it was not Hitler but those around him, so too there are those (still) in Russia that claim that Stalin 'didn't know'.
But Stalin did know. And like Hitler, he had no problem with ethnically cleansing whole populations. Today, it is only Russian's who continue to deny the war guilt of the Stalinist regime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The remain campaign failed because, like you, it ignored the arguments put forward by those who wanted to leave, and instead argued against a position they found more convenient to their own politics.
People didnt vote to leave the EU because of 'austerity'. Those who believe they did might find this a comforting delusion (because it conveniently allows them to blame everything on the tories), but it doesn't make sense. Because the tories were elected into power in 2010 on a promise to limit public spending due to the massive debt the country was in. So if people were angry at austerity the country wouldn't have continued to vote conservative since 2010.
How can you win an argument if you're not even willing to recognise the opposing view? Its like holding a debate in a different room to the person you're debating with.
The argument was never (and can never be) just economic. The issue of political union was a massive part of the debate, that the remain campaign never engaged with. Because they knew it was unpopular, and always has been unpopular (the side of the bus thing is an obsession of remainers, one they pretend not to understand, which only makes them look petty and disingenuous - while claiming Brexit was won by lies can only be done if you conveniently ignore the remain campaign's own lies, half truths, and deception).
Worse still, they decided to demonise half the country, claiming that not wanting to be part of a political union with much of the rest of Europe made you a racist and a xenophobe (or 'worse than nazis'). Which meant that the debate shifted away from the one area the remain campaign made headway with (economics) to a simplistic and infantile 'good vs evil' argument.
And who ended up effectively leading that argument for the remain side? - Jeremy Corbyn. The economically illiterate ex-rabidly anti-EU campaigner (considerably more anti-EU than Farage) with a long history of support for racist and sectarian terror groups.
And that guy and his supporters are gonna lecture the rest of us on good economic sense and morality?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, strong historical links. One being that we share a common language. Sure, you can say we all settled from Europe anyhow, depending on how far back you want to go. But then its very likely we all originated in Africa. Only I don't hear you making the case for political union with Botswana.
As for whether our other non-European NATO allies have the best interests of the UK in mind, I'm guessing the answer is no less than mainland Europe does. And in many cases considerably more.
And are you claiming that in order to trade with, say, Canada, the UK would have to come under the jurisdiction of Canadian law? That's an extraordinary thing to say. And in light of the recent Canadian/EU trade deal, I can only assume you think the EU, and by extension the UK, now operates under Canadian law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pb1105 That is true, there is a great deal of difference between the conquest of India and being a member of the EU. Hyperbolic rhetoric is on both sides. And its unnecessary. But, the essential point is that if you can defend and respect the right of self governance in one case, you should recognise it for all.
Populism is often a word used to describe any popular movement that one does not agree with. But populism tends to play on the idea that there are simple answers to complicated issues (religion/socialism/fascism/racial bigotry). And that is not the case with Brexit.
Despite those like Owen Jones who explain away the reasons why people voted to leave the EU by claiming that they were voting against austerity/poverty/social injustice/inequality, or any number of other bandwagon issues Jones and his like regularly ride in order to promote their failed political ideology, it really is as simple as wanting to be able to hold those who govern you to account. To be able to know who is making your laws, and know how to remove them from power.
The fact that many choose to ignore this simple explanation in favour of co-opting the referendum result to fit their own narrative of the poor, downtrodden and ignorant masses hitting out at any target they can in a fit of despair, is the reason why they can't understand the argument in favour of Brexit.
After all, if you were to say one thing, and I decided to ignore you, and instead claim you were really saying something else, how could we have any kind of dialogue at all?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pobotrol Since then we have had a parliament elected on the promise to respect the referendum result failing to do what they promised.
I can understand you might disagree with leaving the EU. I understand your arguments against doing so, although I dont agree with them (or rather, I find them outweighed by the opposing arguments). But I find it difficult to understand your inability to recognise why those who disagree with you on this issue should have a problem when, having won a referendum, the result is simply ignored.
The problem with many on the remain campaign is that rather than focus on the issues about why people voted to leave the EU, they decided instead to concentrate on why they thought people voted to leave the EU.
It couldn't possibly be because, like people all over the world, those who voted to leave the EU instinctively felt the need to be able to hold those who govern them to account, to know who they are and how to get rid of them, but rather it had to be because they were either sad, mad, or bad.
If, rather than listening to what people say, you instead assume their motives to be something other than what they are telling you, and argue against that, then its no wonder you can't understand their thinking.
1