Reply With QuoteCommunism saved the finance industry in 2008 ...... wow !!Originally Posted by great_fire
Hall Of Fame
China may be half-capitalist these days but it's certainly not democratic.
But it's not the case that socialism is democratic and communism isn't or you wouldn't need to quality it by saying "democratic socialism."
Last edited by great_fire; 20-09-2019 at 09:14 PM.
Hall Of Fame
Communism saved the finance industry in 2008 ...... wow !!
Hall Of Fame
I did say ish...
They do have an electoral system, whether it’s true democracy that’s another thing altogether
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
Hall Of Fame
They may share some ideas but their philosophises or miles apart as you have stated with your remarks about China but the real and true difference is that Socialists believe in true democracy and Communists do not it's that simple.
Hall Of Fame
Some fun and games going to happen over the next few days and weeks.
Will the courts rule in favour of Boris or against? I recon they have to vote for Boris because the English courts already said that it was political and not for them to intervene and because that ruling was made by 3 of the top judges in the English Judiciary I cannot see how they could do anything else without making themselves look unfit for purpose.
The EU will continue to play the game to the very end by trying to make Boris look stupid in the hope that parliament will somehow manage to stop Brexit (who will swerve first) but once they realise that is not going to happen they will come begging but I hope Boris tells them to FO.
Last edited by BigLadonOS; 20-09-2019 at 10:02 PM.
Hall Of Fame
Unfortunately it’s not that simple as you put it, the point I was trying to make communist isn’t a group of people worshipping a dictator, it’s a form of movement of rights and equality and a protest to the US Wall Street
Since Russia was communist in 1929 they wasn’t affected by the Wall Street Crash of 1929
Il post the definition of socialist and communist below—
Socialism is at its core an economic philosophy, whereas Communism is economic and political in its requirement that government be the central owner and decision maker in all matters. Communism rejects any religion and in a true Communist state religion is effectively abolished.
— the fact that Stalin was a dictator isn’t due to communism but the fact that he was a power hungry little ****
Communists can believe in democracy or dictatorships depending on the system they don’t have to go hand in hand.
Hall Of Fame
Maybe this will help.
Hall Of Fame
May I recommend Ken Follet's The Fall of Giants
The Russians went Communist as a result of the excesses of Czarist rule but you hear very little of the appalling conditions imposed on the Russian people under the "monarchy"
Read the book or closer to home, Black Diamonds by Catherine Bailey
Last edited by Exiletyke; 21-09-2019 at 06:26 AM.
Hall Of Fame
I’m a bit annoyed, John, because the speaker in Biggie’s video has rather stolen my thunder on some of my points on this.
The common theme to the economic theories of Communism and Socialism is the notion of the abolition of the private ownership of Capital (i.e. Capitalism) and its replacement by common ownership of the means of production.
I think you may be getting hung up on labels. The Russian Empire (or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, if you prefer) and the Eastern European countries that fell under its influence may have claimed to be Communist states, but Marx would have been turning in his London grave at that notion. They may have practiced the abolition of the private ownership of capital, but they never even approached a state that could be called Communist. They were stuck in Marx’s transitional Socialist state and the people who lived there paid the price (and are still doing so to a slowly diminishing degree – hence the large Westward migration that we saw post 2004).
The Scandinavian countries are not Socialist states. They are universally committed to free-market Capitalist economics (albeit the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund is a major investor in Norwegians companies and, indeed, many companies around the world). The Swedish government is just completing a sell off of state owned assets that is aimed at paying down their Sovereign debt in order to reduce the burden on future generations – a move that is diametrically opposite to the notion that they are Socialist and diametrically opposite to the plans of the current Labour set up.
Again, with Scandinavia I think the issue may be one of labelling – many people who call themselves Socialist aren’t really – they simply believe in a larger welfare state and other mechanisms aimed at achieving a more equitable distribution of wealth. I used to think that of the current Labour set up until they announced their intention to seize 10% of the capital of every decent sized British company – a move that will sign the death warrant on hundreds of thousands of jobs and pension fund values.
Marx was wrong. Socialism doesn’t work (and neither will Communism if a state ever gets round to trying to practice it). People who work hard, innovate and are willing to take risks to improve their lot want and expect to directly benefit from that. When you tell those people that the product of their hard work, innovation or risk taking will be taken into common ownership they tend to stop working hard, innovating or taking risk to try to improve their lot. Eliminating the effect of market forces by creating state owned monopolies exacerbates the problem. That’s why a few lucky East Germans got to drive round in Trabants whilst their Western neighbours drove round in VWs, BMWs, Mercs and Audis. It’s why South Korea has spawned industrial giants like Samsung and LG, whilst their neighbours to the North have spawned poverty and misery (although, in fairness, the South Koreans were helped by their close realtionshiop with the US).
Are you going to the Bristol game next week?
Hall Of Fame
I don't think that you have got the hang of how Courts work. A full Supreme Court trumps three High Court judges by a massive degree. The Supreme Court will make their own decision and the notion that they would be unwilling to overturn a High Court decision because it would make the judges there look unfit for purpose is laughable.
I've always had an interest in constitutional law and the judgement is going to make fascinating reading and will be debated by academics for years. It could entirely redefine the relationship between the courts and government. I don't think BoJo had that in mind.
Posting Permissions