Aristocratic Socialism? 274 replies

Please wait...

Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

Though socialism is presented as the system for "the little guy", nobody seems to look to closely at the parties that support it. The British Labour party supports it - which makes sense, as they (supposedly) represent the common laborer. But why have the Tories embraced socialism? The ideal, theoretical doctrine of socialism is very bad for the rich, so its interesting that they do. This of course is the catch of socialism. On paper, its wonderful for the commoner. In practice however, it is simply a way for the rich to separate themselves from the annoying peasants. Of course, there's always the possibility that these wealthy higher classes are doing it out of the generosity of their hearts.;)




Nostradamouse

The Arrogant French Prick

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

4,501 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago
Machiavelli's ApprenticeOf course, there's always the possibility that these wealthy higher classes are doing it out of the generosity of their hearts.;)

The real politics are doing this. Ill go with this: A politician thinks about the next election while a politic man thinks about the next generation. Politicians dont worth scrap, politics are gold.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

do they really care about the next generation when they take a country into debt and make future generations pay the bill?




Nostradamouse

The Arrogant French Prick

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

4,501 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago
WarHawk109do they really care about the next generation when they take a country into debt and make future generations pay the bill?

That is because today's politic game is being filled with politicians. On every side. Not by Politics.

Go talk about your hate towards debts to your 8 trillion dollars deficit worth favourite president while your at it.




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago
3 trillion dollars deficit

*Sigh* It's 8 trillion, actually. But aside from that shameful fact: All of the concerns you raise about Socialism are present in every single other type of government around. In the 1920's United States, corporations exploited capitalism for the exact same purposes, and Congress was labeled a 'Millionaires Club' due to the wealth of the corrupt members. The point is, all of these governments (Socialism, Capitalism, Communism), despite the arguable degrees of potential to be exploited and corrupt, were all built on the hopes of succeeding. Borrowing Nostra's analogy: politic men are in short supply, but every government prays it will get them.




Nostradamouse

The Arrogant French Prick

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

4,501 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago
Pb2Au*Sigh* It's 8 trillion, actually. But aside from that shameful fact:

Thats what I wrote :D




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago
NostradamouseThat is because today's politic game is being filled with politicians. On every side. Not by Politics.

So socialism doesn't require debt? Ah I see, so money does grow on trees!

Go talk about your hate towards debts to your 3 trillion dollars deficit worth favourite president while your at it.

I never said I agreed with the President on every single issue.




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago
So socialism doesn't require debt?

No government requires debt, per se, but since 'deficit spending' came about in the 1930's, most governments (Capitalists and otherwise) have resorted to it without caring about when that money will be repaid.




Nostradamouse

The Arrogant French Prick

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

4,501 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago
WarHawk109So socialism doesn't require debt? Ah I see, so money does grow on trees!

No, that means that there are incompetants around that do not know a bloody little trick about balancing budgets. You cant give everyone what they want. Also, it might also comes from the fact that industry is being less and less taxed. Before it was 50/50. Population would pay about 50% of the taxes and corporates would do the same, now, it has gone to 80/20! Population paying 80% while companies pay only 20%. Thats the real scandal.

But Im too lazy to find website to cover that.

Aaaah well, gimme some time Ill get the sources.




Nemmerle Advanced Member

Voice of joy and sunshine

299,207 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,209 Posts

6 Threads

#10 15 years ago

Rampant capitalism is eventually unsustainable, with the rise of the oil crisis and other such situations people are preparing to move to a system whereby they can maintain their grip upon society without the same methods of massproduction we are acustomed to. They're worried they've sunk too much into one hole and are trying to expand. At the moment they rule essentially through money, economic power, but as has been pointed out in the past, 'The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty.' So they're trying to do that because they can see their power is going to run out.