Pub landlord to run against Farage.

Axe_meister

As I said the executions has and always will fail.

Evilmags

Marxisim is based on dialectical analysis. Hiegal was a fraud. It is impossible to run a society top down. The nature of knowledge, the basic epistemology of how life works, means that no body can ever have sufficient information to run a society. The deadly conceit, by Hayek covers this in enormous detail.

Evilmags

Lixarto;480606" said:

Oh, a graph off the internet; now I'm convinced.



Blea.

Still does not hide the fact that Marxist ideology, on any objective analysis, has murdered more human beings than any other belief system in history, despite being considerably younger than any major religion. Mao and Stalin alone prove that grisly statistic. Add Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, Castro ect into the pot and you have a veritable cornucopia of mass murderers.

And a large proportion of that guilt lies with the academics, mainly french, who spread this bile to Asia. Their intellectual arrogance write large in the blood of millions.

The only difference between marxists and Nazis is that marxists murdered more people.

stickyfiddle

Drew_fx said:

Axe_meister said:

Evilmags said:

Communism is the ideology of murder. It is far worse than even Nazisim, althoughthe two are ideological bedfellows. Nevertheless it is highly dubious using public money to employ Marxist academics. The marxists at the Sorbonne in Paid were the teachers of t he Kymer Rouge FFS...

I'd say Marxism as a theory is quite the opposite. In fact Star Trek the next generation is based on communism that works, where human greed is either not in the equation or everybody is satisfied. It is the execution that has and probably will always fail. I like to think of politics as a full circle. Where right and left eventually meet. However the middle ground is the lesser of all evils. However nobody is completly satisfied. If any one party is satisfied then there will always be losers.

Star Trek is FICTION...

Exactly. The thing with Star Trek is they pretty much get rid of money because they have virtually infinite energy resources and the ability to turn energy into stuff at the press of a button. If we had that I suspect everything else would be easy because greed (for "things", at least) would basically cease to exist. Sadly we don't, which is why marxism won't work.

Drew_TNBD

Evilmags said:

And a large proportion of that guilt lies with the academics, mainly french, who spread this bile to Asia. Their intellectual arrogance write large in the blood of millions.

I'm interested in hearing more about this Mags, genuinely.

Sambostar

So can we take it then that Al Murray is a communist.

Evilmags

Drew_fx;481563" said:

Evilmags said:

And a large proportion of that guilt lies with the academics, mainly french, who spread this bile to Asia. Their intellectual arrogance write large in the blood of millions.I'm interested in hearing more about this Mags, genuinely.

At quite a few Kymer Rouge trails part of the defence offered was "we did exactly what the academics we were taught by told us to do". The intellectuals behind the Kymer Rouge were all educated by communist professors at the Sorbonne university in Paris. As is well documented, well over a million people were killed.

When an ideology manages to take well over 150 million human lives it is probably a deeply flawed and unethical ideology to follow. A state can only control the means of production through violence.

chillidoggy

I've never agreed with everything in a party manifesto, and tend to feel more strongly about some issues than others. The 1p pint does look very attractive.

JohnPerry

I was in a pub not long ago with a fantastic musician from a proper name band. Not a guitar player. He has a first from Cambridge in the sciences. He said he believed Communism is the way forward. When I said: "Right, because it worked so well last time?", he replied: "It would be different here. We're British." Yet more proof of my theory that a successful career in the arts cocoons you from ever having to challenge the radical, brainless left-wing tosh many of us flirted with as teenagers.

JohnPerry

randomhandclaps said:

People who tell you that communism will ever work given the chance are the same as those psychics that tell you that the reason your dead auntie Jean couldn't remember your middle name was because YOU didn't believe enough.

i've always been sceptical about psychics and this is yet more proof. Firstly because I actually HAVE an Auntie Jean. And she is not dead, though she is living in Folkestone. Secondly, she would never forget my middle name because it's John. How do you like them apples, "clairvoyants"?!

Sambostar

You could take the same rationale to the faults in our supposedly capitalist economies. 

I mean, not exactly capitalist are they?  So does capitalism even work?  Obviously not, judging by the corrupted  mix of Marxist, socialist, elitist, capitalist model we seem to have adopted, so let's abandon capitalism. 

In true capitalism the little guy can undercut the big players and take the lions share on his/her initiative and hard graft and if you don't do fuck all you starve.  Doesn't really seem to be the state of play here in the UK.

But then surely in a free capitalist economy, you need unbiased watchdogs to regulate the elitism, protectionism and corruption, who by definition have socialist tendencies, so surely capitalism is therefore a flawed model too?

Evilmags

Logical falicy. A free market can't be regulated, or its not free...

imalone

The great thing about capitalism is there's no-one to blame. For instance, who do you put down as responsible for the potato famine? (1m, in a small country.)

Evilmags said:
At quite a few Kymer Rouge trails part of the defence offered was "we did exactly what the academics we were taught by told us to do".

Of course that doesn't necessarily make it true. And the Paris influence (just looking at it now), seems not to have been French, they were Cambodians who studied in France and returned, typically members of an already existing Cambodian communist movement with Chinese origins. (Not that there weren't murderous psychopaths around in Europe at the time, like the red army faction.)

Snap

Unbridled ideologies, form any side of the political spectrum just don't work. They are best left in the Text books to be discussed by cosseted academics who are too ineffectual in the real world to do anything other then postulate and develop their own transparent intellectual snobbery. Pure right wing or pure left wing ideals do not work at all. History is peppered with the evidence. They all need to bloody grow up.

Sambostar

Evilmags said:

Logical falicy. A free market can't be regulated, or its not free...

But without some degree of regulation, monopolisation, protectionism, exclusivity and corruption run rife.  So this is true capitalism then?  So following it to it's conclusion, we have an economy and country run by one corporate entity who own and control everything, regulate the price of everything and to whom everyone owes their existence?  That sounds more like former styles of communism to me than capitalism

Evilmags

Sambostar;482189" said:

Evilmags said:

Logical falicy. A free market can't be regulated, or its not free...





But without some degree of regulation, monopolisation, protectionism, exclusivity and corruption run rife.  So this is true capitalism then?  So following it to it's conclusion, we have an economy and country run by one corporate entity who own and control everything, regulate the price of everything and to whom everyone owes their existence?  That sounds more like former styles of communism to me than capitalism

Monopolies don't happen without state protection. The markets is a regulating entity in itself. Corporatism is a private entity using state power and money to protect its market position. It is impossible to get a monopoly in a free market, because someone can always come in and compete with you.

In the UK the least free markets are banking, utilities and transport. The most free are technology, retail and Internet. Which ones serves their customers best?

The word free means just that. No interference from the state. No special privileges and no protection. No bail out and frankly no central bank.

Drew_TNBD

Yeah, the irony doesn't escape me - the most vociferous in their outrage against the banks getting bailed out and us lot having to pay for it, are the ones also the most vocal about their opposition to free markets. Something they don't really understand in the first place.

Shit.. I don't even understand it properly, and I'm amenable to them!! Lord knows how you expect some Occupy Wall Street poetry reading wanker to understand it!

Fretwired

Drew_fx said:

Yeah, the irony doesn't escape me - the most vociferous in their outrage against the banks getting bailed out and us lot having to pay for it, are the ones also the most vocal about their opposition to free markets. Something they don't really understand in the first place.

The banks were lent money most of which has been repaid. RBS paid over £1.5 billion in fees for the Bank Guarantee Scheme plus £163 billion in loans. The state still has a stake in RBS which it can sell at some point.

Sambostar

If you look at small towns in America, where there is less regulation, although ironically to some degree more and or Union influence you can see the effects of the fall out on the local economies.

I don't agree with your ideals for capitalism Evilmags.  It is not impossible to gain a monopoly in a free market.  It is quite easy really in an unregulated market.  The more collateral you have, the more the banks will lend you, the more you can expand.  The bigger you are, the more you can produce goods cheaply with better machines and the easier it is to spread your fixed capital and liquid assets amongst several businesses.  Economies of scale mean you can effectively subsidize other businesses and other business sectors that you own and that may even be running at a loss to force out competitors.  If you get really big, you can keep everything in house and no competitor stands a chance.  Although granted you do have to keep evolving and keeping your eye on the ball.   But with more funds and business you effectively can buy up the best minds for your in house research.

The idea that a little guy can come out of nowhere or usurp a big company is nonsense.  This did happen a lot in the '60's but businesses were paying far too much in wages, were run by Unions and were fairly static in their models.

Remember, even if some genius gets an idea, without regulation, there is no copyright, so the bigger business will quickly run stories in the media to discredit the genius whilst ripping off his ideas and taking the credit for his research, if he persists, they will buy their best lawyers to get him put away.

In a free market, yes the people have the power to change things, but do they really given that all the options are owned by the same corporation?  How many people didn't use Amazon this Christmas because they objected to their business ethics?

Anyway the biggest swindle going right now are government pensionable bonds.  Buying a debt product off the government, effectively lending them your hard earned toil for a meagre interest return, equivalent to what banks are offering minus tax and there is the questionability about whether the lump sum will even be there when you want it in the future.  But then considering that the government only back £10k or £20k of your savings, it is probably as risky as putting it in a bank.

Without a doubt, debt products are the shadiest from of currency about but unfortunately our whole economy is built upon them.

It is basically an elaborate form of slavery.  I'd rather stick to pigs and camels.

chillidoggy

Sambostar said:

 I'd rather stick to pigs and camels.

Hence the need for a Transit tipper to cart them round in?