[Abiraleft]

(Original post by tufc)
But isn't egalitarianism supposed to be about dragging people up the ladder, instead of kicking them down it?
And the 'best provision' can't be provided for all; it's financially impossible. If the abolition of private healthcare was shown to be a direct way to improve public healthcare, then I'd see where you were coming from; but at the moment, it feels more about trying to kick people down the ladder just for the sake of them being at the bottom.

To be honest, I don't remember the specifics of the context of the campaigning against private healthcare you mentioned, but I doubt any of the socialists would advocate abolishing private healthcare without at the same time (or first) looking to upgrade the standards of the NHS/current public health services. I see what you're saying and I think it's important.

(Original post by internetguru)
'We will continue to push for:

- Decent pensions and free social care for senior citizens
- The introduction of a living wage
- Free insulation for homes, schools and hospitals
- Reduced tuition fees for university students
- The nationalization of energy resources and the railway system

We will continue to oppose:

- Proposals to further reduce taxes for the wealthy
- Attempts to cut funding for public institutions such as the NHS, or proposals that they be incorporated into the private sector
- Unnecessary profit-driven ‘interventions’ in foreign sovereign states'



Why have you not yet attempted to fulfil all your election promises?

There are various ideas that surface in the party. Some have become bills, some been quite dormant, some are still in the works. Those were some ideas that we had at the time, but we've had more since and as it turns out, it's been some of the latter that have manifested into substance. It's hardly as if we've spent the term doing nothing, or as if the material we've produced thus far has been contradictory to the spirit of our manifesto.

[tehFrance]

What is the parties view on Eugenics and should we be practicing them?

[paperclip]

(Original post by tehFrance)
What is the parties view on Eugenics and should we be practicing them?

No. We all know where a limited gene pool gets us

[tehFrance]

(Original post by paperclip)
No. We all know where a limited gene pool gets us

Tall, blonde, blue eyed gods?

[paperclip]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Tall, blonde, blue eyed gods?

With the IQ of a peanut

[tehFrance]

(Original post by paperclip)
With the IQ of a peanut

Er no that is not what happens, you are mixing the uneducated poor people up with the rich gorgeous smart people, only those that are good looking and smart should be allowed to partake not the others.

[paperclip]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Er no that is not what happens, you are mixing the uneducated poor people up with the rich gorgeous smart people, only those that are good looking and smart should be allowed to partake not the others.

You do realise the genetic defects that are a result of a limited gene pool?

I think i can safely say that the Socialist party do not share your classism, nor your arrogance.

[Keckers]

(Original post by paperclip)
You do realise the genetic defects that are a result of a limited gene pool?

I think i can safely say that the Socialist party do not share your classism, nor your arrogance.

But socialism thrives off the insistence of class struggle and the arrogance of a political elite to 'save' the proletariat. No?

[PoGo HoPz]

(Original post by Keckers)
But socialism thrives off the insistence of class struggle and the arrogance of a political elite to 'save' the proletariat. No?

Not for Libertarian Socialists such as myself.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Keckers)
But socialism thrives off the insistence of class struggle and the arrogance of a political elite to 'save' the proletariat. No?

Not really, Socialism is a collectivist ideology and if anything involves greater participation by the people. The Socialist party has a great deal of direct democracy, and is pretty much a party of independents. Most socialists are quite disgusted by their representatives being from Eton and Oxbridge and clearly having no understanding of the struggles they themselves face. As such, it leads to bland politics involving supposedly left wing politicians arguing against the minimum wage - if you did go to the lower paid workers and suggested such an idea, you quite rightly see them get emotional.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by tehFrance)
What is the parties view on Eugenics and should we be practicing them?

No we should not; what attributes are and are not positive are (i) subjective (ii) dependent on the time, place and ideology of the propounders. Imo.

(Original post by Keckers)
But socialism thrives off the insistence of class struggle and the arrogance of a political elite to 'save' the proletariat. No?

I don't really think any of us are too keen on the idea of vanguardism, if that's what you mean...

[The Socktor]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Er no that is not what happens, you are mixing the uneducated poor people up with the rich gorgeous smart people, only those that are good looking and smart should be allowed to partake not the others.

If you want to join the Troll Party you're welcome; I see great potential.

[Melancholy]

(Original post by Abiraleft)
No we should not; what attributes are and are not positive are (i) subjective (ii) dependent on the time, place and ideology of the propounders. Imo.

Yet in medical ethics there are various presumed "positive" attributes. If a baby is born with cancerous cells, we deem it to be good to remove the cancer, even without consent, if there are reasonable ways to remove it.

If a patient collapses, there is presumed consent to save them in most cases.

The worth of living is something which we can easily paint as being "subjective". Yet in medical ethics (and, indeed, in judicial ethics) we assume the right course of action is to preserve life, deter its theft, and so forth.

I, for one, will stand and say that some attributes are, simply, GOOD for a human to have. Being born with two arms, for instance, or without a crippling and painful disorder or disease.

I also think that reason can distinguish the favouring of attributes that is dependent upon time, place and ideology (e.g. having blonde hair seems to be a less reasonable and more arbitrary attribute than whether the baby will have to be born paralysed or in a wheelchair, and so forth, to take two examples).

My point is that, whilst there may be good reasons against eugenics, I don't think that your reasons are decisive without some further development. Historiographically, 'eugenics' as a concept only became tainted with negative connotations post-1945.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by Melancholy)
Yet in medical ethics there are various presumed "positive" attributes. If a baby is born with cancerous cells, we deem it to be good to remove the cancer, even without consent, if there are reasonable ways to remove it.

If a patient collapses, there is presumed consent to save them in most cases.

The worth of living is something which we can easily paint as being "subjective". Yet in medical ethics (and, indeed, in judicial ethics) we assume the right course of action is to preserve life, deter its theft, and so forth.

I, for one, will stand and say that some attributes are, simply, GOOD for a human to have. Being born with two arms, for instance, or without a crippling and painful disorder or disease.

I also think that reason can distinguish the favouring of attributes that is dependent upon time, place and ideology (e.g. having blonde hair seems to be a less reasonable and more arbitrary attribute than whether the baby will have to be born paralysed or in a wheelchair, and so forth, to take two examples).

My point is that, whilst there may be good reasons against eugenics, I don't think that your reasons are decisive without some further development. Historiographically, 'eugenics' as a concept only became tainted with negative connotations post-1945.

I take your point: I suppose my objection is to the certain aspects of eugenics with which the field has most strongly been associated in recent times.

[Rakas21]

Will the Socialist Party be contesting the by-election?

[Mazzini]

Was JPKC kicked out of your party or did he leave of his own volition?

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Mazzini)
Was JPKC kicked out of your party or did he leave of his own volition?

He was ejected.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
He was ejected.

Okay, thanks.

[tehFrance]

With my love of agriculture and the need to protect the outdoors and those that make money from the outdoors such as farmer... am I suitable for the socialist?

[internetguru]

(Original post by tehFrance)
With my love of agriculture and the need to protect the outdoors and those that make money from the outdoors such as farmer... am I suitable for the socialist?

If you agree that private companies should not exist and that all jobs are created by the state then it is the perfect party for you.

I have a question for the Socialist Party. What does your party offer to communists such as tehFrance and I who agree that all wealth should be distributed evenly?