Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jordan-James
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5301
Report 5 years ago
#5301
What would you do if you got into power and the majority of skilled workers, businessman, bankers etc all left the country, and you were left with a largely working class population?
0
Thunder and Jazz
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5302
Report 5 years ago
#5302
(Original post by Jordan-James)
What would you do if you got into power and the majority of skilled workers, businessman, bankers etc all left the country, and you were left with a largely working class population?
0
Bill_Gates
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5303
Report 5 years ago
#5303
(Original post by Tory Dan)
What sort of cake do you like?
Im feeling rather hungry today, i'll take one slice cut into 4 pieces
2
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#5304
Report 5 years ago
#5304
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Did you just criminalise alcohol by the back door? Looking at the report which has the scores for the harm system you guys use - alcohol is the only drug that would be affected by this...a score of 60 and over means it;s criminalised, and:

...get me some moonshine.
Alcohol is only rated as the most harmful drug in that study because they have chosen to include 'social criteria' in the rankings: things like drinking-related crime, family breakdown, community issues, the economic costs etc. etc. If you rate drugs only according to how physically harmful they are, alcohol drops to the middle of the rankings, and is overtaken by crack, heroin, and meth. Though it's impossible to say exactly which drugs would be illegal to produce/supply under our Act, it is, I reckon, unlikely that alcohol would be given an OVS higher than 50 as we 1) didn't include the social criteria, and 2) weighted the criteria in the following way: Drug-specific mortality: 1, Drug-related mortality: 0.8, Drug-specific damage to physical health: 0.8, Drug-related damage to physical health: 0.6, Dependence: 1, Drug-specific impairment of mental-functioning: 0.6, Drug-related impairment of mental functioning: 0.4. Alcohol typically scores higher in the "drug-related damage" criteria, which are weighted lower under our system.

(Original post by Jordan-James)
What would you do if you got into power and the majority of skilled workers, businessman, bankers etc all left the country, and you were left with a largely working class population?
It sounds to me as if you're using a very strange definition of 'skilled work'. Banking is skilled work in the same way that correcting a Rubik's Cube is - it may be complex, but it's not particularly useful. Bankers produce services that are generally only useful in a system that relies on banking, thus rendering them defunct in a socialist economy where capital is controlled by the general public. Likewise, I'd need to know how you are defining businessmen before I could comment on whether they'd flee from a socialist economy. Businesses would of course continue to exist under socialism, they'd just be organised democratically, in a way that allowed all workers to profit from the success of the business that employs them.
0
nixonsjellybeans
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5305
Report 5 years ago
#5305
I'd like to see the entire 'skilled' population flee just because we intend to balance an unfair system out :rolleyes:
We're hardly Stalinists or authoritarians so no reason to flee for fear either.
0
Jordan-James
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5306
Report 5 years ago
#5306
(Original post by JPKC)
Alcohol is only rated as the most harmful drug in that study because they have chosen to include 'social criteria' in the rankings: things like drinking-related crime, family breakdown, community issues, the economic costs etc. etc. If you rate drugs only according to how physically harmful they are, alcohol drops to the middle of the rankings, and is overtaken by crack, heroin, and meth. Though it's impossible to say exactly which drugs would be illegal to produce/supply under our Act, it is, I reckon, unlikely that alcohol would be given an OVS higher than 50 as we 1) didn't include the social criteria, and 2) weighted the criteria in the following way: Drug-specific mortality: 1, Drug-related mortality: 0.8, Drug-specific damage to physical health: 0.8, Drug-related damage to physical health: 0.6, Dependence: 1, Drug-specific impairment of mental-functioning: 0.6, Drug-related impairment of mental functioning: 0.4. Alcohol typically scores higher in the "drug-related damage" criteria, which are weighted lower under our system.



It sounds to me as if you're using a very strange definition of 'skilled work'. Banking is skilled work in the same way that correcting a Rubik's Cube is - it may be complex, but it's not particularly useful. Bankers produce services that are generally only useful in a system that relies on banking, thus rendering them defunct in a socialist economy where capital is controlled by the general public. Likewise, I'd need to know how you are defining businessmen before I could comment on whether they'd flee from a socialist economy. Businesses would of course continue to exist under socialism, they'd just be organised democratically, in a way that allowed all workers to profit from the success of the business that employs them.
As in businesses shut up shop, take all their money and move elsewhere in the world, like alot of french businessman have began doing.
2
Olympiad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5307
Report 5 years ago
#5307
(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
My dad came into the room whilst I was watching this on loud volume - he goes "weirdo" and walks out :loool:


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5308
Report 5 years ago
#5308
(Original post by JPKC)
It sounds to me as if you're using a very strange definition of 'skilled work'. Banking is skilled work in the same way that correcting a Rubik's Cube is - it may be complex, but it's not particularly useful. Bankers produce services that are generally only useful in a system that relies on banking, thus rendering them defunct in a socialist economy where capital is controlled by the general public. Likewise, I'd need to know how you are defining businessmen before I could comment on whether they'd flee from a socialist economy. Businesses would of course continue to exist under socialism, they'd just be organised democratically, in a way that allowed all workers to profit from the success of the business that employs them.
Investment Banking is incredibly "useful." Any kind of economy needs some way that investment can be handled and so that large-scale capital startups can actually happen. No Socialist society can exist without banks. The difference is how are these banks run, to what aim are they run, who owns them and what operations model do they use - but in any system there are bankers, i.e. people who make investment analysis.

A State Investment Bank would still have "bankers" - as in, it would still have skilled employees.
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#5309
Report 5 years ago
#5309
(Original post by Bagration)
Investment Banking is incredibly "useful." Any kind of economy needs some way that investment can be handled and so that large-scale capital startups can actually happen. No Socialist society can exist without banks. The difference is how are these banks run, to what aim are they run, who owns them and what operations model do they use - but in any system there are bankers, i.e. people who make investment analysis.

A State Investment Bank would still have "bankers" - as in, it would still have skilled employees.
If, when a state invests capital, it is banking, then you are quite correct: banking is useful. However, I'm not sure that granting the term such a wide set of parameters is necessary or prudent; imagine a democratic state granting funds for the construction of a factory - under your defintion, this would constitute 'banking'. As, arguably, would the state paying a doctor a salary for their labour. However, under the common vernacular neither of these state actions would be considered banking. Banking, as thought of in the context of current society, is (correct me if I'm wrong) usually taken to mean the activities of commercial institutions engaged in money-lending and deposit-taking. Lending is not synonymous with plain investment, as obviously a return is sought, and such loans are usually only made out of the consideration that the creditor stands to gain from making them.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5310
Report 5 years ago
#5310
I will be standing in as Socialist C1 for the next month or so due to JPKC being busy with this annoying real-life stuff, seeing as I've finished my exams now but am too poor to go on holiday :P As a result, any requests, messages etc for the Socialist party if not posted in here should be directed to me for the time being
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5311
Report 5 years ago
#5311
Why is capitalism infinitely better than socialism?

Posted from TSR Mobile
The Mad Dog
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5312
Report 5 years ago
#5312
(Original post by nebelbon)
Why is capitalism infinitely better than socialism?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Probably not the best thread to ask that in
0
Thunder and Jazz
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5313
Report 5 years ago
#5313
(Original post by nebelbon)
Why is capitalism infinitely better than socialism?

Posted from TSR Mobile
To get to the other side.
3
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5314
Report 5 years ago
#5314
Why is socialism flawed in a lot of ways? Also it doesn't work in theory so why would it ever work in practice?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Keckers
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5315
Report 5 years ago
#5315
(Original post by nebelbon)
Why is socialism flawed in a lot of ways? Also it doesn't work in theory so why would it ever work in practice?
Do you even know what socialism is? These questions suggest very strongly that you don't.
0
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5316
Report 5 years ago
#5316
Why do you prefer illegal immigrants who've done sweet f/a for this country to soldiers who've risked their lives for it.
3
Cheese_Monster
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5317
Report 5 years ago
#5317
(Original post by tufc)
Why do you prefer illegal immigrants who've done sweet f/a for this country to soldiers who've risked their lives for it.
Where and when have the Socialists ever claimed to be on the side of illegal immigrants over soldiers? They simply pointed out that you are giving preferential treatment to one minority group in your bill, when there are others who are disengaged by it. As far as I know, the Socialists are on the side of the global proletariat, or in laymàns terms, all those who need help will receive it, irrespective of contribution.
0
Stiff Little Fingers
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5318
Report 5 years ago
#5318
(Original post by tufc)
Why do you prefer illegal immigrants who've done sweet f/a for this country to soldiers who've risked their lives for it.
We don't - we just think that those who need help should get it, regardless of their background.
0
Barksy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5319
Report 5 years ago
#5319
What do you do when you run out of other people's money?
0
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#5320
Report 5 years ago
#5320
(Original post by tufc)
Why do you prefer illegal immigrants who've done sweet f/a for this country to soldiers who've risked their lives for it.
Because one is being paid to do a job - and the other is denied the capacity to find a job.

And "prefer"? Honestly? Are you chauvinist?
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (182)
18.86%
No (582)
60.31%
Not really bothered about them (201)
20.83%

Watched Threads

View All