Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' Watch

This discussion is closed.
303Pharma
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6681
Report 2 years ago
#6681
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So now you're claiming everybody left of centre is socialist? So why exactly do you dismiss Blair?

Posted from TSR Mobile
It's not hard to dismiss Blair. He was a sociopathic ****.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6682
Report 2 years ago
#6682
(Original post by 303Pharma)
It's not hard to dismiss Blair. He was a sociopathic ****.
He's only the most successful British socialist in history, apparently.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
303Pharma
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6683
Report 2 years ago
#6683
(Original post by 303Pharma)
Not denying he was populist. But he was still a sociopathic ****
No seriously. The guy was ****ing insane
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6684
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6684
(Original post by 303Pharma)
Taxation is theft. Always.

Anarcho-con / libertarian.
(Original post by Joel 96)
To a dear socialist, on what basis is it okay to take someone's money without their consent?
Property is theft.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So now you're claiming everybody left of centre is socialist? So why exactly do you dismiss Blair?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Technically, left of centre is social democracy which is meant to be socialism but this is questioned. Blair however was not socialist.

Refusal to renationalise the Tories dreadfully botched rail privatisation fiasco despite a manifesto pledge; deregulation of the financial sector' abandonment of democratic control over the Bank of England; refusal to renationalise or even effectively regulate the privatised utilities companies; turning a blind eye to the rampant tax-dodging of multi-national corporations and the super rich minority; refusal to invest in much needed social housing; refusal to regulate the Buy-to-Let slumlords and so on; and backing the imperialist pretensions of the most fanatically right-wing government the US has ever suffered is not socialist.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6685
Report 2 years ago
#6685
(Original post by DMcGovern)
Property is theft.



Technically, left of centre is social democracy which is meant to be socialism but this is questioned. Blair however was not socialist.

Refusal to renationalise the Tories dreadfully botched rail privatisation fiasco despite a manifesto pledge; deregulation of the financial sector' abandonment of democratic control over the Bank of England; refusal to renationalise or even effectively regulate the privatised utilities companies; turning a blind eye to the rampant tax-dodging of multi-national corporations and the super rich minority; refusal to invest in much needed social housing; refusal to regulate the Buy-to-Let slumlords and so on; and backing the imperialist pretensions of the most fanatically right-wing government the US has ever suffered is not socialist.
Ummm, since when was social democracy socialism? Which is it, left of centre= socialist, or left of centre you think isn't awful=socialism, or even far left of centre=socialism?

Socialists do not have a monopoly on social justice.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
FakeNewsEditor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6686
Report 2 years ago
#6686
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Ummm, since when was social democracy socialism? Which is it, left of centre= socialist, or left of centre you think isn't awful=socialism, or even far left of centre=socialism?

Socialists do not have a monopoly on social justice.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Since forever. The original social democratic parties were only distinguished from outright communists in one way only: that they thought it feasible for capitalism to reform itself, within the parliamentary system and without a bloody revolution, and evolve into socialism and ultimately communism.

The German SPD of which, if I recall correctly, Rosa Luxembourg was a member was such a party. Only after the mid 20th century did social democratic parties become more "centrist" and finally in the late 20th century gave up all pretensions of being socialist.

There are still socialist factions within those parties ofc.
1
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6687
Report 2 years ago
#6687
(Original post by 303Pharma)
Fair point. Attlee was much of a British legend.
Hence people like myself being in the TSR Labour Party rather than the TSR Socialist Party.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6688
Report 2 years ago
#6688
Taxation is not fundamentally unfair, it is just the most effective method of ensuring those who gain the largest benefit from wider society contribute the most back to it. There's certainly nothing immoral about us democratically deciding to pool together our wealth to run public services at a lower overall cost than the aggregate of private provision, which is what most taxation is. And in my opinion it isn't unfair that high earner pay more than they directly get out, because they benefit indirectly from the provisions - their wealth relies on the labour of us and wouldn't be sustainable unless those working in lower positions in the same business had access to health, education, transport and other facilities. It's about putting the collective good of the nation above what might appear to be in a single inidividual's short-term interest, and that's a good thing: if we abandoned taxation and with it the state, nobody living or doing their business in Britain would benefit.
2
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6689
Report 2 years ago
#6689
(Original post by RainbowMan)
Since forever. The original social democratic parties were only distinguished from outright communists in one way only: that they thought it feasible for capitalism to reform itself, within the parliamentary system and without a bloody revolution, and evolve into socialism and ultimately communism.

The German SPD of which, if I recall correctly, Rosa Luxembourg was a member was such a party. Only after the mid 20th century did social democratic parties become more "centrist" and finally in the late 20th century gave up all pretensions of being socialist.

There are still socialist factions within those parties ofc.
So you're saying that an ideology that supports private ownership is an ideology that opposes private ownership? I know socialists aren't exactly known for being smart, but stating two contradictory positions are the same takes the biscuit.
0
FakeNewsEditor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6690
Report 2 years ago
#6690
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So you're saying that an ideology that supports private ownership is an ideology that opposes private ownership? I know socialists aren't exactly known for being smart, but stating two contradictory positions are the same takes the biscuit.
You're probably more of a socialist than I am. Scratch that, you're definitely more of a socialist than I am.

I didn't understand a single word tbh.

Traditional social democrats support private ownership only insofar as it serves to pave the way for full blown socialism and later on, communism.
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6691
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6691
(Original post by RayApparently)
Hence people like myself being in the TSR Labour Party rather than the TSR Socialist Party.
No, not really valid here - we're just proper leftists. You'll come round to us eventually
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6692
Report 2 years ago
#6692
Jesus christ, why do people say stupid things like 'taxation is theft' and 'property is theft' without acknowledging that both of those statements are predicated on philosophical beliefs which are decidedly unpopular?
2
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6693
Report 2 years ago
#6693
"Property is theft"!!!!!



There are times i consider you socialists harmless hippies.. then you say things like that. The idea of abolishing property rights is absolutely nuts.
1
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6694
Report 2 years ago
#6694
(Original post by Rakas21)
"Property is theft"!!!!!



There are times i consider you socialists harmless hippies.. then you say things like that. The idea of abolishing property rights is absolutely nuts.
Comin' for your toothbrush tbh
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6695
Report 2 years ago
#6695
No one has the right to own land, however I do respect personal property as long as it isn't in such an excess that it harms other people.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6696
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6696
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Comin' for your toothbrush tbh
Property in terms of "Property is theft" does not refer to personal possession.
Left libertarians define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6697
Report 2 years ago
#6697
(Original post by DMcGovern)
Property in terms of "Property is theft" does not refer to personal possession.
Left libertarians define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.


I figured you would pick up on the joke via my use of a toothbrush as a specific object, but evidently not
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6698
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6698
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)


I figured you would pick up on the joke via my use of a toothbrush as a specific object, but evidently not
This isn't a joking matter, it will matter after the revolution!

1
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6699
Report 2 years ago
#6699
I can connect with the property is theft argument to a degree as property is sold off permanently before some people can buy it. Imagine if a government sold all state land to private investors in the year 2020. So what happens to the young people in 2040, growing up with no access to housing? Property shouldn't be tied to the market as property owners will vote for self interest to block necessary state facilities, like, say, council housing.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6700
Report 2 years ago
#6700
The problem is the notion of theft is itself predicated on the notion of property, so property is logically prior and cannot therefore be theft as a matter of definition. I wouldn't object so strongly to 'property is appropriation' or something like that, but it's not as catchy.
0
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 think the internet has made political discussion more aggressive?

Yes (55)
98.21%
No (1)
1.79%

Watched Threads

View All