Putin is a loser

[RobinBHM]

Socialists are just watered down communists, with some only a short distance from being full fledged commis.

Tony, I am sorry but you don’t know what socialism or communism is

Fascist are very similar to socialists/communists

Tony, Donald Trump is a right wing populist, they share many features with Fascism.


Tony you don’t seem to realise you are a supporter of Fascism

 

[ey_tony]

Tony, I am sorry but you don’t know what socialism or communism is








Tony, Donald Trump is a right wing populist, they share many features with Fascism.


Tony you don’t seem to realise you are a supporter of Fascism

...but at least I'm not rectally verbose!

Right now the bigger issue is that the USA is our largest single trading partner and if Trump sticks to his word about tariffs then that could hurt the UK, not helped by dung for brains Starmer and Lammy and people like yourself who just don't have the IQ to figure out when to keep your mouths closed!
Personally speaking I wouldn't blame Trump for retaliation for the crass stupidity of the left in the UK for vilifying him...if left wing brains were explosives they wouldn't have enough to blow off their flat caps.

I really couldn't give a monkey's what your opinion is of Trump nor me for that matter, all I know is that you're a potty left wing keyboard warrior intent on winning your argument at all cost but whose opinion I don't actually value.

 

[woodieallen]

Socialism = Jealousy-Lite

Communism = Jealousy-FullFat

 

[ey_tony]

Socialism = Jealousy-Lite

Communism = Jealousy-FullFat

Surprisingly I can actually see the attraction of communism in some aspects but lack of aspiration would ultimately kill it for me.

The primary reason why I couldn't become a socialist is because I don't resent or envy anyone who has achieved more in their lives even if they haven't worked for or don't deserve it.
As far as I'm concerned as long as they haven't achieved their wealth or material acquisitions at my expense then they get no resentment from me which precludes me from ever being a socialist.

 

[Chris152]

It's worth noting that the intentions of socialism are directed at the least well off and the exploited, and the attempt to create the environment in which they can work decent jobs for decent money, live and raise their kids with dignity etc. The idea it's motivated by jealousy and so on is a projection, one that's looking the wrong way - it may be true in some cases, but to reduce socialism to that is a mistake. Frankly, so long as people can work decent jobs, without exploitation and so on, I couldn't give a monkey's about how wealthy other people are.

 

[Chris152]

Here's a thought. Supposed we took from the wealthiest all money/ assets over, say, £3.6 million ( https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/07/richest-uk-households-worth-at-least-36m-each ). They can keep the 3.6 million to 'survive' on. All the money raised is put into education, health and housing. And anything else that desperately needs better resourcing. This policy is enacted overnight, so nobody can shift their finances elsewhere. Clearly, the people who think they need more than the maximum allowance will then head off abroad, but given the investment in essential services, especially education, plenty more will be along to take their place. And there are plenty of very capable people who aren't driven primarily by money, so would want to stay and live in a country where such infrastructure exists.

Think of it as a thought experiment. I'll now get my tin hat and hide in the bunker.

 

[AJB Temple]

Here's a thought. Supposed we took from the wealthiest all money/ assets over, say, £3.6 million ( https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/07/richest-uk-households-worth-at-least-36m-each ). They can keep the 3.6 million to 'survive' on. All the money raised is put into education, health and housing. And anything else that desperately needs better resourcing. This policy is enacted overnight, so nobody can shift their finances elsewhere. Clearly, the people who think they need more than the maximum allowance will then head off abroad, but given the investment in essential services, especially education, plenty more will be along to take their place. And there are plenty of very capable people who aren't driven primarily by money, so would want to stay and live in a country where such infrastructure exists.

Think of it as a thought experiment. I'll now get my tin hat and hide in the bunker.

I think George Orwell had hat idea long ago. But - we are either free or we are not. If the state decides what we can have, then we are not.

 

[Jacob]

Here's a thought. Supposed we took from the wealthiest all money/ assets over, say, £3.6 million ( https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/07/richest-uk-households-worth-at-least-36m-each ). They can keep the 3.6 million to 'survive' on. All the money raised is put into education, health and housing. And anything else that desperately needs better resourcing. This policy is enacted overnight, so nobody can shift their finances elsewhere. Clearly, the people who think they need more than the maximum allowance will then head off abroad, but given the investment in essential services, especially education, plenty more will be along to take their place. And there are plenty of very capable people who aren't driven primarily by money, so would want to stay and live in a country where such infrastructure exists.

...

Good idea!
Here's another idle thought. Make credit and debt time limited so that piles of dosh have to be spent quickly and debts simply fade away with time.
The idea here is that although money facilitates exchanges of so many sorts, accumulating piles of money and/or huge debts, indicate failure of the economic system.
Nicely demonstrated by playing "Monopoly" where the game tends to end with too much in the hands of too few i.e. collapse/fail. If you want the game to continue it has to be shared out again.

 

[Jacob]

I think George Orwell had hat idea long ago. But - we are either free or we are not. If the state decides what we can have, then we are not.

If the banks decide what we can have, then we are not free. Modern finance is designed to put us in debt and hence slavery.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Here's a thought. Supposed we took from the wealthiest all money/ assets over, say, £3.6 million ( https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/07/richest-uk-households-worth-at-least-36m-each ). They can keep the 3.6 million to 'survive' on. All the money raised is put into education, health and housing. And anything else that desperately needs better resourcing. This policy is enacted overnight, so nobody can shift their finances elsewhere. Clearly, the people who think they need more than the maximum allowance will then head off abroad, but given the investment in essential services, especially education, plenty more will be along to take their place. And there are plenty of very capable people who aren't driven primarily by money, so would want to stay and live in a country where such infrastructure exists.

Think of it as a thought experiment. I'll now get my tin hat and hide in the bunker.

I can see why those who have more should contribute more in terms of tax and at a higher rate once wealth goes beyond the level needed for an acceptable level of subsistence. I choke on the idea that wealth has an upper cap as it stifles ambition.

£3.6m is not the big number it seems when housing and pension pots are taken into account. The value of Final Salary Pensions would need to be equated to a capital sum - those in superannuation schemes would suddenly realise how good they are. How would you deal with married couples/civil partnerships? How do you know what my wife's jewellery is worth? Does my Festool Domino count towards my £3.6m?

I doesn't get my vote

 

[ey_tony]

If the banks decide what we can have, then we are not free. Modern finance is designed to put us in debt and hence slavery.

Absolute left wing nonsense.
It's materialism which puts people into debt. In today's society given the support of benefits etc, living beyond one's means is a lifestyle choice and not an essential.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Good idea!
Here's another idle thought. Make credit and debt time limited so that piles of dosh have to be spent quickly and debts simply fade away with time.
The idea here is that although money facilitates exchanges of so many sorts, accumulating piles of money and/or huge debts, indicate failure of the economic system.
Nicely demonstrated by playing "Monopoly" where the game tends to end with too much in the hands of too few i.e. collapse/fail. If you want the game to continue it has to be shared out again.

I don't agree with your suggestion but what I would do if I was Chancellor is clear up the student loan scheme.

In general I think it's entirely fair to have to repay some or all of the cost of a degree. People do degrees to get better jobs and therefore earn more.

For key employment sectors though (and particularly those that have an emphasis on public service) I'd favour writing the loan off faster than the current scheme which cancels any balance due after twenty years. For instance for every year you work as a nurse the loan gets reduced by 15%.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

It's worth noting that the intentions of socialism are directed at the least well off and the exploited, and the attempt to create the environment in which they can work decent jobs for decent money, live and raise their kids with dignity etc. The idea it's motivated by jealousy and so on is a projection, one that's looking the wrong way - it may be true in some cases, but to reduce socialism to that is a mistake. Frankly, so long as people can work decent jobs, without exploitation and so on, I couldn't give a monkey's about how wealthy other people are.

There may be a better form of words, but:

• Capitalists believe socialists are parasites characterised by envy and jealousy, too lazy to do a days work
• Socialists believe capitalists sole intent is the accumulation of wealth at the expense of all others in the community irrespective of the harm caused

Both are true of a limited number of folk on the extremes. Most inhabit a space between the two.

Damning the "other side" using extreme stereotypes is both insulting and simplistic.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Here's a thought. Supposed we took from the wealthiest all money/ assets over, say, £3.6 million ( https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/07/richest-uk-households-worth-at-least-36m-each ). They can keep the 3.6 million to 'survive' on. All the money raised is put into education, health and housing. And anything else that desperately needs better resourcing. This policy is enacted overnight, so nobody can shift their finances elsewhere. Clearly, the people who think they need more than the maximum allowance will then head off abroad, but given the investment in essential services, especially education, plenty more will be along to take their place. And there are plenty of very capable people who aren't driven primarily by money, so would want to stay and live in a country where such infrastructure exists.

Think of it as a thought experiment. I'll now get my tin hat and hide in the bunker.

The £3.6m relates to the wealthiest 1% of households. There are ~30m households so there are ~300,000 which fall into the wealthy category.

The average wealth of the 1% is not given - but make an assumption it is £5m. Each household would have £1.4m to distribute to good social causes.

In total this would be £420bn (300k x £1.4m). Alternatively the $1.4m per wealthy household could be shared across the 99 poorer giving an average of £14000 each.

All this is very worthy and the sums involved are non-trivial. But there a few wrinkles to iron out:

• how is wealth defined. Many modest properties in nicer bits of London may be worth £1-2m. Should there be a separate limit for each region.
• modest owner occupied farms may have an asset value significantly above the "wealth limit" yet produce only a basic level of income
• how are medium sized family businesses dealt with - do they have to sell shares to reduce the business value. Valuing non- listed businesses is complex anyway
• what happens to the income associated with assets redistributed - eg: rental properties where the income goes to the existing owner on whom income tax is anyway levied
• any special reliefs for money invested in paintings, antiques, charitable trusts etc

Having solved all these issues - should the redistribution be a one off with all the funds collected spent in a short period on infrastructure, or invested in a national wealth fund to provide ongoing support to operating costs of NHS, schools etc.

 

[JimJay]

Tony, I am sorry but you don’t know what socialism or communism is.

Perhaps you'd care to share your knowledge of the true nature of the two and the essential differences between them?

Clearly there are those among us, including yours truly, who are in need of some crumbs of enlightenment.

 

[Chris152]

Perhaps you'd care to share your knowledge of the true nature of the two and the essential differences between them?

Clearly there are those among us, including yours truly, who are in need of some crumbs of enlightenment.

This is a half-decent summary for you:

'Key differences between communism and socialism

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.'

https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences

Communism seems to be absolutist (in practice, it isn't as it exists at the moment), while socialism exists within our economy as a force for change.

 

[Bungster]

Jeezuz, for a minute there I forgot that this site was about wood working etc.

 

[mark w]

...but at least I'm not rectally verbose!

Right now the bigger issue is that the USA is our largest single trading partner and if Trump sticks to his word about tariffs then that could hurt the UK, not helped by dung for brains Starmer and Lammy and people like yourself who just don't have the IQ to figure out when to keep your mouths closed!
Personally speaking I wouldn't blame Trump for retaliation for the crass stupidity of the left in the UK for vilifying him...if left wing brains were explosives they wouldn't have enough to blow off their flat caps.

I really couldn't give a monkey's what your opinion is of Trump nor me for that matter, all I know is that you're a potty left wing keyboard warrior intent on winning your argument at all cost but whose opinion I don't actually value.

I take it you'd prefer Boris, Liz or Rishi to still be in charge?
Starmer is already on his way to France to meet with Macron to discuss the Trump topic, at least he's proactive.

 

[ey_tony]

I take it you'd prefer Boris, Liz or Rishi to still be in charge?
Starmer is already on his way to France to meet with Macron to discuss the Trump topic, at least he's proactive.

Starmer is an utter donkey and that is arguably being unkind to donkeys. He's gone to France to discuss the Trump topic???

He condoned the sending of 100 left wing activists to give support to what turned out to be the loser's presidential campaign, so why on earth would the winners see his actions as other than treacherous? That will no doubt come back to haunt Starmer and the British people at some point as I can't see the Americans trusting that silly person again.
Biden was a donkey too but not nearly as bad as Starmer.

You really couldn't make it up about Starmer, it gets worse by the day.. Only an absolute moron would have gone along with it and allowed it to happen in the first place for obvious reasons which could well be seen as electoral interference of a sovereign nation reminiscent of the communist agitation days and the left wing unions of the UK in the 60s & 70s.

You just wonder what he's going to do wrong next so please don't criticise his Tory predecessors, by Starmer's standards they were streets ahead and that doesn't say much about Starmer, that's for sure.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

This is a half-decent summary for you:

'Key differences between communism and socialism

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.'

https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences

Communism seems to be absolutist (in practice, it isn't as it exists at the moment), while socialism exists within our economy as a force for change.

SOCIALISM = COMMUNISM LITE.

A bit like beer with the alcohol taken out