Rich Socialists - do as I say, not as I do
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
From what I can tell, it's a person who deviates in any way / shape / form from the right-wing neoliberal hard line; epitomised by jealous rage and swivel-eyes, whatever that means. (I assume it's something like those googly-eye stickers, except they hate google, so choose a more open-source, eco-friendly swivel)
CIF bingo points aren't awarded on PH. Put that in your "neoliberal" pipe.Randy Winkman said:
It is a rather pathetic article that completely dies a death near the end. But is appeals to a few Toryboy PHers so it's par for the course for the Telegraph.
Like a mirror of The Graun then, just with an actual comprehension of finance & economics, as opposed to an irrational hatred of both.ellroy said:
Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn, Tony Blair, Lord Prescott the list goes on and on.
They trade on the utter naivity, and many cases downright stupidity, of the electorate who in many parts of this island nation would vote for a bloody pig if it wore a red rosette.
Yes, I see one in your list...They trade on the utter naivity, and many cases downright stupidity, of the electorate who in many parts of this island nation would vote for a bloody pig if it wore a red rosette.
TTwiggy said:
He's done quite well. Not U2/Metallica let's buy an island well, but ok. He writes his own songs and has toured extensively.
I don't buy the view that someone with a social conscience has to be poor. Sadly though, some people won't ever accept anyone with a left of centre view - and if they make a bit of cash then they're seen as hypocrites while if all they have to their name is a pair of soiled pants they're losers who have no idea of how the real world works.
If they believe that the rich should be forced to give their wealth to the government to help the poor then surely they should be doing it voluntarily and not moving the money into tax havens or spending it on themselves?I don't buy the view that someone with a social conscience has to be poor. Sadly though, some people won't ever accept anyone with a left of centre view - and if they make a bit of cash then they're seen as hypocrites while if all they have to their name is a pair of soiled pants they're losers who have no idea of how the real world works.
FredClogs said:
Socialist, bunch of 
s, eh!
Tsk...
Any of you "capitalist" pigs care to explain to a thicko at the back of the class exactly what you think a "socialist" is?
Generally, someone who is against the principle of the personal accumulation of capital. s, eh!Tsk...
Any of you "capitalist" pigs care to explain to a thicko at the back of the class exactly what you think a "socialist" is?
Socialism would suggest that you take only what you need, and give everything else back for the benefit of society. In that way, things like museums, libraries, and theatres can be state funded and available for all, rather than just the rich. The pursuit of money becomes unimportant so people can concentrate on the things they are good at rather than the things that pay the best.
Show me a socialist that actually does that, and I'll eat my sock.
Sir Humphrey said:
If they believe that the rich should be forced to give their wealth to the government to help the poor then surely they should be doing it voluntarily and not moving the money into tax havens or spending it on themselves?
I think people these days are a bit confused about the basic concepts of socialism or, more accurately, having a social conscience.Many of the biggest capitalists in Victorian times were also the driving forces behind social change and betterment of the conditions that the working man found himself in. I personally think that this is something that has been lost in the modern race to make a quick buck and then pull up the drawbridge.
TTwiggy said:
I think people these days are a bit confused about the basic concepts of socialism or, more accurately, having a social conscience.
Many of the biggest capitalists in Victorian times were also the driving forces behind social change and betterment of the conditions that the working man found himself in. I personally think that this is something that has been lost in the modern race to make a quick buck and then pull up the drawbridge.
Social conscience =/= socialism.Many of the biggest capitalists in Victorian times were also the driving forces behind social change and betterment of the conditions that the working man found himself in. I personally think that this is something that has been lost in the modern race to make a quick buck and then pull up the drawbridge.
A social conscience/philanthropy/charity is voluntary redistribution of wealth, socialism is forced redistribution of wealth against the threat of imprisonment. I am not a socialist, I don't want money to be stolen from me and given to someone else (whether they are homeless or a banker), I do give my own money voluntarily to people I feel need it more than me, I hope others do the same but don't expect or demand it.
Edited by Sir Humphrey on Thursday 30th October 00:49
davepoth said:
Generally, someone who is against the principle of the personal accumulation of capital.
Socialism would suggest that you take only what you need, and give everything else back for the benefit of society. In that way, things like museums, libraries, and theatres can be state funded and available for all, rather than just the rich. The pursuit of money becomes unimportant so people can concentrate on the things they are good at rather than the things that pay the best.
Show me a socialist that actually does that, and I'll eat my sock.
Show me a "Socialist" who believes that and ill join you in the sock eating. Socialism would suggest that you take only what you need, and give everything else back for the benefit of society. In that way, things like museums, libraries, and theatres can be state funded and available for all, rather than just the rich. The pursuit of money becomes unimportant so people can concentrate on the things they are good at rather than the things that pay the best.
Show me a socialist that actually does that, and I'll eat my sock.
ukwill said:
Randy Winkman said:
It is a rather pathetic article that completely dies a death near the end. But is appeals to a few Toryboy PHers so it's par for the course for the Telegraph.
Like a mirror of The Graun then, just with an actual comprehension of finance & economics, as opposed to an irrational hatred of both.davepoth said:
Socialism would suggest that you take only what you need...
Which in Bragg's case is an effing big, expensive house by the sea. Nice one comrade.I don't mind his music and I don't feel he is the worst of the preachy, pretend-to-be-mealy-moutheds, but he's certainly one of them. Voice of the common man. Not.
TTwiggy said:
Zyp said:
I only know one Billy Bragg song.
Surely he's not good enough to have enough money to be declared a Champagne Socialist?
He's done quite well. Not U2/Metallica let's buy an island well, but ok. He writes his own songs and has toured extensively. Surely he's not good enough to have enough money to be declared a Champagne Socialist?
I don't buy the view that someone with a social conscience has to be poor. Sadly though, some people won't ever accept anyone with a left of centre view - and if they make a bit of cash then they're seen as hypocrites while if all they have to their name is a pair of soiled pants they're losers who have no idea of how the real world works.
Sir Humphrey said:
TTwiggy said:
I think people these days are a bit confused about the basic concepts of socialism or, more accurately, having a social conscience.
Many of the biggest capitalists in Victorian times were also the driving forces behind social change and betterment of the conditions that the working man found himself in. I personally think that this is something that has been lost in the modern race to make a quick buck and then pull up the drawbridge.
Social conscience =/= socialism.Many of the biggest capitalists in Victorian times were also the driving forces behind social change and betterment of the conditions that the working man found himself in. I personally think that this is something that has been lost in the modern race to make a quick buck and then pull up the drawbridge.
A social conscience/philanthropy/charity is voluntary redistribution of wealth, socialism is forced redistribution of wealth against the threat of imprisonment. I am not a socialist, I don't want money to be stolen from me and given to someone else (whether they are homeless or a banker), I do give my own money voluntarily to people I feel need it more than me, I hope others do the same but don't expect or demand it.
Edited by Sir Humphrey on Thursday 30th October 00:49
Einion Yrth said:
Tax avoidance is entirely legal and entirely sensible. /thread
The same people who defend it when it's a tory / capitalist / big business - we have to drop our keks and bend over for the big corps - as being perfectly legitimate and OK spout off when anyone else does it.Yep, there's hypocrites here but it ain't Tony Benn.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Quite so, couldn't agree more.
But you can't see a massive amount of hypocrisy here?FredClogs said:
Any of you "capitalist" pigs care to explain to a thicko at the back of the class exactly what you think a "socialist" is?
Generally low IQ, greedy, lazy, hypocritical tts. That's what experience has taught me socialists are. Care to explain what you think a socialist is?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff