The Political Compass Test

gleam wrote: nacho wrote: gleam wrote: Actually poverty is a social issue, not a moral one. Whether one is rich or poor has nothing to do with their religion. Whatever happened to the camel and the needle...   I'm not clear over your analogy, however I am clear about who foot the bills. It's noble to want to help the less fortunate, that's why we have FICA in the U.S. England is a classic example of fifty years of Socialism, it doesn't work. The population is taxed to death with no relief in sight. How much of that tax goes to welfare? Has it resolved anything? No on the contrary, it's only engendered one generation after another living on the dole.

Utter rubbish! Are you trying to say that Britain has had 50 years of Socialist Government?
It was the ultra right-wing PM Margeret Thatcher who forced an unemployment rise to 5 million. Nineteen years of Tory rule saw this country dying ond on its knees.Years and years of zero investment by big business saw our industrial heartland devastated.Heartless profiteering and a "f**k you" attitude.

Gleam-tell me how Capitalism is working for the most vulnerable in today's society.Tell me how it provides for the needy globally.
The Conservative/Republican parties of the UK and USA are there to serve the very,very rich.The trick is to get mugs like you to keep sl*gging off socialism as if socialism is the devil.
I hear Ivan talking about "socialists" but his "socialists" sound like Communists to me.I here you talk about "socialist" policies almost with a hint of distaste.Socialism in the modern world as demonstrated by The Labour Party in the UK has a many faults-however it still tries to follow the basic principle of a fairer deal for the most vunerable in society and is a million miles (only some would say unfortunately) from Communism.Do not confuse the two.And do not make the mistake of thinking this country has not done well under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown-au contraire.
A better deal for all or a better deal for the most well off.No contest mate!

The very rich had have it their own way for,well thousands of years.The rich had everything,everyone else were slaves.Feudalism,serfdom,slavery this is what happens when the rich go unchecked and unhindered.The Labour Party only came into power over the last 80 years or so in the UK and that is not long for a political system trying to dismantle a tradition of greed.

Gleam your statement "England is a classic example of fifty years of Socialism, it doesn't work." and here I choose my words carefully, DISGUSTS ME!

Even if you believe that Socialism cant work its principles are at least moral when compared with Capitalism.Dont you see Capitalism "works" because it is forced upon us as the system of choice of the most privileged-ie the people with the real power.These people will make damned sure socialism cant work.You shouldnt have to legislate "compassion" and "duty",they should be normal human desires.

Hey, lay off poor Gleam- I don't agree with almost everything he says, but he debates well and is obviously in the ideological minority here. I'd probably be a lot likely to be more offensive if I was in his corner.

In a way, he's correct- capitalism does succeed more consistently for capitalists than socialism does for socialists. The difference being, of course, that capitalism is only focused on generating wealth while socialism has a much wider scope, providing for the health and welfare of everyone. It's always easier to look out for yourself than try to make the world a better place.

James Lee wrote: Hey, lay off poor Gleam- I don't agree with almost everything he says, but he debates well and is obviously in the ideological minority here. I'd probably be a lot likely to be more offensive if I was in his corner. In a way, he's correct- capitalism does succeed more consistently for capitalists than socialism does for socialists. The difference being, of course, that capitalism is only focused on generating wealth while socialism has a much wider scope, providing for the health and welfare of everyone. It's always easier to look out for yourself than try to make the world a better place.

Bang on James  ... and of course socialism in theory at least, makes more of an effort to take into account the lives of the 60% of humanity who are involved in a daily struggle to survive.

Sweetnighter wrote: James Lee wrote: ^ Hey Sweetnighter...ever read any Howard Zinn? Yes. Your point?

Don't get touchy.

I'm just unconvinced that the IWW and socialism in general in the US lost out simply due to the 'will of the people', that's all. I thought I might have heard echoes of Zinn in your example...albeit from the unmoved end.

Just wanted to add: the middle class is disappearing in the US, and it seems to me that it's not socialism that is killing it off as much as unrestrained capitalism. But I'm not an expert.

Sweetnighter wrote: Trotsky wrote: James Lee wrote: Hey, lay off poor Gleam- I don't agree with almost everything he says, but he debates well and is obviously in the ideological minority here. I'd probably be a lot likely to be more offensive if I was in his corner. In a way, he's correct- capitalism does succeed more consistently for capitalists than socialism does for socialists. The difference being, of course, that capitalism is only focused on generating wealth while socialism has a much wider scope, providing for the health and welfare of everyone. It's always easier to look out for yourself than try to make the world a better place. Bang on James  ... and of course socialism in theory at least, makes more of an effort to take into account the lives of the 60% of humanity who are involved in a daily struggle to survive. In theory it makes an effort... what about in reality? Trotsky, please explain to me why I, a member of the middle class (and NOT the upper middle class) would rather live in a socialist state than a capitalist one.

Sweetnighter, obviously a modern-day socialist has to quote the Scandinavian examples, but then again the Scandinavians have relatively tiny populations. ... I'll certainly agree that the capitalists have got their act together better than most socialist models have done ... but if you don't see the "rich getting richer, poor getting poorer" thing ... and all the inevitable consequences that might have in terms of your medical, education, housing needs, etc, then perhaps we are speaking a different language

To me the capitalist model only works if you can at some point make the leap above the line, before certain factors swallow you up ... if you can go to uni, and become say ... an engineer .. capitalism might well always work for you. If something goes wrong along the way, and at 35 you find yourself eking out a living on minimum wage, you may not find things so attractive.

I'll cite my own son's condition as the curious case for the middle class in a capitalist society. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post, but he has an uninsurable heart condition that has required four operations costing me nearly four years of my salary. As a member of the middle class, I do not qualify for certain allocations/subsidies made to the hard-core poor. The government hospital which provides for the poorer segments of society has a lengthy waiting list while the best private ones don't have one at all (and with my son's condition timing significantly affects the success rate of the operations). So I had to virtually bankrupt myself to give my son the best chance of survival possible. A truly wealthy upper middle-class person would not have to worry (in Malaysia engineers and doctors easily earn 10 times the amount journalists do) about making such a decision, and a member of the hard-core poor is unlikely to have the choice ...

Add to that that the hospital committed an act of neglicence during one of the operations that probably greatly added to the amount of time my son had to spend in hospital and the money I had to pay of course (by the way, maani, if you're reading this, if I ever do meet God, I will at least want him to explain to me pediatric wards, before he sends me to Hell), All they did was lop about 8% off the bill ... if I was in another country with a more vibrant legal system I could have fought them, but here the little guy almost always loses to the big corporation (this may not seem like a principle of capitalism to you, but again, if you can't see that it is a direct result of MONEY TALKING, then we are speaking a different language).

I dunno again, as I've gotten older the answers seem less clear ... and I think we all see fatal flaws in a socialist system ... but it is still the one closest to my heart ... 

Trotsky:

Most people are unaware that Marx took his basic premise from the Scripture.  Consider the following passage:

"Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common...Nor was there any among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed each as anyone had need."  (Acts 4:32, 34-35)

Thus, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."  The basic premise of Marx' philosophy was taken from Christianity - and then he had the gall to turn around and call religion "the opium of the people!"

Peace.