The musicians you mentioned were all afilliated with the left.

It seems there were very few with right wing tendancies.

I know Phil Collins was a Tory, and once said he would leave the UK if Labour got into power, as he believed he would have to pay more tax.

Prog is not that political, and its probably better that way. I think one of the aims of prog was to avoid politics and to provide some escapism from all that sh!t.

Alucard wrote: In the beginning I was just astonished that the Italian group Area didn't showed so often in the threads about italian Prog. Area were well known in the 70's for their music but mainly for their political (leftwing) engagement. They used to play the international during their concerts and used their concerts as their music as a political tool. Robert Wyatt was openly engaged for the communist party, as Billy Brag. Zappa was very engaged in Politics. Prog is often connected with Fairy Tales or, so I thought it could be interesting having a discussion about the "political" aspects of Prog and/ or engagements.

Frankly speaking, it doesen't matter to me what political system adore musicians in case they play music good  John Lennon, Manfred Mann, Frank Zappa, Peter Gabriel had their moments of political influence, though it all was fragmentary and not for a long time for them...

Actually a good part of Kraurock groups in the late 60's and early 70's were so socially conscious in their text that the press started to talk about Polit Rock. Among which were consider as such Amon Duul and Amon Duul I as well as Kluster/Cluster but also Can . All were closely related to left-wing political ideas sometimes even at the extreme left. Of course Amon Duul evolved out of a hippy commune (much like GonG and Grateful Dead did - or at least were the focal points of a commune), so there was of course not much a chance they would be right wing capitalists.

As for right wing politics, they appear not too present in  rock lyrics - except for extreme right/fascist in some hard core groups and also except for christian rock - no link between the two intended. But the fact that some people will do anything to succed (boys band , Girlies teen stars, a lot of New Wave - Human League -  and Hair Metal - Bon Jovi - groups) cashing in on their looks, this was capitalism/opportunism and therefore hidden political ideas. This might also translate into thefact that most musicians are afraid to appear right-wing , but is rock stardom as such with all its excesses not right wing?

Just a few thoughts and no political intentions meant.

Due to Peter's political inclination they had acouple of lyrics that talked about revolutions and social issues like The Knife and Get 'em Out by Friday, later without Gebriel they released One for the Vine (Even when I read on another forum that this last song is about Moses, something I don't believe).

But they had the good taste to tell fiction stories and not actual themes like other do, using music as a political instrument.

Iván

John Gargo wrote: As a conservative (well, more closely to libertarian these days) myself, I put very little importance on political lyrics in songs.  If I did that, I wouldn't listen to very much anything...

 Alright so I'm not the only libertarian here!

I think Rush is a good example of a more conservative rock group. Peart's interest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism in the 70s definitely steered the band in that direction, and many political and philosophically related themes show up in songs like "Something for Nothing", "Freewill", "Cinderella Man", and of course "2112". Not that anything Peart has written for the band has been as outwardly political as what Waters was writing for Pink Floyd, but it's there in a subtle way.

Gotta love those Neil Peart lyrics!!!

Live for yourself -- there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more

"If your not leftish in your twenties, you have no hart;

if you still leftish in your fourties, yo have no brain"

Something like that was wrote by Churchill, what do you thing about that statement?

(OK, Churchill ain't prog, I know, I know...)

There's actually quite a strong thread of left wing/anarchist thinking in a lot of the original prog acts, although very few were explicit about it. Certainly prog's tory boys kept their odious views very much to themselves in the 70s, although they started to come out in the 80s during the cultural devastation of the Thatcher/Reagan years.

This is slightly odd, given that the majority of prog fans are small 'c' conservatives at heart, as can be seen from many of the posts on this forum. 

Syzygy wrote: There's actually quite a strong thread of left wing/anarchist thinking in a lot of the original prog acts, although very few were explicit about it. Certainly prog's tory boys kept their odious views very much to themselves in the 70s, although they started to come out in the 80s during the cultural devastation of the Thatcher/Reagan years. This is slightly odd, given that the majority of prog fans are small 'c' conservatives at heart, as can be seen from many of the posts on this forum.

I guess you would have to understand the world at the time the prog bands were writing songs or leading up to it.  The counterculture very much influenced prog especially the anti war outcry in both Europe and The United States.

John Gargo wrote: Gotta love those Neil Peart lyrics!!! Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more

Well done John,21 yr old and already a cynical bastard.

What about Peart's lyrics in Territories:

The whole wide world
An endless universe
Yet we keep looking through
The eyeglass in reverse
Don't feed the people
But we feed the machines
Can't really feel
What international means

Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled

libertine or selfish?

Reed Lover wrote: Well done John,21 yr old and already a cynical bastard.

Yeah, well where one sees cynicism, someone else sees realism.  Personally, I find leftist politics a bit too idealistic for my tastes... I just don't find it feasible.  Perhaps if the world was a perfect place, it could work, but I don't see things that way.

I'm for politics of accountability and self-reliance, although I'm sure that makes me a fascist to some... 

Anyway, politics is too divisive a topic...  at least we can find common ground in good music, which is what we should be really focusing on.  Still, this thread so far has been pretty civil and interesting... 

John, by the time you get to my age the current Neo Conservative Free Market heterodoxy that has been wrongly identified as 'triumphant' will be seen as a blinkered, short sighted and fundamentally idiotic policy that makes about as much sense as Soviet Communism, and has been almost as destructive.

I never been left oriented, but not for lack of heart, but because in a country where you see what a left terrorist group as Shinning Path does to 50,000 innocent and most of them extreamely poor people you can't accept that and they create a reaction against the system.

I was once interviewed in the University when I won an election (I was in politics) and a guy from a leftist  panflet told me the first part of the quote, he said

"If you are not a communist in your teens then you have no heart. How old are you? I was 19. A lot of people laughed, but I had already read the quote and answered him the second part, If you're still a communist at your fourty's then you have no brain. I think you're 42 or 43, am I right?

The guy lost the temper, called me facist and wrote I had insulted him. One of thereasons why I don't like the press people.

Iván

Reed Lover wrote: John Gargo wrote: Gotta love those Neil Peart lyrics!!! Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more Well done John,21 yr old and already a cynical bastard. What about Peart's lyrics in Territories: The whole wide world An endless universe Yet we keep looking through The eyeglass in reverse Don't feed the people But we feed the machines Can't really feel What international means Better the pride that resides In a citizen of the world Than the pride that divides When a colourful rag is unfurled libertine or selfish?

I guess 'Anthem' was inspired by Ayn Rands book. Her philosophy on life - Objectivism - was quite selfish on the surface. There seemed little room for charity and benevolence. It seems to centre around self achievment and putting your own happiness at the core of your motivation for living. But I dont believe it to be a 'right wing' idea. There is nothing in her ideas about NOT respecting the happiness or well being of others.

http://www.aynrand.org - www.aynrand.org

Reed, this is more a response to John Cargo..

Blacksword wrote: Reed Lover wrote: John Gargo wrote: Gotta love those Neil Peart lyrics!!! Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more Well done John,21 yr old and already a cynical bastard. What about Peart's lyrics in Territories: The whole wide world An endless universe Yet we keep looking through The eyeglass in reverse Don't feed the people But we feed the machines Can't really feel What international means Better the pride that resides In a citizen of the world Than the pride that divides When a colourful rag is unfurled libertine or selfish? I guess 'Anthem' was inspired by Ayn Rands book. Her philosophy on life - Objectivism - was quite selfish on the surface. There seemed little room for charity and benevolence. It seems to centre around self achievment and putting your own happiness at the core of your motivation for living. But I dont believe it to be a 'right wing' idea. There is nothing in her ideas about NOT respecting the happiness or well being of others. http://www.aynrand.org - www.aynrand.org Reed, this is more a response to John Cargo..

Hey, I'm not in fighting mood tonight!

John Gargo wrote: I guess 'Anthem' was inspired by Ayn Rands book. Her philosophy on life - Objectivism - was quite selfish on the surface. There seemed little room for charity and benevolence. It seems to centre around self achievment and putting your own happiness at the core of your motivation for living. But I dont believe it to be a 'right wing' idea. There is nothing in her ideas about NOT respecting the happiness or well being of others. http://www.aynrand.org - www.aynrand.org Reed, this is more a response to John Cargo..

Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' fused a misreading of Nietzsche (similar to that which inspired the 3rd Reich) with some of Adam Smith's less workable notions, all delivered via a prose style which makes 'The Da Vinci Code' read like Joseph Conrad. But apart from that, and making Mussolini look like a bleeding heart liberal, I'd recommend her work to anyone.

Syzygy wrote: John Gargo wrote: I guess 'Anthem' was inspired by Ayn Rands book. Her philosophy on life - Objectivism - was quite selfish on the surface. There seemed little room for charity and benevolence. It seems to centre around self achievment and putting your own happiness at the core of your motivation for living. But I dont believe it to be a 'right wing' idea. There is nothing in her ideas about NOT respecting the happiness or well being of others. http://www.aynrand.org - www.aynrand.org Reed, this is more a response to John Cargo.. Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' fused a misreading of Nietzsche (similar to that which inspired the 3rd Reich) with some of Adam Smith's less workable notions, all delivered via a prose style which makes 'The Da Vinci Code' read like Joseph Conrad. But apart from that, and making Mussolini look like a bleeding heart liberal, I'd recommend her work to anyone.

Ps...Birmingham

Once again Reed, your mastery of the subtleties of debate and your flawless command of symbolic logic have undermined my most carefully reasoned arguments

smug manc git

Syzygy wrote: Once again Reed, your mastery of the subtleties of debate and your flawless command of symbolic logic have undermined my most carefully reasoned arguments   smug manc git

that's me!!!!!

Anyway, back on my soap box - Ayn Rand belongs in the same circle of Hell as white supremacists, MENSA, the British National Party, Jean Marie Le Pen, Pol Pot, UKIP, Uncle Joe Stalin, Eugene Terreblanche, Mao Tse Tung, Oswald Mosely and Idi Amin (to name but a few).

Approach her alleged ideas with extreme caution.

mirco wrote: "If your not leftish in your twenties, you have no hart; if you still leftish in your fourties, yo have no brain" Something like that was wrote by Churchill, what do you thing about that statement? (OK, Churchill ain't prog, I know, I know...)

Oh sh*t, I'm completely brainless!!!

It appeals to the young middle class kiddies, Sausages.I dont think i could find myself ever empathising with someone who talks of "leftist" politics as being idealist.The kid is American so obviously doesnt realise that the rest of the world is re-embracing socialism as an alternative to f**king everyone with a low income right up the ass-without lubricant.

Typical of a scouser to be running scared of MENSA.Maybe the whole city could be allowed a combined score-could get you into treble figures...

nacho wrote: [QUOTE=mirco] "If your not leftish in your twenties, you have no hart; if you still leftish in your fourties, yo have no brain" Something like that was wrote by Churchill, what do you thing about that statement?

He'd probably drunk about 2 bottles of brandy when he said that. Presumably this was the same Churchill who was a keen supporter of eugenics and sent in armed troops to deal with striking Welsh miners. Great wartime leader yes; source of inifinite enlightenment and wisdom no.

Reed Lover wrote: It appeals to the young middle class kiddies, Sausages.I dont think i could find myself ever empathising with someone who talks of "leftist" politics as being idealist.The kid is American so obviously doesnt realise that the rest of the world is re-embracing socialism as an alternative to f**king everyone with a low income right up the ass-without lubricant. Typical of a scouser to be running scared of MENSA.Maybe the whole city could be allowed a combined score-could get you into treble figures...

Read The Mismeasure of Man - Stephen Jay Gould.

The only thing IQ tests measure is the ability to pass IQ tests.

Personally, I'm a paid up member of DENSA and I'm proud of it! And Manchester wouldn't even get into double figures.

Sweetnighter wrote: . So yes, Rand values human relationships and sees good in friends helping friends, she just doesn't see the rationality behind a decent person walking out into the ghetto to give what he/she rightfully earned to some mumbling beggar that he/she doesn't care about in the slightest. This makes sense. We help people who we care about, and we don't help people who play no role in our lives. Now honestly, what is so hellish about that? Despite what others may think or like to think, she doesn't support a business owner who hooks up with the government so he can employ thousands of people at starving wages legally.

Two points here:

1. What makes you think you can spout that offensive nonesense in public? So you only help people you know?? What kind of insensitive, inhumane bollocks is that.What if the boot was on the other foot and America became an arid desert and hadnt enough food to sustain itself.Would you still think that way? People only matter if you know them? You need to take a good look at yourself in the mirror lad.

2.You refer to a beggar as not being "decent" (by inferrence). You are the one who isnt decent if you think that!

Shame!

 You disgust me. You trot this crap off as if it were all hypothetical, something that only exists in a book.People are out there sleeping rough, in the cold and you think they should be left to rot?? Well done. When did you join the Inhuman Race?

Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: . So yes, Rand values human relationships and sees good in friends helping friends, she just doesn't see the rationality behind a decent person walking out into the ghetto to give what he/she rightfully earned to some mumbling beggar that he/she doesn't care about in the slightest. This makes sense. We help people who we care about, and we don't help people who play no role in our lives. Now honestly, what is so hellish about that? Despite what others may think or like to think, she doesn't support a business owner who hooks up with the government so he can employ thousands of people at starving wages legally. Two points here: 1. What makes you think you can spout that offensive nonesense in public? So you only help people you know?? What kind of insensitive, inhumane bollocks is that.What if the boot was on the other foot and America became an arid desert and hadnt enough food to sustain itself.Would you still think that way? People only matter if you know them? You need to take a good look at yourself in the mirror lad. 2.You refer to a beggar as not being "decent" (by inferrence). You are the one who isnt decent if you think that! Shame!  You disgust me. You trot this crap off as if it were all hypothetical, something that only exists in a book.People are out there sleeping rough, in the cold and you think they should be left to rot?? Well done. When did you join the Inhuman Race?

When I had to take my girlfriend to the emergency ward at the hospital recently (nothing serious thank god) but we did have Aqualung in the bed next to us!

Seriously:

Reed has a good point.  No matter what faith, culture or nation we come from we are all each others reponsibility.  We could all be the unfortunate very quickly.

John Gargo wrote: Reed Lover wrote: The kid is American so obviously doesnt realise that the rest of the world is re-embracing socialism as an alternative to f**king everyone with a low income right up the ass-without lubricant. If this is me you're talking to, I'd like to correct you.  I'm actually Greek, but I happen to live in America.  Also, the Greek socialist party lost it's first election in a long time in Greece last year, so not every country is re-embracing your crazy (and I mean that in the nicest way  ) socialist ideals...

If you'd take your blinkers off for a second you would realise I was addressing Sweetnighter!

These are not my crazy socialist ideals they happen to be the ideals of my country and much of Europe. Britain has the most bouyant economy in the world at the moment-with a Socialist government.It really sticks in my craw when some under-educated, over-ambitious, money -obsessed young toad like you knocks socialism.What you are actually saying is f**k everyone else.And i mean that in the nicest way-not.

Here's an idea-f**k off back to Greece, before that sh*t hole of a country (USA) f**ks up your mind totally.Do you know how ridiculous writing:"Also, the Greek socialist party lost it's first election in a long time in Greece last year, so not every country is re-embracing your crazy (and I mean that in the nicest way  ) socialist ideals..." makes you sound.Talk about the exception proves the rule!

Whats greek for numb f**ker?

Reed Lover wrote: [QUOTE=John Gargo][QUOTE=Reed Lover] Here's an idea-f**k off back to Greece, before that sh*t hole of a country (USA) f**ks up your mind totally.Do you know how ridiculous writing:"Also, the Greek socialist party lost it's first election in a long time in Greece last year, so not every country is re-embracing your crazy (and I mean that in the nicest way  ) socialist ideals..." makes you sound.Talk about the exception proves the rule! Whats greek for numb f**ker?

Gee Reed why don't you say what you really feel.

Reed Lover wrote: These are not my crazy socialist ideals they happen to be the ideals of my country and much of Europe. Britain has the most bouyant economy in the world at the moment-with a Socialist government.It really sticks in my craw when some under-educated, over-ambitious, money -obsessed young toad like you knocks socialism.What you are actually saying is f**k everyone else.And i mean that in the nicest way-not. Here's an idea-f**k off back to Greece, before that sh*t hole of a country (USA) f**ks up your mind totally.Do you know how ridiculous writing:"Also, the Greek socialist party lost it's first election in a long time in Greece last year, so not every country is re-embracing your crazy (and I mean that in the nicest way  ) socialist ideals..." makes you sound.Talk about the exception proves the rule! Whats greek for numb f**ker?

Why this Reed Lover fellow is QUITE unpleasant.  I'll humor him though...

Under-educated, over-ambitious, money-obsessed young toad?   I wish you could see me right now because I'm laughing my ASS off.  You seem to be so sure of socialism and yet you get so worked up when someone on a message board starts criticising it?  LIGHTEN UP.  I'm not saying "f**k (can we not curse here?) everyone else."  Things aren't that black and white...  not all of England subscribes to socialism.  And I'm not cursing off those that do... I'm just saying that I personally believe that it's a misguided political philosophy.  Obviously, you're a bit insecure about your own beliefs if you allow yourself to fly off the handle that easily.

Also, do you know how ridiculous you sound when you attempt to correct someone on something that was already correct to begin with?  It makes you look pretty silly.  Look at what I wrote again.  NOT EVERY COUNTRY IS RE-EMBRACING.  Then you say talking about the exception proves the rule?!?!?  Ummmm... no, it doesn't.  Just because something is the dominant paradigm does not justify it.  And you call me uneducated?

Congratulations... you have succeeded in making yourself look foolish... 

Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: . So yes, Rand values human relationships and sees good in friends helping friends, she just doesn't see the rationality behind a decent person walking out into the ghetto to give what he/she rightfully earned to some mumbling beggar that he/she doesn't care about in the slightest. This makes sense. We help people who we care about, and we don't help people who play no role in our lives. Now honestly, what is so hellish about that? Despite what others may think or like to think, she doesn't support a business owner who hooks up with the government so he can employ thousands of people at starving wages legally. Two points here: 1. What makes you think you can spout that offensive nonesense in public? So you only help people you know?? What kind of insensitive, inhumane bollocks is that.What if the boot was on the other foot and America became an arid desert and hadnt enough food to sustain itself.Would you still think that way? People only matter if you know them? You need to take a good look at yourself in the mirror lad. 2.You refer to a beggar as not being "decent" (by inferrence). You are the one who isnt decent if you think that! Shame!  You disgust me. You trot this crap off as if it were all hypothetical, something that only exists in a book.People are out there sleeping rough, in the cold and you think they should be left to rot?? Well done. When did you join the Inhuman Race?   What have I said thats offensive? Regarding the "people only matter if you know them", yes, I stand by that position. The people I know in my life matter to me! Those I don't know don't matter. How could they? I don't know who they are, what kind of people they are, what they think, how they look, etc etc etc. For all it matters they don't exist. Now that doesn't mean that I'm not sympathetic to suffering or hardship! I gave $20 to the tsunami relief effort. I heard this horrible story on the radio... this woman lost her entire family in the tsunami, and when some men came to her aid from a charitable organization, they raped her. I couldn't believe it... so I send some money overseas. Will I ever see if it does anything? No. Has my life changed as a result of sending the $20? No. I hope that it changed somebody else's life, but I guess I'll never know. Helping those close to you who are in need is much more fulfilling. Can you deny that? In my example with the beggar I had no intention of having him being depicted as indecent. He could be a nice human being... I was trying to make a different point. Yes, I realize there are a lot of poor people out there, but welcome to reality people. Sitting behind our computers in the comfort of western society, we have it pretty good, and we're very lucky. Others, on the other hand, don't. But what are you going to do? No superethical power is going to take control and start redistributing wealth. As ideal as that may be for some, it just won't happen. Just. Won't. Happen. The best we can do is rely on the efforts of people who voluntarity go out and help those in need and give the poor the political freedoms necessary to rise up the economic ladder. We can only show them the door... we can't push them through it. And as history has shown, simply showing them the door would be a feat in itself. Bettering society truly starts on the personal level... thats all anybody can do.

So they rise up the economical ladder.What happens in 100 yrs time when capitalism demands there has to be winners and losers? What if the so-called third world nations are top of the ladder and America is slipping down?When the jobs dry up, who is going to push you through the door?Just because a system is the "status quo" does not make it right or just.Dont you realise that the billionaire illuminati depend on you buying into their system. Once you start to ask questions you put their lifestyle in jeopardy.You are being conned, that is what the right wing parties always do. They convince no-marks like you to vote for them.You with your average lifestyle voting to maintain and guarantee the lifestyles of the very, very rich.You are sustaining a system that promotes "privelage". Privelage = inequality, and not just financial equality.We are talking about something far more disgusting.A systen that says "I am better than you because I have more money" If you dont see the problem in that then you are stupid.

So tell me. There are people starving to death at this very moment.How can it be right for one individual to have personal assets 100's of thousands times more than he could ever use?I suppose i am to accept this am i? I am not talking about Orwellian Nightmare senarios here. I acknowledge that people are entitled to be rewarded for success and achievement. I dont believe in robbing the well off to pay the poor. What i do say is that how can a system be right when a few people have so much money they cant even count it? And others to have none at all through no fault of their own.
Before you go on about Animal Farm and The Trees, tell me;how does Paris Hilton fit into the scheme of things. Justify her lifestyle to me..if you can.That is what you are promoting with your right wing beliefs.And trust me, she is just the tip of the iceberg.

Cygnus X-2 wrote: When did this place turn into a political forum? Personally, I don't really care what one person's ideals are, so nobody should get angry. Remeber, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Everyone should take a breather and read this a few times. 

John Gargo wrote: Reed Lover wrote: These are not my crazy socialist ideals they happen to be the ideals of my country and much of Europe. Britain has the most bouyant economy in the world at the moment-with a Socialist government.It really sticks in my craw when some under-educated, over-ambitious, money -obsessed young toad like you knocks socialism.What you are actually saying is f**k everyone else.And i mean that in the nicest way-not. Here's an idea-f**k off back to Greece, before that sh*t hole of a country (USA) f**ks up your mind totally.Do you know how ridiculous writing:"Also, the Greek socialist party lost it's first election in a long time in Greece last year, so not every country is re-embracing your crazy (and I mean that in the nicest way  ) socialist ideals..." makes you sound.Talk about the exception proves the rule! Whats greek for numb f**ker? Why this Reed Lover fellow is QUITE unpleasant.  I'll humor him though... Under-educated, over-ambitious, money-obsessed young toad?   I wish you could see me right now because I'm laughing my ASS off.  You seem to be so sure of socialism and yet you get so worked up when someone on a message board starts criticising it?  LIGHTEN UP.  I'm not saying "f**k (can we not curse here?) everyone else."  Things aren't that black and white...  not all of England subscribes to socialism.  And I'm not cursing off those that do... I'm just saying that I personally believe that it's a misguided political philosophy.  Obviously, you're a bit insecure about your own beliefs if you allow yourself to fly off the handle that easily. Also, do you know how ridiculous you sound when you attempt to correct someone on something that was already correct to begin with?  It makes you look pretty silly.  Look at what I wrote again.  NOT EVERY COUNTRY IS RE-EMBRACING.  Then you say talking about the exception proves the rule?!?!?  Ummmm... no, it doesn't.  Just because something is the dominant paradigm does not justify it.  And you call me uneducated? Congratulations... you have succeeded in making yourself look foolish...

You really think so

Lighten up????????????????????

Cave canem!

John Gargo wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: When did this place turn into a political forum? Personally, I don't really care what one person's ideals are, so nobody should get angry. Remeber, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone should take a breather and read this a few times.

You are quite new to this arent you!

Reed Lover wrote: You are quite new to this arent you!

Actually, I'm quite used to having insults hurled at me on forums for talking politics...  I just wanted to stop before I say something that alienates half the forum... 

John Gargo wrote: Reed Lover wrote: You are quite new to this arent you! Actually, I'm quite used to having insults hurled at me on forums for talking politics...  I just wanted to stop before I say something that alienates half the forum...

We're already mostly alien on this forum.Surely you realise that a Prog Rock forum is the last refuge of the socially inadequate,socially unacceptable and terminally arrogant.

But enough about me.

I'm just off to set about Karnevil, now.

Reed Lover:

Yes, you may be right: a prog rock forum may be the "last refuge of the socially inadequate, socially unacceptable and terminally arrogant."

However, since none of those have to do with prog - nor does a political discussion - this socially inadequate, socially unacceptable and terminally arrogant discussion is being moved to "discussions not related to music."

However, don't let that stop all of you.  Keep on truckin'...

Peace.

Reed Lover wrote: John Gargo wrote: Reed Lover wrote: You are quite new to this arent you! Actually, I'm quite used to having insults hurled at me on forums for talking politics...  I just wanted to stop before I say something that alienates half the forum...  We're already mostly alien on this forum.Surely you realise that a Prog Rock forum is the last refuge of the socially inadequate,socially unacceptable and terminally arrogant.

We are all kinda  y!

Reed Lover wrote:

tell me;how does Paris Hilton fit into the scheme of things. Justify her lifestyle to me..if you can.That is what you are promoting with your right wing beliefs.And trust me, she is just the tip of the iceberg.

Reed I was on your side in the part of social sensibility, but when people like you with culture believes in stereotypes something is going wrong.

You say people is starving, I know it, I see them daily, not only in Lima where things more or less work, but in the poorest cities of my country. I'm right oriented and would cut my hand before voting for a communist or socialist, and I'm very far from being rich, I have to work 10 hours a day to barely survive but  I give a good part of my time for free defense of some people who really need it and only charge them the expenses.

How many socialists do this? They sit comfortable in the best cafe's of Lima talking about the Revolution, but they are the first one to accept the US$ 10,000 that they receive as Congressmen when many people live with less than US$ 100 a month, and this same people voted against the reduction of salaries for the Congress.

I seen what socialist Governments did to my country, one of the more wealthy of Latin America before 1968 when a Socialist took the power by the force, the corruption was worst than ever, the farms were given to the workers who killed all the animals and ate all the resources in 6 months and then all were broken.

The so called abusive big companies left our country and 1'000,000 Peruvians lost their jobs, people who were poor but had a decent income turned to starving beggars thanks to the Socialist Government that took the power to protect them.

The rich people became richer, because with the prohibition of imported things they made a fortune forcing Peruvians to buy their third class products at three times the xcost of the same imported item, just because there was no free market.

Perú was the first nation in the world in fish derivate products, the socialist government let everybody fish anything in any moment of the year and in less than a decade the resources didn't existed anymore.

I do believe Paris Hilton is a stupid that has sh!t in her head and it's unfair that a woman who never had to work in her life gets a lot of chances, but there are also rich people who have broke their a$$es working all their life and they deserve what they have.

If Socialism is so perfect why millions of Cubans risk their lives in rafts trying to leave the paradise? Why so many people died trying to cross the Berlin wall to the abusive capitalist world instead of trying to enter to the Socialist heaven?

Nothing in life is black or white, not all the Socialists are better humans that worry for the poor and not all the right wingers are stupid banal a$$hooles that live to support Paris Hilton, there are tones of Gray.

Iván

When I had to take my girlfriend to the emergency ward at the hospital recently (nothing serious thank god) but we did have Aqualung in the bed next to us!

[/QUOTE]

When was I in a bed next to you?

Did this thread spiral out of control after I opened the Ayn Rand can of worms?? It was only two pages long last night when I logged of.

Good old politics. Reed may be a little outspoken but I have to agree with him on most things, apart from Briatin having a socialist government. When did that happen?? Last thing I knew we had a Conservative government dressed up in Labour entrails. Most people in Britain wouldn't subscribe to socialism because most people wouldn't even know what it is.

Reed Lover wrote: This is why we shouldnt share our banale beliefs on a music forum, specially not in the wrong section.

...

Hey guys, I love a flame war as much as the next person-but outspoken?

Consider this:

In Britain and America who backs the right-wing Conservative/Republican parties the most vocally and financially? Let me see.....big business and the very rich.

Why?

If you asked 1000 millionaires which party they supported, which would come out on top (probably about 75%-25%)?
Does that mean that the very rich have received some special wisdom that says "this system is best" or does it mean that they support the party who advocates the lowest taxes.

Very rich people do not rely on services to the same extent as poorer people, so they dont see why their money (in the form of taxation) should be used for something they dont need.

Going back to Paris Hilton-Ivan there are millions of people like her out there.They flounce around with daddy's or hubby's money,which they have done zilch to earn or deserve,flaunting their wealth in a sickening, disgusting manner.Where do you think they get this arrogance from? In public, daddy might seem like a reasoned, articulate pragmatist. In private he despises the average Joe on the street, for not buying enough of his goods,or using enough of his services and causing him to pay high taxes (although never his fair share!).

The only way to maintain the status quo is to get gullible middle-income (and even some low income) to obsess about taxes.The biggest trick the monied elite ever pulled was convincing the ordinary working man that taxes are evil.

Big business has to answer to it's shareholders. In fact it's priority is to make money for these people. Now,I know that within the system the world at large works, companies need the shareholders' cash to pay for expansion etc-I understand basic economics.However, taxation necessarily reduces profits, therefore big business is duty-bound to support which ever major party supports lower taxation.

In the UK the Conservatives (the right wing party) are continually attacking the Labour Party (Socialist-yes indeed  Blacksword) for public-spending.In fact it is the biggest issue between the two parties outside of taxation-although, obviously the two are linked.

Why?

Because public-spending necessitates higher taxation.Now I ask you, what is this money being spent on? The National health Service,Social Security (yesI know, it breeds loafers and scroungers, you are going to say) Education etc etc. This money is NOT being wasted no matter what you think, compared to what else money is used for in this world.

And even if there was a lot of waste and inneficiency, I know where my sentiments lie.

An extra hospital bed or a new Prada handbag for Paris-c'mon guys!

Emperor wrote: Alucard wrote: In the beginning I was just astonished that the Italian group Area didn't showed so often in the threads about italian Prog. Area were well known in the 70's for their music but mainly for their political (leftwing) engagement. They used to play the international during their concerts and used their concerts as their music as a political tool. Robert Wyatt was openly engaged for the communist party, as Billy Brag. Zappa was very engaged in Politics. Prog is often connected with Fairy Tales or, so I thought it could be interesting having a discussion about the "political" aspects of Prog and/ or engagements.    Frankly speaking, it doesen't matter to me what political system adore musicians in case they play music good  John Lennon, Manfred Mann, Frank Zappa, Peter Gabriel had their moments of political influence, though it all was fragmentary and not for a long time for them...

Well I think the music reflects in a way your political ideas either in the lyrics or by political action, depending on your defintion of politics. A group who refuses to sign to a major is doing a political relevant action, if they are conscious that they are never hitting big money. One of the dilemmas at the end of the 70s was that a lot of the groups were just more interested in staredom than in music or became trapped by the system. Even Zappa adapted himself to the public, but then it is a big difference to fullfil the needs of the market and the "needs" of the public.After Zappas big hussle with WB he created with his wife his own company selling in the beginning only by mailorder, but gaining soon control over his own production means in the classical sense. Today the big corporates are controling the music market to an extend that has IMHO never been reached. So doing music or trying to produce music that is not corresponding to the market criterias is a political action. So Prog is one of the last bastions of "Free Music" and therefore politic.

Reed Lover wrote: Hey guys, I love a flame war as much as the next person-but outspoken? Consider this: In Britain and America who backs the right-wing Conservative/Republican parties the most vocally and financially? Let me see.....big business and the very rich. Why? If you asked 1000 millionaires which party they supported, which would come out on top (probably about 75%-25%)? Does that mean that the very rich have received some special wisdom that says "this system is best" or does it mean that they support the party who advocates the lowest taxes. Very rich people do not rely on services to the same extent as poorer people, so they dont see why their money (in the form of taxation) should be used for something they dont need. Going back to Paris Hilton-Ivan there are millions of people like her out there.They flounce around with daddy's or hubby's money,which they have done zilch to earn or deserve,flaunting their wealth in a sickening, disgusting manner.Where do you think they get this arrogance from? In public, daddy might seem like a reasoned, articulate pragmatist. In private he despises the average Joe on the street, for not buying enough of his goods,or using enough of his services and causing him to pay high taxes (although never his fair share!). The only way to maintain the status quo is to get gullible middle-income (and even some low income) to obsess about taxes.The biggest trick the monied elite ever pulled was convincing the ordinary working man that taxes are evil. Big business has to answer to it's shareholders. In fact it's priority is to make money for these people. Now,I know that within the system the world at large works, companies need the shareholders' cash to pay for expansion etc-I understand basic economics.However, taxation necessarily reduces profits, therefore big business is duty-bound to support which ever major party supports lower taxation. In the UK the Conservatives (the right wing party) are continually attacking the Labour Party (Socialist-yes indeed  Blacksword) for public-spending.In fact it is the biggest issue between the two parties outside of taxation-although, obviously the two are linked. Why? Because public-spending necessitates higher taxation.Now I ask you, what is this money being spent on? The National health Service,Social Security (yesI know, it breeds loafers and scroungers, you are going to say) Education etc etc. This money is NOT being wasted no matter what you think, compared to what else money is used for in this world. And even if there was a lot of waste and inneficiency, I know where my sentiments lie. An extra hospital bed or a new Prada handbag for Paris-c'mon guys!

Reed: Good post!

You are right when you say the working classes have been led to believe that taxation is evil, but the problems run deeper than that IMO. In British politics we are in a similar position to the US, whereby you essentially have two conservative parties to vote for, and of course we have a comedy communist party in third place who no one really notices.

I question Labours socialist credentials. Believe me I'm no Tory!! But when the Labour party abolished Clause 4 of their constitution, which commited the party to public ownership of servies, THAT was the beginning of the death of Socialism in this country. Ok, they had to deal with the Tories legacy, but at the end of the day they are either a Labour Party or a Conservative Party. In the 21st century politcal climate they are Conservative. They won the 1997 election by appealing to disenchanted Tory voters in middle England. They have held onto that power and will continue to do so for a third term by appealing to them once again. They have betrayed many of their traditional votebase, to the point that many of them are now either done with politics completly - a situation that will always benefit government!! -  or who have fled to the fringes in protest, voting for such idiotic set ups as the BNP or UKIP.

Our home secretary - or should I say ex HS - brought in some of the most right wing legislation ever passed; worse than anything even Howard brought in when he was Majors HS!! Big business is so in bed with Labour you could be forgiven for thinking Thatcher was pulling the strings. I'm sure its no irony that Thatcher and Blair seem to have great admiration for each other.

I think the true face of politics is rearing its head in the 21st century. Politcs is power. Nothing more. At the end of the day, from here on, it will make no actual difference who is in power, they are all members of the same club.

Blacksword   [/QUOTE wrote: Reed: Good post! You are right when you say the working classes have been led to believe that taxation is evil, but the problems run deeper than that IMO. In British politics we are in a similar position to the US, whereby you essentially have two conservative parties to vote for, and of course we have a comedy communist party in third place who no one really notices. I question Labours socialist credentials. Believe me I'm no Tory!! But when the Labour party abolished Clause 4 of their constitution, which commited the party to public ownership of servies, THAT was the beginning of the death of Socialism in this country. Ok, they had to deal with the Tories legacy, but at the end of the day they are either a Labour Party or a Conservative Party. In the 21st century politcal climate they are Conservative. They won the 1997 election by appealing to disenchanted Tory voters in middle England. They have held onto that power and will continue to do so for a third term by appealing to them once again. They have betrayed many of their traditional votebase, to the point that many of them are now either done with politics completly - a situation that will always benefit government!! -  or who have fled to the fringes in protest, voting for such idiotic set ups as the BNP or UKIP. Our home secretary - or should I say ex HS - brought in some of the most right wing legislation ever passed; worse than anything even Howard brought in when he was Majors HS!! Big business is so in bed with Labour you could be forgiven for thinking Thatcher was pulling the strings. I'm sure its no irony that Thatcher and Blair seem to have great admiration for each other. I think the true face of politics is rearing its head in the 21st century. Politcs is power. Nothing more. At the end of the day, from here on, it will make no actual difference who is in power, they are all members of the same club.

Reed: Good post!

You are right when you say the working classes have been led to believe that taxation is evil, but the problems run deeper than that IMO. In British politics we are in a similar position to the US, whereby you essentially have two conservative parties to vote for, and of course we have a comedy communist party in third place who no one really notices.

I question Labours socialist credentials. Believe me I'm no Tory!! But when the Labour party abolished Clause 4 of their constitution, which commited the party to public ownership of servies, THAT was the beginning of the death of Socialism in this country. Ok, they had to deal with the Tories legacy, but at the end of the day they are either a Labour Party or a Conservative Party. In the 21st century politcal climate they are Conservative. They won the 1997 election by appealing to disenchanted Tory voters in middle England. They have held onto that power and will continue to do so for a third term by appealing to them once again. They have betrayed many of their traditional votebase, to the point that many of them are now either done with politics completly - a situation that will always benefit government!! -  or who have fled to the fringes in protest, voting for such idiotic set ups as the BNP or UKIP.

Our home secretary - or should I say ex HS - brought in some of the most right wing legislation ever passed; worse than anything even Howard brought in when he was Majors HS!! Big business is so in bed with Labour you could be forgiven for thinking Thatcher was pulling the strings. I'm sure its no irony that Thatcher and Blair seem to have great admiration for each other.

I think the true face of politics is rearing its head in the 21st century. Politcs is power. Nothing more. At the end of the day, from here on, it will make no actual difference who is in power, they are all members of the same club.

[/QUOTE]

I understand what you say Blacksword about how right-wing the Labour Party is but my view on it is this:

Thatcherism was an evil that dragged the whole country far to the right. Labour could not get voted in because it seemed antiquated and irrelevant.Now,if you accept that Thatcherism was evil, and I do,then the first priority must be to cut out the cancer of that evil and ensure it never returns.Labour did that by making themselves electable to the masses.To me the priority was to keep the Tories out at all costs and a watered down Labour Party is a price worth paying.The big mistake that people make is that "they are all the same"- no they damn well aren't.If they were,Rupert Murdoch and his cronies would be backing Labour again-think about that.
To me the modern Labour Party is all about being an antedote to the rampant greed of the Tories. Socialism is what is in your heart, the way you perceive others and the decisions you make based on that perception.It is not about Communism as Ivan and others think, nor is it about who owns what. It is about how fairly people are treated, the conditions of their employment and the standard of living they enjoy.

Taxation can be absurd, see the situation in Perú:

Big Companies pay a lot of taxes and this seems fair, but let me tell you some effects in Volvo Perú where I worked until a year ago before they broke:

1.- Volvo pays almost 50% of their incomes to SUNAT (Our IRS).

2.- Volvo gave job to 1,000 Peruvians including me with 15 salaries a year (When the law only talks about 14) and the level was really high for Peru, my  salary was US$ 2,000,00 plus an average of $ 2,500 more in commissions for collection of debts. A mechanic earned even more than me, we all had the best medical insurance and high loans at very small rates to buy a house or a car plus free lunch and breakfast for all the employees (The company is very far so we can't go home) and those of us who wanted to eat better had to pay a very small plus (1 buck a day) to have restaurant service.

3.- Volvo has to sell a bus in $150,000 that reach 250,000 after taxes and $400,000 when sold in parts (Because the government adds tax to the fractioned payments, in other words if you have money to buy a bus cash, you pay less taxes than the poor guy that has to pay credit, being that this taxes  are payed by  the buyerrises the cost, it's a very high price.

4.- The Government allows ghost companies (Run by gypsies and Chinese) to bring used buses and sell the in 15,000, with tax exemption to small companies and almost no personnel, so their expenses are minimal, a small room and a deposit.

Other less serious companies put an office (a room) in frontier or Jungle zone and they get tax benefits, but this companies do all their activities in Lima, it's just a fraud. They don't give a single job in frontier or Jungle zone that is what the law pretended.

5.- People started to buy those buses, accidents raised in 300% (because there's no warrant in a used bus) and Volvo had to close leaving 950 Peruvians including me without a job, because they can't compete with not formal companies that don't pay taxes and have no employees except a secretary and 2 or 3 salesman twithout salary that live of the commissions.

6.- Volvo can't compete with his guys and against the Government who exploits them, because they say that few people pays taxes so they have to charge more to the honest ones who really pay, THIS IS ABSURD.

Now in the case of the worker:

1.- I received between $3,000 and $ 5,000 a month

2.- I have to pay my mortgage (About $ 700.00 a month), I also have to pay 18% of those payments as Sales Tax.

3.- The Government takes 21% of my gross incomes, then comes social security (Managed by a Chilean company) takes another 13.75%

4.- The Government takes 1% extra as a contribution for FONAVI (Low priced houses for workers), but being a professional I don't have the right to buy one of those houses. WHY SHOULD I PAY A DIRECT TAX FOR A BENEFIT THAT I'M NOT ENTITLED TO GET???????=?

5.- All the things I buy have to pay 18% of tax (IGV)

6.- Our Gasoline pays 60% of its value as tax, a gallon costs $3.50 (The highest price in the world)

7.- I have to pay annually 6% of tax for having a house (Even when it's not payed yet)

8.- Each time I deposit or take money from any Bank account and when I write a check or use a credit card I have to pay 1 X 1000 of each transaction to the Government

9.- If I buy a car I have to Pay the IGV (18%), which is higher, if I pay in parts because they charge it over the total price, so the richer people that can buy it cash, pay less tax.

10.- The cost of a passport according to an International Court rule, is $12.5 but we have to pay 75 bucks because the Government has decided that only rich people can travel, so they created a solidarity tax (Unconstitutional, because it's a limitation to the right of free transit).

I was lucky if I stayed with $1,500.00 after paying my mortgage, do you think this is fair for someone who has studied 6 years and works as a slave? I know we have to contribute with the needed people but I can do all the work and pay them their lives with more than 60% of my salary and live without a cent in savings?

So Reed not only rich people are against abusive taxation. One think is helping those who need another thing is to sacrifice most of my money to maintain people that don't want to work and live easily from our money.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Quote: Very rich people do not rely on services to the same extent as poorer people, so they don’t see why their money (in the form of taxation) should be used for something they don’t need. Taxation can be absurd, see the situation in Perú: Big Companies pay a lot of taxes and this seems fair, but let me tell you some effects in Volvo Perú where I worked until a year ago before they broke: 1.- Volvo pays almost 50% of their incomes to SUNAT (Our IRS). 2.- Volvo gave job to 1,000 Peruvians including me with 15 salaries a year (When the law only talks about 14) and the level was really high for Peru, my  salary was US$ 2,000,00 plus an average of $ 2,500 more in commissions for collection of debts. A mechanic earned even more than me, we all had the best medical insurance and high loans at very small rates to buy a house or a car plus free lunch and breakfast for all the employees (The company is very far so we can't go home) and those of us who wanted to eat better had to pay a very small plus (1 buck a day) to have restaurant service. 3.- Volvo has to sell a bus in $150,000 that reach 250,000 after taxes and $400,000 when sold in parts (Because the government adds tax to the fractioned payments, in other words if you have money to buy a bus cash, you pay less taxes than the poor guy that has to pay credit, being that this taxes  are payed by  the buyerrises the cost, it's a very high price. 4.- The Government allows ghost companies (Run by gypsies and Chinese) to bring used buses and sell the in 15,000, with tax exemption to small companies and almost no personnel, so their expenses are minimal, a small room and a deposit. Other less serious companies put an office (a room) in frontier or Jungle zone and they get tax benefits, but this companies do all their activities in Lima, it's just a fraud. They don't give a single job in frontier or Jungle zone that is what the law pretended. 5.- People started to buy those buses, accidents raised in 300% (because there's no warrant in a used bus) and Volvo had to close leaving 950 Peruvians including me without a job, because they can't compete with not formal companies that don't pay taxes and have no employees except a secretary and 2 or 3 salesman twithout salary that live of the commissions. 6.- Volvo can't compete with his guys and against the Government who exploits them, because they say that few people pays taxes so they have to charge more to the honest ones who really pay, THIS IS ABSURD. Now in the case of the worker: 1.- I received between $3,000 and $ 5,000 a month 2.- I have to pay my mortgage (About $ 700.00 a month), I also have to pay 18% of those payments as Sales Tax. 3.- The Government takes 21% of my gross incomes, then comes social security (Managed by a Chilean company) takes another 13.75% 4.- The Government takes 1% extra as a contribution for FONAVI (Low priced houses for workers), but being a professional I don't have the right to buy one of those houses. WHY SHOULD I PAY A DIRECT TAX FOR A BENEFIT THAT I'M NOT ENTITLED TO GET???????=? 5.- All the things I buy have to pay 18% of tax (IGV) 6.- Our Gasoline pays 60% of its value as tax, a gallon costs $3.50 (The highest price in the world) 7.- I have to pay annually 6% of tax for having a house (Even when it's not payed yet) 8.- Each time I deposit or take money from any Bank account and when I write a check or use a credit card I have to pay 1 X 1000 of each transaction to the Government 9.- If I buy a car I have to Pay the IGV (18%), which is higher, if I pay in parts because they charge it over the total price, so the richer people that can buy it cash, pay less tax. 10.- The cost of a passport according to an International Court rule, is $12.5 but we have to pay 75 bucks because the Government has decided that only rich people can travel, so they created a solidarity tax (Unconstitutional, because it's a limitation to the right of free transit). 11.- I have a full coverage ibnsurance against all risks for my car, but the Government forces me to buy another insurance to cover third parts, just because they needed to help some power groups from banks and insurance companies (US$ 50.00 a year). I was lucky if I stayed with $1,500.00 after paying my mortgage, do you think this is fair for someone who has studied 6 years and works as a slave? I know we have to contribute with the needed people but I can do all the work and pay them their lives with more than 60% of my salary and live without a cent in savings? So Reed not only rich people are against abusive taxation. One think is helping those who need another thing is to sacrifice most of my money to maintain people that don't want to work and live easily from our money. Iván

This is all well and good Ivan, but the wasteful and probably corrupt actions of a government dont make a political philosophy wrong.I think you are confusing British socialism with Communism, although I may be wrong.Everyone in the world is against abusive taxation as they are against all excesses of government.

And, yes I do think it is fair to contribute to something you cant use yourself as long as that thing is doing some good for others less  fortunate than yourself.However, i am against the over-taxation of the average working man-I think rich people should pay more tax, it should be based on ability to pay.If I was very rich-and I'm not,I wouldnt enjoy paying high taxes-but It wouldnt bother me excessively.Obviously I cant prove this, but you will just have to trust my integrity.

Of course not confusing Socialism and Communism, remember my career is called Laws and Political Sciences, so we study most of the systems.

But my point is that a bland socialism may work in some already rich countries or in those that need a strong central Government like Israel, but in already poor countries it only brings more problems and scares the international investor who's the one that's going to give jobs.

Iván

Not quite true Ivan. Especially in poor countries a socialist or even communistic system can provide a solid base for improving the life standart of the common man.

It has never been done because the leaders are generally corrupt, and see possibilities to improve their own whealth, and keeping the people oppressed is the best way to ensure personal safety, and keeping them in power. again I state that all opressive regimes can't be communistic. A true socialist/communist (also true for Christian, and most other religions) will not be oppressive, it's against everything they stand for. 

Woo hoo, this is a thread you can sink your teeth into!

Before all you flag wavers for free market capitalism get too carried away, bear this in mind. Free market capitalism works exclusively in favour of the wealthy. The wealthy are an elite group whose loyalties know few nationalistic, ethnic, ideological or other boundaries - just look at the cosy chumminess of the Bush and Bin Laden dynasties. This elite group does not nclude you. It never will. In Ayn Rand's perfect world, you'd be one of those worthless beggars in the ghetto who have no one to look out for them or speak up for them, and I'd be next to you saying 'I told you so'.

Direct taxation is not evil, it's just been portrayed as such in a way that makes Goebbel's big lies look like the fibs of primary school children. Every time you vote for a party that promises to reduce taxes, you vote to increase the gap between rich and poor, which means between them and you. Every time the bully punches you in the face (assuring you it's for your own good) you say 'Thank you kind sir, may I have another?'.

Economic inequality is a fact of life, but the true measure of a successful eonomy is not how many millionaires it has created but how few paupers exist under it.

Tuxon, you're talking from the comfortof the Netherklands about the situation of countries you know nothing about except by text books or maybe touristic visits.

Our countries can't survice without investors from other countries, and the word Socialism scares todeath those investors.

There have been Socialist regimes in Perú, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, etc and all had to give a step back because it doesn't work, true socialism is an utopic system, a dream within a dream.

Fidel Castro is the symbol of everything that's bad in Cuba, all the intellectuals of Cuba and Latin America saw him as a heroe, but after he imprissoned all those who didn't thought like him, they changed their minds. Peruvian Writter Mario Vargas Llosa wentto live the Revolution in Cuba, but after he saw the faillure it was he came back to Perú and founded an ultra Liberal Political Party.

Juan Velazco Alvarado (The socialist President of Perú) was a mess, but he was honest, not corrupt at all (His wife and some ministers becamecorrupt), he believed in Socialism, he gave the lands to the workers, but those workers weren't able to manage the farms in a productive way, they ate the resources in six months and destroyes what had worked perfectly for 150 years. He gave the newspapers to the workers, theylost all the sponsoring and he had to raise taxes to save the TV channels.

His perfect Socialism destroyed the fisghing industry, destroyed the big factories giving the management to the workers who weren't able to do that job, when a machine stopped to work, even because the mosr stupid and simple problem it was thrown away and with that many workers who oiperated those machines.

Perú had to start to import potatoes and sugar because the inefficient system destroyed our main natural product, As you know Potatoe ís native from Perú and sugar was one of our best products, and we had to buy them from Czecoeslovaquia, it was ridiculous.

There's not a single country in the world where Socialism really works for long periods, free market and Democracy are the only way, as Churchill said Democracy is a bad system, but works better than all the others.

Communism proved to be a faillure, they had to give astep back and free eastern countries in a terrible state, now thanks to the Communist system those countries are 50 years behind the rest of the world. So if real socialism and/or Communism really works, I don't know where.

Keep dreaming with the perfect socialist system, but man can't be changed, man is greedy it's his nature, everybody wants profit and almost everybody has a price (I don't, that's why I barely survive even though I'm a hell of a lawyer), so the perfect system won't work unless you change the nature of man, and that my friend is absolutely impossible.

You mention Chistianity and other Religions, but Christ  said, "There will be poor always".

Iván

Fair comment, Ivan, but please don't assume that a critique of a particular branch of capitalist ideology necessarily equates with a blanket approval of Soviet style socialism. Incompetent and corrupt governments are not limited to one ideology or another.

As for the failure of communism - it has only ever been imposed on a people via a violent revolution or a coup d'etat, and systems imposed in that way never succeed. If a communist system was freely chosen by the populace of a stable country, who knows how it would work? (before being declared part of the Axis of Evil and nuked to oblivion of course)

ivan_2068 wrote: Tuxon, you're talking from the comfortof the Netherlands about the situation of countries you know nothing about except by text books or maybe touristic visits. Luckily I live in a country that almost havent got poverty Our countries can't survice without investors from other countries, and the word Socialism scares todeath those investors. For obvious reasons major investors are scared about socialism, this means sharing of their wealth, but their not clever enough to make that an advantage, rich people have more money to spend than poor people, so by making poor countries richer, the market increases and more money can be made. I'm not against making profit, I just believe that if profits are more equally distributed amongst the people, the profit will be higher. There have been Socialist regimes in Perú, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, etc and all had to give a step back because it doesn't work, true socialism is an utopic system, a dream within a dream. I do not know about any socialist state, there never has been a such a state, the few attempts that were made, where seen as a threath to the western world and therefor boycotted and forced to war by America, South Africa or other western imperialistic forces. Fidel Castro is the symbol of everything that's bad in Cuba, all the intellectuals of Cuba and Latin America saw him as a heroe, but after he imprissoned all those who didn't thought like him, they changed their minds. Peruvian Writter Mario Vargas Llosa wentto live the Revolution in Cuba, but after he saw the faillure it was he came back to Perú and founded an ultra Liberal Political Party. I never thought of Cuba as a communistic state, freedom of choice, and the freedom to disagree with the leaders where not really encouraged, oppression is not a part of true communism. But Cuba has never got the chance to make it happen also, America isolated Cuba from the rest of the world, forcing them in the arms of the fascistic Sovjet Union. Juan Velazco Alvarado (The socialist President of Perú) was a mess, but he was honest, not corrupt at all (His wife and some ministers becamecorrupt), he believed in Socialism, he gave the lands to the workers, but those workers weren't able to manage the farms in a productive way, they ate the resources in six months and destroyes what had worked perfectly for 150 years. He gave the newspapers to the workers, theylost all the sponsoring and he had to raise taxes to save the TV channels. His perfect Socialism destroyed the fisghing industry, destroyed the big factories giving the management to the workers who weren't able to do that job, when a machine stopped to work, even because the mosr stupid and simple problem it was thrown away and with that many workers who oiperated those machines. Perfect socialism would incorporate the many differences among the workers, and utilise their potential to the fullest, some people are graet managers, others are good craftsman, everyone has some capacities that can be used to make the work better and easier for all. Perú had to start to import potatoes and sugar because the inefficient system destroyed our main natural product, As you know Potatoe ís native from Perú and sugar was one of our best products, and we had to buy them from Czecoeslovaquia, it was ridiculous. There's not a single country in the world where Socialism really works for long periods, free market and Democracy are the only way, as Churchill said Democracy is a bad system, but works better than all the others. Communism is not against Democracy, in fact democracy is the cornerstone for communist views, everyone has a say. Free market is not a problem also, I'm very much in favour of that. Communism proved to be a faillure, they had to give astep back and free eastern countries in a terrible state, now thanks to the Communist system those countries are 50 years behind the rest of the world. So if real socialism and/or Communism really works, I don't know where. Like I said before there hasn't been a true communistic state before, and it probably will never happen. The former Sovjet Union had a ruling class, there was no free speach, the poor where opressed, that's not communism, that was fascism. they just named it communism. Keep dreaming with the perfect socialist system, but man can't be changed, man is greedy it's his nature, everybody wants profit and almost everybody has a price (I don't, that's why I barely survive even though I'm a hell of a lawyer), so the perfect system won't work unless you change the nature of man, and that my friend is absolutely impossible. so true You mention Chistianity and other Religions, but Christ  said, "There will be poor always". Yes he did, but that's because we the people fail in our responsibilities towards God and our fellow men. After the verse, "There will always be poor people in the land," we find this: "Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (Deut. 15:11) Iván

I understand (a little) what your problem with so-called socialism is, but that isn't real socialism.

I will always be an Utopist, and I know it is Utopian to believe in the good in men, but I just do.

Sweetnighter wrote: If socialists/communists care so much about others why don't they get out there and lead by example and help people instead of clamoring for governments and their armies to steal money from those who have rightfully earned it?

How the heck do you know we dont?

Tell me Sweetsh*ter,how on earth does the government get money to run itself and the infrastructure of the country?
Leave it to big business? Oh yes, they have a great record when left to their own devices dont they? Environment,unemployment issues= profitability issues!

Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: If socialists/communists care so much about others why don't they get out there and lead by example and help people instead of clamoring for governments and their armies to steal money from those who have rightfully earned it? How the heck do you know we dont? I shall be more clear. The socialist movement revolves around pointing to the wealth of others and claiming it as their own, and sequentially clamoring for more powerful forces to take that wealth for them. I'm sure many socialists are active in their communities, and I commend them for that, but its more a criticism of the movement in general. Take Christians. Although I'm an atheist, I praise Christian activists for going out and doing the dirty work themselves rather than socialists who expect others to do it for them and then somehow call themselves morally superior human beings. This is just stream-of-concious nonesense. I dont know where this is coming from-it has no basis in fact in my experiences.Gross generalisation based on the premise: "what I think is what I know." I know it is not the same but do you remember saying Geddy Lee writes all Rush's music-well this is another of your fanciful,under-researched, verbal technicolor-yawns! Tell me Sweetsh*ter,how on earth does the government get money to run itself and the infrastructure of the country? Taking money from big business of course! This is why socialism is self-destructive. As Iván said, after to socialists took over in Peru it was just a matter of time until the economy was sucked dry. After you steal the wealth of the rich, where does the money come from? Union run industries? I don't think so. As Iván said, they're ineffective. Look to the Soviet Union as another example of how this worked... and I'm talking about before Stalinist dictatorship! This problem became evident during Lenin's years. Leave it to big business? Oh yes, they have a great record when left to their own devices dont they? Environment,unemployment issues= profitability issues! Oh, but the government doesn't! Don't make me laugh. At least when one organization is mismanaged it goes out of business! Government can't "go out of business" and therefore has no need to be fiscally responsible.

So Sweetnighter-how do you pay for the running of a country?

This stumbling block seems to have eluded you.

Szygy said:

If a communist system was freely chosen by the populace of a stable country,

Then if it's so perfect why nobody votes for them? Mao Tse Tung said it clearly, Power is born from the weapons, that's the most common way communists get the power because they are sure they will loose in clean elections or simply they believe they do it for the people but without their approval.

I do not know about any socialist state, there never has been a such a state,

Perú had 2 Socialist Governments:

1. Juan Velazco Alvarado: 1968 - 1975
2. Alan García Perez (Social Democracy): 1985 - 1990

Other Countries

1. Nicaragua: The Sandinist Governments
2. Chile: Salvador Allende 1971: I don't justify the criminal Pinochet, but Allende was going to fall anyway because his Government was a mess, all the factions of the Socialist movement were already divided because each one wanted more power, they changed Economic Imperialism for State Imperialism.
3. Cuba: 1958 - 1999: Called Socialist but really Communist
4. Venezuela: The actual Government
5. Mexico: The PRI has been the only party in the Government for I believe more than half a Century, they are Social Democrats.

Various quotes:

I state that all opressive regimes can't be communistic. A true socialist/communist (also true for Christian, and most other religions) will not be oppressive, it's against everything they stand for.  Like I said before there hasn't been a true communistic state before, and it probably will never happen I question Labours socialist credentials. Believe me I'm no Tory!! But when the Labour party abolished Clause 4 of their constitution, which commited the party to public ownership of servies, THAT was the beginning of the death of Socialism in this country.

It's the same story I been listening since I entered to the University in 1979, and probably the same stories that have been told since Marx and Engles started writing:

• "The Perfect Socialism will work"
• "USSR was not a comminuist country, was an Imperialist natoion (some otrhers considered them as State Capitalism),"
• "China is not a real Communist Regime"
• "Communism and Socialist natuion don't succeed because the western nations deon't allow them.
• The corruption of Socialist leaders is not the fault of the system.

Please, where in the hell is that perfect Utopia? When will it come? Almost 200 years have passed since Marx and Engels wrote their books and still there is not a perfect socialist nation.

Everybody says Cuba has an oppressive Government but all the Socialist Associations and Governments have awarded Fidel Castro for his achievements, why didn't they spoke when Valladares was sent to jail because he dared to be a poet, or why didn't they said a word when Castro opened the prisons and sent all the criminals to the Peruvian Embassy or even when all the gays were sentenced to life imprissonment?

Some people here criticize Bush for giving opinions about what is best for other countries, but some of you do the same thing because you want to convince us that Socialism is our option.

I live in a world of reality, when this fantasy turns true then start to say it may be convinient for YOUR COUNTRIES. We live here and we know what is best for us.

Iván

Edited: Placed more than 200 years when it's really almost 200 years, because Marx started witting in 1836 and the term Communism was used already in 1842, but the idea of Communism is older than Marx and Engels, so the 200 years is not too far.

So what is best for you Ivan?

Be careful you might get what you wish for.......

So what is best for you Ivan? Be careful you might get what you wish for.......

I've been member of the Social Christian party until 1983, I still believe in their ideology but not in the actual leaders.

But what I really want:

1. A real democracy and a free market system where the state has progressively less influence (When the market works the state regulations are unnecessary Ronald H Coase Nobel Prize in Economy 1991).
2. A normal and fair tax system
3. A system that allows the people who has the knowledge and capacity receive the proper salary without any limit, in the moment you limit human aspirations you kill a society.
4. That all the people from the rich countries stop saying what is better for us, let us choose and even make our own mistakes.
5. Equal opportunities for everybody, (Not equal salary or equal way of life) if you use well that opportunity, get what you want and if you waste it don’t ask the Government for something.
6. A working social security system for the elder and challenged people, not for all the bumps who don't work because they prefer a state that provides them of their needs.

Iván

Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: If socialists/communists care so much about others why don't they get out there and lead by example and help people instead of clamoring for governments and their armies to steal money from those who have rightfully earned it? How the heck do you know we dont? I shall be more clear. The socialist movement revolves around pointing to the wealth of others and claiming it as their own, and sequentially clamoring for more powerful forces to take that wealth for them. I'm sure many socialists are active in their communities, and I commend them for that, but its more a criticism of the movement in general. Take Christians. Although I'm an atheist, I praise Christian activists for going out and doing the dirty work themselves rather than socialists who expect others to do it for them and then somehow call themselves morally superior human beings. This is just stream-of-concious nonesense. I dont know where this is coming from-it has no basis in fact in my experiences.Gross generalisation based on the premise: "what I think is what I know." I know it is not the same but do you remember saying Geddy Lee writes all Rush's music-well this is another of your fanciful,under-researched, verbal technicolor-yawns! Oh give me a break. I'm wrong once, so I'm wrong always? Not to mention that who writes Rush's music is an entirely different topic from political philosophy. But it does point to the fact that you are prone to making your mind up without researching too deeply! Not the same as political philosophy but a useful guide to your personality. Tell me Sweetsh*ter,how on earth does the government get money to run itself and the infrastructure of the country? Taking money from big business of course! This is why socialism is self-destructive. As Iván said, after to socialists took over in Peru it was just a matter of time until the economy was sucked dry. After you steal the wealth of the rich, where does the money come from? Union run industries? I don't think so. As Iván said, they're ineffective. Look to the Soviet Union as another example of how this worked... and I'm talking about before Stalinist dictatorship! This problem became evident during Lenin's years. Leave it to big business? Oh yes, they have a great record when left to their own devices dont they? Environment,unemployment issues= profitability issues! Oh, but the government doesn't! Don't make me laugh. At least when one organization is mismanaged it goes out of business! Government can't "go out of business" and therefore has no need to be fiscally responsible. So Sweetnighter-how do you pay for the running of a country? This stumbling block seems to have eluded you. Well, although Libertarians hate to admit it, I have to be realistic- some taxation is a necessary evil. But what kind of taxation? I would have a hierarchy of forms of taxation- which are most tolerable, which aren't. I think the "best" form of taxation is in the form of low tariffs. Not protective tariffs, but tariffs simply for revenue purposes. Then I would say sales tax is moderately tolerable. As a libertarian, I am vehemently opposed to income tax and property tax.  I am opposed to this form of taxation because it taxes the individual too many times: getting taxed for making money, getting taxed for existing on a plot of land, and then getting taxed again when you go to the store? At some point there tax simply becomes a guise for theft. As I know I'll get this response, a system consisting of tariffs and sales tax WILL work for a LOW BUDGET government- a government that isn't cashing out to special interests and hundreds of ineffective social programs. Truth be told this is an issue I'm not very sure about myself, and seems to be a big gap in libertarian political theory. Good question... and thank you for asking it respectfully too by the way.

 Truth be told this is an issue I'm not very sure about myself, and seems to be a big gap in libertarian political theory.

 Your whole argument fails on exactly this.
You dont think things through do you?

Good question... and thank you for asking it respectfully too by the way.

It is not a matter of respect-it is a way of trying to elicit passion from you-patronising, but hey:that's me!

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html - http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

A good read

Please, where in the hell is that perfect Utopia? When will it come? More than 200 years have passed since Marx and Engels wrote their books and still there is not a perfect socialist nation.So what? Name a perfect nation of any description!

I LOVE THIS LINE!!! (Although the communist manifesto was written 1847, putting it more in the 150 year range) Try and think for yourself lad.The "line" as you call it is irrelevant.You might as well say "people have been making music for thousands of years-so where is that perfect piece" Utter twaddle!!

I doubt there are many who dont realise that the Communist Manifesto was "of its time" and so irrelevant to these times. As a response to the status quo of its era it was radical to say the least-but why do you guys hold it up and say "there-Communism doesnt work,ergo you are foolish"?
I dont give a flying fig for communism and communists, they are as bad as the right-wingers.
Who says that all socialist principles cant work? You are not seriously telling me that there are any countries out there operating on purely Marxist philosophy? You might as well say all Christians live perfect, spiritual lives. it aint happening and never will. Just because there are chancers all over the world playing havoc with there countries economies in the name of marxism, does not make them Marxists or socialists-or human beings for that matter.

Sweetnighter wrote:

Frequently - so what?

I have had two discussions with you:

1. About Rush

2.About Politics.

You have made wild assumptions in both.You spend pages and pages discussing a Libertarian Philosophy and taxation but never once anticipated that the necessity to raise revenue somehow would raise its head.Then it dawns on you-Oh dear I hadnt thought that bit through.If this had been at the back of your mind you would have already mentioned it or hinted at it.You are just winging this and wasting my time.
Your argument is an ill-thought out dog's dinner of immature fancy and other people's garbled quasi-philosphical ramblings.

Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: . How can you judge that based on my saying, of all miniscule things, that I thought Ged wrote all the Rush music instead of Alex. Whoop-de-f**ken-do! That's not a testament of my character! Have you ever been wrong before? Frequently - so what? I have had two discussions with you: 1. About Rush 2.About Politics. You have made wild assumptions in both.You spend pages and pages discussing a Libertarian Philosophy and taxation but never once anticipated that the necessity to raise revenue somehow would raise its head.Then it dawns on you-Oh dear I hadnt thought that bit through.If this had been at the back of your mind you would have already mentioned it or hinted at it.You are just winging this and wasting my time. Your argument is an ill-thought out dog's dinner of immature fancy and other people's garbled quasi-philosphical ramblings.   1) Saying that geddy lee wrote the music instead of alex is not a "wild assumption," it was a mistake. Am I not allowed mistakes? After all, the albums all say Music by Lee and Lifeson, Lyrics by Peart. I've read one interview that was done with Lee and one with Peart online before. So, naturally, from what I had read, I was under the wrong impression. Oops! I'm a horrible person. 2) I've always been aware of this problem in libertarian theory. Although I consider myself a libertarian, that doesn't mean that I subscribe to everything the libertarian party does. Do most Democrats agree with every stance the party takes? Do Republicans? Assuredly some do, but not all. I use my mind when reading about politics. Yes, I agree with most stances the libertarian party takes, but not all. Plus, I outlined what I thought would be a good policy regarding taxes. Maybe somebody else will voice an opinion, but you want to paint me off as irrational and walk away satisfied with that. Have I really been that irrational?

You dont get it do you?

I've read one interview that was done with Lee and one with Peart online before. So, naturally, from what I had read, I was under the wrong impression. Oops! I'm a horrible person.

This is exactly your problem in general, in my opinion.Not enough information to form an opinion.......

Goodnight Ian.You are as right and as wrong as I am.

My philosophy (for today, at least):

If you can't be right-be wrong at the top of your voice!

Please, where in the hell is that perfect Utopia? When will it come? More than 200 years have passed since Marx and Engels wrote their books and still there is not a perfect socialist nation.So what? Name a perfect nation of any description!

Ok Reed, not one of us has said that democracy is perfect, we know it has evident flaws, but it works in most rich countries. In poor countries doesn't work so well, but we lived sovcialist governments and believe me, they are worst.

You learn this kind of things with experience, not with theory, I've been there and I can assure you the country went to hell with Velazco

I LOVE THIS LINE!!! (Although the communist manifesto was written 1847, putting it more in the 150 year range) Try and think for yourself lad.The "line" as you call it is irrelevant.You might as well say "people have been making music for thousands of years-so where is that perfect piece" Utter twaddle!!

Please Reed I always respect your opinions even if I don't agree, and I know you're too intelligent to really believe this crap, you can't compare a form of art where all the results and opinions are purely subjective with a political system that can be perfectly evaluated with economic and statistic weapons.

For me the perfect piece is The Musical Box, if I had to stand before a judge I would honestly swear it's the perfect musical piece, probably Sweetnighter will also swear it's Close to the Edge and maybe the Judge will believe Strangers in the Night or any Frank Siinatra song is the perfect piece of music. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY SUBJECTIVE.

If we talk about political systems we can measure:

1. Improvement in economy
2. Improvement in health services
3. Improvement in Human Rights
4. How many political prissoners has Cuba
5. How many people killed Pol Pot or Stalin
6. How Velazco left Peruvian Economy
7. How many countries have abandoned communism/socialism
8. How many rafters reach the shores of USA every year from the socialist paradise
9. How many countries believe in democracy and free market
10. How many communist/socialist leaders become dictators

So don't compare two issues that are totally different.

Iván

Why do you guys bother? Nobody is going to "enlighten" anyone with their point of views, no matter now articulately you express them. After reading this thread all I have to say is

Blah,blah,blah!