What kind of wanker (excuse my french) would confuse hilary clinton, putin, hitler and stalin with socialism? Someone who does not read socialist books perhaps. Or just you know would rather burn books than read them.
The government has cut corporation tax by 2 percent, handing billions over to the corporations. Then the government bleats that they don't have the money to pay public sector workers. Of course you haven't, you just gave it all to the fat cats!
What happened? And pay attention to what? Your ill-informed rant? You cannot distinguish between Stalinism and Socialism but you claim to be an expert. As Ted Grant said, someone who knew nothing about cars would not set up as a car mechanic but someone who knows nothing about Marxism will talk at length about Marxism.
The idea that the global corporations allow a "free market" is nonsensical. The state intervenes when the corporations want the state to intervene - whether that means handouts to the rich or invading Iraq so the oil companies can privatise its oil.
So you can't distinguish between Stalinism and socialism and you can't distinguish between fact and opinion. As you say I am not all that bright but I can tell those ones apart.
I am delighted to have attracted the approbrium of the American right. It stops them from bombing people if they have to make fatuous remarks about socialism. It would be more interesting to discuss with them if they had read a book about socialism....or just a book really.
Government is the problem: as properly identified by the example of not even being able to give money away effectively and thereby having to call on voluntary charity. I thought socialist believed government was the solution?
Nationalization is a bad thing? I thought socialists liked nationalization and that it is their solution?
Corporate failure is part of capitalism. To prevent a failure is not capitalism.
As you say, you are confused. If you took the trouble to find out something (anything) about socialism your remarks would be more worthwhile. Public ownership and democratic control of the means of production is not the same as taking over individual bankrupt concerns and pumping public money into them and lavishly overcompensating the former owners.
Socialism is the cause of poverty. Government force, regulation and counter-productive bureaucracy destroys the economy and creates incentives for people to take welfare instead of working for themselves. The only way to achieve universal prosperity is to have free markets, free people and to dump this self righteous penis envy over other people's hard work and good fortune.
Interesting name.
Yet you don't think BNP members should teach. Hypocritical beyond comprehension.
jerryaowen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
integralistparty . com
THE STRUGGLE FOR OUR UK BEGINS
StateAndUnity 1 year ago
Socialists aspire to the system promoted by Pol Pot. Sickos.
The86416 3 years ago
i guess you dont know anything about socialism
ClassicRock8 2 years ago
Well New Labour boasted they could save Labour by betraying all its principles. They lied.
colindavis000 3 years ago
What kind of wanker (excuse my french) would confuse hilary clinton, putin, hitler and stalin with socialism? Someone who does not read socialist books perhaps. Or just you know would rather burn books than read them.
chimeranorton 4 years ago 3
The government has cut corporation tax by 2 percent, handing billions over to the corporations. Then the government bleats that they don't have the money to pay public sector workers. Of course you haven't, you just gave it all to the fat cats!
andrewbakeriskool 3 years ago
Socialism has not failed its never been tried.Abolish the wages system.
majorMcpharter 4 years ago 2
Socialism faisl everywhere look at the USSR look at Cuba look at China, christ wake up and smell the trade free coffee.
jerryaowen 1 year ago
You can make up as many figures as you like. If you are confusing socialism and stalinism people will find it very hard to take you seriously.
francisxsmith 4 years ago 3
What happened? And pay attention to what? Your ill-informed rant? You cannot distinguish between Stalinism and Socialism but you claim to be an expert. As Ted Grant said, someone who knew nothing about cars would not set up as a car mechanic but someone who knows nothing about Marxism will talk at length about Marxism.
indefenceofmarxism1 4 years ago
You honestly can't tell Stalinism from Socialism or either from Putin?
theunbrokenthread 4 years ago
The idea that the global corporations allow a "free market" is nonsensical. The state intervenes when the corporations want the state to intervene - whether that means handouts to the rich or invading Iraq so the oil companies can privatise its oil.
theunbrokenthread 4 years ago
You can usually bet you are doing something right if the American neocons are gunning for you :)
rotatingflutes 4 years ago
Most millionaires inherit their wealth or gain it in speculation. Neither could be defined as "working hard"
rotatingflutes 4 years ago
So you can't distinguish between Stalinism and socialism and you can't distinguish between fact and opinion. As you say I am not all that bright but I can tell those ones apart.
derekmcmillan1951 4 years ago
Did you suck the figure of 140,000,000 out of your thumb btw or is it based on anything? And are you confusing stalinism with socialism?
derekmcmillan1951 4 years ago
LOL "Capitalism spreads prosperity to those who work hard." Have you tried telling that fairy story around Bhopal?
noteureka 4 years ago
Bourgeois ideologues always use Stalinism as an argument against socialism. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
derekmcmillan1951 4 years ago
I am delighted to have attracted the approbrium of the American right. It stops them from bombing people if they have to make fatuous remarks about socialism. It would be more interesting to discuss with them if they had read a book about socialism....or just a book really.
derekmcmillan1951 4 years ago
I am confused;
Government is the problem: as properly identified by the example of not even being able to give money away effectively and thereby having to call on voluntary charity. I thought socialist believed government was the solution?
Nationalization is a bad thing? I thought socialists liked nationalization and that it is their solution?
Corporate failure is part of capitalism. To prevent a failure is not capitalism.
stratvic 4 years ago
As you say, you are confused. If you took the trouble to find out something (anything) about socialism your remarks would be more worthwhile. Public ownership and democratic control of the means of production is not the same as taking over individual bankrupt concerns and pumping public money into them and lavishly overcompensating the former owners.
user1951account 4 years ago
I agree but it is not a valid criticism of free markets either ... so is it just a non statement?
stratvic 4 years ago
Socialism is death. Google Ron Paul!
LibertyUPR 4 years ago
I have to say the your level of argument would be embarrassing in a 12 year old pupil. Can you do better than that?
noteureka 4 years ago
Socialism is the cause of poverty. Government force, regulation and counter-productive bureaucracy destroys the economy and creates incentives for people to take welfare instead of working for themselves. The only way to achieve universal prosperity is to have free markets, free people and to dump this self righteous penis envy over other people's hard work and good fortune.
velation 4 years ago
Northern Rock was a classic example of capitalists being baled out by the taxpayer.
noteureka 4 years ago
If you take a government bail out then I would question the extent to which you can be called a capitalist. It's a socialist move for sure.
velation 4 years ago