General Election 2010

Fuck all of them! I can't believe what I'm hearing. I couldn't side with any of the main parties.

And saying "I'll always vote Labour/Conservative/Liberal Democrat" is, in my view, pure bullshit based on long forgotten values and principles.

Fuck all of them! I can't believe what I'm hearing. I couldn't side with any of the main parties.

And saying "I'll always vote Labour/Conservative/Liberal Democrat" is, in my view, pure bullshit based on long forgotten values and principles.

+1

Socialism demonstably failed. So did capitalism. There is a consensus that a middle path is essential. That which I suppose we call social or liberal democracy.

a) Where has socialism demonstrably failed? (this depends on your definition of socialism and failure, I suppose. Norway seems to be doing pretty good, and Cuba has remained a functioning state for 50 years).

b) Capitalism has not failed. Capitalism has failed to deliver a better life for the majority of the world, but for that 10%, it's been (and continues to be) a fucking awesome ride.

c) Social democracy and liberal democracy are pretty much opposites (at least, they should be. Fucking Americans confuse terms too much. I blame Rawls).

a) Where has socialism demonstrably failed? (this depends on your definition of socialism and failure, I suppose. Norway seems to be doing pretty good, and Cuba has remained a functioning state for 50 years).

Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Albania, etc etc. Even China has moved away from it.
Cuba has remained a barely-functioning state whos citizens are nearly as poor and as oppressed as they were before the revolution. I would not call that success. Norway is a liberal democracy. It's not a centrally planned economy and therefore is not a socialist state.

b) Capitalism has not failed. Capitalism has failed to deliver a better life for the majority of the world, but for that 10%, it's been (and continues to be) a fucking awesome ride.

Until the global financial meltdown. Capitalism is the least worst system in my opinion, but not if it is unregulated capitalism. Social responsibility needs to be imposed on it.

c) Social democracy and liberal democracy are pretty much opposites (at least, they should be. Fucking Americans confuse terms too much. I blame Rawls).

Hence my wooliness on the terms. I'm not sure what to call it. The narrow political spread from labour to conservative is what I mean.

I bet a majority of the british public want to bring back hanging, opposed the reduction of the gay age of consent to 16, want us out of the EU, and an end to immigration, lower welfare costs, etc. They are all pretty right-wing views.

In England maybe. 1997 was the only election Labour won in england alone. Every other Labour or coalision government was swung by the welsh, scott, N.irish vote

it would be interesting quite dull but illuminating to see the questions they asked and the answers Hari selected to back his assertion though.

I think he's wrong about the newspapers and politics being to the right of the general public. Newspapers have to sell on a daily basis, so they must reinforce their reader's views. Even if the politics are in thrall to the newspapers it would drag them back to the centre.

I think he's wrong about the newspapers and politics being to the right of the general public. Newspapers have to sell on a daily basis, so they must reinforce their reader's views. Even if the politics are in thrall to the newspapers it would drag them back to the centre.

I completely disagree. Where do you get your information about politics? Even if you source all your own information, your interest in politics would still stem from the Media depiction of politics.

The media is the bottleneck through which the vast majority of people interpret their own politics. Im not saying there's a great conspiracy, it's easy to get alternative views (in much lower circulation), but most people don't.

Also remember, Johan Hari writes for the independent which has a lower readership than some local papers.

I'm being pedantic about terms and claims here. I'm not sure why. I think it's a way of avoiding doing other stuff. Anyway.

Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Albania, etc etc. Even China has moved away from it.
Cuba has remained a barely-functioning state whos citizens are nearly as poor and as oppressed as they were before the revolution. I would not call that success. Norway is a liberal democracy. It's not a centrally planned economy and therefore is not a socialist state.

This is why I said it depends on how to define "socialism" and "fail." I think you've missed the point on both counts. Cuba is not a failed state (nor a hugely successful one). Although it's not on my list of top 10 countries I'd like to be born in, it's certainly not on my list of top 10 I wouldn't.

The other countries you've named can be ignored as "socialist" projects for a number of reasons which I'm not going to bother with.

Norway is a social democracy (by almost everyone political scientist's description). Just because the word democracy is there, does not mean socialism cannot be part of it.

Until the global financial meltdown. Capitalism is the least worst system in my opinion, but not if it is unregulated capitalism. Social responsibility needs to be imposed on it.

Again, the "global financial meltdown" != the failure of capitalism. It's a "correction." Sucked for a lot of people, but it's not capitalisms job to worry about anyone.

Hence my wooliness on the terms. I'm not sure what to call it. The narrow political spread from labour to conservative is what I mean.

Labour isn't an ideologically driven party any more, so I have no clue what they represent. The conservatives are classical liberals with a tinge of social conservatism (probably more than a tinge, but Cameron, taking a page out of Canada's Stephen Harper's book, is doing a good job of keeping all the whack jobs quiet). I don't want to be anywhere in between those two parties. Worst threesome ever.

I completely disagree. Where do you get your information about politics? Even if you source all your own information, your interest in politics would still stem from the Media depiction of politics.

The media is the bottleneck through which the vast majority of people interpret their own politics. Im not saying there's a great conspiracy, it's easy to get alternative views (in much lower circulation), but most people don't.

Also remember, Johan Hari writes for the independent which has a lower readership than some local papers.

Even if the media shape your politics (whether partially or completely) that must surely mean that their stooges will also be your stooges. By buying a paper you are voting for their politics, which must mean their politics represent their readership.

Mind you most people don't buy newspapers. Or vote in general elections.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or that I am even if I'm right. But I still think Hari's wrong. :-)

By buying a paper you are voting for their politics, which must mean their politics represent their readership.

Simplisitc.

Look at mayoral election. Perfect example of papers leading public opinion

Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Albania, etc etc. Even China has moved away from it.
Cuba has remained a barely-functioning state whos citizens are nearly as poor and as oppressed as they were before the revolution. I would not call that success. Norway is a liberal democracy. It's not a centrally planned economy and therefore is not a socialist state.

Until the global financial meltdown. Capitalism is the least worst system in my opinion, but not if it is unregulated capitalism. Social responsibility needs to be imposed on it.

Hence my wooliness on the terms. I'm not sure what to call it. The narrow political spread from labour to conservative is what I mean.

As Horatio said, these coutnries didn't properly engage in socialism, depending on your reading of it.

Also, cuba are not a barely-functioning state, they have better healthcare and education than the United States, what more is the state there to provide bar protection? arguably cuba could be said to protect its citizens better than America. They may be almost as poor as they were before the revolutoion, as you say, but what is the inherant good of exponential growth of consumption? If they are providing a society with a higher goal than getting a new fridge every other year?

The other countries you've named can be ignored as "socialist" projects for a number of reasons which I'm not going to bother with.

no they can't :-)
starts pantomime argument
The Nazi party was also socialist (if you take their name literally)
godwins thead

Norway is a social democracy (by almost everyone political scientist's description). Just because the word democracy is there, does not mean socialism cannot be part of it.

Norway, like Sweden has a huge and expensive welfare state, but it's a capitalist economy, in a country with a democracy and a constitutional monarchy. but yeah, it's just semantics.

Again, the "global financial meltdown" != the failure of capitalism. It's a "correction." Sucked for a lot of people, but it's not capitalisms job to worry about anyone.

The correction must by definition be correcting a failure.

I'm avoiding doing other stuff too. I really need to do some tidying.

Simplisitc.

Look at mayoral election. Perfect example of papers leading public opinion

Or reflecting it?

It makes me laugh that everyone thinks Cameron is a posh cunt, when Nick Clegg out poshes him by a long way.

Those who act the poshest in my experience are nothing of the sort.

Or reflecting it?

In part, but not much. you don't get it do you

Norway, like Sweden has a huge and expensive welfare state, but it's a capitalist economy, in a country with a democracy and a constitutional monarchy. but yeah, it's just semantics.

I really don't want to try to define Socialism, but I would argue socialism has more to do with having a planned economy (and this goes beyond simply the welfare state; we're talking about the nationalization of companies and goods which the state dictates are too important to be in the hands of private companies [or if they are, these companies need to be owned, and therefore accountable, to the government/public] like oil and other natural resources, transport, financial companies, communication companies, etc.) rather than the method of exchange (cash).

The correction must by definition be correcting a failure.

Not in capitalism. It's just a natural part of the workings of the almighty invisible hand.

...we're talking about the nationalization of companies and goods which the state dictates are too important to be in the hands of private companies [or if they are, these companies need to be owned, and therefore accountable, to the government/public] like oil and other natural resources, transport, financial companies, communication companies, etc.) rather than the method of exchange (cash)...

qatar petroleum, ADNOC, HPCL, kuwait petroleum etc etc, are all state owned oil companies, and with the exception of gazprom i don't think would be described as socialist.

Cuba has remained a barely-functioning state whos citizens are nearly as poor and as oppressed as they were before the revolution. I would not call that success.

Brilliant! I suppose it was just an oversight to forget to mention the forty year economic blockade by the US?
And it is just risible to suggest that Cubans are oppressed in anything like the way they were before the revolution. For all its faults I would rather be a critic of government in 'socialist' Cuba than one in US supported 'democratic' Colombia. Just as I would rather have been a dissident in East Germany in the 80s than a dissident in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras or many other Latin American states. The 'communists' at least did not habitually murder, rape and torture their opponents (and their opponents' children) using techinques they had been taught in the US and weapons provided by the US. And of course the victims of the Soviet Union and its satellites had the noisy (and correct) support of the Western press and other defenders of liberty whereas the mutilated and disappeared peasants, union activists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians in Latin America were oddly not worthy of mention in polite society. But this unfortunate period of history can now be forgotten about can't it since Capitalism 'won' and the evils of 'Communism' have been established beyond doubt.

The 'communists' at least did not habitually murder, rape and torture their opponents (and their opponents' children)

hilarious!!

very thought provoking and intellectual comment mate. well done

hilarious!!

You were saying, Poindexter?

It was not an oversight. Surely the embargo is a direct result of Cuba's socialism and has its origins in the revolutionary government's nationalisation of American properties. The 1962 extensions in scope of the embargo have everything to do with Cuba's close relationship with the Soviet Union. It's longevity in the face of all decency and logic has rather more to do with the self-interest of Cuban-Americans.

I would never stoop to defend Batista's Cuba. I used the word "nearly" because whilst in some ways they may be less oppressed, there are many different kinds of oppression and after 50 years they ought to be a lot better off than they were in 1959.

Acknowledging your straw man argument for a second I certainly would not stoop to defend the abuses against Latin American citizens by their own states.
But I would say that totalitarianism is not capitalism, and Latin America's problems were caused by too little democracy, not too little socialism, just as Cuba's problems always were and continue to be.

I Latin America's problems were caused by too little democracy, not too little socialism, just as Cuba's problems always were and continue to be.

I don't see how you have explained this. Cuba's problems are because of the American embargo on them, for the nationalisation fo a small amount of companies 50 years ago. If you say this is because of socialism, rather because of America's ridiculous reaction to Socialism then you are wrong

You were saying, Poindexter?

it was just so unbelievably funny..as was 'poindexter' . I don't need to be rude to defend my political views. It was an immediate reaction but feel free to elaborate and explain the quote.

The 'communists' at least did not habitually murder, rape and torture their opponents (and their opponents' children) using techinques they had been taught in the US and weapons provided by the US.

but before you do just clarify your sentence because it could be read that the communists might have habitually murdered, raped and tortured their opponents (and their opponents' children) but they didn't use techniques and weapons provided by the U.S.

or it could mean that they did murder , rape etc etc but not habitually.

or do you mean that communists don't do those things but the U.S. sponsored right wing latin american governments that did and then the right wing capitalist media failed to report it to us , rather preferring to tell us lies about communist states?

I don't see how you have explained this. Cuba's problems are because of the American embargo on them, for the nationalisation fo a small amount of companies 50 years ago. If you say this is because of socialism, rather because of America's ridiculous reaction to Socialism then you are wrong

No, I argue that Cuba's problems are mainly a result of communism. Will argues that it's all down to the US embargo. I would argue that whoever you choose to blame, had Cuba not been communist there would either have been no embargo, or only a short-lived one. America's disproportionate reaction was probably disproportionate because of Cuba's communist status.

To explain further, first of all the expropriation was not only a nationalisation of American companies but the seizing of American owned private property. This private property was typically owned by the sorts of people who had far too much influence on American politics. Nevertheless the initial embargo imposed as a reaction to this was much much smaller in scale than that which exists today.

Unfortunately Cuba's reaction to this was to become a satellite of, and missile base for, the Soviet Union. If they had not been communist this would never have been their reaction.

America's reaction was, and remains ridiculous. Whoever we blame, if the revolutionary government had not been socialist there would have been no seizing of American property in the first place, and if it had not then decided to become a Soviet outpost whatever embargo there was would probably remained small-scale and have ended decades ago.