Important questions for Socialists

[Kill Bill]

I'm not talking about a wealth gap, I'm talking about the increase in people's standard of living. There are always people looking for soup kitchens in any system of government. Now, what other system has produced anything like the overall increases in people's living standards, life expectancy, and any other measure you care to name, other than capitalism?

No of course you weren't - it's a bit of an inconvenient truth for you!

I was simply pointing out the flip side of your rather one sided post.

Capitalism was a progressive system in its initial stages and it did indeed revolutionise the means of production and created the modern working class. It was a necessary historical step in the development of society but it has long reached its limits and has ceased to be in any way progressive. Hence the cycle of crises and in particular the current crisis.

The positives you point to that capitalism developed came also at a heavy price in Africa, Latin America and throughout the colonial world - capitalism and imperialism raped these areas and it certainly didn't bring the advance you raise.

The key problem with capitalism is it is inherently incapable of providing for the majority of the world's people because for it to succeed someone has to be exploited and screwed for someone else to do well.

[toxic avenger]

No, because even if you back 20 or 30 years and start from there, long before the era of infamous "light touch regulation", capitalism has STILL delivered much higher standards of living than any other system.

There hasn't been any other system, not since feudalism. What happened in the USSR and China, etc. was not socialsim, it was extreme state capitalism coupled with tyranny..

[Humbert]

There hasn't been any other system, not since feudalism. What happened in the USSR and China, etc. was not socialsim, it was extreme state capitalism coupled with tyranny..

And that sh1t is f8cked up...

PLUS Look at the gargoyles who are offering socialism to us here - Higgins, Daly and Boyd Barrett?

God protect us!

[Humbert]

No of course you weren't - it's a bit of an inconvenient truth for you!

I was simply pointing out the flip side of your rather one sided post.

Capitalism was a progressive system in its initial stages and it did indeed revolutionise the means of production and created the modern working class. It was a necessary historical step in the development of society but it has long reached its limits and has ceased to be in any way progressive. Hence the cycle of crises and in particular the current crisis.

The positives you point to that capitalism developed came also at a heavy price in Africa, Latin America and throughout the colonial world - capitalism and imperialism raped these areas and it certainly didn't bring the advance you raise.

The key problem with capitalism is it is inherently incapable of providing for the majority of the world's people because for it to succeed someone has to be exploited and screwed for someone else to do well.

Let me tell you a secret, kid. 99 per cent of the human race got no problem with that.

That's why capitalism rules.

[Mr. Bumble]

And that sh1t is f8cked up...

PLUS Look at the gargoyles who are offering socialism to us here - Higgins, Daly and Boyd Barrett?

God protect us!

Higgins, Daly and RBB don't represent socialism.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

Let me tell you a secret, kid. 99 per cent of the human race got no problem with that.

That's why capitalism rules.

And you know this because you've spoken to 99% of the people who peruse the capitalist system?

[Humbert]

Higgins, Daly and RBB don't represent socialism.

Well what do they represent then? And if they don't who does represent socialism on this island of Larkin and Connolly?

[Humbert]

And you know this because you've spoken to 99% of the people who peruse the capitalist system?

I don't need to speak to them - that's the way they vote.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well what do they represent then? And if they don't who does represent socialism on this island of Larkin and Connolly?

I would call them Trotskyists/Marxist communists. Perhaps elements of the Labour party would come closest to representing socialism. It would seem to me that Labour would see itself as a sort of socialist party but an objective observer would disagree.

[Humbert]

I would call them Trotskyists/Marxist communists. Perhaps elements of the Labour party would come closest to representing socialism. It would seem to me that Labour would see itself as a sort of socialist party but an objective observer would disagree.

Which elements of the Labour party come closest to representing socialism then do you reckon?