Generalisation there. I'm working class and socialist. Most socialists are not middle class—you just have to visit the Durham miner's gala to see that is nonsense.

North Korea also receives vast amounts of foreign aid

But the reason that North Koreans are so pathetically poor is because socialism, as a system of economics, does not work

Most other countries discovered this years ago and abandoned it

Did you know, for instance, that today, China has more billionaires than the USA?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37640156

What makes you think all those who attend the Miners Gala are socialists? Many of them probably vote UKIP.

No, I have not got the quote wrong as I wasn't trying to quote anyone specifically.

And yes, socialism is all about taking money from people. Please do explain how you think Marxism could possibly improve anything without stealing resources.

Was Marx some sort of leprechaun who had a magic money pot?

Not really - socialism is more an economic theory that believes that economic forces should be owned and directed for the benefit of society, rather than for the benefit of any individual.

And that's also the core of Nazi economic thought, which is no coincidence as Nazism evolved out of socialist thought. I wouldn't quite equate the two in the way that we think of socialism and Nazism today, but they share a common ancestry.

Regards,

Cypher

AFAIC socialism can be summed up as well meaning naivety, good in theory, but fails in practice because it can only work if everyone is like minded.

The left has traditionally been concerned with the worse off, the oppressed, the poor, minorities, the victimized etc. The left sought to bring these groups of people into the fold, and afford them the same treatment as everybody else. The Nazis were unquestionably opposed to such measures.

The Nazis are considered far-right because they aggressively and invariably opposed the very foundation of left-wing politics - treating people equally in a minimally hierarchical society, and seeking to include those that would otherwise be discriminated against.

It seems that the right wing are continuing to use social media to muddy the waters in an attempt to further their cause.

e.g "Hitler murdered millions, therefore Hitler was left-wing, therefore support the innocent cuddly far right."

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to fall for this again. But then again America's next President is Trump.

Remember the good old days when it was so easy. Hitler = Far Right = Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right =Hitler = Far Right

You clearly didn't read my post.

Can't wait for the downvote button to come in . . . . .

An interesting article relating to the subject
http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-bu...alist-liberal/

Very interesting, if you look at it as a prime example of total twaddle and utter rubbish. Seems to be part of this "post truth" movement in trying to make the extreme right more palatable.

Yes.,.. the internet is full of interesting articles...

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/...rical-Myth.htm

The concept of equality of opportunity is attractive but it is difficult to achieve without a level playing field.

The problem is that the more intelligent will always be more successful.

The trick has to be to persuade the successful that they do not really need to earn at least 100 times more than the low paid.

Best of luck redesigning the human animal.

For starters you'd need a world that didn't manufacture Ferraris, Rolex watches, luxury yachts, private jets/helicopters, shiny bling and any other high end item and a world where a five bedroomed detached on that new housing estate up the road was as big a house as you could get.

I don't "need" the material items I own but i'd upgrade them in a heartbeat given the chance. I'd love a big house in the country with a couple of hundred acres of land a shiny new car to drive and a couple of exotic holidays a year.
If those options didn't exist I couldn't want them.... but they do exist and I'd take full advantage of those opportunities given the choice and if people are being honest very few wouldn't do likewise.

The mechinisms to hold systems to account is what fails, cheifly because the same personalities seek to control whatever system holds the power. Good example is Brexit the idiotic ministers politicians commentators with some media and heavy dose sheeple plebians against three judges, this is a good example of trying to dismantle a mechanism that holds account of those in power.

But that isn't actually true, there's plenty of very intelligent people who are in low to middling jobs, and plenty of people who aren't particularly intelligent at the top of the tree

The problem is actually that it is easier to be successful if you were born into success

Maybe you should go and read the history of the rise of the Nazis before you make ridiculous comments like that.

There's quite an interesting Brazilian drama on Netflix at the moment called '3%', which explores this issue. It basically depicts a futuristic dystopian society which has been organised pretty much entirely around eliminating any 'unfair' advantage that could be conferred through the success of one's parents.

Their solution was that anyone who is judged successful (which is defined as passing a State-run test called 'the process' at the age of 20) is sterilised. If they already had children before passing, they must leave them behind. That way, one can only ascend via one's merit alone.

It's a thoughtful piece, and well worth a look...

Regards,

Cypher

It's not left or right, it's authoritarianism mixed with a desire to expand and conquer, backed by a population who feel hard done by and willing to start marginalising members of that society, leading to human rights abuses that is the problem. You can get there from any side of the political spectrum. The state-heavy left directly takes control and you have corruption, nepotism and personality politics. The state-light right sells all for personal profit and simply manipulates through commercial and broadcasting means and private interests. Either route can become authoritarian, dupe their own people, invade countries under false pretences, or cover up abuses. Political stance isn't a moral indicator. At it's simplest, left or right is big state vs small state. You can get problems either way, or even from a mixed/ central position. If you have a corrupt government then they have all the tools they need to be corrupt in various ways, no matter the system, no matter the colour of rosette, and no matter their politics. That's the nature of authority and hierarchy. Who watches the watchmen? In a theoretical democracy the population do but of course there are ways around this through mass manipulation. Whatever check you put on power there will always be an element of trust as in a hierarchy the person at the top has all the tools they need, if they desire, to be corrupt and a degree of corruption is a guarantee when humans are involved.

Side note on Hitler. Many people on the right try to put him on the left. Many people on the left try to put him on the right. They are both missing the point I think. From my admittedly limited knowledge he doesn't seem like someone most interested in economic systems. I put him in the Genghis Khan category - an old style conqueror bent on claiming as much land, glory and power as possible for his country and to reflect back on him, rationalised through a bastardised interpretation of the Nietzche 'will to power' work, empowered through charisma, a tight rein on all around him, and historical circumstances. The political party or part of the spectrum they claim to be from is irrelevant as they are essentially throwbacks to the conquerors of old and dreams of world-spanning empires.

So socialism is one possible route to a political regime, willing to carry out genocide and human rights abuses and determined to claim land, power, wealth, and glory but it's not the only vehicle. It is just a system ultimately and presently it isn't even the prominent ideology in more than a handful of countries of the war-torn world(*) we live in.

(* It's actually probably not that war-torn relative to our history.)

Thatcher, that despicable dictator, reduced our country to the divided state it is now in. Without Socialism we would still be in the days of slums and the Victorian workhouses. Mrs May, for all her fine words, is an empty bag of wind, arrogance and greed.

There's a multitude of problems with Socialism which make it nice in theory but terrible in practice, but as others have mentioned it doesn't 'produce' evil. Evil Socialists throughout history needed to have that willingness to dominate and oppress from deep within. Regardless of the political facade they paraded behind.

If a framework exists in a certain time period for humans to do evil on a big scale (like Stalin), evil will be done. It's fortunately become extremely difficult in this modern age for power hungry people to do terrible things on a grand scale, certainly in most parts of the world at least.

Socialism probably would work apart from one thing, it involves people.
A lot of "People" are scumbags who will climb over everyone else to get "one up" for themselves.

Religious sects are like this as well
Always the ones at the top lining their own nests with the "masses" oppressed or starving.

Capitalism works, simply because it assumes the scumbags will do what they are going to do.

Maybe in the future it will change so being nice and fair actually works, however until then - You cannot change people's baser instincts and urges.

They didn't split on the same day in 1953. There were invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire in 1910, and liberated by the Allies in 1945. Except it wasn't liberation as the country was divided by the US and the USSR. The Soviets set up a miniature Soviet Union in the north, and the US set up a tinpot dictatorship with no money and army in the south. This made for a very weak country, which, when they declared independence in 1948, laid the seeds for the invasion by the north in June 1950. The resultant civil war, which killed up to 4 million, ensured that the south became a right wing military dictatorship, with a modicum of democracy, which lasted until 1987 when the clamours for full democracy became too loud to ignore. Hardly a bastion of capitalism. Today, however, South Korea is fully capitalist, but unfortunately, has the unhappiest people in the OECD, the highest suicide rate, and truly awful welfare provision, especially for the elderly. Hence the reason why you see very elderly people going around picking up cardboard desperately trying to earn some money.

It's a nice country, with lovely, warm friendly people, but if you aren't rich, their system stinks. Young Koreans apparently call their country 'Hell Joseon' (Joseon being the ancient name for Korea).

If these luxury items were manufactured in this country, jobs would be created.

Far better than just hoarding the money in forien bank accounts.

Back in the day many of the very very rich were also very generous. We don't seem to see it these days.

No I don't think that's right. The left was traditionally about the class struggle. When feudalism was still around, and the poor couldn't even vote. All these other apparent oppressed groups were gradually added in later when most people's standard of living had risen and it was more difficult to recruit the poor working man. Especially since America in the 1950s had shown people who may have previously been classed as working class benefiting from consumerism and enjoying a better standard of living. Or at least it was presented that way.

You seem to be applying a modern day interpretation of left wing identity politics to a period in history where people and conditions were markedly different from today. Back then it was all about the class struggle.

You're even comparing Donald Trump to the far right. If anything Donald Trump is probably the most liberal Republican to become president, at least in living memory.
20 years ago he wouldn't be seen to be that far from Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.

In fact you seem to be looking at everything through a very modern far left lens where anything which was previously centrist is now probably deemed to be far right.

Whatever Hitler was, Nazism, national socialism as opposed to international socialism (Communism), was sold on left wing ideology and encouraging the workers to rebel against the system. Wherever a movement starts from, facism, socialism, communism, any collectivist movement tends to end up becoming an authoritarian regime which controls the very people it previously encouraged to jump on board. By then it hardly matters whether you call it left wing or right wing.

All that, and yet it's still 1000 times more preferable to life in the Socialist north.