Houghton preaches COMMUNIST football

[ron obvious 1,505]

*invalid & simplistic*

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="ron obvious"]*invalid & simplistic*[/quote]Why does someone have to bring Wiz into every thread?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="ron obvious"]FFS, where did I say ''capitalism'' works either? You are all confusing it with various idealistic systems (of which communism is one), which seek to impose a theoretical system on a population by making invalid assumptions & simplistic about how people behave. Nobody woke up one day & invented the ''capitalist system'', it has been evolving since mankind evolved. I am only too well aware it is deeply flawed, but, as someone (Churchill?) said about democracy, it is the least worst option. So would you please all stop trying to put words into my mouth.[/quote]

 

Hold on, Ron! How come democracy came about? That was the imposition of a theoretical, idealistic and highly utopian system.

[Monty13 2,235]

Oh purple you cheeky devil. Only if you met the eligibility to vote, and as it took till 1893 for those plucky Kiwis to give woman the vote, while I don''t think anyone can argue that the ideal of democracy has always been virtuous, the implementation has historically been somewhat lacking.

[ron obvious 1,505]

I would completely disagree with that, PC. I suspect democracy arose because those in power realised they could become materially better off by creating wealth rather than plundering it.

If you think about it, it''s basically a by-product of technology. The industrial revolution meant you could produce a vast amount of goods, & previously unobtainable goods, which you could only profit from if you had a market. It was no longer a zero-sum game. The natural consequence of this was emancipation.

The ruling class were obviously not keen on this, but the chance to get rich was too good to turn down.

The rich will, inevitably do everything they can to enjoy their privileges. It is up to all of us to ensure such privileges are earned & do not unjustly press upon those less fortunate.

The true enemy is apathy.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Monty13"]Oh purple you cheeky devil. Only if you met the eligibility to vote, and as it took till 1893 for those plucky Kiwis to give woman the vote, while I don''t think anyone can argue that the ideal of democracy has always been virtuous, the implementation has historically been somewhat lacking.[/quote]

 

And look where that led us, eh! Talk about Ron Obvious''s heroine, Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, we had Lady Macbeth of Grantham.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="ron obvious"]I would completely disagree with that, PC. I suspect democracy arose because those in power realised they could become materially better off by creating wealth rather than plundering it. If you think about it, it''s basically a by-product of technology. The industrial revolution meant you could produce a vast amount of goods, & previously unobtainable goods, which you could only profit from if you had a market. It was no longer a zero-sum game. The natural consequence of this was emancipation. The ruling class were obviously not keen on this, but the chance to get rich was too good to turn down. The rich will, inevitably do everything they can to enjoy their privileges. It is up to all of us to ensure such privileges are earned & do not unjustly press upon those less fortunate. The true enemy is apathy.[/quote]

 

Well, there was an element of cheek (as Monty said) in my post! I am not sure, in Britain at least, whether your explanation of the ruling class''s acceptance of democracy is specifically right, but there is no doubt that the reason why Britain avoided a true revolution was because the ruling elite gradually - and very cleverly - gave ground. It was sheer self-interest in that sense.

But I would entirely stick to the broader point - that pretty much every change for the better in social policy worldwide over the millennia has been sparked by utopian idealism and often by the imposition of those ideals over what seemed the "natural order". Democracy - given votes to people who didn''t own property, for heaven''s sake - is one example. The abolition of slavery perhaps an even better case.

[kick it off 1,952]

Im most concerned about Hughton addressing Martin Jol in German when he''s clearly Dutch. Needs to do his bloody homework next time or we''ll be losing a few games due to his inability to recognise the nationality of opposition managers if Bor''s fears are accurate.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="kick it off"]Im most concerned about Hughton addressing Martin Jol in German when he''s clearly Dutch. Needs to do his bloody homework next time or we''ll be losing a few games due to his inability to recognise the nationality of opposition managers if Bor''s fears are accurate.[/quote]

 

But most educated Dutchmen can speak German. There was a time when they had to, or at least understand what was being shouted at them. And Hughton is more likely to know some German than he is Dutch.[:D] But the real question is, given that Everton are up next, is can he speak Glaswegian the way Lambert could?[:P]

[splutcho 173]

Arguing aside, Bor is bloody hilarious. If you''re gonna be a wind up merchant, do it like this.

[ron obvious 1,505]

PC, I would contest that changes for the better have been sparked by ideas & not by imposition of ideals. Some despots have imposed changes for the better by adopting humanistic philosophical ideas. Many more have been driven by enlightened self-interest. As you said:

"there is no doubt that the reason why Britain avoided a true revolution was because the ruling elite gradually - and very cleverly - gave ground. It was sheer self-interest in that sense."

How on Earth could democracy be imposed on a population? If you did, they would then vote for it to be replaced by a monarchy, theocracy, or whatever. The abolition of slavery was not imposed on the general population either, the only people it was imposed upon were the slave owners & traders.

If anyone wants to understand how the imposition of Utopian idealism invariably ends up I suggest they read one of the master works of that supreme humanitarian socialist & consummate essayist, George Orwell: Animal Farm

[Monty13 2,235]

Democracy imposed on a population....there is definitely no recent examples of a powerful democratic nation imposing democracy on other countries....what an incredible idea that would be.....

[Rolf Harris 31]

[quote user="Monty13"]Democracy imposed on a population....there is definitely no recent examples of a powerful democratic nation imposing democracy on other countries....what an incredible idea that would be.....[/quote]

shh theres yanks on this board ;)

[ron obvious 1,505]

True Monty13, but, since that''s logically impossible (they''ll just vote for another system) it rather makes you think the imposing power has a different agenda ...

A Plan '' B'' Perhaps?? ...

[lake district canary 4,533]

I think its Bor that is the communist.   Good at propoganda, tries to deflect the truth away by statements which on the surface sound reasonable - but on closer study prove to be revolutionary,   and only has bad things to say about the present status and management of the club.

Nice one Bor, keep it up, long live the revolution!  

[Monty13 2,235]

Its not logically impossible ron, its now historic fact. Its happened on two occasions in the last dozen years and both countries are still ostensibly democracies.

Democracy is actually the wrong thing to highlight, what people yearn for is representation, to believe that someone cares for and is enacting their views. I''m not sure modern democracy actually provides that. But we are massively digressing.....

[ron obvious 1,505]

OK, you can impose democracy on a people once, but what do you do once they''ve voted? You can hardly impose it on them again, otherwise it becomes imperial rule. That''s the logical impossibility.

Anyway, about Bor''s allotment ...

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

Like the battles for Kursk and Stalingrad, fortune favours the defensive strategy............

[Monty13 2,235]

Really Lincoln, what about a bit further back, Assaye? Trafalgar? Great attacking victories against the odds. But I am just being obtuse :)

[Badger 2,406]

A couple of points (well, three):

1. A "communist country" is an oxymoron. As Lenin said "The state, anywhere and everywhere, is an instrument of oppression." Under communism, the state would cease to exist.

2. Communism IS the antithesis of capitalism - it is how the dialectic works - thesis, antithesis, synthesis (which becomes the new thesis and so on).

3. Did we suddenly become a democracy when I wasn''t looking? We have the vote but that is quite a different thing - we don''t change those in power, only the government.

[Monty13 2,235]

Thanks for the lesson on the English language Badger.

Here''s a two apparently little known interesting facts, Karl Marx''s writings are not the gospel of the definitions of socio-economics and also the world has moved forward significantly in terms of economics and social change since he finished his writings.

How do you pigeon hole the welfare capitalism that our state provides? Is it Capitalism, not by Marx''s definition.

As concepts of human existence they are antithesis of each other. In the reality in which they have been implemented they are two competing ideologies, neither of which can practically ever be applied in isolation.

Now by definition of the word and concept we are very much a democracy. The fact that you feel the people that represent you are failing, merely highlights the apathy to which people care about their representation. We have Democracy in the UK, we just don''t really care about it. You are free to put yourself forward as a candidate for parliament, to join any political party or to start your own. You can protest, campaign and do what ever the hell you like to influence peoples democratic opinion. The one thing you can''t change is if know one really cares.

[Badger 2,406]

Sorry Monty, I can''t agree with this.

The "power" to elect a government, does not mean that you have "rule of the people." For such a "rule" to exist, it would be possible for the government to fundamentally shift power arrangements within said country, which of course it isn''t. Whilst there has, of course been some progress with welfare capitalism*, the power of international finance capital remains unchallenged.

* which, in any case, has been eroded since the 1980s and at an alarming pace since the most recent crisis of finance capital.

[Monty13 2,235]

I''m not really sure what you mean when you talk about power, rule and its shift Badger. Democracy is purely the right of every citizen who is eligible to vote to have their say through representation. In itself it has zero to do with economics (other than to be an influence upon it through representative government) and only influences social change through the popular opinion of its eligible citizens (by definition).

I also love the constant argument that welfare and public services have been eroded. The amount of money in terms of percentage GDP that has been spent on the various social and public enterprises has either remained fairly constant or steadily increased (even in the latest cuts, social platforms have remained relatively unscathed). Unfortunately we have the twin problems that these have become increasingly expensive to provide while our chosen capitalist system has struggled to support the economic growth required to sustain them.

The financial crisis is an interesting argument anyway, the idea and process of capitalism hasn''t failed (Chinas interesting take on State Capitalism is only now struggling as the rest of the world slows). Regulation did and regulation is fulfilled by government through democratic representation. Yet everyone bleats about "its all the banks fault" when actually it is the worlds governments (that are the peoples representatives) that have failed and continue to fail to regulate them.

And we go back to my last point, if we cared enough as a Democratic society we would change the world, but individually we really can''t be bothered!

[ron obvious 1,505]

So badger, if the power to elect a government is not the rule of the people, what is?

You seem to be saying that, because a country cannot control what is occurring in other countries, said country is not a democracy. I don''t follow this.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Now Bor, your determination to mis-spell Hughton''s name is rude and rather juvenile. Do better than that.

 

And further old fella what else do a Reagan, a Bush, a Thatcher, a Blair have in common?

 

One love.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

Did they all have goals disallowed in an FA Cup final?

[/quote]

 

Hmmm.

 

Bor?

 

OTBC

[Badger 2,406]

Ron, it is not democratic, if the government cannot "rule." We elect governments that have little power to change things - they are decorative and serve the function of giving the illusion of real power - a new "opiate of the people" if you like. Re your point about "counties," I refer you to an earlier point about a communist country being an oxymoron. Capitalism is international and its antithesis is too.

Monty – your assertion “Democracy is purely the right of every citizen who is eligible to vote to have their say through representation” is an accurate description of what poses as democracy but is a long way from the original concept – “rule of the people.” You are right we have representative government, but this is not democratic unless it has the capacity to “rule” which is does not.

With regards, percentage of GDP being spent on welfare, your point is not without foundation, however a vast proportion of this is essentially a mechanism for maintaining capitalism. The “increasing immiserisation” that Marx predicted would likely bring about revolution rather more quickly. The problems of controlling largely urban societies were amply demonstrated in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. What has happened with the welfare system, however, is that state, rather than democratic, control has rendered it a vast bloated bureaucracy where the most needy are often not given the support they deserve, whilst some others are parasitic on the system. In the middle, we have a tax system that takes from the more skilled and affluent proletarians to subsidise the low wages paid for the less skilled and less affluent. For the ruling class, taxation is an irrelevance.

Your other argument that it was a failure of regulation rather than the failure of the banking system, is a bit like a criminal blaming the police for failing to stop him from committing crime!

[Monty13 2,235]

Oh no, who rules us then? I need to know, your being very cryptic, is it the illuminati?

Seriously, in a Democratic state the people rule through Democratic representation. That is what we have, who exactly is preventing this from being exercised? If I was to start my own party, gather massive support from the people of this country, win a majority in parliament and sit in number 10 for 5 years enacting rule by Democratic Representation, who is going to stop me? You can''t political failure in a democracy on anybody but the people being represented.

I totally agree with your liberal assessment of welfare and taxation apart from your assessment of the modern ruling class, who are they out of interest? If you mean the rich of this country who''s tax dodging is frankly sickening then I would hate to think of the Jimmy Carrs of this world as the ruling class, what a thought!

Unfortunately badger the world is a free market and until that changes government will always spend money to generate growth. It''s a non argument as capitalism has never really been challenged in reality by any workable alternative.

Not really Badger, the financial crisis occurred under the regulation and with the encouragement of government, there was also no real breaking of legalities. The criminal can''t be guilty if he hasn''t technically broken the law and the policemen was watching and egging him on. Even if his crime was morally wrong.

[Monty13 2,235]

*blame political failure, sorry

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Monty13"] If I was to start my own party, gather massive support from the people of this country, win a majority in parliament and sit in number 10 for 5 years enacting rule by Democratic Representation, who is going to stop me? [/quote]Theoretically nobody could stop you, and in practice I can''t see you''d have a problem with step 1 setting up your party, the problems would start when your following exceeded a level which the current powers that be consider tolerable. There would be no step 3, it''s called protecting your interests or if enacted "protecting the national interest"[:S]

[Feathers 0]

Haven''t posted for years but couldn''t resist this meaty debate!

Communists, capitalists, you''re all wrong. Here''s how it is:

-Marx was great, ''Marxists'' however are a different kettle of fish and usually idiots.

-Democracy is a political system. Capitalism is an economic one. Capitalism is not democracy and vice versa. In fact, capitalism is a massive burden and enemy of democracy. A typical business organisational structure is a tyrannical dictatorship.

-The anarchists were right all along, and in 1930s spain anarchists came the closest to a real socialist working alternative, before it was crushed by ehem, Stalin and the ''communist'' party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw

-Anarchism is democracy in it''s purest form. It is the direct democratic control of the economic system that is what would be a practical alternative to capitalism and representative ''democracy''.

-"freedom without socialism is privilege. Socialism without freedom is tyranny"

-"Those that talk about revolutionary social change without reference to everyday life have a corpse in their mouth"

Great to see what an insightful and intelligent bunch Canaries fans are! What are they talking about on the binner boards I wonder, X Factor? TOWIE?

OTBC