Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Pedantic Tw@t

New Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pedantic Tw@t

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. It's interesting. I tend to think that UKIP are Nazis and hence why I am currently voting for them over the internationalist (contradiction in terms?) Neo-Fascists. I mean, if we must be fascists then the least we could do is look after our own rather than hanging them out to dry?
  2. I wouldn't be so sure of yourself. I have known some formidable socialists, true socialists, whose arguments would test the most ardent right-wingers. In any case you seem to engaged in a Capitalist-Socialist dialectic (in fact I view yours and wonderpup's continued arguments as two people engaged in their own personal versions of hell). For me it's a Fascist-anti-Fascist dialectic.There are four major fascist parties (3 neo-fascist and 1 nazi party) and no major anti-fascist parties. I imagine that you think the bank bailouts were in some way socialist. They were not. They were textbook fascism. Pure economic fascism - the merger of state and corporate power as Mussolini had first intended. Socialists like wonderpup have at least their hearts in the right place. People that claim fascism to be socialism are dangerous apologists.
  3. I admire your zealousness/zealoutry. I have great admiration for socialists. Though I think on this point you are over-extending yourself. Why do you not, 1. Highlight the fact that unemployment has been government policy for the last fifty years? 2. Highlight the fact that wages for the bottom 40% have gone backwards for the last 15 years? And that this has necessarily caused a compression in peasantry wages and untermenschen wages? 3. Highlight the obsessive focus of taxation on "income" rather than wealth? A deeply regressive taxation system and a progressive one? et al You have a point, to some degree, though you seem to want to extend it beyond what most people deem rational. If the poor are unhappy with their "contract" with the welfare state then by all means they should be free to reject it and take up other offers (notwithstanding the 3 points I have made above... which, really you should have already made, and the fact you havn't made them is to your detriment rather than mine.)
  4. The poor are bound by the welfare state not motivated by it. The two systems are completely different. You are making a category error.
  5. CEOs operate within a market. Benefits' claimants operate within the welfare state, which is not a market and which was set up to, amongst other things, combat the "five giants", one of which was idleness. It was, and is, inherently moral in purpose if not in execution. Your analogy between CEOs and benefits' claiments is invalid.
  6. I reckon all four main parties are economic fascists. The old three are proven fascists with their overt support for the bank bailouts. It's a strange kind of fascism that allies itself with international banks, but I guess in some ways it makes a lot of sense as banks are after all very big and very strong corporations. They all like to run their so-called "socialist" policies, but this is only to prevent a wider revolt against their core aims. In this respect they are socially speaking crypto-fascists. UKIP are National Socialists; also fascists but less willing to sell their own people down the line for the sake of stability for the rich. Like the old three they are too scared to let banks fail, but are more likely to support their own people by controlling immigration and dismantling parts of the false patronage system relied upon by the other three. They would rather rely on rising wages and living standards for popular support and so are socialists, in this respect. Neo-Fascism versus National Socialism. Take your pick.
  7. Would they have made more money with state owned assets or privatised assets, or roughly the same?
  8. I can't understand why the banks, with the power to control the supply of money, would not also lobby for mass privatisation of assets. It would give them so many more assets with which to leverage debt and make more profit. The idea that they lay neutral on the sidelines seems bizarre. And... I can't see how banks can be compared to anyone else. The license to print money is a massive distinction.
  9. Don't forget they are also a great make-work scheme for DWP employees, something that seems to be lost on most people, even HPCers. A major advantage of CI would be to cut their wages by 75%.
  10. Income tax is a soft form of slavery. People get services in return but they are more akin to the farmer's shop in Grapes of Wroth than a free exchange. As a general rule: more state involvement = more slavery. Perhaps if the state could conduct itself more benevolently towards the working (poor) this might not be the case. At the moment we have a fairly refined form of Fascism, which is certainly not Capitalism. This whole Socialism versus Capitalism dialogue is twenty years out of date. The dialogue now is Fascism versus Capitalism.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.