Modernizing Socialism for a Modern Society

The idea that all men are created equal was not one that Socialist created out of thin air. It has existed since Plato’s book the Republic , since Jesus’ Biblical Sermon on the Mount . Yet in many Nation’s, especially those of the Judeo-Christian branch this is not the case. People are still being treated on divisions, based on class, social status, ethnicity and many other factors – so why several thousand years later have things not got better?

I intend to use this post and article to look into that and see differing arguments for and against the divisions in society. As well as many other things but first I shall start with the Government. Unlike Socialists from the Marx-Engels School of Thought, my views on status differs vastly. In fact, it differs vastly from many previous Socialist schools of thought. I am a believer in achieved status. As we could see with the U.S.S.R. and many other Nation’s who adapted a form of Socialism and Communism (although heavily devoid from the utopian view that was wanted), it was a case of the elite still deciding who was a member. Stalin gained his status by misleading the people and keeping the weak down – he never was challenged for his status and never could be. Thus is status almost completely removed itself from being achieved because the element of skill was in itself removed. Thus the first problem and solution to Socialims is found.

Socialism should be fundementally an economic system. It should not be one of Government, thus a State can be a Totalitarian Socialist State such as can be found in Russia between 1922 and 1991 and also to a lesser extent (although some might argue greater) in China now. Thus, the way to remove the ability for an elite to establish itself is create a from of Government where the people hold a large percentage of the power and the Government is heavily decentralized and its role in society is also lessened. Government itself shouls only exist to take care of things that the public themselves can not deal with, such as laws on buildings, speeding and drawing up plans for the budget (from taxation). However the Governmetn should never have a right to create moral legislation and due to this the idea of the crimianl justice system needs to also be changed but that I will come back to later.

My answer for the Government is simple. There’s a system developed like that in Switzerland. Where the Government is heavily decentralized. Each area (State, Canton, County, etc) is its own administrative division allowed to manage each State individually. This can be linked to the idea of devolution that is now happening in the United Kingdom but on a much larger level. Thus people who live in the local area deal with issues directly affecting the local area. There’s no good argument for people claiming that a person who lives 400 miles away, never visits the area, has no children in the Schools, does not use the hospitals, etc, should have the right to decide for those people. It is for them to decide as should be many other factors. Due to this, I also suggest an idea based around the principles of Direct Democracy that allows people to vote (twice a year) on issues that directly affect them.

The Government will also be re-shaped, with a more important emphasis on loca authorities (who be default have to be filled with people inside the area), and two tiers in the National Assembaley. Take for example the United Kingdom, each County would have its own Government but with more power and the National Govermnet (Parliament) would have two elected houses (House of Lords and House of Commons) but the administrative zones for each would slightly differ and over-lap. Thus nobody from either house will represent all the same constituents (voters). This helps to eliminate the idea of a party system where by certain areas are strongholds for certain groups. But also what the Government deals with will also change.

The Government is not a moral authority, long gone are the days where Religious groups can dictate what is right or wrong. Moral legislation will be placed upon the people to decide, through a system of initative (through the use of the internet) and National Referendum and Recall at the two annual votes. The initative system will allow for the set-up of a Government wide scheme where by each voter (of legal age) will be able to obtain a secure password and username in which they can place their name for something. If this receives a high enough percentage (say 1% of the population) than it is placed on the next referendum. Then the referendum uses the idea of the Super Majority not Single Majority. By which I mean, as well as a positive percentage of people having to pass the vote in favour to become law so do a positive percentage of local areas (State, Canton, County). These votes would also be placed on a single Bank Holiday, Six-Months apart from one another (June and Decemember for example) to make it easier on people to be able to vote. There will also be three choices; In favour of, against or abstaining from voting on each individual issue. Thus issues people do not feel directly involve them in any way they do not have to vote on and are not forced to decide what they feel on that issue.

One of these votes will also be linked to the election each year. So for example, the voting breakdown would be this:

• Year 1: Local Election (County) and Referendum in June. Decemember Referendum.
  
• Year 2: Regional Election (Such as State) and Referendum in June. Decemember Referendum.
  
• Year 3: National Election A (Such as House of Commons) and Referendum in June. December Referendum.
  
• Year 4: Natioanal Election B (Such as House of Lords) and Referendum in June. December Referendum.

. What would be placed on each Referendum would be given in advance of two months, so for the June Referendum it would be given in April to each Household and for the Decemember Referendum it’d be given in October. This allows people adaquate time to research anything that they feel they desire to vote on.

Now although this might look like a lot of voting, it is strictly only 2 days a year both of which would be a National Holiday. It would not take more than an hour out of the 24hrs of that day to conduct your vote and thus you’d be left with a day off. Also with the modern age and the ability to use computers the speed by which voting could be conducted and counted would drastically increase. Furthermore, people feel very disillusioned with the policiatal process. They no longer get to vote on what matters to them as an individual but rather what a political party decides to deal with. If a Referendum has no issues you agree with you can easily abstain from voting by using the form. (Although at present I am not suggesting the idea of forced voting but the idea is one I do think about.)

Thus Government and the Socialist System should be completely seperated. Government should simply be a case of for the people and by the people. As the saying goes; All Power to the People. The time where people are ruled needs to come to an end for the betterment of us all.

Now onto the:

The Criminal Justice System

Society itself needs to evolve passed the point where we are at present. One of the defining roles of a Government should be to keep its people safe and that is why we have such things as the Police and the Military. But somewhere over the years keeping people safe has also merged with controlling what they are allowed to do. Thus a new idea for the Criminal Justice System is needed and it will be outlined below.

Now we need to outline what crime in reality is. Crime should be based around two things when the Police check a situation has either:

• Has physical harm been caused by the assailant/assailants or;
  
• has economical harm been caused by the assailant/assailants.

As someone who has worked in the Criminal Justice System in the United Kingdom it is a major problem for the Police, Government and Judiciary that so many non-laws are in existence. By this I mean laws such as prostitution, which in reality if conducted properly and under the correct instances would be a healthy thing for society – in fact, prostitution is seen as one of the worlds oldest professions. But instead the prisons have to house them, the Police have to chase them and the Judiciary has to process them. When in reality what would you rather have the Police doing, devoting manpower to catching a murderer or to having them drive around arresting prostitutes? For me the answer is simple. Furthermore, we would open up prison places and be able to house real offenders.

Their needs to be a mass repelling of legislation in many so called civilized Nations before we criminalize too many people. We also need to as a society look at why crimes happen. If a single mother can’t afford to live and thus has to steal to feed herself and her child we need to look at society. If children are so disillusioned with the education system that they feel taking and selling drugs will give them a higher status in society we need to look at this society. We cannot lock them away, throw away the key and hope that the problem will solve itself – if we are meant to be the adults in the society it is about time we start acting like adults.

It is a very repugnant idea in my mind that we single out people and place the full weight of the crime on those people. It is easy enough to say such things when we have the luxury of the Internet, when we can afford to eat and our not the worst off in society. If anything, we need to begin to help to balance the burden of the poor and bridge the cap between the richest and poorest, but still rewarding those who work and get educated over those who do not (which will be explained later). Thus we need to begin to look at how our prison system rehabilitates people so that they do not re-offend and place heavier punishments on serial criminals. A victim needs to be treated as such and a criminal as such, but without ultimately ruining either of their lives (except in the worst of instances). Thus the criminal system should move to prisons that help to find people work, housing, etc, while they’re in prison and helps to educate them.

With a separate prison for the most serious offenders – rapists, paedophiles and murderers who ultimately should serve the longest sentences. With a possibility of a death penalty for repeat offenders who can be proven without a shadow of a doubt (video evidence for example.) Furthermore, prison should be something that is not desirable. There should be no fun, no games in there. Television should not exist except for the news. Books should be solidly educational and the length of their prison sentence should only be lowered if they proceed to pass their courses, find employment and agree to strict release agreements – tagging as an example of one. After a period related to the crime they committed it should be removed from their record for anyone but the Police, the most serious of offenders and instances of working with vulnerable people.

Furthermore, the Government should begin to better equip and build cities. Take for instance Milton Keynes in the United Kingdom, the system of straight roads and cross sections allows better crime prevention through the use of CCTV. Which should monitor all public places (but not any private places.) Furthermore, admitting to a crime when there’s solid evidence you are the criminal involved should not lessen the sentence but refusal to admit it is you should extend the sentence.

Now onto section three:

Status within society and wage labour

However, I first need to explain a few simple terms that I plan to use in this debate.

• Ascribed Status: is a social status a person is given from birth or assumes involuntarily later in life, such as the Royal Family or those born into money.
  
• Achieved Status: Is a term denoting a social position that a person assumes voluntarily which reflects personal skills, such as that of a Doctor or Car mechanic.

We as people need to remove ascribed status from society. Instead of us basing someone on how much money they are born with, how much land they own, who their parents are we base everything on what they achieve. This is where the major difference between me and previous Socialists comes into play. Instead of us all being equal at the end of our life we are not. We however are all equal in the beginning (or should be) and then go up and down the scale based on what we achieve. Thus I support the idea of inheritance tax, anything over £100,000 should be removed and placed back into the local community (more on this later).

As for wage labour a tier system needs to be implimented. Thus every Doctor who has X years of experience and is a Brain Surgeon should get the same. Furthermore, they would be judged on the performance scale. Only reciving a bonus if they have performed well and loosing wages if they have performed poorly. Also, for the private sector to limit the ability of the CEO’s giving family members jobs there should be a limit placed on how many years of experience a person needs in a sector before they can take over a company. Furthermore there will be a larger burden of tax on the rich and a percentage of all company bonuses that are paid to executives has to be given to each individual worker.

The Government will base every individual member around the; “Paid For Performance” scale and thus only reward those who do well. They are public servants and as should have to do the best that they possibly can and be penalised when they do not.

From now on people need to be treated based on what they do with their lives. Long gone are the days where the Lord and Lady were above the folk in the village. They’re not better than anyone else because they’ve born with wealth nor should we treat them as soon. Now onto the last point I have to make so far.

Reinstalling community into our world

Over the last few years the sense of Community and individual identity seems to have vastly shrunken. As many of us will know, the older generation speak of a time when everyone knew everyone in his or her area. Now it seems as though that has gone. In the years that have passed I’ve noticed things such as Youth Centres shutting down and claiming that children no longer desire to use them. But never do they look at why they desire not – these centres did not modernize. They did not move with the times and thus people do not want to go. To reintroduce such places with a mode contemporary theme would help to ease the work the Police do at night with underage drinking. Furthermore to relax many pieces of legislation to help re-instate the sense of community and its identity would help society even further.

1) A member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man. dictionary.reference.com...
2) classics.mit.edu...
3) www.lifeofchrist.com...
4) en.wikipedia.org...

great work so far odium , im in the middle of finishing it

This is not Socialism


Have you read these texts? In the Republic, Plato proposes a society that is divided up into a very rigid hierarchy, at the top of which is a ruling elite. Privileges, rights and duties differ at every level. Children are not to be thought of as being born equal but as having different capabilities that will be taken into account when their position in society is fixed by the authorities. Plato hated democracy. Where on earth did you get the idea that he believed in the equality of men?

And as for the Sermon on the Mount, it's all about exceptionalism. Some groups are more favoured than others. You know the drill: blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are they that mourn, blessed are meek and so on.

Besides, the Sermon on the Mount is impractical nonsense. Any society founded on its precepts would collapse before the day was out.


That's probably why you regard the Sermon on the Mount as a Socialist text. If being 'blessed' isn't a form of 'achieved status', I don't know what is.

Fact is, you're not a Socialist, you're a meritocrat, just like me. I'd say 'welcome to the club!' but of course, being a meritocrat, I'd first have to ask you to prove that you have what it takes to join!

Your post contains a combination of ideas that have been tried in the past, though perhaps not in that precise combination. You may want to look more closely at Singapore, a politically unfree State that is also a genuine meritocracy. But if you're thinking of rehabilitating actual Socialism, forget it. It's an idea that has to fail because it is founded on a false belief. Human beings are not all equal. Some are naturally more gifted than others. Sometimes this distinction is readily perceived by others, sometimes it is only made evident through successful competition for status. Either way, such individuals end up forming elites, ordering other folk around and having most of the available sex. This, too, is natural. All social animals form hierarchies and recognize elites. They're good for us.

For Socialism to work, we should have to change our very natures -- in other words, cease to be human.

Thank you for taking the time to read it.

The arguement you put forward - Astyanaz about Plato is often one people see and misunderstand. If you go back over his works, he bases a society upon intelligence - with those who are intelligent being in charge. This is due to the way Greece was at the time and the acess to intelligence, when everyone is equally intelligent/has access to it than what he is saying takes a different light.



Not true.

There have been examples of African Tribes and Native American Tribes, who were able to share and each fill a role easily enough. It's a very poor excuse to blame it on "human nature" and to say - It's O.K. to allow suffering, because it is "human-nature".



What Jesus said and who he is are two different things. He doesn't have to be the Son of God for the point to still stand and I never have said I believe him as such. People give Prophets the power - thus the term 'False Prophet' - and due to this it'd actually be achieved.



They aren't exclusive of one another. Most Socialist had money - Robert Owen would be an example of this. What he did do though was give all of his employees and their children the same change reguardless of the level that they were in the company.

In fact - Ralahine worked perfect, till the person in charge ruined it due to having a gambling addiction. If he himself had lived by his own rules I am sure things would be different.

The fact is, we are now at a lvel where we can start to remove some things. One of this has to be poverty and how we do our own society otherwise we'll end up with a World even wrose than it is now where only a handful of people own everything. A society where merit won't be taken into account at all.

No matter what access you're talking about, people are not, and will never be, equally intelligent. And you're wrong about Plato too: physical strength and various aptitudes were also to be taken into account.


Instead of filling your head with the witterings of daffy left-wing anthropologists, study a little evolutionary psychology. The examples you cite are rare and almost certainly biased by the anthropologists' expectations. Anthropology is not a respectable science.


This has nothing to do with my statement. In fact, I can't understand what you're driving at. The point is that the Sermon on the Mount is totally unfeasible as a set of rules for living.

People aren't intrinsically good, Odium. Human nature is not improvable. These, plain and simple, are the reasons why socialism is an impotent philosophy.

No, it's why anarchism is impotent. Socialism is a different beast. Unlike anarchism, libertarianism, or your own favored ism, socialism doesn't bother with the philosophical babble about human nature. Rather, it stresses the fact that good, evil, animal, divine, whatever the hell we are, we do exist in societies, a connected whole. And as a whole, we benefit from improvements to the parts.

The basics is that there are certain things that society needs in order to function. Food, health, energy, and the ability to transport the two through the society. These are not luxuries, they are necessities. Thus they need to be under the stewardship of the society as a whole. They are controlled by the government, but the government is, at the ideal (an ideal which is easily reality with the right coding) controlled in turn by the populace.

The trouble is keeping it that way. Of course if your whole argument against any political outlook is "people suck towards one another" then honestly, there is never going to be a political system you can be satisfied with. Even your "preferred" system lends itself greatly to gross abuse of other people because they are "lesser" or "undeserving" - as is often the case in the example you cited in Singapore.

Back to front and upside-down



Rousseau, whom Odium is touting in another thread as the father of Socialism, is all about human nature.

The Socialist promise is that human beings and their condition will be improved when society is improved. It attempts to improve the parts by improving the whole -- a mug's game. And it is the parts, not the whole, that desire and demand improvement. You've got it all back to front.

The basis of the Socialist promise is entirely philosophical -- idealistic in the technical sense -- and not derived from any empirical observation. It is, in fact, philosophical babble of the most egregious kind.

The Socialist programme demands large, immediate sacrifices from the individual in exchange for small, long-delayed benefits that are shared by all. It unhitches effort from reward. That is, quite simply, why it doesn't work. Human beings aren't that noble and self-sacrificing, and that is what I meant when I explained to Odium that Socialism flies in the face of nature.


What rubbish! Society needs nothing, because it is an abstraction. It is people who need food, medical care, energy and a whole lot of other things. And Socialism doesn't allow people to decide and obtain what they need. Instead, the leaders decide and distribute it at their convenience -- if, that is, there's anything left over after they have helped themselves.


Oh, capitalism works fine. It recognizes what people are like and takes the appropriate precautions. That's why idlers and whiners hate it so much.

You see, my friend, I have lived under a Socialist regime. I know the reality of Socialism: castles in the air and air in the belly. I've stood in food queues, presented ration books to bureaucrats and watched children rummage in dustbins for their dinner. In the face of what I have experienced, your happy-clappy theorizing sounds nothing less than obscene.

Awesome for him. I'm talking about socialism itself. I'm not talking about people who talked about it. If you want to name-drop and quote your library, you go ahead, but I'll keep talking about the practical reality of the matter



No. It premises that the conditions that people live in will be improved. Not the people themselves. It is not a transformitave doctrine. Contrary to early writings and later criticisms of those writings - which seems to be the sole basis of your argument, the 18th-century musings and the McCarthy-era critics - the goal is not to elevate humanity, but to elevate standards of living. Like I'm saying, practicality.

And yes, the parts need to be improved to improve the whole. Your car's pistons work best when your oil pan doesn't leak and the filter is clean, right? The same with any society humanity has brought together - If lots of people are poor, sick, and homeless, what is the impact on the people who are wealthy, healthy, and have homes? Higher crime, more risk of disease, less income reaching them as there are fewer people to spend money.



Except, you know, in most developed nations of the world, where socialist practices have been pretty damn successful. You have to arbitrarily decide that a lot of nations "don't count" when you make statements like this. Of course, most critics tend to believe that only Soviet Russia and Cambodia were ever "Really" socialist at all.



Lots of things people do fly in the face of nature. Do you have central heating or air? Do you wear clothing? Indoor plumbing? Have you ever NOT killed and eaten the offspring of a rival male (Or female, as the case my be) in order to ensure your own genetic dominance? You unnatural freak.

As I noted above, for a philosophy you insist doesn't work, socialism seems to be working pretty well. Perhaps all these nations should have consulted you beforehand? Every system demands large, immediate sacrifices from the individual. It just happens that the individual in a socialist system can go back to collect what he gave up when he needs it.



Oh yes, an abstraction that has nevertheless persisted through at least three different species of human, several major subspecies, and continues to exist with no sign of breaking down, apocalyptic death cultist warnings through the ages be damned. You talk a lot of nature. But you force yourself to ignore several other parts of human nature - that we are a communal, hierarchal species. We gather in groups and we devise systems that those groups operate under. This is a "society". Are you following me here?

I think that if you do a little research (Beyond the Cato institute, please) you will find that the modern socialist society has plenty of room for free enterprise, and the safety nets are there for those who can't afford the for-profit services. Why do those for-profit services do so poorly? Because believe it or not, people will buy whatever is cheapest and nearest, quality be damned. Another part of human nature the predator capitalists like to forget about - we're a thrifty sort of ape.

Interesting that you portray graft and corruption as integral to socialism, yet seem to ignore its potential in your own favored philosophy. Why is that? For all your hemming and hawing over humans by nature being greedy and selfish, you certainly do hand out that utopia vibe with regards to your own favored philosophy.



And I know men and women who have worked themselves to the bone with dreams of "making it" only to end up eating cat food because they didn't have the predestination needed to succeed. I have seen men and women die from preventable and easily cured health issues because their HMO's refused to honor the contract to grant coverage for it. I have watched a nation's food supply turn into sawdust and corn syrup to meet the "bottom line". I have seen men and women beaten and imprisoned for the crime of "loitering" where their kind aren't supposed to loiter. I have seen successful businesses sucked dry and paved over because a monopoly had the money to hire lawyers and politicians to allow them to do so. I have gone hungry because I foolishly took loans to get an education for a job that is cheaper when provided by a man named Rajeen in Bangladesh. I've seen people go broke just going to work because private oil industries collude and gouge while supply remains constant.

Idlers and whiners my ass. Please tell me, what's your regime? Mine's America.



[edit on 8-1-2008 by The Walking Fox]

Salaam Rajeen

Socialism is a theory about human social and political relations, not a natural phenomenon like starlight or gravity. Socialism was developed by human beings and the people who 'talked about it' are also the people who invented it.

So Walking Fox, when you say


you are really saying that you are afraid to discuss the principles of Socialism, because you know those principles are built on sand and that you will lose your argument.

Instead, you say you want to talk about 'the practical reality of the matter'. Fine. Let's talk practical realities.

I'll start by repeating a question others have asked: can you name even one successful Socialist state? Wriggle all you want; I'll wait.

You speak of 'socialist' practices in Scandinavia and other Western European countries, but these countries are not Socialist. The definition of Socialism is control of the means of production (the economy) by the workers (meaning, usually, the state). In the European countries you refer to, the economy is mostly in private hands.

Yes, businesses and private citizens in those countries are taxed fairly heavily, and the revenue obtained from those taxes is spent on things like free education, free health care and state pensions for the elderly. You call this 'socialism', but it is not. It is social democracy, a political philosophy that is quite compatible with capitalism. Even America exhibits a number of social-democratic features in its government: for example, the subsidies and preferential tariffs that encourage US farmers to grow maize for ethanol production.

Social democracy is a good thing, in my view, though coddling American farmers is a misuse of it. But social democracy certainly isn't Socialism, however much Socialists (with nothing to show for their own efforts) would like to lay claim to it.

Socialism itself has never worked, anywhere in the world, because it is based on a moral and philosophical illusion: the perfectibilty of human nature. People (like all other animals) have an instinct of self-preservation that is more powerful than their instinct towards altruism; thus Socialism will always fail. Any person whose brain has not been fogged and addled by Romantic and Socialist rhetoric will see that immediately - no matter how much you try to muddy the waters with your childish, specious talk of indoor plumbing and central heating.


I was born and presently live in a poor and failing state on the other side of the world from yours. I have travelled widely, and have seen and lived under every form of government and misgovernment you can imagine. As for my sources of information regarding Socialism, I first learnt about it as a schoolboy under a Socialist government. I later read some of the original Communist and Socialist writers (you'll find them here) and a bunch of British Socialists from Wells to Laski. I don't favour the Cato Institute.

Your complaint that some people 'work themselves to the bone' under capitalism and still don't make it leaves me unmoved. I have never believed that everybody can and should make it. Besides, life for human beings today is very, very easy compared with the lives our forebears lived, and it is shockingly ungrateful for us to complain. This is especially true of those who live in the world's richest country.

As for your crotchet that 'somebody called Rajeen in Bangladesh' took your job, well, that one statement explodes your pretence of having a social conscience and a well-founded morality and shows you for what you are - yet another ordinary, self-interested human being whose attitude is utterly inimical to the Socialism you favour. I salute Rajeen and wish him the best of luck; it's enterprising fellows like him we need on planet Earth, not a bunch of well-padded freeloaders peddling highfalutin, self-serving nonsense. May he live long and prosper.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax

---

I don't talk about the socialist writings of the 18th and 19th centuries for the same reasons that astronomers no longer consult Aristotle. While some basic theories remain sound, the rest of it has been tested, experimented, revised to a better state, tested, revised, etc. Thus why this is a thread about modernizing socialism for a modern society. See how that works? The world is a vastly different place than the one which they wrote in. I was never much for lionization, though. Being dead for a century and a half doesn't make a person infallible and all-knowing, am I right?

Social democracy is modern socialism. You are operating on the standard, finger-in-ears lalalala can't hear you impression that "socialism = communism" - No doubt you will point out that the soviets called themselves socialist, to which allow me to respond with pointing out that North Korea calls itself Democratic. Y'see, the philosophy evolves. Some branches work, others don't. Communism didn't work, and for the major reason you cling to - denial of human nature. A classless society with no private ownership goes against our territorial, hierarchal natures. But this is not the same as socialism, whether in its original or its current form.

And you are correct regarding self-preservation vs. altruism. If it's me or some guy, I'm usually going to choose me. However, if it's me or my little sister, odds are I'll go for my sister. We're a tribal species, Astyanax. We put our family - whether in the genetic or societal sense - on a level with our individual selves. Maybe a little lower, maybe a little higher, but usually about equal. This is the trick of nations, religions, philosophies, clubs, organizations - to convince you that you are part of that tribe, to develop filial and protective bonds with it. Some people of course, don't experience this sort of bonding instinct - They are known as sociopaths.



Ah, the Democratic People's Republic of the Poor and Failing State With No Name. I heard their national anthem once. "Oh _______, oh ___________, so much debt and squalor as far as the eye can seeeeee! Oh _______, oh ________ please don't let the police find meeeee!"

Ahem. I was actually curious as to your nationality. If you're having trouble picking a likely impoverished and backwards state in the Eastern Hemisphere, might I suggest the World Factbook? It'll cover all your "Crap, I need a suitably destitute ex-soviet satellite state to make a point on a message board!" needs. I hear Azerbaijan is awfully lice-infested this time of year, might I make a recommendation of that?

'Course, given your typing style and some details of your profile, I find myself wondering, "When was the United Kingdom ever socialist?" But I'm of course crazy, my Azerbaijani buddy.



I don't recall blaming the dude. Bangladeshis have to eat too. It has nevertheless landed me in a situation where my funds are not where they should be, due to a factor outside of my control. And you're again sticking your fingers in your ears, going "lalalalala" and pretending that your belief that the USSR is the total of all socialism.

reply to post by The Walking Fox

---

I see no point in continuing this any further. We're certainly not helping modernize Socialism. It's not a project I'm particularly interested in anyway, although it's quite funny watching people try.

Your speculations about my origins and whereabouts are as erroneous as your assumptions concerning my political philosophy. Yes, I have lived in England, among many other places, but that was years ago. I am exactly who, what and where I say I am.