Scotland's Uni Funding System Faces Legal Challenge

[Woodstock Jag]

You have never asked me that before and Ive never said it was fair.

 

I've asked it several times across the whole thread and no one gave an answer. I'm glad you agree it's unfair.

 

As for the last part of your post, where is the line drawn? If you aint good enough we'll wash our hands of you for others from outwith is really the argument you're making here?

 

Well if they're not smart enough to beat off the competition for a Scottish University, then absolutely our University system should wash their hands of them. We want the best and brightest students wherever they come from. If Scottish students aren't good enough, we have to address the secondary education system to make them more academically competitive. If they're not good enough, though, they're not good enough. University education isn't the be all and end all and there are ample other opportunities that can be made available to them in the tertiary education sector.

 

Not for me, take those you deem not good enough and show them they are or make them good enough is the way to go as far as Im concerned. You any idea the number of young people Ive encouraged to go to uni only to hear them say "ach am no good enough to do that."? Who says they're not good enough, some pompous git who hasn't faced hardship, who has no clue of the difficulties faced by children in this country which prevent them from achieving good levels of educational attainment? Smacks of elitist crap. Building a better society takes more than labelling people 'good enough' or 'not good enough' and getting rid of the 'weak', it takes supporting the 'weak' and making them stronger. I doubt we will come close to agreeing on this one tho

 

You're sort of missing the point. Whilst people being held back by social circumstance are disadvantaged, the bottom line is that by the time you get to the University application process it's already too late. If they don't have the requisite ability and qualifications set by the University to fill their finite number of places, no amount of compensating them by expecting less is going to solve the problem.

 

Let's take a Chemistry applicant, for example. If someone from England has all the qualifications and gets a place at Glasgow Uni to the exclusion of a Scot from a disadvantaged background who didn't do well enough in their Highers, it's not going to solve any problems by just denying the English bloke a place and putting the Scot there anyway. The Scot will struggle to catch up with his peers as he's not got the requisite skills to keep up with the class and probably still has the social issues that held him back in the first place. What needs to be done there is that extra time needs to be taken for that applicant to build up their skills in other non-University educational establishments with a view to future application or otherwise going into a new career.

 

University is NOT the be all and end all. Denying those who aren't the best a University education isn't a bad thing; what matters is what's there instead.

[Steven H]

I've asked it several times across the whole thread and no one gave an answer. I'm glad you agree it's unfair.

 

Now now, don't be putting words in my mouth (even tho I'm typing not speaking )

 

Well if they're not smart enough to beat off the competition for a Scottish University, then absolutely our University system should wash their hands of them. We want the best and brightest students wherever they come from. If Scottish students aren't good enough, we have to address the secondary education system to make them more academically competitive. If they're not good enough, though, they're not good enough. University education isn't the be all and end all and there are ample other opportunities that can be made available to them in the tertiary education sector.

 

No, we have to address the deep rooted social problems that cause the problems in secondary education and that cause the problems in our failing society. One small part of that is offering an opportunity for the 'weaker' in our society to become stronger through education. For the mentality of future generations if nothing else.

 

I actually think university students are too young anyway, infact I think 5 yrs old is too young to be starting school (but that's a whole other debate). For many of the 'weaker' in society, and as it is kinda my forté let me use residential child care as an example, my dissertation found the majotiy of people who use this service go on to further increase their educational attainment much later in life, after they leave the trials and tribulations of childhood behind and realise what they want to, and can, do with their lives. Give them that opportunity earlier in life and who knows what can be achieved. Bottom line, society needs to change and the policy we have relating to further and higher education has a role to play in that, a small one perhaps, but a role nonetheless.

 

You're sort of missing the point. Whilst people being held back by social circumstance are disadvantaged, the bottom line is that by the time you get to the University application process it's already too late. If they don't have the requisite ability and qualifications set by the University to fill their finite number of places, no amount of compensating them by expecting less is going to solve the problem.

 

Let's take a Chemistry applicant, for example. If someone from England has all the qualifications and gets a place at Glasgow Uni to the exclusion of a Scot from a disadvantaged background who didn't do well enough in their Highers, it's not going to solve any problems by just denying the English bloke a place and putting the Scot there anyway. The Scot will struggle to catch up with his peers as he's not got the requisite skills to keep up with the class and probably still has the social issues that held him back in the first place. What needs to be done there is that extra time needs to be taken for that applicant to build up their skills in other non-University educational establishments with a view to future application or otherwise going into a new career.

 

University is NOT the be all and end all. Denying those who aren't the best a University education isn't a bad thing; what matters is what's there instead.

 

Let me be clear here, Im not advocating a place be mandatory for any that decide they want to go to uni, but those who fall just that wee bit short should not be denied a place because an English student is deemed to be slightly better than them based on grades achieved in a totally different education system.

 

What do you mean, struggle to keep up with his peers? He doesn't need to, he just needs to achieve the best he can. That might be a 3rd, it might be better, but he sets his own standards not those of his peers. I thought some on my course had no chance of passing, I thought Id struggle, but we got the opportunity, supported each other through the course and qualified (some with a 2:1 classification...none too shabby for the undeserving ).

 

I think college should be compulsory before going to university anyway (but again, that is a whole other debate).

Edited August 24, 2011 by Steven H

[Vladimir Putin]

 

no wonder they think we are a bitter backward country

 

 

 

Let me get this straight. We're 'bitter and backwards' for not offering English students free tuition while they charge Scottish students up to £9,000 a year?

[Woodstock Jag]

Now now, don't be putting words in my mouth (even tho I'm typing not speaking )

 

Well if you didn't answer the question as to how it was fair and made a point of not answering it, what other inference was I to draw? You have, though, completely failed to address this point about the English system. If someone goes to University, they don't pay a PENNY more than they do in Scotland. The only difference is that if you do well for yourself after leaving an English University, you're expected to give something back in line with what you're earning. With Scotland you aren't.

 

No, we have to address the deep rooted social problems that cause the problems in secondary education and that cause the problems in our failing society. One small part of that is offering an opportunity for the 'weaker' in our society to become stronger through education. For the mentality of future generations if nothing else.

 

They're one and the same beast, Steven. Giving Scottish students who fall short the artificial leg-up at University level is too late and simply punishes those who have earned the right by doing better than them. Of course you have to go right back to the earlier stages of education, but that was hugely implicit in what I was saying about overhauling the education system BELOW University rather than simply compensating people for their predicament using quotas.

 

I actually think university students are too young anyway, infact I think 5 yrs old is too young to be starting school (but that's a whole other debate). For many of the 'weaker' in society, and as it is kinda my forté let me use residential child care as an example, my dissertation found the majotiy of people who use this service go on to further increase their educational attainment much later in life, after they leave the trials and tribulations of childhood behind and realise what they want to, and can, do with their lives. Give them that opportunity earlier in life and who knows what can be achieved. Bottom line, society needs to change and the policy we have relating to further and higher education has a role to play in that, a small one perhaps, but a role nonetheless.

 

If anything, allowing English students to displace Scottish students at Scottish Universities gives us the opportunity to point out that our education system is substandard, that we're not dealing with the underlying social problems, and that giving people with uncompetitive qualifications a position straight into Uni doesn't somehow magic away the cause of those problems. Your quota system, like all quota systems, is like the painkiller for the broken leg. You don't feel the pain, but you're not mending the break either. It treats the symptoms and not the root causes of the problem you describe.

 

Let me be clear here, Im not advocating a place be mandatory for any that decide they want to go to uni, but those who fall just that wee bit short should not be denied a place because an English student is deemed to be slightly better than them based on grades achieved in a totally different education system.

 

All quota systems necessarily mandate that one group gets priority over another for a reason other than academic merit. That's sort of what a quota system is Steven! Universities already look at applications in the round rather than just the qualifications, a big part though they play. If they think that a Scottish student has more academic potential notwithstanding slightly inferior grades having looked at their other attributes, then the Scottish student is still the superior applicant and he still gets the place!

 

What do you mean, struggle to keep up with his peers? He doesn't need to, he just needs to achieve the best he can. That might be a 3rd, it might be better, but he sets his own standards not those of his peers. I thought some on my course had no chance of passing, I thought Id struggle, but we got the opportunity, supported each other through the course and qualified (some with a 2:1 classification...none too shabby for the undeserving ).

 

You obviously under-estimated the ability of you and your peers. Clearly the University didn't

 

Surely you agree that at some point, Universities have to draw the line. That's why we don't extend University to everyone. There reaches a stage where it is unfair on both the academically gifted and those who simply aren't able to learn the same material at the same pace to a decent standard. Ultimately for Universities they want the students that will do the best. Because in life as in football, effort can only go so far.

[Meister Jag]

Woody

 

Apologies, have been out at a CPGB meting tonight. The red flag continues to fly...

 

You say that I talk p***, I say you're talking out your neo-con a***. Apologies if that's a bit rude but you're seriously doing my head in and it is noticeable that you're starting to fall out with some if not all of your Tory mates on this DG.

 

Using the government’s own figures, the £23bn spent per year on Higher Education produces a direct economic return of £60bn, arising from a variety of sources including jobs, exports and innovation. That means for every £1 invested in Higher Education, the economy expands by £2.60. Treasury figures show that this increase in economic activity leads to greater tax revenue that not only covers the initial investment but would raise additional money that could be spent on tackling the national deficit or on funding other public services. It is estimated that for every £1 spent on Higher Education the government could get around £1.30 back in taxes within two years. So why the f*** don't you want to invest in education and why not make it accessible to all?

 

My point about increasing welfare payments to push some liquid cash back into the economy was actually semi-serious as most folk on welfare probably would spend whatever extra dosh came their way; so more money in the system. I guess a bit like investing in public works etc. (Which you'll probably disagree with. To my mind this would put people in work and earning a living that then feeds money back into the economy... and so recession lifts.)

 

Oh, and with regard to state pensions, please remember that millions of people will still retire into relative poverty on a state pension which will still be among the least generous in the developed world. But you want to take that away from someone who has perhaps worked in a low paid job for donkeys years, paid taxes , NI, council tax etc. You really are a charmer.

 

You will no doubt respond and the fight will go on. I guess I won't win until you graduate and get a job in the real World (not a dig, a serious point).

 

 

P.S. Wasn't Hayek a bit of a failed economist who loved the idea of turning the working class back into serfs? Your heroes in the collation seem to share a similar vision.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

 

Let me get this straight. We're 'bitter and backwards' for not offering English students free tuition while they charge Scottish students up to £9,000 a year?

 

You're looking at it in a hugely insular, protectionist and bilateral way. The way I see it, England are offering Scots students the same deal as everyone else while Scotland is discriminating against English students who choose to study here. I don't think it's "bitter and backwards" but it's hugely discriminatory, hugely protectionist, hugely political and thoroughly unnecessary.

[Woodstock Jag]

Woody

 

Apologies, have been out at a CPGB meting tonight. The red flag continues to fly...

 

You say that I talk p***, I say you're talking out your neo-con a***. Apologies if that's a bit rude but you're seriously doing my head in and it is noticeable that you're starting to fall out with some if not all of your Tory mates on this DG.

 

Well you do talk pish. You say tax avoidance is illegal. It isn't!

 

And I'm not a neo-conservative. I'm an economic liberal. You're doing that "pretend his position is something else, dismiss the something else position then claim you've dismissed his actual position in doing so" thing. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

I am not a Tory. I don't support the Tories. I am the member of a different political party. I disagree with some of their views on higher education. I don't think we do enough on means tested grants for those from poorer backgrounds to cover living expenses or enough for part-time students. I will not stand by and let you traduce this discourse with "haw you evil Tory ********" as the height of your understanding.

 

Using the government’s own figures, the £23bn spent per year on Higher Education produces a direct economic return of £60bn, arising from a variety of sources including jobs, exports and innovation. That means for every £1 invested in Higher Education, the economy expands by £2.60. Treasury figures show that this increase in economic activity leads to greater tax revenue that not only covers the initial investment but would raise additional money that could be spent on tackling the national deficit or on funding other public services. It is estimated that for every £1 spent on Higher Education the government could get around £1.30 back in taxes within two years. So why the f*** don't you want to invest in education and why not make it accessible to all?

 

Three points. First point is that this concept of the "direct economic return" is a fallacy, as if the government didn't do this activity, someone else would. By letting the government do it you immediately assume that no one else can do it equally well or better without a shred of evidence. Secondly you fail to acknowledge the basic economic law of diminishing returns. The vast majority of the utility of an investment in a sector like education isn't linear. You don't get £2.60 for EVERY pound you invest. The first few billion pounds you will get very little return for. The next few you will get considerably more than £2.60. But then it tails off again. Because eventually you run out of useful resources to which to apply your investment. And for every pound you take out of the real economy to fund this, you reduce the spending power of those who have cause to use the fruits of University R&D and skills development. Thus your own returns diminish ever more rapidly. Thirdly I'm not against investment in education. My issues are WHO PAYS and HOW. Until you address these points we can't have a meaningful discussion.

 

My point about increasing welfare payments to push some liquid cash back into the economy was actually semi-serious as most folk on welfare probably would spend whatever extra dosh came their way; so more money in the system. I guess a bit like investing in public works etc. (Which you'll probably disagree with. To my mind this would put people in work and earning a living that then feeds money back into the economy... and so recession lifts.)

 

This is Keynesian illiteracy. The economy is not some circular flow. It's real stuff. Sloshing the money around more people doesn't mean there's more stuff. It just means you're taking money off one set of people so another set of people can have a bigger share of the same amount of stuff!

 

If you take £1 in tax and give it to Joe Bloggs, and he then spends it, the Treasury still only gets 20p back in VAT. The Treasury has turned £1 of tax revenue into 20p of tax revenue, meaning they've lost money; the taxpayer is 80p worse off and Joe Bloggs has got more stuff. Economic stimuluses don't work! All they do is stoke up inflation and ultimately hit the poor hardest when prices rise. And why do prices rise? Because the government has eroded all the businessman's profit margin in tax, meaning to maintain his own lifestyle he has to take more money in for the same amount of stuff!

 

Oh, and with regard to state pensions, please remember that millions of people will still retire into relative poverty on a state pension which will still be among the least generous in the developed world. But you want to take that away from someone who has perhaps worked in a low paid job for donkeys years, paid taxes, NI, council tax etc. You really are a charmer.

 

Eh no, don't just LIE about what I said. I said it should be means tested. In other words those who "worked in a low paid job for donkeys years" would, you know, BE POOR, and thus would be entitled to a more generous state pension than, oh, you know, Fred Goodwin. Who you'll probably tell me is my best chum or something next because I have the audacity to believe that not all businessmen are crooks.

 

You will no doubt respond and the fight will go on. I guess I won't win until you graduate and get a job in the real World (not a dig, a serious point).

 

You'll never win. Marxism and socialism never wins. It doesn't work, it pisses off those who work hard and it rewards laziness in the name of what they call equality but is anything but.

 

P.S. Wasn't Hayek a bit of a failed economist who loved the idea of turning the working class back into serfs? Your heroes in the collation seem to share a similar vision.

 

No, Hayek is an economist who pointed out lots of flaws in the Keynesian system that everyone wilfully ignored. Hayek said that the reason we have recessions like in 2008 is because governments interfere with the interest rate, which makes people take on more debt than they can afford. That then creates a bubble (usually in, wait for it... HOUSING!) which then leads to banking collapses when those debts turn bad! He also pointed out that so-called economic stimuluses don't create jobs (they just remove resources from the job creators in the private sector) and encourage more lending and more debt that starts the cycle all over again.

 

Far from "loving the idea of turning the working class into serfs" he wrote a book called "The Road to Serfdom" which warned how government intervention and economic planning causes power and wealth to be centralised among an elite, usually of politicians and corporatists, who then rig the system in their own favour and enslave the body populus through the tax system to feather their own nests. Hayek didn't want to turn the working class into serfs. He dedicated his entire economic outlook precisely to preventing that from happening!

 

Oh, and Hayek was far from discredited. As he predicted, the stimulus packages both here and in the US didn't create jobs. They just increased the government deficit, created illusory growth that on further inspection wasn't growth at all and helped to preserve the economic position of the bankers who had made so many mistakes in the first place.

 

Capitalism is about profit and loss. If you bail-out the losers, there's no end to the cost. In times like these, governments have proved this adage true. Look no further than the pathetic attempts to salvage the Euro to save face and the suffering it's caused the people of Greece.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[Jaggernaut]

And what would your reaction be if it was the English Universities that allowed every one in the EU to study in England for free except the Scots? That is exactly what is happening here in reverse.

My honest reaction would be "C'est la vie."

[honved]

We need to have a serious debate about all of this sometime.

[Blackpool Jags]

 

You're adopting the same rational that people use to argue (ridiculously) against an asylum seeker's right to work and to basic benefits.

 

Methinks you've completely misunderstood the nature of this judicial review.

There is NO SUCH THING as free higher education. It has never existed. The question is WHO pays and in what proportion. You want those who never get the chance to go to University to subsidise those who do. I think that's crass and immoral.

 

The "why could we afford it then but not now" argument also doesn't hold in a society where about 4 times the proportion of the population now go to Universities and an even higher proportion now go onto some sort of higher education institution instead of straight into work or an apprenticeship. We also have proportionally much higher financial obligations in primary and secondary education, which has raised standards, but has also had to cater for kids staying on longer instead of leaving at 14, 15, 16 in such vast numbers to go off and do something else. Now that's not a *bad* thing, but it has financial consequences. Harking back to days where people were much less economically mobile than they are today, to days when the mode of learning was completely different, to days when even the most developed of nations bore massive physical scars of one of if not the worst post industrialised war, gets us nowhere.

 

 

Again, you don't seem to realise what a court would instruct the Scottish Government to do if this case was successful.

 

 

 

The workhouses patter is a load of heafing shite and does you no favours as it's simply not rooted in fact at all.

 

 

The English system isn't hugely flawed. People just don't understand it.Let's not tone troll and actually deal with the cold hard facts.

 

I wish to publicly declare my undying gratitude to you you, WJ, for disabusing me of the fatuous notion that I had any idea of how the world works. I reflect on my 50 odd years on this earth and sit stunned with amazement at how I ever managed to navigate my way through this piffling existence without the benefit of your sagatious offerings.

 

Eternally appreciated.

[Blackpool Jags]

 

I am not a Tory. I don't support the Tories. I am the member of a different political party.

 

The sole member of that party?

[jaggybunnet]

I wish to publicly declare my undying gratitude to you you, WJ, for disabusing me of the fatuous notion that I had any idea of how the world works. I reflect on my 50 odd years on this earth and sit stunned with amazement at how I ever managed to navigate my way through this piffling existence without the benefit of your sagatious offerings.

 

Eternally appreciated.

 

 

doesn't mean he is not right (with some of it)anyway

[Woodstock Jag]

I wish to publicly declare my undying gratitude to you you, WJ, for disabusing me of the fatuous notion that I had any idea of how the world works. I reflect on my 50 odd years on this earth and sit stunned with amazement at how I ever managed to navigate my way through this piffling existence without the benefit of your sagatious offerings.

 

Eternally appreciated.

 

Always on hand to set people right, whether they're 1 or 101

 

The sole member of that party?

 

[Meister Jag]

Woody

 

I have stopped short of calling you an evil Tory b******; just not my style. I leave the name calling to others. I know you're a Liberal or whatever your lap dog party calls themselves these days. But you must be well out of step with their current economic thinking; which really isn't their own as they do what their masters tell them. Your thoughts on your party of choices lust for power would be most welcome. I'm not sure if you actually attend branch meetings etc, but I'd love to be a fly-on-the-wall at one; bet you pack 'em in - the liberal messiah has arrived!

 

Where mankind has a will the people will prevail. Your understanding of how a socialist society might work highlights flaws in your thinking. As I keep saying, you're placing barriers in the way of the people but, come the day, barriers can be broken and markets torn down. The advantages of socialism are simply that a Soviet economy (I'm using the term in the true sense) would be an analog of a grand Western superkorporatsii; but it would be financially independent, closed and insensitive to the game of speculators and would have enormous technological capabilities. This would even allow the defence industry - should it ever be required to safeguard our borders - to concentrate enormous resources at the decisive point in what might be a crucial time post-revolution. The economy would have a huge internal market and thus would never have to communicate with the outside world apart from maybe some other like minded states who would form part of the new international.

 

And will this all happen within my lifetime? In answer, probably not; but anything is possible. I mean, who predicted that markets would be in the moribund state they're in just now? Don't tell me you did. You didn't. You just think you're good! The problem is that there is no vanguard ready to take up the fight. And if asked, like most others, I'm a bit busy most nights and I'm also getting on a wee bit (turned 50 last year and have other interests).

 

Ta for your comments on Hayek btw, I actually heard a guy discussing his theories some years back and, if memory serves, I seem to recall that he was ridiculed for becoming a bit of a populist thinker. You all eventually suck up to the man - and liberals are especially fond of sucking up to their capitalist masters. I'll refrain from commenting on Keynes but the 'throw money at the problem'panacea seems to be the only way capitalism knows to solve problems - look at Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and even America. The signals are that the game is almost up son.

 

And now for the bit you love (Jaggy too):

 

Under capitalism, the majority of people (i.e. the working class) are coerced to work, we literally have no choice but to otherwise we starve! We are compelled by the logic of capitalism to sell our labour and, as such, capitalism calls the shots, not the people who produce the wealth in society. Under socialism, people would of course be expected to work, but for very different reasons. Instead, workers would be encouraged to work for the benefit of society and not just reasons for of survival. Despite the arguments of conservatives and so-called liberals like you, socialists believe that humanity is basically good but is shaped by the society it lives in. Therefore, I believe that people that believe in a society that works for them, and is, ultimately, run by them will make sure it works. Pause for breath and wipe away tears...

 

As a socialist society is run by the working class it is in our interests to make sure it works... Every effort will be made to make people’s lives easier and it stands to reason that innovation will still be needed under socialism. But remember, a society can never be too efficient.

 

Again, under capitalism, innovation and entrepreneurship reflect class interests and is therefore only utilised to make profit and not for the overall good of society. The technology exists for everyone to drive around in environmentally-friendly cars but capitalism will not allow this to happen on a mass scale because it will cut into its profits. Production would be based on human need not personal greed. There really is nothing you've said in any of your facile arguments that can convince me otherwise.

 

Off to see 'The Inbetweeners' so no more from me tonight... back tomorrow to no doubt answer your witty response. 50 and still down with the kids; how do I do it many ask! Hasta la Victoria Siempre or FTOF to you and me.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

Woody

 

I have stopped short of calling you an evil Tory b******; just not my style. I leave the name calling to others. I know you're a Liberal or whatever your lap dog party calls themselves these days. But you must be well out of step with their current economic thinking; which really isn't their own as they do what their masters tell them. Your thoughts on your party of choices lust for power would be most welcome. I'm not sure if you actually attend branch meetings etc, but I'd love to be a fly-on-the-wall at one; bet you pack 'em in - the liberal messiah has arrived!

 

Where mankind has a will the people will prevail. Your understanding of how a socialist society might work highlights flaws in your thinking. As I keep saying, you're placing barriers in the way of the people but, come the day, barriers can be broken and markets torn down. The advantages of socialism are simply that a Soviet economy (I'm using the term in the true sense) would be an analog of a grand Western superkorporatsii; but it would be financially independent, closed and insensitive to the game of speculators and would have enormous technological capabilities. This would even allow the defence industry - should it ever be required to safeguard our borders - to concentrate enormous resources at the decisive point in what might be a crucial time post-revolution. The economy would have a huge internal market and thus would never have to communicate with the outside world apart from maybe some other like minded states who would form part of the new international.

 

And will this all happen within my lifetime? In answer, probably not; but anything is possible. I mean, who predicted that markets would be in the moribund state they're in just now? Don't tell me you did. You didn't. You just think you're good! The problem is that there is no vanguard ready to take up the fight. And if asked, like most others, I'm a bit busy most nights and I'm also getting on a wee bit (turned 50 last year and have other interests).

 

Ta for your comments on Hayek btw, I actually heard a guy discussing his theories some years back and, if memory serves, I seem to recall that he was ridiculed for becoming a bit of a populist thinker. You all eventually suck up to the man - and liberals are especially fond of sucking up to their capitalist masters. I'll refrain from commenting on Keynes but the 'throw money at the problem'panacea seems to be the only way capitalism knows to solve problems - look at Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and even America. The signals are that the game is almost up son.

 

And now for the bit you love (Jaggy too):

 

Under capitalism, the majority of people (i.e. the working class) are coerced to work, we literally have no choice but to otherwise we starve! We are compelled by the logic of capitalism to sell our labour and, as such, capitalism calls the shots, not the people who produce the wealth in society. Under socialism, people would of course be expected to work, but for very different reasons. Instead, workers would be encouraged to work for the benefit of society and not just reasons for of survival. Despite the arguments of conservatives and so-called liberals like you, socialists believe that humanity is basically good but is shaped by the society it lives in. Therefore, I believe that people that believe in a society that works for them, and is, ultimately, run by them will make sure it works. Pause for breath and wipe away tears...

 

As a socialist society is run by the working class it is in our interests to make sure it works... Every effort will be made to make people’s lives easier and it stands to reason that innovation will still be needed under socialism. But remember, a society can never be too efficient.

 

Again, under capitalism, innovation and entrepreneurship reflect class interests and is therefore only utilised to make profit and not for the overall good of society. The technology exists for everyone to drive around in environmentally-friendly cars but capitalism will not allow this to happen on a mass scale because it will cut into its profits. Production would be based on human need not personal greed. There really is nothing you've said in any of your facile arguments that can convince me otherwise.

 

Off to see 'The Inbetweeners' so no more from me tonight... back tomorrow to no doubt answer your witty response. 50 and still down with the kids; how do I do it many ask! Hasta la Victoria Siempre or FTOF to you and me.

 

 

But very few want it and those that did unless they are in power would soon change there mind, ahh you must be proud when you look back on all the socialist countries that have done so well...like the good old USSR, china, north Korea.. ah the list goes on and who can for get that nice man Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin who did so well at wiping out tribes and his own people that even Hitler was impressed with his effort to kill his own people.

 

feel proud MJ

 

socialism doesn't work, get over it

[twinny]

even Hitler was impressed with his effort to kill his own people.

 

 

We have a winner

[jaggybunnet]

We have a winner

 

Damn

[honved]

even Hitler was impressed with his effort to kill his own people.

 

 

 

 

We have a winner

 

 

Damn

Loltastic...

[Blackpool Jags]

socialism doesn't work, get over it

 

Oh, I see. And there was me toiling under the misapprehension that backward, agrarian pre-1917 Russia had moved to become a state where literacy rates had gone from below 15% to over 90%, become fully industrialised and managed to put a man into space etc etc, in the space of around 40 years, by virtue of their equivalent of David Copperfield or Paul Daniels.

 

I must pay more attention to facts. (Slaps one's own wrists frenetically by way of self-chastisement).

[jaggybunnet]

Loltastic...

 

 

[jaggybunnet]

Oh, I see. And there was me toiling under the misapprehension that backward, agrarian pre-1917 Russia had moved to become a state where literacy rates had gone from below 15% to over 90%, become fully industrialised and managed to put a man into space etc etc, in the space of around 40 years, by virtue of their equivalent of David Copperfield or Paul Daniels.

 

I must pay more attention to facts. (Slaps one's own wrists frenetically by way of self-chastisement).

 

 

i doubt that included the working class who were used to further Stalin's main aims of mass production for his war effort and nothing else.

 

of course you could at a stretch say his Gulags were for training

 

it doesn't work apart from in some utopia that is only in peoples heads and not real life

[twinny]

i doubt that included the working class who were used to further Stalin's main aims of mass production for his war effort and nothing else.

 

of course you could at a stretch say his Gulags were for training

 

it doesn't work apart from in some utopia that is only in peoples heads and not real life

 

Socialism is a superior system however it has been utilised mostly by dictators or similar with right wing/nationalist views with regards to humanity and ethnicity in general, or at least those are the only ones to gain power and now people are scared of what could be very good for the country.

[Woodstock Jag]

Oh, I see. And there was me toiling under the misapprehension that backward, agrarian pre-1917 Russia had moved to become a state where literacy rates had gone from below 15% to over 90%, become fully industrialised and managed to put a man into space etc etc, in the space of around 40 years, by virtue of their equivalent of David Copperfield or Paul Daniels.

 

I must pay more attention to facts. (Slaps one's own wrists frenetically by way of self-chastisement).

 

And there was me thinking that despite that industrialisation, a process which was far from exclusive to Communist Russia, within the same short space of time the political classses tended towards the formation of a rabid elite in the Politburo who suppressed the press, civil liberties, and basic individual economic freedoms of those outside the inner-circle to govern by fear. There was me thinking that when people sought pluralism it was denied. With tanks. There was me thinking that when the people sought autonomy even just to do socialism their own way in Hungary, this centralisation of power led to the execution of Imre Nagy and the installation of a puppet dictator (sorry, "leader of the revolution"). There was me thinking that the USSR crumbled under the weight of economic isolationism and the rejection of tyranny by the peoples of the satellite states in the DDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

 

Silly me. I really MUST pay more attention to the facts. Clearly socialism is a WONDERFUL idea that doesn't lead to the oppression of the masses at all. *headdesk*

[jaggybunnet]

Socialism is a superior system however it has been utilised mostly by dictators or similar with right wing/nationalist views with regards to humanity and ethnicity in general, or at least those are the only ones to gain power and now people are scared of what could be very good for the country.

 

name a socialist country that works.

 

we are not all equal and never will be, there will always be people who are more intelligent have more wealth or are physically stronger, these people will always try to rise above and control others its human nature.

 

Socialism is a myth

Edited August 26, 2011 by jaggybunnet

[twinny]

name a socialist country that works.

 

we are not all equal and never will be, there will always be people who are more intelligent have more wealth or are physically stronger, these people will always try to rise above and control others its human nature.

 

Socialism is a myth

 

So you believe the less privileged should remain so as to be serfs for the upper class for the rest of time?