Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[Robert]

Can you imagine the Communists on an episode of "The Apprentice"?

SUGAR : So, Karl Marx, you've brought Lenin and Stalin back into the board room. You were given the task of selling your theory of Communism to some shopkeepers in Milton Keynes. How much did they make, Nick?

HEWER : 52 pence.

SUGAR : That's not good. One of you is going home.

MARX : Lord Sugar, I feel I was an effective team manager...

LENIN : But you didn't manage!!! You left me to work out the theory of imperialism!

SUGAR : What about you, Joe? I hear you antagonised the shopkeepers.

STALIN : Me? How?

SUGAR : By shooting them when they wouldn't buy your theory.

HEWER : Indeed, he shot 268 shopkeepers in thirty minutes.

MARX : There you are! No wonder our takings are down...

SUGAR : Hmmm...Joe, you're fired.

STALIN ; (TAKING OUT GUN) No, you are...

[Bob Hinton]

What a pity..

Bob is quite correct.

The poor hapless masses haven't a flamin' clue what to do and the true natural 5% of leaders never make mistakes....because they are the ones who know what is best.

That is until they [the Nat5] are shown later what they should have done by the rest of us poor slobs, when they [the Nat5] have made a complete balls up of it.

I have a very interesting statistic that I read the other day.

The late great Arbuthnot St. John Purple Helmet said "that if you take 100 introspective poets and asked each of them who was the best they would all vote for somebody else."

Of course it is not true, I just made it up. Just like Bob Hinton's ridiculous statistic about 5% of us being born leaders.

It's all about self confidence and not taking any crap from the myriad of short arsed, chip on the shoulder, angry Hitler types that pop up all too often.

Derrick

Having read the first line I thought Derrick had learned something - but then I see he soon reverts to childish name calling and his blissful state of total ignorance he exists in.

[Phil H]

You have to realise that those who want to change the system are just as ruthless and cruel as those they claim to be capitalists or Nazis.

They forget that to change the system would mean infinite pain and uncertainty to all those who simply want to raise their children, do a good day's work, be proud of their achievements and live in peace within the system we have. These people obey the laws, are honest, help society and do no wrong, yet our socialist friends would take all that away - for what?

To give more to those who (the Daily Excess would no doubt claim) want it WITHOUT WORK, the professional scroungers, the benefit cheats and the tax dodgers.

Stalin killed millions of "little" middle-class people by moving them off their land and re-locating them. They had done no wrong, just happened to live under a "socialist" dictator. look again at Pol Pot and his killing fields - he hated the professional and middle classes, so drove them out of the cities to die.

I hear supposedly "moderate" socialists like Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Viscount Stansgate, don't forget) who when they talk about the socialist nivana they dream of, imply that it could only be achieved if all the middle classes, professionals and judges, etc were removed from the system. if you think about it, they would continue to be the vocal ones in society because they are educated, leaders and "activists" - they have a view, are informed and can argue against what is being introduced. hence by implication they would have to be silenced. How? Make you own minds up.

No, don't give me this socialist draem - it has been a failure every time it has been tried, and brought untold suffering: Russia, China (cultural revolution) Cambodia; Cuba.

In britain the welfare state is unsustainable and will fall under its own weight - the NHS in particular - but the socialists are so impractical, so self-deceiving, that they will not recognise it.

Wow, but it feels good to have got that off my chest.

Come back at me you "REDS" let's dance!!

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Not to sound like Hitler but Capitalisms main benefit is its Darwinian leanings. Survival of the fittest has been a proven theory in the natural world.

Survival of the fittest companies in the long term serves us well. Unlike Communism, Capitalism understands the human psyche perfectly.

I have no particular desire to advocate 'Communist' China as a role model here but boy! talk about being the fastest growing economy on earth capitalism per se don't stand a chance by comparison in terms of economic growth----like it or lump it streets ahead of poor old us---and the US.
Come to think of it Stalinist Russia developed economically at the rate of knots too --in 50 years it pulled the USSR out of feudal serfdom and the hideous poverty of 1917 suffered by the peasants and into being the only world super power that could compete with the United states ----and provide housing, gas, electricity and full employment for all its people.
Tragedy was Stalin himself .He used the fact that because the capitalist world was **** scared and determined to destroy the Russian Revolution with anti Russian propaganda he could somehow,by building a red army from one end of Russia to the other , develop 'socialism in one country'.THere were successes such as the literacy programmes that brought literacy to the vast peasant population within five years.But he was proven wrong over Socialism in One Country .He became murderous monster attempting to stifle all dissent - and those that followed him -sending tanks to invade and occupy neighbouring countries like Hungary were just as bad.Latterly, Breshnev was so moribund something had to go .
But revolution is a permanent state- as Marx explained 'man is always in struggle' and if you don't think thats the case ,look at Latin America or look at the Arab revolution right now---millions and millions of people rising up all over the middle east trying to throw out their murderous leaders in Tunisia Egypt,Libya ,Syria,Yemen and Bahrain,Iran Iraq---and thats only the beginning.It may not be linear or smooth but it will continue until we either 'collapse into barbarism' as Marx predicted or develop into something along the lines of his Utopia and its 'withered away state".

[jason_c]

You have to realise that those who want to change the system are just as ruthless and cruel as those they claim to be capitalists or Nazis.

They forget that to change the system would mean infinite pain and uncertainty to all those who simply want to raise their children, do a good day's work, be proud of their achievements and live in peace within the system we have. These people obey the laws, are honest, help society and do no wrong, yet our socialist friends would take all that away - for what?

To give more to those who (the Daily Excess would no doubt claim) want it WITHOUT WORK, the professional scroungers, the benefit cheats and the tax dodgers.

Stalin killed millions of "little" middle-class people by moving them off their land and re-locating them. They had done no wrong, just happened to live under a "socialist" dictator. look again at Pol Pot and his killing fields - he hated the professional and middle classes, so drove them out of the cities to die.

I hear supposedly "moderate" socialists like Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Viscount Stansgate, don't forget) who when they talk about the socialist nivana they dream of, imply that it could only be achieved if all the middle classes, professionals and judges, etc were removed from the system. if you think about it, they would continue to be the vocal ones in society because they are educated, leaders and "activists" - they have a view, are informed and can argue against what is being introduced. hence by implication they would have to be silenced. How? Make you own minds up.

No, don't give me this socialist draem - it has been a failure every time it has been tried, and brought untold suffering: Russia, China (cultural revolution) Cambodia; Cuba.

In britain the welfare state is unsustainable and will fall under its own weight - the NHS in particular - but the socialists are so impractical, so self-deceiving, that they will not recognise it.

Wow, but it feels good to have got that off my chest.

Come back at me you "REDS" let's dance!!

Phil

Phil, I feel we are now blood brothers after that post.

[Natalie Severn]

Phil H
You gotta be joking! WOW man--you're to the right of Hitler!
Never thought I would see that on the boards.

[Natalie Severn]

Phil, I feel we are now blood brothers after that post.

You are not Jack the Ripper incarnate by any chance? Like I said---to the right of Hitler---he only murdered 5 mind whereas HItler murdered 6 million Jews alone.

[Phil H]

Which bit of my post gave me away, Natalie?

Do you not do irony?

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Which bit of my post gave me away, Natalie?

Do you not do irony?

Phil

I do....

[jason_c]

I have no particular desire to advocate 'Communist' China as a role model here but boy! talk about being the fastest growing economy on earth capitalism per se don't stand a chance by comparison in terms of economic growth----like it or lump it streets ahead of poor old us---and the US.
Come to think of it Stalinist Russia developed economically at the rate of knots too --in 50 years it pulled the USSR out of feudal serfdom and the hideous poverty of 1917 suffered by the peasants and into being the only world super power that could compete with the United states ----and provide housing, gas, electricity and full employment for all its people.
Tragedy was Stalin himself .He used the fact that because the capitalist world was **** scared and determined to destroy the Russian Revolution with anti Russian propaganda he could somehow,by building a red army from one end of Russia to the other , develop 'socialism in one country'.THere were successes such as the literacy programmes that brought literacy to the vast peasant population within five years.But he was proven wrong over Socialism in One Country .He became murderous monster attempting to stifle all dissent - and those that followed him -sending tanks to invade and occupy neighbouring countries like Hungary were just as bad.Latterly, Breshnev was so moribund something had to go .
But revolution is a permanent state- as Marx explained 'man is always in struggle' and if you don't think thats the case ,look at Latin America or look at the Arab revolution right now---millions and millions of people rising up all over the middle east trying to throw out their murderous leaders in Tunisia Egypt,Libya ,Syria,Yemen and Bahrain,Iran Iraq---and thats only the beginning.It may not be linear or smooth but it will continue until we either 'collapse into barbarism' as Marx predicted or develop into something along the lines of his Utopia and its 'withered away state".

Natalie

China isnt in the slightest bit communist these days. It is still totalitarian unfortunately. Its the free market that has lead to the Chinese GDP growth, not socialism.

You also give the USSR way too much economic credit. To say everyone was housed, received adequate heating, fully employed is simply wrong. For a start no totalitarian regime will allow independent statistics to be made. Secondly, families were housed in often appalling overcrowding, sharing kitchens, bathrooms and even bedrooms with other families. I wont mention the fully employed slave labour camps either.

Literacy and education is fine, but its not the be all and end all. The Soviets had university degrees coming out of there asses, but by the 1970's they still couldnt produce a decent microchip, television set, computer or motorcar. U.S. students were as dumb as goldfish by comparison.

There are numerous stories of professors at Russian universities growing vegetables to make extra money. In the West these professors would be carrying out valuable research while being adequately compensated by Universities and big business.

I find it unfortunate you are someone who still clings to the idea it was mainly Stalins fault that Soviet communism was so ruthless. It was the system Lenin set up that ensured a totalitarian outcome. Was Stalin also to blame for the ruthlessness in China, North Korea, Cambodia? No, the whole communist system was to blame.

[Phil H]

On second thoughts my post was too strong.

Let's just say we'll have to differ, Natalie.

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,lets be pleasant to each other instead !
Nite Nite Phil and Jason,
nx

[Natalie Severn]

Its useless trying to debate the Soviet Union.It was a system that called itself communist but was a gross distortion of what Marx had envisaged because it never went through the phases of development Marx considered essential for worker's democracy viz fully democratic workers soviets in every town and village .Instead a corrupt bureacracy took power almost immediately after 1917.In the absence of workers democracy or soviets and in the name of soviet development under his 5 year plans, the electrification of Russia ,literacy progs etc ,Stalin was able to get rid of all opposition.
But it had nothing to do with Marx and little in common with his ideas.

[Phil H]

You gotta be joking! WOW man--you're to the right of Hitler!

I'd say I was just a pragmatic realist in poliics and international political terms.

I'm afraid that I have shed all my rose-tinted spectacles and wishful thinking about the world. I try to look on as cooly as i can and as an historian, bring to bear my knowledge of the past. I think I'm probably more guilty of being cynical than fascist.

That said, I do put the state before the individual, and I do not believe that the modern tendency to reverse that will lead to anything but disaster for all.

But I can assure you, I would not hurt a fly, dislike extreme political parties of either side, and am certainly not racist in any way - I have travelled quite widely in the Middle East and like the people very much. The tenor of my earlier post was (not very well!) seeking to mirror the earlier "pro-socialism" ones, from an opposite perspective, and failed. I shouldn't do these things when I am pressed for time and tired. The humour or "irony" gets lost.

I hope that orientates your view of me a little.

Phil

[Limehouse]

You have to realise that those who want to change the system are just as ruthless and cruel as those they claim to be capitalists or Nazis.

They forget that to change the system would mean infinite pain and uncertainty to all those who simply want to raise their children, do a good day's work, be proud of their achievements and live in peace within the system we have. These people obey the laws, are honest, help society and do no wrong, yet our socialist friends would take all that away - for what?

To give more to those who (the Daily Excess would no doubt claim) want it WITHOUT WORK, the professional scroungers, the benefit cheats and the tax dodgers.

Stalin killed millions of "little" middle-class people by moving them off their land and re-locating them. They had done no wrong, just happened to live under a "socialist" dictator. look again at Pol Pot and his killing fields - he hated the professional and middle classes, so drove them out of the cities to die.

I hear supposedly "moderate" socialists like Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Viscount Stansgate, don't forget) who when they talk about the socialist nivana they dream of, imply that it could only be achieved if all the middle classes, professionals and judges, etc were removed from the system. if you think about it, they would continue to be the vocal ones in society because they are educated, leaders and "activists" - they have a view, are informed and can argue against what is being introduced. hence by implication they would have to be silenced. How? Make you own minds up.

No, don't give me this socialist draem - it has been a failure every time it has been tried, and brought untold suffering: Russia, China (cultural revolution) Cambodia; Cuba.

In britain the welfare state is unsustainable and will fall under its own weight - the NHS in particular - but the socialists are so impractical, so self-deceiving, that they will not recognise it.

Wow, but it feels good to have got that off my chest.

Come back at me you "REDS" let's dance!!

Phil

Morning Phil

When I first read your post above I was horrified. Then I read the subsequent posts and I beame a little lss horrified. However - I would like to comment on a few points if I may. I have placed in bold the points I would particularly like to respond to.

1. If you were placed in a room with one hundred REAL socialists you would find that all they want to do is - to quote yourself - "raise their children, do a good day's work, be proud of their achievements and live in peace within the system we have. These people obey the laws, are honest, help society and do no wrong" Those things are at the centre of the socilist purpose. In fact it is exactl;y how I have lived my life. It was not the life predicted for me but it was the life I have strived for.

2. YOu state that socialists strive to give more to: "those who (the Daily Excess would no doubt claim) want it WITHOUT WORK, the professional scroungers, the benefit cheats and the tax dodgers" This is not only untrue (socialism advocates a hand up - not a hand out) but there is a huge contradiction here because this is just exactly what capitalism is producing. After all - we live in a capitalist state and we have all of he things your describe!

3. I have heartd Tony Benn speak many times and I have walked right beside him at the Tolpuddle Ralley. He has never said that the class of people you described should be removed. What he has said is (and this was long ago when there was less social mobility) that more working class people need to have the opportunity to enter the professional classes so that they are no longer dominated by those of privilege who are concerned with preserving their own wealth and position in society. For example - why should so many unelected people have had the right to sit in the House of Lords and make decisions and pass laws affecting the majority of people when they do sdo based soley on the privilege of birth? (Of course - this has now changed somewhat).

Concerning Cuba - I do not think you can put it in the same category as China and Russia. There have been no purges and it is generally an open society. i know several people who have visited Cuba - including my daughter - and they all describe very happy people. They are not wealthy and they often lack everyday essentials such as toothpaste but they have very good health care and one of the best education systems in the world.

I could say more but I am off the Coventry today so I have to sign off and may be come back later tonight or tomorrow.

Best wishes

Julie