pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 As the title says really. This thread has been inspired by the designation of people into the left and right of the political spectrum. I'm having trouble working out what relevance the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" have in Britain in the year 2012. The ends of this spectrum used to represent something quite different, with the left veering toward socialism/communism while the extreme right was home to capitalist nationalists. Not sure that's applicable now after the victory of the free market over communism. Further, all of our mainstream political parties have gravitated to the centre. I've heard it argued quite successfully that Labour and Conservative are just different strands of neo-Liberalism. All parties treat the market as if its a permanent fixture. That being the case, what do YOU mean when you say left-wing or right-wing?
ericofarabia Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Back in the day it meant No 7 or 11 on the back of the shirt
dronskisaint Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Sit in a plane facing forward...look over your right shoulder Repeat process for left I you don't see a wing you're in a rocket...or f*kt
so22saint Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 The day I saw the "left" calling for tax cuts and the "right" increasing borrowing I never thought I'd see. I think the main issue is that we're now run by a "political class" that, like the pigs in 1984, want to keep their snouts in the trough at the top table and don't really believe in anything. I still don't like the fact that "liberal" is now an insult. As if caring for others and being able to see a balanced viewpoint is a bad thing.
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 The day I saw the "left" calling for tax cuts and the "right" increasing borrowing I never thought I'd see. I think the main issue is that we're now run by a "political class" that, like the pigs in 1984, want to keep their snouts in the trough at the top table and don't really believe in anything. I still don't like the fact that "liberal" is now an insult. As if caring for others and being able to see a balanced viewpoint is a bad thing. Strong views, but they chime a lot with some of my thoughts. I like the 1984 comparison, especially as we now seem to be in an unending war on both military and economic fronts. Who'd have thought Blair would have been so keen to ingratiate himself with the neo-conservatives? Supposedly left-wing leader cosying up to the most right wing US government in living memory.
Bearsy Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 i don't know nothing bout politics really but someone got me The West Wing on dvd for Christmas and I'm pretty sure Left Wing means "Good" and Right Wing means "Bad"!
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 i don't know nothing bout politics really but someone got me The West Wing on dvd for Christmas and I'm pretty sure Left Wing means "Good" and Right Wing means "Bad"! It is heartening to see you take such an interest in human affairs, Bearsy. It would seem like the West Wing's definition holds up on this very forum:- Left-wing : "Help them" Right-wing : "F*ck 'em" Or is that too simple a definition?
Bearsy Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 No that sounds bout right i see what ur saying there. its like when i found a starving bear cub in the forest i was like is it better to take it home so it might grown into a strong bear and be useful to me (Left Wing) or should i just let it starve so i don't have to share my food with it (Right Wing). Both ways have merit. In the end I killed it and fed it to some other starving bear cubs so i guess i swing both ways.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 It is heartening to see you take such an interest in human affairs, Bearsy. It would seem like the West Wing's definition holds up on this very forum:- Left-wing : "Help them" Right-wing : "F*ck 'em" Or is that too simple a definition? Left-wing : "Pander to them" Right-wing : "Help yourself"
Thedelldays Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 lockerbie terrorist. Left wing - ah poor man, he is ill, lets let him go home...live and let live right wing - keep him locked up, the terrorist killed hundreds of people, he will get medical attention inside and justice will be served at the same time. he was found guilty after all
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 Left-wing : "Pander to them" Right-wing : "Help yourself" And we have a batter for the right! Pander 1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer. 2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: Is that really the left-wing's attitude to the poor? Help yourself and get a dictionary!
Colinjb Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Left Wing - Nationalise. Nanny State. Right Wing - Privatise. Minimise the State.
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 lockerbie terrorist. Left wing - ah poor man, he is ill, lets let him go home...live and let live right wing - keep him locked up, the terrorist killed hundreds of people, he will get medical attention inside and justice will be served at the same time. he was found guilty after all This is an interesting comment in that it highlights the assumptions people make. I doubt you'd get too many left-wingers supporting the release of the Lockerbie bomber. In fact, you could argue that the release only happened to further trade relationships between Britain and Libya, with the Scots made convenient fall-guys.
Thedelldays Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 This is an interesting comment in that it highlights the assumptions people make. I doubt you'd get too many left-wingers supporting the release of the Lockerbie bomber. In fact, you could argue that the release only happened to further trade relationships between Britain and Libya, with the Scots made convenient fall-guys. did it...?
trousers Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 What's the 'natural' state of nature? Survival of the fittest or protection of the weak? (btw, I'm not stating that 'human nature' should necessarily emulate 'nature' itself. Some might say that deviating from nature is a good thing....others may not.....)
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 did it...? Definitely. Apparently, trade between the two nations was estimated at £1.5 billion p.a. before Gaddafi was ousted and shot. In 2008/09 (Lockerbie bomber released in 2009) trade increased by 50% year on year. A case of abandoning morality for a better balance sheet.
Colinjb Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Left wing - Commie Right wing - Nazi Imagine the coalition there.
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 What's the 'natural' state of nature? Survival of the fittest or protection of the weak? (btw, I'm not stating that 'human nature' should necessarily emulate 'nature' itself. Some might say that deviating from nature is a good thing....others may not.....) Interesting question. Short answer is that we would never have come this far as a species without strong co-operation. If our natural instinct was to kill any competition, its doubtful we'd be having this debate. The market economy as we know it is a mere pup compared to the systems that were in place before.
Colinjb Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 If our natural instinct was to kill any competition, its doubtful we'd be having this debate. Human history is littered with examples of this though.
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 Human history is littered with examples of this though. Just as it is littered with examples of people working together in common cause. The question is, which is the more natural state? I suspect the answer is not to look at the edicts of King and Pope, but simply, a bit of introspection multiplied up. I'm not convinced that people wake up in the morning thinking "who do I f*ck over today?".
Colinjb Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Just as it is littered with examples of people working together in common cause. The question is, which is the more natural state? I suspect the answer is not to look at the edicts of King and Pope, but simply, a bit of introspection multiplied up. I'm not convinced that people wake up in the morning thinking "who do I f*ck over today?". I think the crux of that question is that it depends on the individual concerned. Humanity is varied, there is not simply one way to define people in one bracket.
trousers Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 (edited) We would never have come this far as a species without strong co-operation Strong co-operation between the strongest members of the species or strong co-operation between the strongest and the weakest? For example, if say 20,000 years ago, a caveman had a child born with a serious disability, would they have cared for that child even if it put the larger family / social group at a disadvantage, or would they have done what a 'less compassionate' species would have done and leave the child to die in the interest of the greater good of the group as a whole? Which action is more 'socially' aware? That of the human race (as it has evolved today) or that of the wild pack or herd? Edited 27 February, 2012 by trousers
trousers Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 I'm not convinced that people wake up in the morning thinking "who do I f*ck over today?". No, but they might think: "who do I make sure doesn't f*ck ME over today?"...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 The left wing has been blured by Blair's electoral con trick on the British public. New Labour realised after years in opposition that they need to sound tough on certain popular Right wing issues, like law and order, national security and low direct taxes, especially for the rich. They had seen that the the common ownership of the means of production, their vicious punishing income tax policy and their seeming weakness on protecting the Country had led to defeat after defeat at the polls. You ended up with the sight of lefties like John Prescott doing a complete about turn on many of the issues that brought him into politics in the first place. We now have the smae happening in reverse with Cameron picking up on popular leftie issues and trying to marry that with the natural centre right Toryism. It has always been a bit like that with Grocer Heath being a bit of a wet "one nation" Tory. My opinion is that this rush for the popular centre is the reason our politicans are so boring and politics so stale. They are focused on following focus groups rather than leading opinion. People like Thatcher& Foot had policies and principles and stuck to them, trying to take the people with them. Nowadays policics can be summed up in the line "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others", I think it was the Marx brothers. At a really basic level I would say that the left is about the state creating the circumstances where people can progress and better themselves, but actively getting involved and creating some sort of level playing field. The right is about the state getting out of people lives and allowing people to do the same. I always think that the left is right in principle and the right in practise.What could be fairer than a society where everybody has the same chances, where everyone is looked after and where everyone owns everything? It's just in real life it doesn't work.
Thedelldays Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Definitely. Apparently, trade between the two nations was estimated at £1.5 billion p.a. before Gaddafi was ousted and shot. In 2008/09 (Lockerbie bomber released in 2009) trade increased by 50% year on year. A case of abandoning morality for a better balance sheet. definitely......apparently ok, you convinced me
saintbletch Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 As the title says really. This thread has been inspired by the designation of people into the left and right of the political spectrum. I'm having trouble working out what relevance the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" have in Britain in the year 2012. The ends of this spectrum used to represent something quite different, with the left veering toward socialism/communism while the extreme right was home to capitalist nationalists. Not sure that's applicable now after the victory of the free market over communism. Further, all of our mainstream political parties have gravitated to the centre. I've heard it argued quite successfully that Labour and Conservative are just different strands of neo-Liberalism. All parties treat the market as if its a permanent fixture. That being the case, what do YOU mean when you say left-wing or right-wing? You're a thread-starter, a twisted thread-starter. pap, I can go for days, weeks even without posting on here. But you know how to push my buttons. I couldn't resist and it's a great question but then I saw the post below by Lord Duckhunter and I'm not sure I can add much to that.... The left wing has been blured by Blair's electoral con trick on the British public. New Labour realised after years in opposition that they need to sound tough on certain popular Right wing issues, like law and order, national security and low direct taxes, especially for the rich. They had seen that the the common ownership of the means of production, their vicious punishing income tax policy and their seeming weakness on protecting the Country had led to defeat after defeat at the polls. You ended up with the sight of lefties like John Prescott doing a complete about turn on many of the issues that brought him into politics in the first place. We now have the smae happening in reverse with Cameron picking up on popular leftie issues and trying to marry that with the natural centre right Toryism. It has always been a bit like that with Grocer Heath being a bit of a wet "one nation" Tory. My opinion is that this rush for the popular centre is the reason our politicans are so boring and politics so stale. They are focused on following focus groups rather than leading opinion. People like Thatcher& Foot had policies and principles and stuck to them, trying to take the people with them. Nowadays policics can be summed up in the line "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others", I think it was the Marx brothers. At a really basic level I would say that the left is about the state creating the circumstances where people can progress and better themselves, but actively getting involved and creating some sort of level playing field. The right is about the state getting out of people lives and allowing people to do the same. I always think that the left is right in principle and the right in practise.What could be fairer than a society where everybody has the same chances, where everyone is looked after and where everyone owns everything? It's just in real life it doesn't work. ...except perhaps to add a massive simplification that Billy Bragg once taught me... Socialism should be about compassion but this is too weak a motive, too far removed from an end in itself, for those on the right.
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 You're a thread-starter, a twisted thread-starter. pap, I can go for days, weeks even without posting on here. But you know how to push my buttons. I couldn't resist and it's a great question but then I saw the post below by Lord Duckhunter and I'm not sure I can add much to that.... ...except perhaps to add a massive simplification that Billy Bragg once taught me... Socialism should be about compassion but this is too weak a motive, too far removed from an end in itself, for those on the right. Definitely agreed on Lord D's assessment of the situation. There I was, ready to insert the inflammatory notion that those on the right may be lacking in analytical facilities, only for Lord D to go and mess it all up with a balanced and measured post. Bit less of that sort of thing, Lord D. I have a cartoonish stereotype to maintain. Can't have you rocking the boat with a post like that However, Lord D is right to point out how we got here. I would add to that by saying that in the main, left and right don't exist anymore. Ties in very nicely to the electioneering politicians who play their tunes to a wider audience. I don't think that the British public understands the distinction between right or left, certainly not with the clarity that such terms carried before. I'm not sure that they care, either.
norwaysaint Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Left wing: We should try to build a better world for everyone. Right wing: If you work hard enough, you should be able to get ahead. There's room in the world for both and neither is more right than the other. Too long with a government from either side brings about problems and a lack of balance. Middle ground is generally perceived as not committing to either strongly enough to make it work. This is why most countries in the democratic world swap between left and right wing governments over time. You almost have to to avoid disaster. The last labour government eventually steered us into problems, so did the tory one before that. Eventually this government will fall as belief in them crumbles, as will it in the next left wing government. There is no straightforward answer and those that believe solely in left or right wing politics are foolish imo.
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Thats the multi millionaire Billy Bragg.
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 The left wing has been blured by Blair's electoral con trick on the British public. New Labour realised after years in opposition that they need to sound tough on certain popular Right wing issues, like law and order, national security and low direct taxes, especially for the rich. They had seen that the the common ownership of the means of production, their vicious punishing income tax policy and their seeming weakness on protecting the Country had led to defeat after defeat at the polls. You ended up with the sight of lefties like John Prescott doing a complete about turn on many of the issues that brought him into politics in the first place. We now have the smae happening in reverse with Cameron picking up on popular leftie issues and trying to marry that with the natural centre right Toryism. It has always been a bit like that with Grocer Heath being a bit of a wet "one nation" Tory. My opinion is that this rush for the popular centre is the reason our politicans are so boring and politics so stale. They are focused on following focus groups rather than leading opinion. People like Thatcher& Foot had policies and principles and stuck to them, trying to take the people with them. Nowadays policics can be summed up in the line "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others", I think it was the Marx brothers. At a really basic level I would say that the left is about the state creating the circumstances where people can progress and better themselves, but actively getting involved and creating some sort of level playing field. The right is about the state getting out of people lives and allowing people to do the same. I always think that the left is right in principle and the right in practise.What could be fairer than a society where everybody has the same chances, where everyone is looked after and where everyone owns everything? It's just in real life it doesn't work. Very true.
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 (edited) Strong co-operation between the strongest members of the species or strong co-operation between the strongest and the weakest? For example, if say 20,000 years ago, a caveman had a child born with a serious disability, would they have cared for that child even if it put the larger family / social group at a disadvantage, or would they have done what a 'less compassionate' species would have done and leave the child to die in the interest of the greater good of the group as a whole? Which action is more 'socially' aware? That of the human race (as it has evolved today) or that of the wild pack or herd? Excellent question, trousers. You are making me work for my money today. You could argue that letting the child die in caveman times would have been the best thing to do for the group. But then, they lacked much of the stability and infrastructure that we have today. I'd also argue that they'd have a much different idea of what the human experience was all about. Incidentally, we still practice a form of this today. Expectant mothers undergo quite a few tests ( Downs, Spina Bifida, etc ) and can elect not to go to term if major issues are found. Not quite as brutal as the caveman alternative, but conceptually similar. Today, I think we recognise that many of the difficulties that a disabled person would present for the itinerant tribe would not affect our chances of survival in the same way. Further, history is littered with people wracked by physical disability that have shown that people can still add a lot to our understanding or appreciation of the world even if they lack the full range of human sensation or physical capability. Professor Stephen Hawkins would be a recent, obvious example. Stevie Wonder would be another. Edited 27 February, 2012 by pap
bridge too far Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Thats the multi millionaire Billy Bragg. So, if you become wealthy that means you have to change your political views? Not according to Billy Bragg, who does a huge amount of campaigning for social causes. Here's an excerpt of an article he wrote for the Yorkshire Post: Despite his refusal to grasp the reality of a young generation of activists making a new kind of politics under his nose on the streets of Yorkshire, Bill Carmichael was right about one thing in his column: he made a big thing of pointing out that I was a successful businessman and that Britain could do with more people like me. Never mind the cynicism that underpinned his argument – that anyone who makes a few bob should turn their backs on the people that they grew up with – he’s right to proclaim my success. I’m proud of being fortunate enough to be able to make my living doing what I love. And Britain does need more people like me. People who don’t think that their wealth absolves them from any responsibility towards their fellow citizens; people who are happy to support teachers, nurses, carers and other public service workers with their taxes; people who believe that they have a civic duty to use their success to help build a more cohesive, compassionate society for the benefit of everyone. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/billy_bragg_the_biggest_enemy_we_face_isn_t_capitalism_or_conservatism_it_s_the_deadly_lure_of_cynicism_1_4025680
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Bit less of that sort of thing, Lord D. I have a cartoonish stereotype to maintain. . Left wing-Loved on the BBC Right wing-Called an extremist on the BBC
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 So, if you become wealthy that means you have to change your political views? Not according to Billy Bragg, who does a huge amount of campaigning for social causes. Here's an excerpt of an article he wrote for the Yorkshire Post: Despite his refusal to grasp the reality of a young generation of activists making a new kind of politics under his nose on the streets of Yorkshire, Bill Carmichael was right about one thing in his column: he made a big thing of pointing out that I was a successful businessman and that Britain could do with more people like me. Never mind the cynicism that underpinned his argument – that anyone who makes a few bob should turn their backs on the people that they grew up with – he’s right to proclaim my success. I’m proud of being fortunate enough to be able to make my living doing what I love. And Britain does need more people like me. People who don’t think that their wealth absolves them from any responsibility towards their fellow citizens; people who are happy to support teachers, nurses, carers and other public service workers with their taxes; people who believe that they have a civic duty to use their success to help build a more cohesive, compassionate society for the benefit of everyone. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/billy_bragg_the_biggest_enemy_we_face_isn_t_capitalism_or_conservatism_it_s_the_deadly_lure_of_cynicism_1_4025680 Nice one. Sergei - I'd like to hear your views on Bill Gates. He is a multi-billionaire and spends quite a bit of his dough on the needy.
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 Left wing-Loved on the BBC Right wing-Called an extremist on the BBC Maybe in the mists of time (before Nick Robinson was Political Editor )
trousers Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Excellent question, trousers. Thanks. It's always reassuring to be told whether or not a question is any good or not. It's difficult to tell otherwise. ;-)
Verbal Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Left wing-Loved on the BBC Right wing-Called an extremist on the BBC For example?
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 Thanks. It's always reassuring to be told whether or not a question is any good or not. It's difficult to tell otherwise. ;-) You'll have to forgive me, sir. I have grown fat on facepalms and the classic "no further questions your honour" trouser-isms that I have come to know and love. Consider me suitably admonished for ostensibly being a patronising git
Verbal Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Strong co-operation between the strongest members of the species or strong co-operation between the strongest and the weakest? For example, if say 20,000 years ago, a caveman had a child born with a serious disability, would they have cared for that child even if it put the larger family / social group at a disadvantage, or would they have done what a 'less compassionate' species would have done and leave the child to die in the interest of the greater good of the group as a whole? Which action is more 'socially' aware? That of the human race (as it has evolved today) or that of the wild pack or herd? What kind of a dumbass question is that?
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 So, if you become wealthy that means you have to change your political views? Not according to Billy Bragg, who does a huge amount of campaigning for social causes. Here's an excerpt of an article he wrote for the Yorkshire Post: Despite his refusal to grasp the reality of a young generation of activists making a new kind of politics under his nose on the streets of Yorkshire, Bill Carmichael was right about one thing in his column: he made a big thing of pointing out that I was a successful businessman and that Britain could do with more people like me. Never mind the cynicism that underpinned his argument – that anyone who makes a few bob should turn their backs on the people that they grew up with – he’s right to proclaim my success. I’m proud of being fortunate enough to be able to make my living doing what I love. And Britain does need more people like me. People who don’t think that their wealth absolves them from any responsibility towards their fellow citizens; people who are happy to support teachers, nurses, carers and other public service workers with their taxes; people who believe that they have a civic duty to use their success to help build a more cohesive, compassionate society for the benefit of everyone. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/billy_bragg_the_biggest_enemy_we_face_isn_t_capitalism_or_conservatism_it_s_the_deadly_lure_of_cynicism_1_4025680 Billy Bragg the 'successful businessman' exploited the opportunity that capitalism offers but with his an anti capitalist brand. Is that hypocritical? I believe that right wing capitalism has delivered far more people out of poverty than left wing socialism. You just need to get the level of compassion right.
trousers Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 What kind of a dumbass question is that? I'm not entirely sure but I'm gonna stick my neck out and go for: "(b) very". Am I warm? And can I please only have Pap judge my questions in future? He's much nicer.
saintbletch Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 Thats the multi millionaire Billy Bragg. An interesting non sequitur, but I'm not sure how someone's compassion for others is influenced by their wealth. You sound like a mate of mine who never stops reminding me that Bragg - the bloke who first politicised my head, has two homes! Beware false idols. Eh? I guess wealth might make it more difficult to relate to the day-to-day lives of others unless you make it your business to stay in touch with your roots. On pap's right-or-left-wing-ometer I'd certainly be left of centre (whatever we feel that might mean) but I don't have a problem with people amassing wealth - as long as it doesn't overtly exploit anyone. What is your problem with someone being a millionaire Sergei Gotsmanov?
trousers Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 You'll have to forgive me, sir. I have grown fat on facepalms and the classic "no further questions your honour" trouser-isms that I have come to know and love. Consider me suitably admonished for ostensibly being a patronising git No. Please don't change. I like it that way :-)
saintbletch Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 So, if you become wealthy that means you have to change your political views? Not according to Billy Bragg, who does a huge amount of campaigning for social causes. Here's an excerpt of an article he wrote for the Yorkshire Post: Despite his refusal to grasp the reality of a young generation of activists making a new kind of politics under his nose on the streets of Yorkshire, Bill Carmichael was right about one thing in his column: he made a big thing of pointing out that I was a successful businessman and that Britain could do with more people like me. Never mind the cynicism that underpinned his argument – that anyone who makes a few bob should turn their backs on the people that they grew up with – he’s right to proclaim my success. I’m proud of being fortunate enough to be able to make my living doing what I love. And Britain does need more people like me. People who don’t think that their wealth absolves them from any responsibility towards their fellow citizens; people who are happy to support teachers, nurses, carers and other public service workers with their taxes; people who believe that they have a civic duty to use their success to help build a more cohesive, compassionate society for the benefit of everyone. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/billy_bragg_the_biggest_enemy_we_face_isn_t_capitalism_or_conservatism_it_s_the_deadly_lure_of_cynicism_1_4025680 I do have watch myself, to make sure my enjoyment of his music doesn't make me blind to his faults. Thanks for the sanity check bridge too far.
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 An interesting non sequitur, but I'm not sure how someone's compassion for others is influenced by their wealth. You sound like a mate of mine who never stops reminding me that Bragg - the bloke who first politicised my head, has two homes! Beware false idols. Eh? I guess wealth might make it more difficult to relate to the day-to-day lives of others unless you make it your business to stay in touch with your roots. On pap's right-or-left-wing-ometer I'd certainly be left of centre (whatever we feel that might mean) but I don't have a problem with people amassing wealth - as long as it doesn't overtly exploit anyone. What is your problem with someone being a millionaire Sergei Gotsmanov? I refer you to the answer I gave earlier. As they say.
saintbletch Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 I refer you to the answer I gave earlier. As they say. I still don't see any hypocrisy between stating that socialism is about compassion and being a multi-millionaire. Why bring up his wealth? Is it not possible to be a wealthy socialist or a compassionate millionaire?
pap Posted 27 February, 2012 Author Posted 27 February, 2012 I still don't see any hypocrisy between stating that socialism is about compassion and being a multi-millionaire. Why bring up his wealth? Is it not possible to be a wealthy socialist or a compassionate millionaire? Can you please stop messing with my lightly held beliefs, saintbletch? I was working under the impression that as soon as you got £2,000,001 in your bank account, the authorities send you a nice big moustache to twirl. Next you'll be telling me that we have a number of Hollywood actors speaking from the heart on issues they should have no business caring about.
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 27 February, 2012 Posted 27 February, 2012 I still don't see any hypocrisy between stating that socialism is about compassion and being a multi-millionaire. Why bring up his wealth? Is it not possible to be a wealthy socialist or a compassionate millionaire? What do you think he would have said to you if you asked him in the late seventies about people who have two houses? For me it is all about the pigs in animal farm preaching one thing and then living in Jone's house.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now