Yossarian wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

Learning by rote is clearly fucking balls. The Tories are shit. But Then so are Labour. And the Lib Dems burned their principles for the coalition. So who exactly do we vote for?

  I'm not a huge fan of Labour, but they're clearly the lesser of two evils. Having said that, if the Greens could get to even 3rd party status (not impossible considering the state of the Lib Dems) that'd be a positive.

I_R wrote:

I was going to say, we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for the whole New Labour project. Thanks Tony.

This is such Tory propaganda bullshit and I can't believe that Labour haven't been more effective in shutting it down. Here's a chart showing the deficit back to 1946. You'll notice that up until 2008 when the banks were bailed out in a rescue package supported by the Tories, the deficit under Labour was roughly equivalent to, and if anything slightly lower than, what it was under the last five years of the Tories. I don't remember the Conservatives worrying about the size of the deficit back then.

I was really thinking about the two wars. Regardless of the tories supporting the bank bail out, it happened under Labour.

Zero growth means zero population change means population management. It also means stagnation in a global sense.

They would also:
Ban zoos.
Promote bullshit alternative medicines in the NHS.
Renationalise everything going.
Ban night flights at all airports.

Whilst it's only a cursory Google, a number of noted economists seemed to be under the impression that eventually, we'd end up with zero growth.

Sasukekun wrote:

Let us not forget though that it was the relaxing of regulations for banks and financial institutions that led to the banking crisis, and that was done by Labour.

It was started under the Tories and continued under Labour. I have no doubt that the Tories would also have continued it.

And as for the Greens, I'm not sure that I'd want them in power tomorrow, but I'd like to see them gain some influence. Essentially, I think there's something pretty fundamentally wrong with the way our capitalist, market-based economy works and at least the greens are considering alternatives.

Although the homeopathy stuff is mental.

To be honest, I'm more worried at the anti-(or at least a)scientific, evidence-based mindset that appears to reveal rather than the homeopathy itself.

WorKid wrote:

http://skeptical-voter.org/wiki/index.php?title=Caroline_Lucas#Homeopathy

Jesus wept. I didn't think when she spoke like that she was actually toting it as a party manifesto pledge. There are intelligent fucks in the green party so that just shocks the shit outta me.

Would be interesting to see what the overall consensus of Green Party members is.

Aye, on balance the entire innovation of consumer credit seems like a band-aid over a chronic lack of imagination in the halls of powa re: how to make people's lives not suck.

Marx was pretty great. Marxism got dat baggage though.

Marxism's fine until people are involved, disappointingly.

XTC_NRG_4_DARKRAVER wrote:

Marxism's fine until people are involved, disappointingly.

this

beautiful idea, utopian almost, marx may have not met enough of the human race however

XTC_NRG_4_DARKRAVER wrote:

Marxism's fine until people are involved, disappointingly.

Depends what aspect of Marxism we're talking. I prefer the dynamics based stuff over the prescriptions. Much of that side- such as the 'Manifesto- is more a historical relic than contemporary poa. After all, there's no need to accept or apply his life's work in its entirety, but we should at least consider much of his critical observations, which are still very much relevant today.

Marx said very little about the end-goal or what it would look like; more so about how we'd get there.

edit: but I agree with you about 99% of people being self serving morons. Let's just hope they're part of the journey. Shame it's the bit I'm living through

Mod74 wrote:

@Cuckoo How long do you think you'd be able to survive for in a community?

An extremely long time, the basis is around working for community interests, a common misconception is a community just looks after the community when the point of a community is looking after everyone else. A community would be extremely efficient at taking care of stricken and problematic people because of an inherent lack of segregation.

'Greatest good for the greatest many' does not make the greatest many a singular block, it makes the greatest many an autonomously functioning community that care for individual interests for the good of the community - People with problems are cared for because a community thrives on all sorts of levels from supporting that

I hope you're not confusing communism with facism

I think the idea of marxist communism is an ideological paradigm shift towards a more altruistic nature while finding the almost evolutional pragmatism in that

Completely unworkable, but in those circumstances i'd be in very favourable circumstances, id certainly be supported and also contributing to the world more as part of that

It's why it's unworkable, however if it was, i'd be in a very good position

Thats not why its an ideal ideology for me however, its simply fair and based on individual ability within a community decided aspect