Cycling UK Forum

Vorpal wrote: .... The hammer and sickle are also technologically obsolete. Maybe something to symbolise the struggle against the neoliberal capitalism that is becoming the norm across the developed world? Office cubicles?

Huge agricultural machines sweeping all before them? The modern Robin Hood's merry men being Hole-in-the-wall gangs riding JCB's?

Vorpal wrote: .......The hammer and sickle are also technologically obsolete. Maybe something to symbolise the struggle against the neoliberal capitalism that is becoming the norm across the developed world? Office cubicles?

Or may be toilet cubicles to illustrate how it's all going down the pan?

thirdcrank wrote:To say that one system doesn't work implies that another does. We white BOF's in the developed world are doing pretty well at the moment, but that's largely because a lot of the rest of the world population is doing the working and for peanuts.

I couldn't agree more.

Another thing to bear in mind is, elements of socialism have been a mainstay of modern democracy - even if they have rather been in decline hereabouts. The welfare state, the NHS, public libraries, even some public transport, all have some roots in socialist thinking. So socialism isn't a failed ideal, even if it sometimes struggles to find its voice in the current climate. Or, at least, socialism hasn't failed any more that the free market has - another ideal that has influence but no practitioners.

Regardless of the logo, uncompromised ideals will always be difficult to sell. The most successful politicians have been the ones who leave the awkward bits out.

The Butskellites or whatever you might call them arguably caused the longer term problems by financing it on the short-term expedient of credit, rather than entirely on redistribution.

bovlomov wrote:

thirdcrank wrote:To say that one system doesn't work implies that another does. We white BOF's in the developed world are doing pretty well at the moment, but that's largely because a lot of the rest of the world population is doing the working and for peanuts.

I couldn't agree more.

Another thing to bear in mind is, elements of socialism have been a mainstay of modern democracy - even if they have rather been in decline hereabouts. The welfare state, the NHS, public libraries, even some public transport, all have some roots in socialist thinking. So socialism isn't a failed ideal, even if it sometimes struggles to find its voice in the current climate. Or, at least, socialism hasn't failed any more that the free market has - another ideal that has influence but no practitioners.

Regardless of the logo, uncompromised ideals will always be difficult to sell. The most successful politicians have been the ones who leave the awkward bits out.

+1

The only "ism" with any legs is pragmatism.

As an economic system communism hasn't worked, it's too extreme it fails and often ends up as a dictatorship which is what you currently have in N Korea and Venezuela. Maduro is making a fist of running his country, the richest oil nation in the world, by trying to state control everything causing shortages of everything with massive inflation destroying wealth and producing widespread misery and desperation. What does work is a mix of ideologies mixing left wing and right wing policies. That's what economically successful nations have. It ain't perfect, people ensure that through personal greed and ambition.

Al

bovlomov wrote:Another thing to bear in mind is, elements of socialism have been a mainstay of modern democracy -

Splitter - We're talking about communists not socialists

EDITED as below

PH wrote:

bovlomov wrote:Another thing to bear in mind is, elements of socialism have been a mainstay of modern democracy -

Splitter - We're talking about communists not socialists

I think you have the formatting of the quotes wrong.

thirdcrank wrote:

PH wrote:

bovlomov wrote:

Splitter - We're talking about communists not socialists

I think you have the formatting of the quotes wrong.

Apologies for any offence caused

There seems to be confusion between "works" and "prevails."

To those alive at any point in history, what prevails generally depends on who has the strongest armed forces. To the extent that systems may be democratic, the most successful politicians are perhaps those who can fool most of the people most of the time.

There's also the problem of industrially developed countries exporting their production which includes increasingly sophisticated weapons and munitions.

PS

PH - None taken

It seems that the global political scene isn't as simple as Communist vs Capitalist. There are elements of social security in the Capitalist world and elements of profit making in the Communist world.

But, the thing they have in common is that their politicians are primarily seeking power and, having attained power, tend to use it for self advancement and the advancement of their class/clique/buddies. This is why they have to have an "image" that is attractive to their power base (be that an electorate, the army generals, the Church, the ruling class, the business class, etc). The "image" promises benefits to those who follow it.

People will reject the "hammer and sickle" image because it has been tarnished by the totalitarianism employed by Stalin and the USSR/Russian state. It isn't seen as a representation of the beneficial ideals embodied in the Communist manifesto. It doesn't promise benefits to followers.

Trump knew all about "Image". His particular "brand" gave promises to enough of the electorate; promised a more flexible business environment; invigorated the industrial/military relationship.

Geoff.D wrote:It seems that the global political scene isn't as simple as Communist vs Capitalist. There are elements of social security in the Capitalist world and elements of profit making in the Communist world.

But, the thing they have in common is that their politicians are primarily seeking power and, having attained power, tend to use it for self advancement and the advancement of their class/clique/buddies. This is why they have to have an "image" that is attractive to their power base (be that an electorate, the army generals, the Church, the ruling class, the business class, etc). The "image" promises benefits to those who follow it.

People will reject the "hammer and sickle" image because it has been tarnished by the totalitarianism employed by Stalin and the USSR/Russian state. It isn't seen as a representation of the beneficial ideals embodied in the Communist manifesto. It doesn't promise benefits to followers.

Trump knew all about "Image". His particular "brand" gave promises to enough of the electorate; promised a more flexible business environment; invigorated the industrial/military relationship.

There used to be a saying "bent as a nine bob note"
It's why things are the way they are,and why the likes of Corbyn are less likely to succeed,another saying is "you can't win with a losing hand"
However,occasionally ingredients come together at the right time and the spark lights the fire.
We'll see....

pwa wrote:The Le Pen family name has benefited from a makeover recently, convincing a lot of French voters that a vote for the FN is not a vote for a Nazi group. I doubt it will be enough to get them the top job, but it has got them success in local elections. I reserve judgement on whether the change is just marketing or something deeper.

As I was reading through this thread I was thinking that the OP should look to the FN as a party that has successfully reinvented itself.
They have ditched nearly all their discredited imagery, altered their language, and sacked the old-guard -but at the same time retained the same policies, the same ideology and the same followers. As a result They are increasingly attractive to a wide of the French public and are highly electable.
Whether the FN can in the long-term survive as a family dynasty, given the family tensions, or outgrow the family, are separate questions.


You can easlily remove the Tapatalk spam using settings on YOUR phone

reohn2 wrote:
However,occasionally ingredients come together at the right time and the spark lights the fire.
We'll see....

+1
I certainly agree with this. It was probably true about the formation f the Independent Labour Part, and the subsequent Labour Party. It wasn't an overnight "melding" of ingredients, but the social, political, theoretical and historical ingredients were there.

It's probably true of the rise to prominence of Nigel Farage. The conditions have been there for his "brand" to be heard, albeit on a limited, narrow philosophical base.

"... I cannot think of any MP's who are motivated by conviction..."

Oh I can. Tories. The conviction that THEY are deserving of all the wealth, that the disabled, disadvantaged and poor deserve all they get - nothing.