CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Lenin/Mao etc appropriated Marxism to suit their own violent agendas. They were influenced by Marx but I think it is unfair to lump him in with the aforementioned despots. That isn't to say Marxism doesn't have plenty of other flaws, it does, but I'm tired of having 'those durn communists' thrown back any time you mention Marx. Nowhere does Marx say you should slaughter millions of people*. That jump was made entirely by other people. *Although, you could interpret 'class conflict' to mean violence, but still, plenty of other Marxists managed to interpret it to mean a slow democratic change. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 EDIT: Perhaps a decent analogy might be the various Christian churches having a common root in the teachings of Jesus. I don't think that's a decent analogy at all unless you are suggesting that communistic political ideas didn't exist before Marx. Communistic social ideals go back to the Druids, but the various far left Communistic movements of the post 1917 era - when "Communism" entered the political lexicon of the modern world - have their roots in Marxism. I think lots of UK governments were worried about communism and communists long before 1917. I've seen Les Mis too, and the French had a version even earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 EDIT: Perhaps a decent analogy might be the various Christian churches having a common root in the teachings of Jesus. I don't think that's a decent analogy at all unless you are suggesting that communistic political ideas didn't exist before Marx. Communistic social ideals go back to the Druids, but the various far left Communistic movements of the post 1917 era - when "Communism" entered the political lexicon of the modern world - have their roots in Marxism. I've seen Les Mis too, and the French had a version even earlier. I haven't, do you mean the Paris Commune in 1871? If so Marx (and Engels) first published the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 EDIT: Perhaps a decent analogy might be the various Christian churches having a common root in the teachings of Jesus. I don't think that's a decent analogy at all unless you are suggesting that communistic political ideas didn't exist before Marx. Communistic social ideals go back to the Druids, but the various far left Communistic movements of the post 1917 era - when "Communism" entered the political lexicon of the modern world - have their roots in Marxism. I've seen Les Mis too, and the French had a version even earlier. I haven't, do you mean the Paris Commune in 1871? If so Marx (and Engels) first published the Communist Manifesto in 1848. ....which is even earlier than 1917, Wolfie out of the X Men is in it, very good. People do like to argue over points of pedantry in the politics thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 I don't think that there is much wrong with Marx's analysis of capitalism and its built-in faults. He explains why Arkwright was pressured to use child labour and how the system gives a built-in advantage to those who normally participate in Money-Commodity-Money transactions (capitalists) compared with those who normally participate in Commodity-Money-Commodity transactions (workers). All very interesting stuff but in the real world it would seem that the worker has one big problem which neither capitalism or Marxism has ever relieved him/her of, and that is the unavoidable fact that someone, whether it be private individual or the state, is going to confiscate their surplus value. Whether 19th Century mill workers, American slaves, or 20th Century Russian peasants, someone somewhere will be confiscating the surplus value they produce, and either with force or with the threat of starvation, do as they wish with it. No system seems capable of solving this fundamental problem of the worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted October 28, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 28, 2013 Oh dear HS2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 28, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 28, 2013 Oh dear HS2 erm What happened with HS2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Oh dear HS2 What's happened with HS2? Has Cameron admitted what a **** stupid waste of money it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Well we've had a government funded report today telling us how upgrades to the existing infrastructure will lead to 14 years of delays. But then they would say that wouldn't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Well we've had a government funded report today telling us how upgrades to the existing infrastructure will lead to 14 years of delays. But then they would say that wouldn't they. Never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) Maybe if successive governments had not have run the greatest railway system in the world down over 40 years with savage branch line closures, heavy underinvestment and a botched privatisation we wouldn't be in this mess. But hey ho, here we are and I think the best solution would be to tackle the pinch point journeys, the rush hour commuter routes into the major cities, not the long distance hub to hub links. Edited October 28, 2013 by Kingfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 28, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 28, 2013 Oh dear HS2 What's happened with HS2? Has Cameron admitted what a **** stupid waste of money it is? I don't really get why this would be a problem for Cameron, he inherited the project from Labour, it would be a vote winner for the 4X4 green wellie nimby brigade, it would again reduce the influence of UKIP. Cancelling HS2 makes perfect sense for the Tories in that respect but the thing is they can't just do nothing, the countries economic prosperity in the future NEEDS a massive increase in capacity on the rail network. we've already seen what short sighted future rail planning has done for this country with Beeching, if they do nothing now they know they'll be hampering economic development for future generations. Cancelling HS2 is easy for them, the alternatives are far less easy to contemplate however, if they genuinely have the country's interests in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 The huge problem with HS2 is that the design for it is already outdated compared to the far east. So by the time it is finally built, it is going to be so outdated it's untrue. The money earmarked for HS2 should be spent on upgrading the current rail network which while it might cause some issues in the short term, the benefits in the long term far out weigh the pile of shite that is HS2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 28, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 28, 2013 The huge problem with HS2 is that the design for it is already outdated compared to the far east. So by the time it is finally built, it is going to be so outdated it's untrue. The money earmarked for HS2 should be spent on upgrading the current rail network which while it might cause some issues in the short term, the benefits in the long term far out weigh the pile of shite that is HS2.The idea that the design for HS2 is outdated is one brought about by people who really don't understand that the faster you go, the more time there has to be between trains (therefore less capacity) and the greater the distance between stops (therefore less connectivity). Anything that the Far East do will be for the Far East, it does not mean that their faster trains would actually suit what Britain needs. This also shouldn't be seen as an argument for or against HS2, its an argument against daft arguments.Personally I'm all for greater capacity over speed. It really doesn't matter that I can get from Liverpool to London in 2hr 10 or 1 hr 40, what is important is that I get there and those times are still faster than flying to London and tubing into the centre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Personally the longer it takes scousers to get to London the better ... HS2 seems a lot of money and is already old technology ... maglev or GTFO (I'm aware we've had this debate before ... Cost etc ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 spend the money on taxi's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 28, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 28, 2013 HS2 seems a lot of money and is already old technology ... maglev or GTFOAs explained above, the old tech argument is specious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 HS2 seems a lot of money and is already old technology ... maglev or GTFO As explained above, the old tech argument is speciousold tech as in friction of steel on steel and and a bumpy ride ... Maglev is super smooooooth and quieter ( on the inside at least I'm not sure if a train travelling at 500 km/h will be quiet on the outside for residents !! ) spend the money on taxi's make them maglev taxi's and we have a deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 The perfectly odious and incompetent Hunt gets shown up again http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24729477 They really do not have a clue do they 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Anyone familiar with the history of HS1 (the channel tunnel link) will find all the promises and reassurances about HS2 laughable. In 1987 the Tories made the use of public money for the line unlawful. The Tories changed the law in 1996 which allowed the project to go ahead with discretionary tax-payer subsidy. The project got into financial trouble in 1998 and had to be rescued by the government. It was going to be sold to Railtrack but they had financial problems it required further re-structuring. But then Railtrack got into further trouble and sold their interests to Network Rail. The line was sold on a further couple of times; ending up the property of London and Continental Railways. LCR became insolvent in 2009 and the government stepped in. The government then sold £16bn worth of assets for £2.1bn to a bunch of Canadian investors for a 30 year lease. The line reverts back to government ownership after thirty years, when no doubt billions will be spent on repairs and unpgrades, before it is sold at another massive loss to another group of lucky foreigners. So anyone who thinks that HS2 is going to be different and magically succeed where HS1 failed, probably needs their head examined. As ever the media have reduced the debate to simplistic banal idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts