The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Am I the only person to whom it has occurred that we are actually living in a Communist State? Our Great and totally Good, Mr Gordon Brown has managed to engineer this, his true politics, behind a rarely looked-through door. It is my belief that Tony Blair has looked through the door, probably doesn't like what he has seen, but allows him to get away with it, because Brown is such a good accountant. The Labour Party has never, in history, had a good accountant before, which is why we only see them achieving the one term of office, before the 'accountant' blows it. Mr Brown has carefully avoided previous Labour Party mistakes. His reward has been a quietly manufactured Communist State. Here is how it works:
Once upon a time, you got a job in a shop, or as a clerk, or in a trade, and the job provided a living wage. Now, the job doesn't provide the living wage, so hey pesto, the State makes up the balance. The State does this by one top up or another – a tax credit here, a tax refund there, income support, etc. What the State says is that you must work, there can be no doubt about that, you must work, but because you are unlikely to achieve a living wage, the State will subsidise you. It is the State who will make sure that you have enough to pay the mortgage, feed the kids, and provide the odd new clothes. There may even be enough to run a small car, if both providers are in work. The State even sets a figure that is sufficient for your needs, and makes sure that you receive that figure, by heavy advertising of its 'generosity'. The principle of a subsidised wage is, of course, the principle of Communism. Everyone works for the good of the community, and the State ensures, by 'topping up', that nobody starves. It is precisely the principle of the Chinese working in the paddy fields, being given extra rice, to top up their meagre wages.
I worry that far from living in a booming economy, we are being led down a slippery road to Tienerman Square, and if Gordon Brown has his way and becomes Prime Minister, who will there be to bring us back to Trafalgar Square.
Once upon a time, you got a job in a shop, or as a clerk, or in a trade, and the job provided a living wage. Now, the job doesn't provide the living wage, so hey pesto, the State makes up the balance. The State does this by one top up or another – a tax credit here, a tax refund there, income support, etc. What the State says is that you must work, there can be no doubt about that, you must work, but because you are unlikely to achieve a living wage, the State will subsidise you. It is the State who will make sure that you have enough to pay the mortgage, feed the kids, and provide the odd new clothes. There may even be enough to run a small car, if both providers are in work. The State even sets a figure that is sufficient for your needs, and makes sure that you receive that figure, by heavy advertising of its 'generosity'. The principle of a subsidised wage is, of course, the principle of Communism. Everyone works for the good of the community, and the State ensures, by 'topping up', that nobody starves. It is precisely the principle of the Chinese working in the paddy fields, being given extra rice, to top up their meagre wages.
I worry that far from living in a booming economy, we are being led down a slippery road to Tienerman Square, and if Gordon Brown has his way and becomes Prime Minister, who will there be to bring us back to Trafalgar Square.
Communism works in theory, but the practicalities never work.
Idealism is fine, but to try and apply it to present economic situations is a tad pointless.
As for Tianneman Square metaphor: The whole deal was a protest by students for democracy against communism.
Fair enough, I see the point in using this.
However, far from running a communist regime, this country if anything, employs a dictorship/facist rule of thumb.
The Criminal Justice Act makes it illegal for any gathering of people of more than 3 if they obstruct a publich thoroughfare.
Which means that any protest you may care to make, can and is always dealt with by using unneccesary strong-arm tactics and violence, with no legal recriminations offered against the police.
Such similar occururences can be see in Malaysia, Tibet under China rule, Nicaragua, Salvador..any political regime that operates on a dictatorship principle.
There is no difference with that and the UK.
At least with communism, there are stil people to be held accountable, whereas with our government, there is no satisfactory way to fight or oppose.
We have no civil rights whatsoever, sure we signed the European Charter on civil rights, but we adjusted and refused certain parts that deal with the public's right to oppose and/or question our government.
for an idea of where you stand
www.dataprotection.gov.uk
Frightning really.
Idealism is fine, but to try and apply it to present economic situations is a tad pointless.
As for Tianneman Square metaphor: The whole deal was a protest by students for democracy against communism.
Fair enough, I see the point in using this.
However, far from running a communist regime, this country if anything, employs a dictorship/facist rule of thumb.
The Criminal Justice Act makes it illegal for any gathering of people of more than 3 if they obstruct a publich thoroughfare.
Which means that any protest you may care to make, can and is always dealt with by using unneccesary strong-arm tactics and violence, with no legal recriminations offered against the police.
Such similar occururences can be see in Malaysia, Tibet under China rule, Nicaragua, Salvador..any political regime that operates on a dictatorship principle.
There is no difference with that and the UK.
At least with communism, there are stil people to be held accountable, whereas with our government, there is no satisfactory way to fight or oppose.
We have no civil rights whatsoever, sure we signed the European Charter on civil rights, but we adjusted and refused certain parts that deal with the public's right to oppose and/or question our government.
for an idea of where you stand
www.dataprotection.gov.uk
Frightning really.
We do not live in a communist state, we very much live in a socialist, capitlist hybrid. We have a booming private sector, something which is absent in a communist state, but in principle Communism rocks. There is no difference between the rich and the poor, all the earnings are split evenly and the wealth is shared, unfortualtely for us, communismn never worked like that, and it has been dominated by nutters intent on taking over the world.
I suggest that before blowing more political trumpets, you have a read of animal farm written by George Orwell and you will see exactly what I mean, quite posibly the best metaphor ever written.
I suggest that before blowing more political trumpets, you have a read of animal farm written by George Orwell and you will see exactly what I mean, quite posibly the best metaphor ever written.
Very interesting?
But actually what is so wrong with communism, or socialism?
Karl Marx's idea, however impossible it has been to gain properly, way originally a good one, a hopeful one, for everyone to be equal.
Obviously this was not going to be the real case with reality, because it simply isn't possible, and was only ever attempted with the use of strong force and control. This automatically breaks one of the strong 'rules' of the inital concept.
Ah well, things could be worse, than they are here (that's not a justifying comment for our problems, because I know we have many that need to be addressed).
But actually what is so wrong with communism, or socialism?
Karl Marx's idea, however impossible it has been to gain properly, way originally a good one, a hopeful one, for everyone to be equal.
Obviously this was not going to be the real case with reality, because it simply isn't possible, and was only ever attempted with the use of strong force and control. This automatically breaks one of the strong 'rules' of the inital concept.
Ah well, things could be worse, than they are here (that's not a justifying comment for our problems, because I know we have many that need to be addressed).
By that I mean my Mum wrote that. For some reason my nickname wasn't changed.
I feel I should mention that was my Mum. Not me.
Am I the only person to whom it has occurred that we are actually living in a Communist State? Our Great and totally Good, Mr Gordon Brown has managed to engineer this, his true politics, behind a rarely looked-through door. It is my belief that Tony Blair has looked through the door, probably doesn't like what he has seen, but allows him to get away with it, because Brown is such a good accountant. The Labour Party has never, in history, had a good accountant before, which is why we only see them achieving the one term of office, before the 'accountant' blows it. Mr Brown has carefully avoided previous Labour Party mistakes. His reward has been a quietly manufactured Communist State. Here is how it works:
Once upon a time, you got a job in a shop, or as a clerk, or in a trade, and the job provided a living wage. Now, the job doesn't provide the living wage, so hey pesto, the State makes up the balance. The State does this by one top up or another – a tax credit here, a tax refund there, income support, etc. What the State says is that you must work, there can be no doubt about that, you must work, but because you are unlikely to achieve a living wage, the State will subsidise you. It is the State who will make sure that you have enough to pay the mortgage, feed the kids, and provide the odd new clothes. There may even be enough to run a small car, if both providers are in work. The State even sets a figure that is sufficient for your needs, and makes sure that you receive that figure, by heavy advertising of its 'generosity'. The principle of a subsidised wage is, of course, the principle of Communism. Everyone works for the good of the community, and the State ensures, by 'topping up', that nobody starves. It is precisely the principle of the Chinese working in the paddy fields, being given extra rice, to top up their meagre wages.
I worry that far from living in a booming economy, we are being led down a slippery road to Tienerman Square, and if Gordon Brown has his way and becomes Prime Minister, who will there be to bring us back to Trafalgar Square.
Once upon a time, you got a job in a shop, or as a clerk, or in a trade, and the job provided a living wage. Now, the job doesn't provide the living wage, so hey pesto, the State makes up the balance. The State does this by one top up or another – a tax credit here, a tax refund there, income support, etc. What the State says is that you must work, there can be no doubt about that, you must work, but because you are unlikely to achieve a living wage, the State will subsidise you. It is the State who will make sure that you have enough to pay the mortgage, feed the kids, and provide the odd new clothes. There may even be enough to run a small car, if both providers are in work. The State even sets a figure that is sufficient for your needs, and makes sure that you receive that figure, by heavy advertising of its 'generosity'. The principle of a subsidised wage is, of course, the principle of Communism. Everyone works for the good of the community, and the State ensures, by 'topping up', that nobody starves. It is precisely the principle of the Chinese working in the paddy fields, being given extra rice, to top up their meagre wages.
I worry that far from living in a booming economy, we are being led down a slippery road to Tienerman Square, and if Gordon Brown has his way and becomes Prime Minister, who will there be to bring us back to Trafalgar Square.