How could a feeling person not sympathise with the sights Orwell saw. My family is working class, my father was working at 14. Materially we are infinitely better off, but there are real tragedies around us ever day. My experience homelessness in the UK shocked me beyond words
-
-
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Ofc— that sympathy is what pointed him towards socialism. In a modern, developed country, “socializing” property has the added benefit of ending homelessness, since it eliminates the paywall to acquiring a house. Some Leninist states & Finland have had success with that idea.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
And how was property in Lennist states allocated? By need or given to good party members first? In the UK Unions leaders earning £70k plus live subsidized social housing whilst families earning less than £20k wait. How many homes did Castro, Stalin and Mao have?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
It varies from state to state, it’s usually been handled by some sort of state bureaucracy with all sorts of restrictions. Which I still think is a crappy, broken system, but less crappy and broken than the housing market. They still housed non-party members.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OhNoIts2016 @KEEMSTAR and
Without rule of law, a free press and democracy their are no checks to ensure the honesty of a bureaucracy or government. 2008 crisis Cause 1) deregulation of banking sector enacted by Bill Clinton 2) government backed lending to poor credit risks - NINJAS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Many Leninist states are more “democratic” than the United States (not China though), but I don’t recognize either as a fully legitimate form of democracy. They have de facto ruling classes. I’m strongly supportive of a free press, strongly opposed to banks & the housing market.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OhNoIts2016 @KEEMSTAR and
1. Which Leninist states are more democratic than the US? Elites will always exist. What matters is how they gain power, can they lose it, and is access to the elite limited by birth etc, and not merit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Cuba, Laos, USSR until Stalin, and many defunct states
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
Prior to Stalin is questionable, though Russia was recovering from WW1.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Again, I’m not saying it was a real democracy, but it had a slightly more valid claim to democratic rule than the U.S. government does now
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
In that they were “popular” for the most part, while holding elections with a similar rate of disenfranchisement
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.