TRtWP is extremely pro-socialism, describing it as “common sense” and “the only remedy” to the ills of society. Orwell does refer to the “socialism of fools,” the support of the idea by naïve elitists who just hate the “hoggishly rich,” but argues they’re not “real” socialists.
-
-
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
2. In the UK the elite was primarily from a very small group - a few thousand families - when I was born. This has changed as the UK became more like a meritocracy under Thatcher (they hated her for that!) But further change is needed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Nothing about Thatcher’s reforms were meritocratic. She ruined the rail system and directly led to dozens of accidents.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
1. Not directly, but that was the result. She broke up many institutions like the City of London and nationalised industries and open the door to the ambitious middle and working class. She made lots of mistakes to deindustrialisation and not valuing society being just two.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The private sector only has reason to be more ambitious while the market’s uncornered, and even then, it’s usu. destructive Corps always either become *less* accountable apathetic monopolies, or divide the country into little fiefdoms, depending on the strength of antitrust law.
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.