Ukip - why are they gaining support?

[Jon-of-arc]

Can you explain why being a Communist is OK, whilst being a Fascist is not?

Both are vile totalitarian philosophies, both have murdered and tortured vast numbers of the unfortunate people who existed under these regimes.

Is it simply the hypocrisy of Urban, in that if it is 'left', no matter how revolting it is OK, whilst if it is 'right' it is not?

Also, four legs good, two legs bad.

 

[treelover]

"a politician is a person who will double cross that bridge when they come to it"

posted on FB..

 

[goldenecitrone]

Larry Elliot in the Guardian. Will Ukip's rise give Labour a kick up the arse?

Many natural Labour supporters voted for Ukip last Thursday, even though the past three years under the coalition should have made the official opposition the receptacle for protest. Labour should have done much, much better. That it didn't boils down to two things. The opposition is still blamed for the state of the economy when the crisis broke. More significantly, perhaps, Labour needs to show that the growth pessimists are wrong and that it has a plan for remedying the UK's deep structural problems after the next election. As yet, it has not remotely done so.

 

[cdg]

When I saw Farage on the tele drinking a pint and smoking a fag, BOOM, instant connection.

 

[sihhi]

Slight correction to that, major parties bang on about reducing it all the time, but can't actually change levels of immigration because we live in a globally integrated economy. Being a maverick outsider party, UKIP don't have to deal with that reality, thus, UKIP can spout off on the subject, using the major parties and mainstream newspapers' hypocritical stance on the matter for political capital.

Hence why talk of Tory UKIP coalescing is unlikely, ime

 

[Lo Siento.]

I would agree with all the above, but communism is great in theory but doesn't take into consideration basic human nature.Even socialism which had a brief flowering died just as soon as the establishment worked out the minimum 'bread and circuses' required to keep the majority of the masses content.

What exactly is "human nature"?

 

[Poo Flakes]

For better or worse, I would have thought a slightly xenophobic, little Englander party does represent a significant portion of British public opinion and deserves representation. It is just a shame that nearly all other segments of British public opinion have no representation at all.

I would agree with all the above, but communism is great in theory but doesn't take into consideration basic human nature.Even socialism which had a brief flowering died just as soon as the establishment worked out the minimum 'bread and circuses' required to keep the majority of the masses content.

Exactly, everyone knows that a species which distributes resources according to the perfectly rational whims of European financial intermediaries and inherited wealth is, in fact, the result of the human condition. Indeed, to suggest otherwise is a sign of a craven sociopath.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Communism doesn't have inequality, brutality, racism, authoritarianism and unquestionable devotion to leaders built into its founding principles. Fascism does. Communist states have obviously frequently succumbed to these dispicable realities, through corrupt leaders and failed policies, granted. But the ideals on which the theory is based are sound.

Its a cop out to say it, but it just seems to me communism just hasn't been done properly yet.

I will add, I'm no expert in either political thought or history. My arguments could probably easily be torn apart by anyone with a bit more knowledge. I never claim to be a political anorak or theory expert but the basics aren't that hard to understand, and I believe that the principles of commie theory are sound and fair, whilst fascism is dangerous and hateful by nature and the reality has shown this to be undoubtedly true. Fascism has "worked" and it was shit. Communism has never been implemented properly.

Ever hear of a guy called Stalin? He killed more of his own people than Hitler did.

 

[andysays]

Ever hear of a guy called Stalin? He killed more of his own people than Hitler did.

No, clearly no one here has ever heard of Stalin, which is surprising given the number of times his name is mentioned by you and your ilk as definitive proof that anyone to the left of Tony Blair is clearly a massacring tyrannical dictator in waiting...

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Ever hear of a guy called Stalin? He killed more of his own people than Hitler did.

Did you miss the bit where I said that communist ideals had been corrupted by evil power crazed leaders? Or did you just willfully ignore them? You've never stuck me as an idiot, so I'm going to assume you're being disingenuous and its the latter.

Some horrendous things have been done in the name of communism. But these acts are always a perversion of the ideals, rather than the pure implementation of them. Stalin was a cunt, no two ways about it. But to my knowledge, Marx et all never included anything about gulags and show trials and creating a constant climate of fear in his little manifesto.

Pretty sure that the clues were there all along when it came to old Adolf, though.

Do you see the difference?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wow that was a really defensive post. I was just trying to clarify my position on this.

It was hardly "defensive" to point out you were talking shite/had drawn shite inferences.

My position is I couldn't care less about these politicians or their shenanigans.

Then why post in the politics forum, ennui?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Or, at least ostensibly, the communist regimes of the Soviet satellites?

Germany and Italy had practically every civvy uniform wearer, from bus conductors to cinema ushers, wearing state-approved clobber with various pseudo-military decorations and even instated rank structures. The worst the various Soviet satellites went for, apart from in Romania, was the "medals and badges" fetish. Very little gold braid and brass buttons with insignia stamped on them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They haven't quite managed, in 60 years, to para-militarise the working public in the same way the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy managed in less than a decade. ​

​

No they just starve the poor buggers to death.​

I'm always grateful when someone states the obvious. Thanks!

 

[ViolentPanda]

UKIP's position (which incidentally, I support - at a time of high unemployment, the last thing required is more candidates for each job) on immigration is bang on, for the time that we in. At another time... who knows.

Thing is, if UKIP ever parlay their current relative popularity into a parliamentary presence, where their bloc can manipualte the balance of power, they'll drop their immigration policies like hot potatoes or enable "back door immigration". They're boss-class, after all. They need that cheap labour to keep the money rolling in, and if the native population won't work for peanuts and a bowl of rice a day (relatively speaking), they need people who will - immigrants.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I was wondering who pays for the UKIP? Pretty clearly they have some solid backing.

Their treasurer is an Eton/Guards/Oxford/Chambers/City type who made a bundle coming up with innovative ways to let people speculate on gold and formerly a major Tory donor.

Be interesting to know more about their other financial backers in this context, but there's clearly a strong public-school/city-fat-cat tendency there.

 

[J Ed]

Thing is, if UKIP ever parlay their current relative popularity into a parliamentary presence, where their bloc can manipualte the balance of power, they'll drop their immigration policies like hot potatoes or enable "back door immigration". They're boss-class, after all. They need that cheap labour to keep the money rolling in, and if the native population won't work for peanuts and a bowl of rice a day (relatively speaking), they need people who will - immigrants.

Or, and I think this is more likely, they will maintain or even step up their anti-immigration rhetoric while doing nothing to implement it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Or, and I think this is more likely, they will maintain or even step up their anti-immigration rhetoric while doing nothing to implement it.

Ah, Thatcher-stylee!

 

[co-op]

I was wondering who pays for the UKIP? Pretty clearly they have some solid backing.

Their treasurer is an Eton/Guards/Oxford/Chambers/City type who made a bundle coming up with innovative ways to let people speculate on gold and formerly a major Tory donor.

Be interesting to know more about their other financial backers in this context, but there's clearly a strong public-school/city-fat-cat tendency there.

Simple answer - Stuart Wheeler. Made the largest single donation to a political party in UK history - £5m to the tories in 2001 (he sure can pick 'em). Then got kicked out of the tory party for giving money to UKIP and is now their Treasurer.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Simple answer - Stuart Wheeler. Made the largest single donation to a political party in UK history - £5m to the tories in 2001 (he sure can pick 'em). Then got kicked out of the tory party for giving money to UKIP and is now their Treasurer.

If he's treasurer though, that's presumably not just for the cash he'd personally kick in with, but also for his contacts with other potential donors. They're also very likely to be Eton/Guards/Oxbridge/City types.

Which provides to a first approximation at least, a fairly clear whose interests the UKIP are likely to be promoting at any given moment. Hypothetically at least: city fat-cats who don't give a shit about immigration, but who are happy to exploit the gullible, in order to put pressure on the major parties over EU financial regulation, to push them even further to the right (than they already were going) in order to facilitate wider investment opportunities in the public sector aka primitive accumulation and more generally, rich public school twats doing whatever the fuck they want at the expense of everybody else.

 

[Poo Flakes]

If he's treasurer though, that's presumably not just for the cash he'd personally kick in with, but also for his contacts with other potential donors. They're also very likely to be Eton/Guards/Oxbridge/City types.

Which provides to a first approximation at least, a fairly clear whose interests the UKIP are likely to be promoting at any given moment. Hypothetically at least: city fat-cats who don't give a shit about immigration, but who are happy to exploit the gullible, in order to put pressure on the major parties over EU financial regulation and/or to push them even further to the right in order to facilitate wider investment opportunities in the public sector aka primitive accumulation and more generally, rich public school twats doing whatever the fuck they want at the expense of everybody else.

This kind of annoys me about UKIP. They probably do represent those that are getting a raw deal from the EU's reckless 'liberalisation' of labour markets which is only indirectly related to immigration but then the major parties respond by opposing legislation that probably do defend working class interests (e.g. anti-monopolistic, human rights, consumer protection, etc).

 

[coley]

What exactly is "human nature"?

Looking after No 1,The family and friends and the local community,putting it very broadly and simply.

 

[youngian]

Haven't the patience.

Meaning, I do have plenty of facts on benefits (particularly) and a fair few about immigration too.

But people really hate having their prejudices contradicted, don't they?

So a huge reluctance to take on that is my failing, and a big one, sure, but I simply can't be arsed.

Will try and get back to this tomorrow though ...

I can see where you are coming from. Immigration is dropping and even if it continues at a substantial rate, like crime and Obama's brith certificate they are unlikely to believe you. It just takes a couple of Poles to barge in front of them at the supermarket and they are off again about immigrants.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Looking after No 1,The family and friends and the local community,putting it very broadly and simply.

Ok, so looking after a stranger is "unnatural" in your eyes?

 

[The39thStep]

Interesting article by Rob Ford on UKIP .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...eguardian/commentisfree/rss+(Comment+is+free)

 

[Jon-of-arc]

It isn't a case of corrupt or evil leaders. There have been relatively benign and well-intentioned Communist leaders as well as Stalin and his ilk. Stalin was a product of a particular political culture at a particular time, and the attempt to impose an ideology and political system on a society unsuited for it.

So what youre saying is that communism is an inherently flawed system which can never work, even if every member of a given communist state rigorously adheres to its most well intentioned principles?

Won't be a popular view round these parts, though I can understand how even a basic understanding of 20th century communist experiments might lead one to such a view.

But still, the principles are sound, whilst it should be clear to anyone that fascism by design and implementation is hateful and dangerous,and thats the only argument that I was making

 

[frogwoman]

it depends what you mean by communism.

although perhaps we should come up with a different word. dunno though.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

No. That isn't what I'm saying.

Well do you care to elucidate?

 

[butchersapron]

There's no such thing as 'a communist system.' All we've seen are regimes that came to power in different circumstances and tried to implement measures, often on an ad-hoc basis, arising from their particular understanding of Marx (and often realising that they were departing from Marx drastically but feeling they had no choice.) None of them called the outcome communism; all of them called it socialism. The accuracy of that label is still under dispute.

The ussr called itself communist around 1937.

 

[butchersapron]

Really? In what context? Right until the end the leaders referred to the system as socialist.

In the constitution of I think either 36 or 37. Around then anyway.

 

[coley]

Ok, so looking after a stranger is "unnatural" in your eyes?

Don't be simple, you can be better than that, you have enough for a meal, do you share that meal amongst your family or with others, altruism and fairness works well when their is enough to go around, but the first sniff of 'shortage' and its every bugger for themselves, remember the fuel shortage a couple of years back and the scenes at the forecourts? Now,imagine if there was going to be an imminent and long term food shortage?

That's human nature.