xenia Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 It certainly isn't. Until we developed currency organised capitalism wasn't possible, and until we developed agriculture currency wasn't really possible or required. Industrial capitalism is really quite a new idea, we've tried several alternative economic systems before that and this one seems to work quite well Not that socialism is an economic system, it's more of a form of government, which is something quite separate from the economic system in use. Im sorry, I think you miss my point. This is nothing to do with currency or organised capitlalism. It is, I suppose to do with the nature of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Tell that to Michael Gove. Gove seekd to improve our education system which has patently failed. I dont see anything particualrly idealogical in seeking to get kids better educated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Then do something about it, get your union chums to fight for the rights of the agency workers. Do something unselfish for once. We are http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/agency_workers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I dont think its an ideaology, its the way things have been done since we came out of the caves. Whether its right or wrong is immaterial it exists and has proved successfull. The experiment of socialism, no doubt well meaning, has failed. Why socialism failed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Gove seekd to improve our education system which has patently failed. I dont see anything particualrly idealogical in seeking to get kids better educated. Haven't you heard of comprehensive education? There is nothing more ideological than making sure nobody rises above the mundane. Grammar schools were elitist because they provided an education for kids who could handle it. No, no, no, no, no we have to have an education system that doesn't make thickos feel inadequate. Everyone has to be at their level. So, it follows that supporters of the failed comprehensive system see anyone seeking to provide a proper education as ideological fascists. When Blunkett was in charge of education (lol) nobody ever accused him of trying to educate kids. He even brought in university top up fees to make sure the educated elite stayed that way. Oh, hang on ............................ he's a Marxist isn't he? Oh, that's right. He sold out all his socialist principles for a ministerial car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Haven't you heard of comprehensive education? There is nothing more ideological than making sure nobody rises above the mundane. Grammar schools were elitist because they provided an education for kids who could handle it. No, no, no, no, no we have to have an education system that doesn't make thickos feel inadequate. Everyone has to be at their level. So, it follows that supporters of the failed comprehensive system see anyone seeking to provide a proper education as ideological fascists. When Blunkett was in charge of education (lol) nobody ever accused him of trying to educate kids. He even brought in university top up fees to make sure the educated elite stayed that way. Oh, hang on ............................ he's a Marxist isn't he? Oh, that's right. He sold out all his socialist principles for a ministerial car. Yeah, well it was the Tories who did away with grammar schools and created the comprehensives, Thatcher actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Why socialism failed? Of course, at this point you will give us lots of examples where Socialism has succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Of course, at this point you will give us lots of examples where Socialism has succeeded. Stop trying to flip the question, a question that has nothing to do you, unless your alt is Xenia, which wouldn't surprise us ... we can soon find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Jay Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The way I see it is there has been, and still is, a tug of war going on in this country between socialism and free-market capitalism, neither has outright won yet, both sides seem pretty evenly matched, so the result is the mainly socialy left wing capitalist society that we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Yeah, well it was the Tories whi did away with grammar schools and created the comprehensives, Thatcher actually. You really do never tire of being wrong. The largest expansion of comprehensive schools resulted from a policy decision taken in 1965 by Anthony Crosland, Secretary of State for Education in the 1964-1970 Labour government, a fervent supporter of comprehensive education. This had been the party's policy for some time. The policy decision was implemented by Circular 10/65, an instruction to local education authorities to plan for conversion. In 1970 the Conservative Party re-entered government. Margaret Thatcher became Secretary of State for Education, and ended the compulsion on local authorities to convert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.