Why are we all becoming socialists now?

St.Spodo · 11-03-2012 1:48pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Which successful socialist country should we look at instead?

Marxist socialism has never been successfully implemented, but my point is that the Soviet Union abandoned socialism, and was more of an isolationist totalitarian dictatorship than anything which assured social justice for its people, like socialism should.

Monty Burnz · 11-03-2012 1:48pm

benway wrote: »

Why don't you find me a country that applies free market ideology in its pure form, without a safety net or subsidies for its elites?

I don't know that there is one. There are just capitalist countries that have adopted safety nets - an eminently sensible idea, I hope you would agree. Denmark, Sweden and Finland are examples of such countries. And Ireland.

Monty Burnz · 11-03-2012 1:49pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I suggest posting your daily schedule in your sig.

Consider it done

9.00 AM Look at feet
11.00 PM Go to bed

Monty Burnz · 11-03-2012 1:52pm

St.Spodo wrote: »

Marxist socialism has never been successfully implemented, but my point is that the Soviet Union abandoned socialism, and was more of an isolationist totalitarian dictatorship than anything which assured social justice for its people, like socialism should.

Fair enough. But it just seems that the 'successful' introduction of socialism is simply impossible as it has failed every single time and in every single place it has been attempted.

benway · 11-03-2012 2:12pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't know that there is one. There are just capitalist countries that have adopted safety nets - an eminently sensible idea, I hope you would agree. Denmark, Sweden and Finland are examples of such countries. And Ireland.

Or socialist countries that have adopted free markets in certain sectors of the economy?

Pure doctrinaire socialism is probably unworkable, I think most would accept that. The problem is that there seem to be plenty out there who are in denial about the fact that anything approaching pure free market liberalism has also failed whenever it's been adopted - laissez faire in the 1800s, pre Great Depression US, Asia in the 90s. And Ireland.

The most successful countries have adopted a hybrid - the New Deal and the Nordic Model. It's about the balance - Ireland today tends too far towards the markets rather than towards the community. If saying this makes me a socialist, well then I'm a socialist.

Monty Burnz · 11-03-2012 2:16pm

benway wrote: »

Or socialist countries that have adopted free markets in certain sectors of the economy?

Like China? I don't think you could characterise the Nordic countries as 'socialist countries that have adopted free markets'.

karma_ · 11-03-2012 2:39pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Like China? I don't think you could characterise the Nordic countries as 'socialist countries that have adopted free markets'.

China is/was communist, why bring that into a debate about socialism?

It's patently clear a lot of folk on here have no idea of the difference between socialism and communism.

Monty Burnz · 11-03-2012 2:57pm

karma_ wrote: »

China is/was communist, why bring that into a debate about socialism?

It's patently clear a lot of folk on here have no idea of the difference between socialism and communism.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

And it's clear that the Nordic countries are not socialist countries but you don't object to anyone mentioning them? How odd.

karma_ · 11-03-2012 3:56pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And it's clear that the Nordic countries are not socialist countries but you don't object to anyone mentioning them? How odd.

Nordic countries all have strong socialist policies. It's a mixed model that most socialists of today are comfortable with.

Monty Burnz · 11-03-2012 5:25pm

karma_ wrote: »

Nordic countries all have strong socialist policies. It's a mixed model that most socialists of today are comfortable with.

Capitalist countries with socialist policies. Fair enough.

Can you outline the fundamental difference between how Nordic societies are organised compared to how Ireland is organised?

Sleepy · 11-03-2012 5:35pm

A few salient points:

1. Norway has billions of euros worth of oil. We don't. To try model our economy on theirs is ludicrous.

2. Under a capitalist system, we wouldn't be paying Anglo's debts. Nor would we have a bloated, over-paid public sector we can't afford.

Scanlas The 2nd · 11-03-2012 5:39pm

Some people seem to have a problem with people being born into privilege. If someone works hard and builds a successful company, why can't they have the freedom to give their kids a privileged life, it's their money they can do what they want with it.

mloc · 11-03-2012 5:49pm

Begrudgery and a sense of entitlement is what drives the heart of the Irish socialist movement; not a real sense of social equality or political progressivism.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-03-2012 5:53pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, and this is the usual get-out clause that socialism fans use.

Dozens of countries have tried to introduce 'true' socialism and according to that argument, everyone of them failed and ended up with a dystopia. Why would anyone sane ever try it again when the odds of success seem somewhere between tiny and nil? And the odds of ending up in a miserably poor dystopia are somewhere between extremely high and an absolute certainty?

This goes back to the loaded question in the title: ARE we all becoming socilaists now?

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

W.Churchill.

Whereas free market capitalism has succeeded, has not used the media to spred ignorance, has left no people envious and has left everyone happy?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But those aren't socialist countries, are they?

*scans through Das Kapital*

Nope.

Again, is anyone advocating out-and-out socialism, here?

I'd agree that the Scandanavian model is not socialism, but it does work, though, whatever you call it. Far better than the system the OP proposes, which has failed once and given absolutely no idciation of earning the trust it required to implement his ideas.

Schools and hospitals run for profit? ****, that is one frightening thought.

St.Spodo · 11-03-2012 6:23pm

I think most decent people want to incorporate ideas about social justice into society, while maintaining the capitalist system. It doesn't have to be socialist.

mloc · 11-03-2012 6:31pm

St.Spodo wrote: »

I think most decent people want to incorporate ideas about social justice into society, while maintaining the capitalist system. It doesn't have to be socialist.

I would agree with this.

My ideal model would have a NHS-style health system, a more open primary and secondary school system, but vastly reduced public service and social welfare besides that, along with a more unified tax system that is more transparent and without all the ridiculous stealth taxes we've amassed.

i.e. healthcare for all, education for all (up to third level - I'm in favour of fees for most), low taxes and a safety net for those who can't work - not those who won't.

Government investment would focus on public transport and infrastructure to help the private sector, not a bloated public sector to replace the private sector.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-03-2012 7:38pm

I'd agree with the social welfare thing. It's not a case of how much, it's a case of making sure that the people who need it, get it; and the people who don't, don't. Also, the people who genuinely are looking for jobs (and can prove it) ahead of the people who aren't.

I would like to see equal health care being universal. If politicans and entrepuenrs have the same access to it as the rest of it, just watch the services improve.

Monty Burnz · 11-03-2012 7:47pm

You should probably get less in child support the more kids you have. It's nuts the way it's structured at the moment where the more kids you have, the more you get for each kid - you're just encouraging people who can't afford to have kids to have even more of them.

paddyandy · 11-03-2012 8:27pm

SPODO ; A healthy balance of Capitalism tempered with socialism i've always believed in .

Dudess · 11-03-2012 8:34pm

paddyandy wrote: »

SPODO ; A healthy balance of Capitalism tempered with socialism i've always believed in .

Wow, you've said something sensible! :eek:

paddyandy · 11-03-2012 8:37pm

Dudess wrote: »

Wow, you've said something sensible! :eek:

You finally noticed !

zephyro · 11-03-2012 8:51pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Schools and hospitals run for profit? ****, that is one frightening thought.

Can you explain what is frightening about it?

scopper · 11-03-2012 8:55pm

zephyro wrote: »

Can you explain what is frightening about it?

Everything.

boynesider · 11-03-2012 9:05pm

Socialism would not help Ireland. What would help would be a higher level of honesty and integrity amongst our political classes. Too many careerists and party ideologues at the moment, although at the same time I reject the notion of Ireland being in an enormous crisis in both a global and historical context.

plasmaguy · 11-03-2012 9:08pm

A couple of years ago, the majority of Irish people were PD's/right wing FFers.

If you weren't one ourself, you at least knew of someone, a family member or extended relative.

They celebrated the free market, and boasted about the rising value of their investment properties, and toasted champagne at the Galway Races.

Now you can hardly find any of those free marketeers. They have all gone socialist, and tell you how they always admired Eamon Gilmore or Pat Rabitte, and weren't the PDs terrible and so on.

You'd wonder how PDs/FF ever got elected in the first place.

paddyandy · 11-03-2012 9:16pm

zephyro wrote: »

Can you explain what is frightening about it?

We Irish love hospitals and doctors and nurses and that is a problem . Hospitals run as businesses would take the sloppy ' day at the sea-side ' thing out of the system . Agree ????

mloc · 11-03-2012 9:37pm

paddyandy wrote: »

We Irish love hospitals and doctors and nurses and that is a problem . Hospitals run as businesses would take the sloppy ' day at the sea-side ' thing out of the system . Agree ????

It's not quite so black and white.

If you run the hospital with a business-like model where the patients are the "major shareholders", yes, that works.

If you run a hospital in a private business context, where the goal is to maximise profit... the results are not so good for the patient.

zephyro · 11-03-2012 9:41pm

mloc wrote: »

If you run a hospital in a private business context, where the goal is to maximise profit... the results are not so good for the patient.

Is there any evidence supporting this? Presumeably if results have not been good for patients at such a hospital people won't choose that hospital for their treatment. I don't see how profits could be maximised without giving the best possible results for patients.

mloc · 11-03-2012 9:48pm

zephyro wrote: »

Is there any evidence supporting this? Presumeably if results have not been good for patients at such a hospital people won't choose that hospital for their treatment. I don't see how profits could be maximised without giving the best possible results for patients.

Here I would point to the US medical system where an enormous proportion of people can't afford basic medical care due to price gouging by hospitals.

It's not that they don't provide good care, they do; they provide it at a price that many cannot afford.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-03-2012 9:49pm

boynesider wrote: »

Socialism would not help Ireland. What would help would be a higher level of honesty and integrity amongst our political classes. Too many careerists and party ideologues at the moment, although at the same time I reject the notion of Ireland being in an enormous crisis in both a global and historical context.

Absoulte pipe-dream. Not disgreeing with the idea, but it's never going to happen.

zephyro wrote: »

Is there any evidence supporting this? Presumeably if results have not been good for patients at such a hospital people won't choose that hospital for their treatment. I don't see how profits could be maximised without giving the best possible results for patients.

How do you know the patient is an area where he or she has a choice? If you get hit by a car, knocked unconscious, how do you register your objects or requests?

In answer to your first question, about what was so frightening (and hats off to whoever said "everything") is that it just eeks inequality. And don't give me that work hard bull**** - plenty of people work hard but would not benefit, while plenty who are rich do **** all.

Also, what happens when you get to the point where saving the patient might mean your profits taking a hit? Do you seriously trust the owner of the hospital (let's say it's Michael O'Leary) to make an ethical decision? Come on!

Toby Take a Bow · 11-03-2012 9:55pm

Sleepy wrote: »

A few salient points:

1. Norway has billions of euros worth of oil. We don't. To try model our economy on theirs is ludicrous.

We could model our system on how they organised when they did find oil. Instead we've gone the other way.

Sleepy wrote: »

2. Under a capitalist system, we wouldn't be paying Anglo's debts. Nor would we have a bloated, over-paid public sector we can't afford.

Under an idealised interpretation of a completely free-trade based capitalism, we wouldn't be paying Anglo's debts. There are no true free-trade capitalist countries, and never have been. The so-called free trade ideal is only supportive of free-trade when it helps to cement their position in the world. Otherwise, they will gratefully accept government help, and indeed call for it if needs be.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You should probably get less in child support the more kids you have. It's nuts the way it's structured at the moment where the more kids you have, the more you get for each kid - you're just encouraging people who can't afford to have kids to have even more of them.

I always thought the idea of child support in return for more kids was to pay for pensions. The less kids the more screwed we are down the line (although maybe this wasn't the case back in the day, and has only been realised recently).

plasmaguy wrote: »

Now you can hardly find any of those free marketeers. They have all gone socialist, and tell you how they always admired Eamon Gilmore or Pat Rabitte, and weren't the PDs terrible and so on.

It's easy to find the so-called free marketeers. The PDs went bust because every major political party has appropriated their ideals. So the free marketeers trumpeting Gilmore and Rabitte aren't actually that hypocritical.

JyesusChrist · 11-03-2012 10:02pm

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow? NO! Says the man in Washington it belongs to the poor. NO! Says the man in the Vatican it belongs to god! NO! Says the man in Moscow it belongs to everyone!" Anyone else think of Bioshock?

Monty Burnz · 11-03-2012 10:03pm

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I always thought the idea of child support in return for more kids was to pay for pensions. The less kids the more screwed we are down the line (although maybe this wasn't the case back in the day, and has only been realised recently).

Unfortunately, I don't know that many of the children who are born to milk the system ever get a fair chance in life to become earners and contributors to the system.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-03-2012 10:03pm

JyesusChrist wrote: »

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow? NO! Says the man in Washington it belongs to the poor. NO! Says the man in the Vatican it belongs to god! NO! Says the man in Moscow it belongs to everyone!" Anyone else think of Bioshock?

Bioshock the video game? Never mind. Elaborate, pelase.

mfceiling · 11-03-2012 10:09pm

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Tax in this country is actually fairly low. We're better off than most other European countries http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

VAT is a bit above average, but income tax is pretty low. Our corporation tax is very low and makes us a very attractive place to be for businesses, so saying that taxes are forcing businesses out is a load of BS.

People complain if hospitals are closed and if schools are understaffed, yet the slightest mention of raising taxes and people are up in arms. It's impossible to have good public services and low taxes.

Tax might be low but indirect taxes are high.

Buy a new car - VRT please and then the vat can be added to that and not the original price.

Doctor, dentist, hospital - good chunk of money please.

Alcohol, cigarettes, petrol....nice big whack for the government.

High cost of groceries, tv licence, bin charges, motor tax, private health insurance, schools, toll roads etc....it all adds up.

Well and good to ask where the government are going to get their money from but it's like going to your jar of coins to buy your things....only so many times you can go to that jar until one day it's empty.

Socialist_Pig · 11-03-2012 10:09pm

JyesusChrist wrote: »

Anyone else think of Bioshock?

no.... not till you mentioned the qoute anyways:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj9NJZUomjQ

zephyro · 11-03-2012 10:11pm

mloc wrote: »

Here I would point to the US medical system where an enormous proportion of people can't afford basic medical care due to price gouging by hospitals.

It's not that they don't provide good care, they do; they provide it at a price that many cannot afford.

That's because the US government doesn't provide adequate assistance for those who can't afford medical insurance, which I'm definitely not advocating.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

In answer to your first question, about what was so frightening (and hats off to whoever said "everything") is that it just eeks inequality.

Compared to our current two-tier system which doesn't? Presumeably by inequality you mean that the wealthy will get better treatment. That will happen in any health system unless it is regulated against.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Also, what happens when you get to the point where saving the patient might mean your profits taking a hit? Do you seriously trust the owner of the hospital (let's say it's Michael O'Leary) to make an ethical decision? Come on!

Sounds terrible but I can't think of a specific situation, can you?

Yeah Yeah Yeah · 11-03-2012 10:11pm

Are "we"?. Excellente..

Eric Cartman · 11-03-2012 10:12pm

mloc wrote: »

Begrudgery and a sense of entitlement is what drives the heart of the Irish socialist movement; not a real sense of social equality or political progressivism.

This ^^ this is exactly it. Most people who would Identify themselves as 'socialist' just seem to have a hatrid for rich people and a chip on their shoulder about anybody having anything. Not everyone is equal, some people work harder than others, and are entitled to earn more money and have nicer things. Just because I manage to do something that makes me a million doesnt mean that the people on welfare should get any of it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-03-2012 10:23pm

zephyro wrote: »

Compared to our current two-tier system which doesn't? Presumeably by inequality you mean that the wealthy will get better treatment. That will happen in any health system unless it is regulated against.

Sounds terrible but I can't think of a specific situation, can you?

No, thank ****, because we haven't done it.

I was referring more of the idea of havign hospitals for-profit when I wrote that, but yes-why should someone who was born rich be more entitled to someone wo works hard every day?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This ^^ this is exactly it. Most people who would Identify themselves as 'socialist' just seem to have a hatrid for rich people and a chip on their shoulder about anybody having anything. Not everyone is equal, some people work harder than others, and are entitled to earn more money and have nicer things. Just because I manage to do something that makes me a million doesnt mean that the people on welfare should get any of it.

The problem with your argments, Eric, is that you twist situations and definitions to make yourself feel better about your positions. Socialism id me demanding what you earned? Eh, no. And even if it was, we've already had the emytological debate. Everyone who is rich has worked hard? Bull****. Everone who is on welfare has never worked? Bull****. And I think you know it, but if it makes you feel better, believe on. Doesn;t make you right or it true.

If you "manage" to do something, yes - reap the rewards, BUT it does not give you this "entitlement" you demand and bemoan at the same time.

If you lost everything, would you still hold the same view, that you should be kicked to the kerb and steamrolled over when you're down?

Eric Cartman · 11-03-2012 10:31pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The problem with your argments, Eric, is that you twist situations and definitions to make yourself feel better about your positions. Socialism id me demanding what you earned? Eh, no. And even if it was, we've already had the emytological debate. Everyone who is rich has worked hard? Bull****. Everone who is on welfare has never worked? Bull****. And I think you know it, but if it makes you feel better, believe on. Doesn;t make you right or it true.

If you "manage" to do something, yes - reap the rewards, BUT it does not give you this "entitlement" you demand and bemoan at the same time.

If you lost everything, would you still hold the same view, that you should be kicked to the kerb and steamrolled over when you're down?

so what, they got rich , however they did it, fair play to them.

I would rather clean toilets, pick up rubbish or do absolutely any other job than be on welfare, and the same cant be said for most people.

I just want to see how you feel about something, lets say we changed over the economic system to have no welfare system whatsoever provided by the government , and instead people could get together collectives or have an insurance company that they optionally paid into incase they lost their jobs and needed private welfare out of it. This would solve the problem of
A) the people whove never worked getting my money

the people who might lose their jobs would have a safety net.

please explain how you would feel about that and identify any pitfalls for me.

MungBean · 11-03-2012 10:34pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so what, they got rich , however they did it, fair play to them.

I would rather clean toilets, pick up rubbish or do absolutely any other job than be on welfare, and the same cant be said for most people.

Easy to say that when our not in that position. And I think everyone here including yourself knows its bullshít, youd sit on your todd waiting for a job to suit you same as most people would.

_Gawd_ · 11-03-2012 10:36pm

OP you should know better than to start threads in AH. AH is a socialist leaning sub-forum and usually tends to attract the general scum. If you want to discuss genuine and logical political philosophy and economic systems...search elsewhere.

MungBean · 11-03-2012 10:37pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I just want to see how you feel about something, lets say we changed over the economic system to have no welfare system whatsoever provided by the government , and instead people could get together collectives or have an insurance company that they optionally paid into incase they lost their jobs and needed private welfare out of it. This would solve the problem of
A) the people whove never worked getting my money
the people who might lose their jobs would have a safety net.

please explain how you would feel about that and identify any pitfalls for me.

400 k people currently on the dole would have no money and no job and no way of paying for this insurance. Pretty big pitfall right there.

_Gawd_ · 11-03-2012 10:40pm

MungBean wrote: »

400 k people currently on the dole would have no money and no job and no way of paying for this insurance. Pretty big pitfall right there.

Your ignorance is endearing.

Why would you blast capitalism if the current system has no more features of capitalism than Stalinism had. What youre forgetting is that these 400k people on the dole would find productive work in the private sector due to total deregulation i.e- capitalism.

Scanlas The 2nd · 11-03-2012 10:41pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

zephyro wrote: »

Compared to our current two-tier system which doesn't? Presumeably by inequality you mean that the wealthy will get better treatment. That will happen in any health system unless it is regulated against.

Sounds terrible but I can't think of a specific situation, can you?

No, thank ****, because we haven't done it.

I was referring more of the idea of havign hospitals for-profit when I wrote that, but yes-why should someone who was born rich be more entitled to someone wo works hard every day?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This ^^ this is exactly it. Most people who would Identify themselves as 'socialist' just seem to have a hatrid for rich people and a chip on their shoulder about anybody having anything. Not everyone is equal, some people work harder than others, and are entitled to earn more money and have nicer things. Just because I manage to do something that makes me a million doesnt mean that the people on welfare should get any of it.

The problem with your argments, Eric, is that you twist situations and definitions to make yourself feel better about your positions. Socialism id me demanding what you earned? Eh, no. And even if it was, we've already had the emytological debate. Everyone who is rich has worked hard? Bull****. Everone who is on welfare has never worked? Bull****. And I think you know it, but if it makes you feel better, believe on. Doesn;t make you right or it true.

If you "manage" to do something, yes - reap the rewards, BUT it does not give you this "entitlement" you demand and bemoan at the same time.

If you lost everything, would you still hold the same view, that you should be kicked to the kerb and steamrolled over when you're down?

If you have more money then you are more entitled to get what you want, no one is entitled to be rich, so what's the problem? Some people just complain because others are doing better, tough sh1t, stop complaining or figure out a way to earn more money for yourself.

MungBean · 11-03-2012 10:42pm

_Gawd_ wrote: »

Your ignorance is endearing.

Why would you blast capitalism if the current system has no more features of capitalism than Stalinism had. What youre forgetting is that these 400k people on the dole would find productive work in the private sector due to total deregulation i.e- capitalism.

Who's blasting capitalism ? I'm responding to Eric Cartman who never mentioned anything about total deregulation.

Eric Cartman · 11-03-2012 10:43pm

MungBean wrote: »

Easy to say that when our not in that position. And I think everyone here including yourself knows its bullshít, youd sit on your todd waiting for a job to suit you same as most people would.

last tuesday I had no money to do anything, and I literally mean 0 euro (even cleaned out all the change from the couch and under my car seats) . By 2pm today I had generated a total of 240 euro by doing jobs like : fixing 2 washing machines, installing a tv point in a house, moving furniture, going to the dump for a friend, putting up 2 shelves, pruning a fir tree and selling old computers I had gotten and fixed up.

I officially have 0 qualifications ,I went to public school like most of us, all of those skills I taught myself, I needed money so thats what I did to get it. I dont understand why other people cant do the same.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-03-2012 10:44pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so what, they got rich , however they did it, fair play to them.

Eh, no. Your point was, "people who worked hard". Unless you meant to say, "**** the poor, i don't care how many hours a day they put in."

I would rather clean toilets, pick up rubbish or do absolutely any other job than be on welfare, and the same cant be said for most people.

I just want to see how you feel about something, lets say we changed over the economic system to have no welfare system whatsoever provided by the government , and instead people could get together collectives or have an insurance company that they optionally paid into incase they lost their jobs and needed private welfare out of it. This would solve the problem of
A) the people whove never worked getting my money
the people who might lose their jobs would have a safety net.

please explain how you would feel about that and identify any pitfalls for me.

If the country had 100% employment, you'd have a point, but it doesn't Personally, with your attitude, I wouldn't hire you to clean toilets. There is no way I could rely on you to help out if needs be, because there might not be anythign in it for you. You're not a team player, to use the lingo.

You'd also need 100% employment to abolish the social welfare system. You'd also need to have eradicated mental and physical disabiliities, unless you want me to invoke Godwin's Law. What are you going to do when 400,000 people for whom there are no jobs (and you'll notice I did NOT say "with no jobs" - big difference) are starving, have no welfare and are looting the supermarkets just to get food to fee their families?

What's your educated respocne to that scenario?

_Gawd_ · 11-03-2012 10:44pm

MungBean wrote: »

Who's blasting capitalism ? I'm responding to Eric Cartman who never mentioned anything about total deregulation.

There is ZERO welfare in capitalism.

In capitalism, there exists NO bailouts, no subsidies, no welfare, no policies, no unions, no protectionism, ZERO public sector.

Why are we all becoming socialists now?

Comments