No response then?

I though part of the blame lay with badly educated Democratics pressuring US Banks to lend money to people said US banks would not have touched with a barge pole..

Surely you don't actually expect one, do you, Kit?!

Bugsy hasn't responded to a number of posters who have posed questions or statements that destroy his views. He simply falls back on the age-old practice for the intellectually bankrupt of ignoring that which he can not refute.

He also has neither provided any evidence to support his accusation of malpractice by aid agencies, nor withdrawn the accusation. Can we sue him for slander or libel?! (I can never remember the difference)

Socialism is for people who can't be arrsed to work, they want equal distribution of wealth without lifting a finger, however my company is seriously suffering at the moment can't see any socialists wanting to help me out financially....but they would be more than happy to take when the going gets good again...I say that because as a capitalist I am alway's seeking opportunity...because i can be arrsed to do so.

Also modern socialists are most likely to be out on strike for higher pay when the company is struggling...Like BA for instance rather than knuckling down to see how you can help your company in the long term the workforce is simply sending customers to their competetors.


Socialists.....if you want a Range Rover like mine...become a capitalist

Aye, one of the biggest myths around is that of the "deregulation" of the financial services industry, especially compared to around 30 years ago when it genuinely was lightly regulated. It's probably the most highly regulated industry aside from medicine.

Any discussion of the financial crisis without mention of the Carter era "Communities Reinvestment Act", which was put on steroids by Clinton, is purely dishonest.

The CRA mandated that banks and lending institutions had to give mortgages to people who, as you say, they would not have touched with a barge pole unless forced, on pains of being called racist and being sued.

To try to limit their exposure to these federally mandated bad loans, the clever chaps came up with all the exotic financial products which repackaged these loans, to spread the risk around a bit, and make some money on the side.

This was fine in a bull market with ever increasing house prices, and frankly can you blame them from trying to make as much money as they possibly could out of what was objectively a bad deal that the government had mandated through regulation, while the going was good?

Unfortunately, a house price fall causes the whole house of cards to collapse and all the Marxist nutters come back out of the woodwork.

So the current "crisis" is not due to "unregulated capitalism", it is the unintended consequence of regulation forcing financial companies into doing something that, had the regulation not been there, they would not have been doing at all.

No CRA = no crisis now.

And Barney "Elmer Fudd" Frank is back at it trying to pressure lending institutions into lending money to low income people so they may buy condos. The cunts in DC failed to completely destroy the banking industry and nationalize it so they are going to take another stab...

OK, now that everybody seems to be back in the mix, let me provide a few answer to this stuff because it’s obvious that you’ve a set of short-sighted premises that are at odds with the reality of the situation at that time; instead seeing everything being done in the best interests of the working wo/man. That was never the case. Let’s start with this one:
In a time when populations were regularly devastated by plagues, famines and the like, it was necessary to introduce a set of fundamental measures to ensure that the available workforce was in a fit state to work on the lands of the gentry. The folks doing all the heavy lifting at the time were uneducated and essentially unorganised, so they were actually glad that such things were implemented, since it gave some structure to their otherwise unstructured lives.

This was not done with an eye to improving the lot of the workers, but so that the lazy shirkers, i.e. the gentry, could avoid having to work themselves, when all they wanted was to profit enormously from the efforts of their serfs/slaves.

I notice that you conveniently left out the draconian punishments meted out for, say, “stealing” a carrot or a cabbage from the lands of the respective gentry, or not meeting the (sometimes impossible) quotas imposed. But I suppose that’s only to be expected when you’re actually arguing in favour of such a profoundly unjust system in the first place.


This is a point of view I fail to understand, given how all "the Lords" actually came by their land. Among the indigenous peoples, there was no real concept of taking up land over and above what they could reasonably expect to farm to feed their families and tribes. Then a load of greedy, rapacious, lazy wasters showed up and simply expropriated or annexed this "free" land for their own selfish purposes. The original owners were very often just killed off if they made a fight of it. If they weren't topped, they were forced to work the same land, but had give most of the harvests produced to this "Lord", who'd arbitrarily declared the land to be his.

You really seem to believe that this state of affairs was somehow ordained by a cosmic deity, when in reality it was instigated by using overwhelming force against folks and forcing them to acquiesce or be killed, or more often than not to watch their families being brutally butchered in public pour encourager les âutres.

This totally inappropriate and erroneous picture you seem to be trying to conjure up of all these benign and caring “Lords” in continual worry about their charges couldn’t be further from the truth.

The courts and judges roamed the land to ensure that the Queen/King and all her/his subservient hangers-on were paid what they thought they were entitled to from the common wealth of the people. It had nothing at all to do with justice in the sense that we understand it today, and everything to do with grabbing percentages for the work-shy parasites living off the backs of others.

Tenants who felt “pissed off” or looked as if they might start to cause trouble were either tortured (or their families) or just topped. Or they ran away.

I believe you'll find that laws were passed legalising the status of serfs who ran away because they were a very real danger to the status quo, since they were invariably the ones who started to ask serious questions about the legitimacy of the whole system.

The ruling classes realised that they’d never have the manpower to hunt them all down, and anyway, that led more often than not to martyrdom and even more runaway serfs. Divide and rule is the main weapon in the armoury of the ruling classes/Capitalists, even to this day.

In essence, nothing at all has changed with regard to the principles outlined above. The vast majority of folks are still being unfairly and unjustly treated by the ruling classes, who in the meantime have vastly improved their counter-measures to unrest by taking over effective control of gobments, the Old Bill and any other organisation they deem fit to keep folks “in their place”. And that includes you, my friend.

However, I must admit that your post actually gave me hope. For you appear to be a person who accepts the status quo without question or complaint. Therefore, you should have no trouble at all adjusting to a Socialist system.

MsG

Last edited by Bugsy on Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

Still no answer to my question. How do you deal with those who refuse to act in accordance with the rest of society? I now count this as the ninth time you have been asked this question.

Fti

It’s not the ninth time, Jew_unit, don’t try to create a false impression here. I provided an answer to your question some time ago in the thread, but you conveniently avoided any sensible response. So, OK, I’ll give you another answer wrapped in a reciprocal question with regard to the Capitalist system: "How do you deal with those who refuse to act in accordance with the rest of society?”, since this question is applicable to both systems.

Why should crimes regarded as such in the Capitalist system be anything but in a Socialist system?

But what you’re really aiming at is that you (it seems personally) would be hell-bent on being a “big fish” in the Socialist pool – which shows just how little you’ve learned about this so-called “human nature” you profess to be in touch and so au fait with. With regard to this, you want to proclaim that you’d never change and that you’d always be on the lookout to thoroughly fück over your community members, just as long as you could play (near to) top dog. I’m not sure if you realise, but what does that say about your basic character, fella?

I regard your posts as wanting to play Devil’s Advocate in the discussion, for I can’t seriously imagine a serving or ex-squaddie ever coming up with such a scenario. Although I don't actually know whether you've ever served or are serving.

However, to press on; if it became clear that you were in no way interested in supporting community life, but were only interested in proving that you were infinitely superior to everybody else in the community and that therefore the rules and regulations of the community didn’t apply to you and you could interpret them as you wished, you would be gotten rid of in short order. Just as in a Capitalist community, folks who aren’t prepared to follow the basic tenets of human behaviour with regard to others are removed from the community.

MsG

Actually, your post demonstrates how idiotic you are truly being, Bugsy. You have yourself admitted that 'human nature' requires a hierachy. THAT is the secret of the human genome. We need people above and below us, leaders and followers, and we need the opportunity to progress ourselves throughout our lives. This has been the case from the very earliest forms of 'society' or 'community' when we were apes eating bananas in Eden.

As for your comments about squaddies, they suggest to me that it is actually YOU who has never served, whatever you've said in other posts, for i have never met a member of any armed force who didn't recognise the need for, and importance of, a rank structure.

And your final sentance proves why. It shows that it is only the views of the people charged with protecting your socialist utopia that actually matter. If Jew_Unit and I (and every sensible, logical and sane person) disagree with what the guardians of the 'socialist' system says we must do, we are 'got rid of in short order.'

You have thus created a hierachy of value and importance that destroys any pretence to 'socialism'.

Congratulations, you've just disproved yourself.

Bugsy

Missing a few points. You ignore the regulation of bread and beer and whittle on some random dribble across a "Horrible History" level grasp of about 500 years of History.

The "Gentry" didn't involve themselves in regulating working hours, that's the task of the various Guilds of Artisans. National laws on bread and wheat grew out of urban, local, bye laws controlling said products, set up by the merchants who ran the towns. Nothing to do with the Gentry. who controlled land, not towns.

Then you dribble on about some "indigenous people" crap......WTF? Which indigenous people? The British displaced by the Romans? The Romo-British displaced by the Saxons? The Saxons displaced by the Norse? The Anglo-saxons displaced by Normans? Land had been owned by someone in England since the growth of the British tribes before the birth of Christ. The British tribes fought each other over land control before the Romans turned up for the first summer visit. Stop dreaming up some fake history of a "Golden era" of "Socialist communes"


Yes, Life was harsh. Get Over it. But learn some real History. The Crown was very careful to balance power, Strong Kings kept everybody slightly unhappy, letting one section of medevial society grow too unhappy was dangerous, how many revolts did England suffer in 500 years as opposed to Germany?

Please do me the courtesy of actually thinking before trotting out a chunk of bad marxist history theory. And do wonder what I actually think about the current system, not assume that I support the current regime. I may only be pissing on your chips because your grasp of history is frankly pisspoor...

You haven’t actually understood a fückin’ thing, have you CarpsDumm! You maintain that we need "people above and below us, leaders and followers, and we need the opportunity to progress ourselves throughout our lives, but you then veer off and adopt a generic course. So if this is so “generic” to you, it should be obvious, so explain the connections, if you please.

What’s the matter, mucker? Are you afraid I might throw up a squall that might reveal that you've never served after all? I can actually prove my service, buddy. Can you prove yours? So fück you with your primitive attempt to prove me "persona non grata“ squaddie-wise.

By the way, I love this: And your final sentance proves why. It shows that it is only the views of the people charged with protecting your socialist utopia that actually matter. If Jew_Unit and I (and every sensible, logical and sane person) disagree with what the guardians of the 'socialist' system says we must do, we are 'got rid of in short order.'

Great shot, mucker! Where did I ever say that unless it was necessary? Could it be that you just assumed it to be so from your oh-so-beloved Capitalist system?

You're really not doing a very good job here, fella. If you want to convince me that Capitalism is, in the long run, better than Socialism, you’ll have to be a lot more sophisticated than to date.

MsG

You said it yourself, fcuknuts.


If it is neccesary for us to 'find our levels', we are automatically creating a hierachy, whichever strata it is based upon. There has NEVER been a time when this was not the case as human society has always been hierachical in nature. Therefore a generic IS acceptable as there is nothing to counterbalance the example.


Afraid? Not in the slightest, mucker. I have less than nothing to fear from anyone, least of all a twunt like you, and nothing to prove on that score. There are plenty of people on this site who have seen me in a service environment. I do find it extremely interesting, however, that the cnut who is so happy to question other people's service gets so scared when someone questions his. Get a dishonourable discharge, did you?


Ohhhhhhhhh so those who disagree will only be got rid of if 'it was neccesary'?! An especially entertaining response considering that it was you who said that


So, we have a Socialist 'true' democracy where those who disagree are 'got rid of if necessary' as decided by... who?!

Doesn't sound particularly fcuking democratic to me, you nonce.


The fact is that i don't need to convince you of the superiority of capitalism. As has been pointed out time and again, history has done that for me. Capitalism survives, socialism doesn't.

Socialism is the art of winning a popularity contest with other people's money. That's it.

I haven't served, and I would act to protect those who I value/like and who look to me for help or support. However, everyone else can go f*ck themselves in a socailist system. People will be looking to screw me over for their own gain so I will look to do it to them first. Thats human nature I'm afraid. It's evolutionary biology at its most basic and all the signs are that we have failed to transgress this deep instinct.

Your answer to my oft-posed question was unsatisfactory, as I said at the time. How would you identify such behaviour? Given that identifying fraud is extremely difficult in our current system, how would you propose to identify something even harder to spot (such as a worker being lazy or someone illicitly trading his rations/money for his own gain)?

Sadly, I am superior to many in the community in intellectual terms. As are you, if your mad desire to display academic credentials is anything to go by. Others are far superior to me in terms of the skills they bring to the table, yet you seem to believe that eveyone is equal. How would you correctly apportion jobs such that everyone is happy and productive to the maximum possible extent?

My final question: why are you a translator (I think I have that right)? Society needs aid workers in Africa far more, so why aren't you doing that? You say that socialism will change by the slow alteration of peoples attitudes but you seem to be displaying little of this attutde yourself. Also, the average household income in the UK is £30,000 and is approximately 22,000 euros in Germany. I'm not sure which country you live in, but I hope that any money you earn over this amount is donated to charity as doing otherwise would be hypocracy of the highest order. could you possibly clarify this for me as I would lvoe to know if you are as hypocritical as literally EVERY socailist I've met (Cambridge is full of champagne socailist pricks).

£20 to HfH says I don't get a satisfactory answer to all of the points in my post.

I considered this a little harsh on reflection and I was tempted to apologise for it, until you posted your response to this:
It really is true that we're discussing on a very uneven basis here. You, for whatever reason, still seem to believe that what was/is passed off as Socialism/Communism in the world actually deserves the epithet. How many times do I have to say it before you comprehend? There's never been a Socialist/Communist country ever!

If you insist on maintaining that illusion, then I see no point in any further discussion with you. If, however, you’re willing to agree with me that what was once described as Socialism/Communism was never any such thing, then we can continue. In that case, it would be helpful if you could gen yourself up on what Socialism actually is in the context of human interaction on every level so that we don’t get into useless arguments about two sides of a coin that never really existed.

Now this is an interesting one. You admit that you’d act to protect those you value/like and who look to you for help and support. I assume that this means your immediate circle of family, friends and acquaintances. But why exhibit such behaviour in the first place? Surely in this Capitalist dog-eat-dog society on which you appear to place so much value, even these folks can be coldly quantified in the context of their usefulness to you. So why this attitude?

I mean I can fully understand it, but I’d like you to ponder on it and at the same time attempt to imagine that this mindset, which you admit is present in your thinking, could possibly be extended to a wider circle of folks in the community, if you could be sure that reciprocality would occur in that case. This brings me to your next interesting point:

The mechanisms for identifying such behaviour are the same under Socialism as under Capitalism. Thus no great change is necessary. But here again you appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your Capitalist mindset would remain completely uninfluenced in a Socialist system. Is there not a chance, do you think, that your basic attitude would also undergo a change, once you realised that not everybody is out to fück you over, but rather intent on obtaining the maximum for the common good of the community of which you’re a member? Regardless of the size of such a community?

I realise that I’m more intelligent than a lot of folks in the community, although I fail to see where you get this “mad desire to display academic credentials from”. Unless you happen to be projecting your own unspoken intellectual aspirations onto me. At the same time I know that others are more intelligent and possess greater and more useful skills, however, that has nothing at all to do with "equality" as I understand it. Every person in a society has something to contribute. Some, like you or me, for instance, can contribute more than others less well-equipped intellectually or with regard to skills, while others can contribute more. Regardless of what we contribute individually, we all need to eat and drink (roughly) the same amount, we all require adequate clothing and accommodation. That’s the basis of the equality I mean.

In a Socialist society, we wouldn’t all be lashed in front of ploughs or be handed a spade to till the land. This is a common misunderstanding when folks talk about Socialism. Life would continue much as we know it, but with a more equitable division of the wealth created by our common efforts within our respective societies. Crucially, our "status" (for want of a better word) would be based on genuine and lasting respect and admiration from our fellow members of society, and not on transient and superficial things such as the amount of money we can display, or on how much we can "impress" others with the prices we're prepared to pay for our clothes. These elements would still be present, of course, but they'd have much less impact on others than the contribution we make to our relevant societies.

I’m a translator because I find it an ideal way to earn the money I require for life's necessities without taking away from anybody else. I have actually thought about being a volunteer in other countries, Africa for instance, but that's not the course my life took. I carry out volunteer work on three days per week at the local Credit Union and I work one night-shift per weekend at the local hospital (since I’m ex-RAMC). I donate a lot of money to various charities, since I have the financial means. Perhaps a PM to MDN with regard to our own Holiday4Heroes charity would clarify things for you on that count.

This is a difficult one, for you’re the person who has the final say in whether I've provided “satisfactory” answers.

MsG

Bugsy

"It really is true that we're discussing on a very uneven basis here. You, for whatever reason, still seem to believe that what was/is passed off as Socialism/Communism in the world actually deserves the epithet. How many times do I have to say it before you comprehend? There's never been a Socialist/Communist country ever! "


So what you're saying is that a Socialist Country is nothing more than a ideological dream, an intellectual experiment waiting to be properly tested. That all the attempts to implement the experiment failed at the very first hurdle. You could argue that all attempts in the 20th Century to create a socialist state failed the instant humans got involved.

But it never can be properly tested, because it can only work in a theoretical construct which discounts the influence of human nature.

Would impact be a better word..?

Perhaps deleting "the influence of" would be even better.

Last edited by Fifth_Columnist on Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:59 am; edited 1 time in total