Why I support the Labour Party........

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Plastic Yank, Apr 1, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Well spotted, Kit. You're right in that I should have enlarged on that point, since it’s far from clear what it entails.

    The only motivation for human beings to do anything in this world is to attain superiority over others. This has always been the case, but at the beginning of our development, it was a fairly straightforward affair: with one or several big cheeses at the top and everybody else arranged in a hierarchy in which they all knew their place. As human development continued, it was also accompanied by an increase in the complexity of life, so that it was possible to attain this "superiority" by other than either physical means, i.e. being the hardest bastard, or being old(er) and held in higher esteem.

    However, this increase in complexity also meant that our “tribes” became ever larger and it became increasingly more difficult to estimate the “superiority” of others because they were strangers. If they acted in a superior manner, then this was often taken at face value.

    So now we have the cult of bigger, more modern, more fashionable, more expensive etc. All designed to project this "superiority" to the world of strangers around us. In becoming engrossed in this superficial world, we’ve lost sight of the fact that we can only be "superior” if there are other human beings around to whom we can feel “superior”. All these buzz-words like “self-esteem", “self-value”, "self-respect” etc lose their meaning and potency if they’re not communicated to us by other human beings. The problem is that, in many cases, they're coerced and not given freely. We all recognise the behaviour of the typical arrse-licker, which is just one manifestation of this symptom.

    Most satisfying of all is when we recognise that we really are genuinely “respected” in the community. Then we really can say that we have “self-esteem” and “self-value” because we see it reflected in the voluntary behaviour of our peers towards us. But as long as we artificially manufacture various methods to force this “respect” from others, we'll continue to invent as many compensatory devices or vehicles as we feel are necessary.

    Hope this helps.

  2. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Just fcuk off and bore others, you are about as interesting as zzzzzzzzzzz

  3. So basically you want people to respect you and currently they don't?
  4. I may have not explained it to a satisfactory level, Semper, if that's the simplistic conclusion you draw. Point out what's still unclear for you and I'll do my best.


  5. You sound a bit my grand daughter when she's stamping her foot and screaming 'its not fair' when the other kids don't want to play with her.
  6. I always thought that the difference between Socialism and capitalism, was under capitalism that you could better yourself, and become more equal than you would under socialism.
    My business collapsed last year, but I had a bloody good five years of being self employed.

    Would I have the chance to better myself under socialism. I don't think so, but why should anyone get out of bed to do a hard days graft, when the neighbours sole reason for getting out of bed in the morning, is to walk the kids to school.
    I pay (somewhere along the line) for his rented house, and four kids. How is his vote equal to mine, when he hasn't contributed a penny to the running of the country?
  7. That’s an understandable attitude in a Capitalist society. You say that your business collapsed last year, so I assume that you now believe that you're sort of on the bottom rung again. But how about if you could live in a society in which you're respected and your dignity and sense of self-worth as a human being are intact without having to resort to ostentatious showmanship? What if, in this society, you didn’t need a flashy motor or gaff to make other folks aware of your “standing”? Would that be worse or better than what you've got now, or what you expect from the future?

  8. Is it? the stasi would be proud of some of the achievements and snooping of this current government.

    The only difference being that we don't have to worry about being dragged off and getting a 9mm to the back of the head, Labour uses financial punishment instead.

    Any country where the state is so large and snooping is so intrusive is dangerous, in this country there was no great war or revolution, it was just introduced bit by bit on the sly. Using security as an excuse.

    All whilst security and law and order has taken a nose dive, has all that CCTV and monitoring of our activities helped us be more secure?
  9. What if he likes a nice motor, or a big house or a Rolex or two, why shouldn't he have those things if he wants them and works for them, why should he pay for those who can't be arrsed to get up and try.

    That is a typical socialist view of envy, that someone only works to attain those things as a way of financial willy-waving.
  10. I'm not on the bottom rung of 'the ladder' I have a decent car, but my Wife drives that to work. I've got my little ( overdue a service) van

    I had two jobs last year (besides being self employed at the start of the year) The whole point of Capitalism is that anybody can better themselves by hard work.
    I've not checked my lottery ticket yet. If I've won I'll buy you a half, I'm sure ORD SGT has words of wisdom that you are missing.
  11. It's not envy at all! What you're doing is approaching the Socialist system with a typical Capitalist set of values, so it's small wonder that you'd come to that (erroneous) conclusion. Even your assumption that your man wants a nice motor, a big house and a Rolex or two are based on those values. What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that it's exactly those values, and the flawed ideology behind them, that are responsible for the unholy mess that the world's in at the moment.

    Have you ever tried looking at Socialism in a more impartial way and discovering whether it represents a more profound set of values that you could use on a more sustainable basis, i.e. values that don't disappear with your luck, or lack of it, with regard to work and what you earn?

  12. Dignity don't pay the bills
  13. Read again Bugsy, I assumed nothing, I asked what if, that is a question not an assumption.

    Bugsy as much as you insist otherwise it is human nature to want nice things, that's why socialism never works, because as soon as socialist get a taste of the good life they become champagne socialists.

    Ken Livingstone, Billy Bragg, Ben Elton....virtually every Labour MP.

    All good card carrying socialist that revert to capitalists as soon as they taste the good life.

    I wonder why they are not growing carrots in a socialist co-operative...because growing carrots on a sh1tty farm is crap compared to driving an Aston Martin to you mansion.

    and this is why Socialism will NEVER work, endex.
  14. Exactly…

    As soon as man started living in caves, he wanted a better cave and started decorating the walls and hanging hi hunting trophies on the walls… Oh look! Prehistoric aspirational lifestyles!

    If socialism is such a divine concept, why did it not become the de facto way of human evolution?

    Face facts Bugsy, socialism was dreamed up by a jealous and resentful navel gazing frog Aristocrat in the 18th century, it's not and never has been the natural condition of mankind.

    Funny thing about socialism, it's always been oh so trendy and popular with the rich and well off… Hmmm, could that be the wealthy peoples way of trying to fool the stupid into believing their better off with nothing?
  15. But I don’t insist otherwise, Mark, and I never have. I would, however, make a small amendment to your conclusion and say that it’s become human nature to want nice things. You’re making an elementary mistake when you believe that what you call “human nature” is the constant and immutable condition now evident in Capitalism. It’s not. To be more precise, what you're describing is the manifestation of the effects of human nature after hundreds of years of exposure to Capitalism. Human nature has changed constantly throughout the development of mankind, and it'll continue to change.

    On the other hand, what is constant and immutable is the very basis of what we often call “human nature” and consists of the fundamental instincts necessary for the survival of the species. Any manifestation of these instincts is dictated by our environment and the conditions under which we live. You seem to be confusing the two.

    You also maintain that Socialism has never worked. I could show you many examples (admittedly on a small scale) in which the principles of Socialism are alive and well and helping folks in their everyday lives. There’s no reason to suppose that the same principles couldn’t be applied to much larger communities to enrich their lives too.

    In contrast to your conclusion about Socialism, Capitalism's been the chosen system in a large part of the world for a very long time now and has most conclusively proved that it doesn’t work. It might be tottering along at the moment, but Capitalism is dependent on ever-increasing returns, and the earth can only sustain those returns for so long. Capitalists, being as short-sighted as they are, also make the same mistake as you and regard the present conditions as unchangeable and immutable, without considering that they’re simply the interim end-stage of a development process. Whether any further development is towards more Capitalism or less, the signs that a crossroads will be reached sometime in the future are very clear. Of course, crossroads in the developmental process have been reached before, only each time, the voices of the disenfranchised became more vociferous. So the Capitalists have a choice: either they allow others to develop alongside them and accept that they’re less than omniscient, or suffer the fate of the French royalty during the revolution.