Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

Originally Posted by Bugsy

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?

But the mechanisms fail under captialism. People are often reminded of the need to work hard to help others, yet time and again we need to fire people for poor output. Using the example of the army, how many soldiers slack off when they can (excepting on operations)? I know from countless posts on this board that the answer is most.

The reason I help my family is because I'm genetically predisposed to do so, and I want them to prosper. Looking after them normally means that somebody else misses out in some way. This tribal/pack behaviour is seen throiughout the development of human society and in almost every animal species. It has never been extended to cover more than the immediate relations/friends of the individual. IT is also the case that a number of people are capable of transgressing this and do seem to act entirely for their own self-centred good. Quite how such people will be accomodated in your system eludes me.

The issue with identifying fraud is that a capitlaist system can cope with leeches, whilst a socailist system must surely fail. Your point about me wanting to be equl is predicated on the idea that everyone will be doing the same for me if I help them. However, as soon as any inequality becomes apparent then the system breaks down.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

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.

Sadly, people do need to do shitty jobs. People need to sit in factories and midlessly press buttons all day and people need to clean sewers in order for society to function. Sadly, the only way to make people do these horrible jobs is to not pay them if they do not do them. Why do you believe that a worker will suddenly enjopy cleaning the sewer because society wants him to? Given that he will still get rations in prison, isn't that a better life?

Originally Posted by Bugsy

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.

I'm not doubting that you give to charity, but I seem to remember you saying on this board that you earn about £50,000. I assume therefore that you give 20,000 to charity because anything less would be hypocracy of the highest order.

The reason humans exist as we do is because we were better than anyone else at looking out for our own selves/gene pool. Trying to say that we will adopt a global view and overcome our innate behaviour that has been developed over millenia based on trust for others is simply crazy. Have you ever wondered why, in any university, its always the sociologists and arts faculty who are socialist whilst the economists and scientists are capitalist?

Its time to apply some science to your argument I think. Write down every factor upon which your socialist utopia depends (eg. changing human attitudes, strong governmental control) and then work out the assumptions that you must make to get to each factor. I guarantee that many of your assumptions will not stand up when exposed to the cold light of day.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by Bugsy

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?

But the mechanisms fail under captialism. People are often reminded of the need to work hard to help others, yet time and again we need to fire people for poor output. Using the example of the army, how many soldiers slack off when they can (excepting on operations)? I know from countless posts on this board that the answer is most.

The reason I help my family is because I'm genetically predisposed to do so, and I want them to prosper. Looking after them normally means that somebody else misses out in some way. This tribal/pack behaviour is seen throiughout the development of human society and in almost every animal species. It has never been extended to cover more than the immediate relations/friends of the individual. IT is also the case that a number of people are capable of transgressing this and do seem to act entirely for their own self-centred good. Quite how such people will be accomodated in your system eludes me.

The issue with identifying fraud is that a capitlaist system can cope with leeches, whilst a socailist system must surely fail. Your point about me wanting to be equl is predicated on the idea that everyone will be doing the same for me if I help them. However, as soon as any inequality becomes apparent then the system breaks down.

I obviously failed to properly explain what I meant on this point. True, the mechanism for ferreting out such folks is less than optimal under Capitalism, but at the same time, it operates on a double-standard basis. Workers in a Capitalist system are very thoroughly supervised and are forced to accept wages representing much less than they individually produce (otherwise they wouldn’t be employed in the first place). They see their superiors treated in a very different way, i.e. that they're allowed to be much more incompetent until they’re fired; and even then they receive compensation which is in no way commensurate with any effort they put into the company. The workers see this and feel denigrated and unjustly treated and (rightfully) resent it. The result is that they don’t identify with the company and its products and regard their work simply as a means to earn a living.

Under such circumstances, it’s small wonder that some have elevated skiving to an art form. It’s debatable whether folks would react quite like that in a Socialist system, since their efforts would be seen as contributing to the common good, and, more importantly, they'd be able to discern that they were being treated with respect and dignity - something that bosses are all too often loath to do in a Capitalist society.

A survey was carried out at the end of the Eighties (if memory serves) by The Economist in which various aspects of workers’ lives were examined based on what sort of company they worked for. The employees of more enlightened companies who were also given a share of the companies' profits (but there were only nine such companies in the survey, four of them in what was West Germany) not only had much higher productivity figures, but also a much lower incidence of sickness, while the corresponding figures in "traditionally" run companies (of which there were 1,700 in the survey) were very much lower and very much higher respectively. In addition, ALL of the employees of the more enlightened companies said that they loved to work their, while a startling 87 percent of the employees of traditionally run companies said they'd just as soon work somewhere else if the opportunity arose. The percentage of these same employees complaining about extra (work) pressure put on them by skiving colleagues was about the same figure.

Admittedly, canvassing the opinions of the employees of only nine such enlightened companies in a survey and trying to reach some sort of conclusion is very difficult, but the facts do contrast very starkly with those presented from the other 1,700 companies. I suppose everybody has to make up her/his own mind as to their relevance.

The point is that even those of a “skiver” mentality who entered employment with the more enlightened companies quickly changed their attitude. Again, since the segment of the survey was so small, there’s no way that this change in attitude can be reliably extrapolated to include the whole of a country, but it’s a clear indication that such radical changes can take place as long as those involved are in a positive work (or social) environment from which they can reasonably expect mutual reciprocality.

You also mentioned the military environment and squaddies slacking off (except on operations). Exactly! When yon squaddies know how vital they are to the overall effort of the unit, then they can be relied on to do their job to the best of their ability.

All this is very much bound up in the complex interaction of human nature. In spite of the fact that I've been accused on numerous occasions of discounting human nature, I recognise its paramount importance. Indeed it's the ONLY factor holding our societies together.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by Bugsy

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.

Sadly, people do need to do shitty jobs. People need to sit in factories and midlessly press buttons all day and people need to clean sewers in order for society to function. Sadly, the only way to make people do these horrible jobs is to not pay them if they do not do them. Why do you believe that a worker will suddenly enjopy cleaning the sewer because society wants him to? Given that he will still get rations in prison, isn't that a better life?

Following on from my previous statements: if a person engaging in these essential community activities has the feeling that her/his contribution to the common good is greeted with dignity and respect, then there's no reason why they wouldn't want to take them up. The very reason why so many folks are reluctant to carry them out in our present society is because they know they'll be treated like shite. This, again, is a result of the extremely complicated (but actually simple to understand) structure of human nature, upon which I can enlarge, if required.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

The reason humans exist as we do is because we were better than anyone else at looking out for our own selves/gene pool. Trying to say that we will adopt a global view and overcome our innate behaviour that has been developed over millenia based on trust for others is simply crazy. Have you ever wondered why, in any university, its always the sociologists and arts faculty who are socialist whilst the economists and scientists are capitalist?

The reason why humans exist as they do is because they learned at an early stage how to kill off anything getting in their way - which is a very short-sighted view of things. In the meantime, our knowledge of the world around us has increased immensely and a growing number of folks are starting to question whether it might not be a good idea to actually go along more with nature than to try and fight it, as we’ve been doing hitherto.

As for your trust in others argument: there have been enough natural and man-made disasters to disprove that. Working on your basis, I wonder why anybody at all turned up to help when the Twin Towers were banjoed, or when the Tube stations were bombed on 7/7. Folks prove almost daily that they're willing to risk their own lives to save complete strangers. This shows that the capacity for adaptation of what we like to call “human nature” is only just under the surface of our civilised exteriors.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Its time to apply some science to your argument I think. Write down every factor upon which your socialist utopia depends (eg. changing human attitudes, strong governmental control) and then work out the assumptions that you must make to get to each factor. I guarantee that many of your assumptions will not stand up when exposed to the cold light of day.

This has given me a bit of an insight into your basic attitude to Socialism. Can we once and for all agree that what is/was called Socialism/Communism is/was actually nothing of the sort?

Socialism is not about gobment control of anything. That’s what’s made Capitalism so destructive and was, essentially, one of the decisive factors in the fortunate demise of so many State Capitalist countries. So we know for a fact that any sort of central gobment doesn’t work for human beings. In fact, under Socialism there’s no real need for a central gobment at all.

We sort of "inherited" central gobments as a development of history. We were at no time ever asked, before or since their introduction, if we wanted them, and we're also never asked how they could be improved. That in no way says that they’re there forever and that no other way is possible, it just means that they’ve been there for so long that we tend to accept them without question. This is rather remarkable considering how central gobments have consistently failed to live up to even the most modest expectations. It’s now time for a positive change.

MsG

"We sort of "inherited" central gobments as a development of history. We were at no time ever asked, before or since their introduction, if we wanted them, and we're also never asked how they could be improved. That in no way says that they’re there forever and that no other way is possible, it just means that they’ve been there for so long that we tend to accept them without question. This is rather remarkable considering how central gobments have consistently failed to live up to even the most modest expectations. It’s now time for a positive change."



Errrrr.....The whole thrust of human development has been towards Central Government, and how it works. Why do you think so mnay different people in the last 400 years of British History have thought, fought and died just to have the right to have a say in how their lifes are ruled?

And I'm pretty sure the basic tenets of modern life get done quite well, thanks to a reasonably good grasp by Central Government that it does actually have to make sure the bins get emptied and the roads get repaired. It's only when Governments start thinking their underpants should be worn over their trousers that things go wrong....

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe" ][quote="Bugsy

"We sort of "inherited" central gobments as a development of history. We were at no time ever asked, before or since their introduction, if we wanted them, and we're also never asked how they could be improved. That in no way says that they’re there forever and that no other way is possible, it just means that they’ve been there for so long that we tend to accept them without question. This is rather remarkable considering how central gobments have consistently failed to live up to even the most modest expectations. It’s now time for a positive change."

Errrrr.....The whole thrust of human development has been towards Central Government, and how it works. Why do you think so mnay different people in the last 400 years of British History have thought, fought and died just to have the right to have a say in how their lifes are ruled?[/quote]
I stand by my statement that central gobments have never delivered on their promises. I’ll go further and say that those folks you’re talking about never fought and died for any central gobment, but because they perceived their way of life to be threatened. The fact that they, too, inherited this central gobment, which they were never given a chance to vote for or against in the first place, has nothing to do with any struggle.

And I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but central gobment has never been about folks having a say in how their lives are ruled. The farcical notion of “democracy” has always been a cruel illusion. You have to remember that this much-vaunted British Parliament came into being as a result of the more well-off members of society, the ruling class, insisting on having a say about what happened to the money they were forced to pay to the Queen/King. Money, I might add, that was, in turn, squeezed illegally and with sometimes very brutal methods from their serfs. The Queen/King realised that yon ruling class could create a lot of hassle if s/he pissed them off too much and so the so-called “mother of all parliaments" was born (notwithstanding that the Icelandic parliament pre-dates it by a couple of centuries). What the UK has now is what it had then: a cosy club of politicians and members of the ruling class all intent on working into their own pockets.

The rest of the population are only bit-players on this stage and are, by and large, simply regarded as the cows who provide the milk, but are given a minimal amount of security and comfort to ensure that the milk keeps flowing.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

And I'm pretty sure the basic tenets of modern life get done quite well, thanks to a reasonably good grasp by Central Government that it does actually have to make sure the bins get emptied and the roads get repaired. It's only when Governments start thinking their underpants should be worn over their trousers that things go wrong....

I believe you’ll find that local gobment takes care of the bins and roads, since the oh-so-caring central gobment is more or less engaged full-time in trying to work a flanker on the opposition, or getting rid of any potential risk to their own positions posed by folks from their own ranks.

However, if you really believe that the UK central gobment is doing such a fine job for all us normal, insignificant Josephines and Joes, how does this sound to you?

You hand the total of your earnings to some geezer who promises to ensure that your life remains comfortable. He takes 30 percent straight off as a commission for himself. He's supposed to pay your rent/mortgage, buy your food and clothing and make sure that all the bills are paid. After a couple of months he comes back and says that you have to earn more because the money's not enough and if you don't cough up, he'll have to make cuts somewhere. So you find a second job and give him the extra money. A month or so later, he returns and says there's still not enough money, so he'll have to make cuts in expenditure. And so the story continues.

That, on a family scale, is what central gobments have been doing for decades. You’ll notice that your man never reduces his own commission, but insists that you deliver more money.

Whatever made us so utterly stupid as to trust such a blatantly dishonest system in the first place?

MsG

F**k me.......! The biggest events that shaped the current system that ruled us and you miss it out completely for some odd version of history.

Ever heard of the Putney debates in 1647? Where the victors of the Civil war attempted to thrash out a settlement of the future of Britain. Thomas Rainsborough argued that

"For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under."

That's universal suffrage in case you're wondering.

Or how about Chartism? Which includes a demand for the universal suffrage as part of the movements demands for reform.

Or the Suffragettes? Remember them? The women who fought for the right to vote. Emiliy Davison was killed in 1913 at the Epsom Derby.

All three groups over 400 years fought for the right to vote. Real History, real facts. Not some Marxist pseudo history.

Central planning socialism even when the politburo is totally altruistic and uncorrupt doesn't work because of Hayek's calculation problem. Human nature being what it is, giving greater power over the distribution of resources to ordinary human beings compounds the problem by resulting in more back-scratching.

Decentralised hippy/anarchist socialism isn't workable in any society larger than a small tribal village for exactly the reasons embedded in human nature that Jewunit pointed out. You can't run a civilsation capable of mass-producing antibiotics, aviation fuel, microchips or a national power grid with it.

Proponents of the first form of socialism usually start out dreaming about implementing the second type, but then they quickly find that human nature doesn't work that way, so they gradually become tyrannical and try to change it, usually whilst indulging in the kind of corruption any ordinary people can become prone to. viz New Labour.

Originally Posted by CS Lewis

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

F**k me.......! The biggest events that shaped the current system that ruled us and you miss it out completely for some odd version of history.

Ever heard of the Putney debates in 1647? Where the victors of the Civil war attempted to thrash out a settlement of the future of Britain. Thomas Rainsborough argued that

"For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under."

That's universal suffrage in case you're wondering.

Or how about Chartism? Which includes a demand for the universal suffrage as part of the movements demands for reform.

Or the Suffragettes? Remember them? The women who fought for the right to vote. Emiliy Davison was killed in 1913 at the Epsom Derby.

All three groups over 400 years fought for the right to vote. Real History, real facts. Not some Marxist pseudo history.

So that's what you class as "universal suffrage"? My, my, words do appear to acquire an astounding elasticity when you use them.

Notwithstanding that universal suffrage was introduced into the UK in 1918 for males over 21 and for females ten years later, although some women were allowed to vote from 1918 onwards, but with property restrictions, apart from a few speeches by some enlightened folks, universal suffrage before that never really got off the ground - in contrast to France. Those are historical facts and have nothing at all to do with any Marxist definitions.

You also mentioned the tragic death of Emily Davison in the pursuit of women's suffrage, but you conveniently forgot to include why she died and why suffrage (for males) was introduced. After all, according to your take on history, it was a done deal long before that. Could it actually be that the ruling classes didn't want folks to vote until they were forced to concede? And if that was the case, why?

But anyway, that's not the point, really. Even with universal suffrage, ordinary folks have never had any say in running the country, nor even allowed to voice an opinion that any politician took seriously.

You also managed this: "The biggest events that shaped the current system that rules us". This is typical of the unreflective mindset that regards gobments in general as somehow necessary. Why should we be "ruled" by anybody?

If you think about it, there's no person on earth who has the right to tell you what to do. I know that's what we're subjected to, but it's not a universal and immutable law. There are, however, any number of folks who want to tell us what to do, to order us around. They can only do that by threatening us, overtly or covertly with repercussions if we dare to disobey. And they call it "democracy". I don't think so!

MsG

Lsquared.

It's actually mildly interesting testing bugsy's responses. He's trotting out an almost classical, with a bitter twist, marxist history set with added "conspiracy theory" for flavour. To put it simply, the history of man is the rise to the xenith of perfection in a socialist society, evolving into the perfect communist society. It's not a bad theory, it's just unable to cope with the offputting...

He never really answers a line of thought, he just attacks it, he's not got that great a grasp of history and everything has been overshawdowed by some vast secret society that prevents us from moving to the perfect socialist society. He's unable to grasp just how tribal human groupings are, which is sad.

I'm vaguely capable of arguing another mind set, just not very well. He's not even capable of looking outside his own mindset.

Originally Posted by CarpeDiem

And now, to cap it all, he's changing from socialism to anarchism with his comment "Why should we be "ruled" by anybody?" He completely ignores the fact that his socialist society would almost certainly result in one of the most tyranical and despotic regimes possible.

So true. Ony the most deluded Socialists suggest that everything will run perfectly with no control. There are many crimes in capitalism which would repeat in socialism and we would need a very strong government indeed to ensure equality. Quite wy these people would be less corrupt than any leaders before is beyone me. Maybe a love of power is unique to a capitalist system, as is a desire to have a better life, as is the existence of theives who are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of others to their own end. I see no reason why this last group, particularly, would suddenly appreciate the error of their ways and work to the common good simply because it is better for everyone.

I still want to know if Bugsy would cheerfully work in a mine. He has shown himself to be a massive hypocrite. He does little 'work' in the tradtional sense and yet keeps money over the average wage instead of donating it to those more in need than himself. He "considered" going to Africa as an aid worker, but his love for his fellow humans did not stretch as far as his love for taking the path of least resistance to a comfortable lifestyle with plenty of money. Hypocrites like bugsy are the reason why any attempts at socialism have failed in the past. We will never even come close to such a system until those who advocate it are willing to lead by example, unlike Bugsy.

Monosodium Glutamate (MsG)

What I can't see anyone suggesting here is that we and most of the rest of the developed world live in a system that is already socialist. We started the path in 1597 with the first 'Act for the Relief of the Poor' and largely finished in the late 1940s, all be it with periodic enhancement (minimum wage, etc.) since. The two most important elements relating to the means of production - healthcare and education - are all either state owned or regulated and are broadly accessible to all. No one starves. No one dies of easily curable diseases. Those few that are homeless tend to have have underlying personal issues. No one is paid 5p an hour for lugging coal out of the ground. There is always room for further improvement, but all the basics are there, and have been for some time.

The problem modern socialists in the UK and much of the world have is simple: they won. All that is left to debate is the tedium of issues such as pushing tax up or down one or two percent or whether or not the trains should be state owned.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by CarpeDiem

And now, to cap it all, he's changing from socialism to anarchism with his comment "Why should we be "ruled" by anybody?" He completely ignores the fact that his socialist society would almost certainly result in one of the most tyranical and despotic regimes possible.

So true. Ony the most deluded Socialists suggest that everything will run perfectly with no control. There are many crimes in capitalism which would repeat in socialism and we would need a very strong government indeed to ensure equality. Quite wy these people would be less corrupt than any leaders before is beyone me. Maybe a love of power is unique to a capitalist system, as is a desire to have a better life, as is the existence of theives who are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of others to their own end. I see no reason why this last group, particularly, would suddenly appreciate the error of their ways and work to the common good simply because it is better for everyone.

To refer once more to the original theme of the thread: one of the main problems faced not only by modern Socialists but also by those living in a Capitalistic society is that nothing will change in a positive fashion until we begin asking serious questions about the nature of society, instead of merely accepting things as they are just because we’re told to and because we’re accustomed to things as they are. That was the intention of my statement: “Why should we be ruled by anybody?”.

Because both you and CarpeDiem accept Capitalism as the “best” system, you never bother to ask why banks and multinational companies are allowed to dictate national and international gobment policies, to the detriment of the respective populations. You never bother to ask why employers are allowed to dictate what we wear to work, why some numpty of a council worker can barge into your gaff on a whim. You genuinely appear to be insensitive as to where all this is leading. It’s folks like you who really are the main problem in any society.

Of course, you’re correct when you say that Socialism won’t work without control, but in the Capitalism we have now, control has got out of hand, with any prat insisting that they’ve the right to tell everybody what to do, just because they can. That’s happened because folks have been systematically deprived of their responsibility in society. You’re not allowed to take charge of your own life because far too many people have a vested interest in maintaining their own superior status by inventing and introducing ever more intrusive rules into our lives. That’s not what society should be about. But you prefer not to question it.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

I still want to know if Bugsy would cheerfully work in a mine. He has shown himself to be a massive hypocrite. He does little 'work' in the tradtional sense and yet keeps money over the average wage instead of donating it to those more in need than himself. He "considered" going to Africa as an aid worker, but his love for his fellow humans did not stretch as far as his love for taking the path of least resistance to a comfortable lifestyle with plenty of money. Hypocrites like bugsy are the reason why any attempts at socialism have failed in the past. We will never even come close to such a system until those who advocate it are willing to lead by example, unlike Bugsy.

I’m sorry that you feel a bit left out in the moral stakes, but you’ve stated nothing to date that indicates that you’re anything but a self-centred, corrupt, unethical and immoral person, yet you question my moral stance. Your sweeping and self-serving statements about me are inaccurate, but you present them as if you’re my twin brother. It’s small wonder that Capitalism is in such a crisis with small-minded “champions” like you and your ilk representing it. Wise up, fella.

MsG

Originally Posted by insert-coin-here

I found this quite an interesting read.

We are all egalitarians now, right? Everybody (apart from a few political Neanderthals) regards it as unjust that some people are much poorer than others, and those who are richer than most are resented, right? Poverty is universally seen as a product of an unjust society and all modern political parties must be committed to correcting this, right?

Wrong. None of the above statements is true. An oddly under-publicised study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published last week, which bears the rather dry academic title "Understanding Attitudes to Tackling Economic Inequality" (rather than the more explanatory "The Left Has Completely Failed to Comprehend Public Opinion"), reveals the startling news. Most people, it transpires, do not object to disparities in earnings – even quite large ones. For the most part, they attribute higher earnings to "high-level ability, performance or social contribution". They assume, in other words, that most of those with very high earnings probably deserve them because of their exceptional talent or dedication.

More in the link.

The Telegraph see what it wants to see. The headline findings from the report itself are

Nearly all the participants in the discussion groups placed themselves in the 'middle' of the income spectrum and interpreted the 'income gap' as the gap between the 'middle' and the 'super-rich'.

Most participants believed that 'deserved' inequalities are fair. They were not opposed to high incomes they perceived to be deserved through high-level ability, performance or social contribution.

Participants often made assumptions about the virtues of those with high incomes in order to justify income inequalities. However, after the start of the financial crisis of autumn 2008, they increasingly questioned whether high salaries were deserved.

Attitudes towards those on low incomes were often more negative than attitudes towards the ‘rich’. Two important factors driving these attitudes were widespread beliefs that there are adequate opportunities to earn a reasonable income and beliefs that benefit recipients will not contribute back to society.

Most participants strongly supported progressive tax and benefit systems. When considering evidence about unequal life chances, they were supportive of targeted interventions to improve life chances for the disadvantaged.

Many participants did not find abstract arguments for greater equality persuasive. They preferred arguments for greater equality framed in terms of fairer rewards for effort and contribution.

Many participants found claims about the possible negative social consequences of income inequality convincing. They showed strong support for a social vision based upon improving quality of life for everyone and were prepared to support certain egalitarian policies in this context.

Only the two parts I've highlighted support the Telegraph article. The first section refering to having a low opinion of the poor, and the second regarding the social consequences of inequality. The latter is next to impossible to argue against as the evidence that inequality erodes social cohesion is massive. This feeds back into the first point, as social cohesion will determine the degree of bonding within a society and this will be reflected in peoples attitudes to other groups.

Inequality breeds contempt for the idea of the need for greater equality due to the separation of the groups (remember most people in this survey concidered themselves 'middle income', and were being asked about 'the poor') involved in the equality debate. As a result, inequality grows further, social cohesion further erodes and the distance between the two groups expands further, and so on. On the other hand, the greater the level of equality, the higher the level of social cohesion, and as a result it is less likely that one group will think of the other as undeserving. Inequality therefore decreases as anti-inequality policies will be supported, and so on.

This fact is manifested in the research as it is also show that when exposed to people with identifiable problems, attitudes soften massivly. In a society with high levels of social cohesion, people are less likely to need to have cases explained to them because the poor are less likely to be seen as aliens to be avoided, as people meet and interact with them every day, and so know the problems they face (here in the UK we shove them on to council estates and make funny TV shows about them). In a society with low social cohesion people are less likely to provide sympathy, but when exposed to type of evidence people in a high cohesion society have, this attitude is likely to change.

Originally Posted by stoatman

Originally Posted by Bugsy

...why some numpty of a council worker can barge into your gaff on a whim.

What on God's sunny green Earth has that got to do with capitalism? That's STATE COERCION, something absolutely characteristic of authoritation, normally SOCIALIST societies.

Predicted response:
"don't reconise socialist countries as such; in my system; blah blah blah"... Yaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn...

Absolutely correct, Stoatman. There are, and never have been, any Socialist societies. But just taking a quote out of context does relieve you of any response to the query embedded in the statement of which it was an integral part. Which still leaves us with the same problem, which is: “Why aren’t more folks seriously questioning a system that’s been fücking us over practically since its inception?”

We’ve been subjected to Capitalism now for many decades. In all that time, we’ve stumbled from one crisis to another, with each crisis getting progressively worse. All that Capitalism offers is more of the same but there's a realisation that at some stage there’s going to be a tremendous backlash. That's why they're systematically removing citizens’ rights with the willing approval and eager help of their respective gobments. But, then again, because it's happening under Capitalism, it's not state coercion, is it?

Originally Posted by stoatman

The problem with modern socialists, bugsy, is people like you. Wake up and smell the ersatz coffee (unless you're a party functionary).

MkG.

Would you like to expand on that, Stoatman? I believe it’s you who should do the waking up.

MsG

PS. If your “MkG” is supposed to represent “Mit kapitalistischem Gruß”, be aware that it actually is an official military abbreviation and means: “Mit kameradschaftlichem Gruß”.

Dear God in Heaven, this has gotten dreary and dull.......

It's like reading the online blog of a conspiracy theorist.

"All that Capitalism offers is more of the same but there's a realisation that at some stage there’s going to be a tremendous backlash. That's why they're systematically removing citizens’ rights with the willing approval and eager help of their respective gobments."

Really? It's the same level of dribbling crap that I'd exepct from a 7/11 the CIA flew those planes into the Twin Towers and there was nobody on them and the Moon Landing took place in the back lot at Fox Studios and the Titantice was sunk to prevent everybody noticing how brill the Brits were and Hitler was smuggled away by the Red Army to rule the USSR when Stalin died.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by jew_unit

I still want to know if Bugsy would cheerfully work in a mine. He has shown himself to be a massive hypocrite. He does little 'work' in the tradtional sense and yet keeps money over the average wage instead of donating it to those more in need than himself. He "considered" going to Africa as an aid worker, but his love for his fellow humans did not stretch as far as his love for taking the path of least resistance to a comfortable lifestyle with plenty of money. Hypocrites like bugsy are the reason why any attempts at socialism have failed in the past. We will never even come close to such a system until those who advocate it are willing to lead by example, unlike Bugsy.

I’m sorry that you feel a bit left out in the moral stakes, but you’ve stated nothing to date that indicates that you’re anything but a self-centred, corrupt, unethical and immoral person, yet you question my moral stance. Your sweeping and self-serving statements about me are inaccurate, but you present them as if you’re my twin brother. It’s small wonder that Capitalism is in such a crisis with small-minded “champions” like you and your ilk representing it. Wise up, fella.

MsG

This is what I love about your arguments. You never answer the question or the point, preferring to go for the easier target.

As it happens I do extensive work for charity and will spend my life in the service of others, but I choose to make my points by referring to myself rather than other people as it avoids your spurious 'some people are altruistic already' which met my early attempts at reasoned argument. Fortunately, I favour a system which can cope with people like those I purported to be. However, you propose a system which requires people to be perfect without displaying any of these characteristics yourself.

What was false in the statement? You earn more than average wage. You do not give all of the disparity to charity. Having served in the forces for a while you have showed little of the altruism that you seek to find in others, preferring your cushy life to going to help in the third world. Please, tell me what is false here? You are nothing but a pathetic hypocrite who looks to a supposed 'evil system' to explain his own failings and to provide an idealistic outlet to his burning envy of those with a better life than himself.

FtI (Pretentious crap intended to make me look intelligent, in this case in Latin rather than German. I can, however, switch language if you wish.)