- 01-06-2012, 22:52 #91
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Kapellen, BelgiŽ
But Bugz, that's what normally happens with humans, we do what we have to do to survive. You see it more in remote towns and villages, especially when they can be cut off due to weather, no matter where they are. That bit you loved to see in the DDR is called "human nature" because we are an animal which MUST live in groups (or tribes) so we do what we can when needs must. Look at the way a whole town joins together and makes sure that every person on the roads nearby have somewhere to stay when the roads got blocked in winter (happened in the town I come from in Scotland). It's human nature, not socialism.
A "fulfilling life"? Bullshit, we are bred to be competitive, it's one of our basic instincts. That's why the Jones' buy a 5-series BMW after the Smiths buy an Audi. We are programmed to be want to be "top dog", we are never going to be satisfied when someone tells us our lives are "fulfilled". That's another reason socialism is flawed, it goes against our human nature, our base instincts. The only way you are "happy" is when you have secured a position of power and/or authority whereas the average working man gets screwed to pay for an ideal that says "everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others". There's a big difference between "fulfilled" and "knowing that this is as far as you get". That is socialism AND capitalism, but capitalism is more honest about it.
This is before, of course, we look at any other socialist regime and how they perform on the world stage. I don't include China, because China has been moving to a Capitalist ideal for some time and, unlike Russia, they are doing things slowly. Tell us all where the success stories are.
- 01-06-2012, 23:38 #92
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
If a society is sufficiently egalitarian in its outlook, then the coercion factor becomes increasingly irrelevant as folks realise that the former method of eliciting respect, i.e. by genuinely earning it, is infinitely preferable to the forced and artificial respect stemming from the implied application of punitive measures. That’s what happened in the GDR. It could also have applied much the same methods of coercion on an everyday social level as we see routinely applied in Capitalist societies, but it didn’t.
There was also practically no “ghettoisation” in the GDR. Meaning that workers lived door on door with their managers and supervisors, but also with doctors, university lecturers, artists, writers, etc. And they all engaged in communal activities, of which there were very many in the GDR. Thus all “levels” of society were very closely integrated and interacted with each other. That‘s not what happens in many Capitalist societies, where the rich have their enclaves and exclude the less fortunate in the population. They don't mix with them and have no idea of the particular worries they have. A further boost to that integration was that GDR citizens were educated to an astonishingly high degree. All of them, whether university graduates or foundry workers. There was therefore very little envy engendered by different educational qualifications, since those only applied to particular subjects, but not to the basics of education.
The “human nature” that pre-programmes us to compete, to regard everyone as an “enemy” in the authority stakes, although undoubtedly present, is kept alive and continually emphasised largely by Capitalist indoctrination. It can also be re-channelled to sports (much practiced in East Germany) and other activities, like chess – a hugely popular pastime in the GDR.
Just how this “human nature” can be rewired is reflected in the ownership of property in the GDR. That’s a very important aspect in Capitalist countries, since the more property you have, the higher up the hierarchy you can consider yourself. It may come as a surprise to you, but it was also possible to privately own property in the GDR too. You could obtain a 100 percent state-mortgage that would comfortably cover the costs of purchasing or building a house. It's just that hardly anyone in the GDR took advantage of it because they couldn't see the point in owning property. So “human nature” isn’t immutable. It can change, and has changed many times in the past, to reflect the communal wishes of a society. There’s no reason why it can’t change in Capitalist societies too.
- 02-06-2012, 08:47 #93
I don't think this is a straight fight between Capitalism/socialism anyway, I had a look at various forms of Socialism on wiki and to be honest there are so many I was losing the will to live, so I gave up. I think that we are evolving a sort of hybrid version to be fair, a capitalist-based economy with a social conscience and rights guaranteed by security of property and habeous corpus, and a constitutional monarchy which gives a national focus not connected with political parties,( I regard my oath to her majesty as an implied threat to parliament to stay relatively honest and I dare say I am not alone in that). A mish mash to be sure, but it has evolved naturally and was not dreamed up by some" intelleckshuls" with an axe to grind and a feeling that it was their turn to sit at the top table, which is why it has worked better than the various forms of socialism's we have seen. What we need to do however is keep vigilant because this form of hybrid will never be enough for people like the fabians (who use a wolf in sheeps clothing as a metaphor for what they are up to), and of course bugzy.Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. Thoreau.
- 02-06-2012, 08:54 #94
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
Capitalism is a goose that can lay golden eggs.
Socialism kills the goose.Dr Johnson: 'Any man thinks less of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been to sea.'
Thiomas Babington Macaulay, quoted by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher of Kilverstone: 'Moderation in war is imbecility!'
Douglas MacArthur: 'There is no substitute for Victory!'
- 02-06-2012, 11:22 #95
- 02-06-2012, 15:13 #96
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Its a time honoured argument. Plato did it in the "the Republic" in around 400 BC.
The dialectical forms of government
While Plato spends much of the Republic having Socrates narrate a conversation about the city he founds with Glaucon and Adeimantus "in speech", the discussion eventually turns to considering four regimes that exist in reality and tend to degrade successively into each other: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy and tyranny (also called despotism).
Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by people who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold in society.
These temptations create a confusion between economic status and honor which is responsible for the emergence of oligarchy. In Book VIII, Socrates suggests that wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship. This injustice divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge. The rich are constantly plotting against the poor and vice versa.
As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the inexperienced oligarchs and soon grant liberties and freedoms to citizens. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class. However, with too much freedom, the people become drunk, and tyranny takes over.
The excessive freedoms granted to the citizens of a democracy ultimately leads to a tyranny, the furthest regressed type of government. These freedoms divide the people into three socioeconomic classes: the dominating class, the elites and the commoners. Tensions between the dominating class and the elites cause the commoners to seek out protection of their democratic liberties. They invest all their power in their democratic demagogue, who, in turn, becomes corrupted by the power and becomes a tyrant with a small entourage of his supporters for protection and absolute control of his people.
- 02-06-2012, 17:36 #97
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
Paris, but such is life), and also after I'd set up a joint-venture picture-restoration workshop in Zehlendorf, West Berlin.
If you (and others) find that I'm an "annoying cunt", perhaps it would be opportune to examine your own (and in the case of the others, their) motivations. You find me annoying. The emphasis there is on "you". You might want to ask yourself why you find me "annoying", since it very much appears to be the case that you have an exclusively personal problem with self-esteem, respect, etc, that you want to transfer to me and brand and excoriate me as the source and originator of such entirely personal difficulties, without regard for the fact that you're simply offloading your own reluctance to face up to those perceived failings/shortcomings onto other folks (in this case, me). Whatever you perceive as your personal failings and shortcomings will not be improved or removed by simply shifting the blame to others. They are yours and you need to confront them if they jip you up to that extent. Don't be such a coward, Bicccies! Confront your demons! Just saying, like.
- 02-06-2012, 20:05 #98
Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE"Crazy like wild wolves threatened by fire, send them all to the bottom of the sea."
- 03-06-2012, 01:10 #99
"If you (and others) find that I'm an "annoying cunt",
No shit SherlockFirst they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
I'm speaking out before they come for me.
- 03-06-2012, 01:27 #100
Do I have to wear No2 dress to go on holiday now ?Quanti canicula ille in fenestra.