- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Please, please, please tell me that you have been neutered and there is no risk of your reproducing
The people -vs- capitalism
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Yeah, an Internet forum dedicated to discussion of expensive hardware made using blood-minerals and purchased from multi-national corporations... great to place to start a people's revolution against the ills of capitalism
Everyone here with a gaming rig I'm guessing isn't quite the revolutionary type.
Before I join the 99% can you let me know what they are going to replace the current system with?
Please, please, please tell me that you have been neutered and there is no risk of your reproducing
Only jobs the government has to do:
defense
property rights dispute resolution (includes defense)
infrastructure (for efficient commerce)
mint money
Capitalism runs on top of that scaffold.
Anything outside that is a level of socialism. Europe is coming to the end of massive socialism, massive public spending (and debt), massive public sector employment, massive welfare state, massive bloated government bureaucracies, massive subsidies, makework programs, gov contracts, etc.
The only part (crony) capitalism comes in is its facade was used to fund all this keynesian crypto-socialism with debt.
There won't be any MORE socialism or communism. It's mathematically impossible, the sovereign debt crisis will be the end of the failed experiment. It's a collapsing ponzi scheme.
Now there might be a revolution of sorts, from the angry spoiled brat welfare teet suckers who are faced with getting cut off. Nothing will ever come of it though, because there is simply no physical way to meet their demands.
In fact it will simply turn the productive people against them, including the police (see that Golden Dawn story I posted) away from them and to the far-right.
So my guess would be some sort of riots by the economically illiterate peons like stockhausen, followed by a surge to the far-right and a large and possibly violent crack down on leftists and an attempt to find social cohesion. Maybe even someone like Pinochet coming up and taking the reigns if it gets bad enough.
In fact it will simply turn the productive people against them, including the police (see that Golden Dawn story I posted) away from them and to the far-right.
So my guess would be some sort of riots by the economically illiterate peons like stockhausen, followed by a surge to the far-right and a large and possibly violent crack down on leftists and an attempt to find social cohesion. Maybe even someone like Pinochet coming up and taking the reigns if it gets bad enough.
The only revolution that is needed in this country is for people to actually elect 3rd parties. It's quite hard to claim the vocal dissonance is the 99% when the majority vote based on party allegiances, and don't really seem to care about mismanagement, or broken promises, otherwise neither Labour nor the Conservatives would exist in their current form today. Regardless, the people do speak, and they request the status quo every 5 years. Not that I'm particularly happy with that, mind you. But a violent revolution would be nothing more than forcing the desires of a few. How is that better than what we have now?
The political system and the journalism in the country is often pretty **** as far as I'm concerned. Everything _is_ unbalanced towards the status-quo, to the media companies being in bed with the Government, the FPTP system which helps keep 3rd parties and independents out, but alas the system is there, and elections are (unless you feel we have massive scale electoral fraud) definitely winnable by a 3rd party, easily so if the 99% wished it.
The political system and the journalism in the country is often pretty **** as far as I'm concerned. Everything _is_ unbalanced towards the status-quo, to the media companies being in bed with the Government, the FPTP system which helps keep 3rd parties and independents out, but alas the system is there, and elections are (unless you feel we have massive scale electoral fraud) definitely winnable by a 3rd party, easily so if the 99% wished it.
A 3rd party like UKIP or whoever cant really fix anything because the fix is such a bitter pill to swallow nobody would want to even hear it. The far-right can sugar coat the pill by finding someone else to blame, probably immigrants and leftists. That way people can take their lumps during the hard time and not feel so bad about it because they have someone to offload their negativity on, and a greater goal to work to, plus a sense of cohesion.
What do most people want to hear?
"ok we need to have 50% cuts across the board to fix this mess because you spent too much, and you're going to have to give up a lot of things and your life will be rubbish".
vs
"ok we need 50% cuts because all these immigrants and benefits scroungers and socialists have spent all your money! It's going to be a lot of hard work and sacrifice to fix it and your life will be rubbish but we can do it together and get rid of these people who caused the mess, then everything will be great!"
What do most people want to hear?
"ok we need to have 50% cuts across the board to fix this mess because you spent too much, and you're going to have to give up a lot of things and your life will be rubbish".
vs
"ok we need 50% cuts because all these immigrants and benefits scroungers and socialists have spent all your money! It's going to be a lot of hard work and sacrifice to fix it and your life will be rubbish but we can do it together and get rid of these people who caused the mess, then everything will be great!"
Now call my cynical.
But a flat rate for everybody sounds like another method of people who are already living in gross opulence & benefiting massively from capitalism to pay even less to sustain the system they benefit so greatly from.
How exactly is this going to solve the rising gap between the rich & poor?, or the squeeze in spending power for the majority of the population (Which as a side product is killing demand for goods & services & in turn going to ruin those at the top also).
While I do agree with the sentiment of the OP, I don't believe for one second that the public of the UK has the guts, moral integrity and values to pursue anything over than personal selfish gain.
Going to have to wait for a few more generations to die off in this country before we can make any progress.
Not really, just moral enough to want to reduce total human suffering & not stupid enough to blame people for being the way they are.Other than your good self of course, the very paragon of selfless moral values!
I bet you haven't campaigned to increase the pay for people on lower wages than you at the place you work at, I also doubt you would be willing to pay more tax to alleviate the hardship on the less fortunate in society.
Where do people who work for minimum wage fit into this nice simplistic view of the world? - they are willing to get up & work, neither are they lazy - but they get hardly anything as a reward.
It must be nice living in a monochrome world, but may I suggest you visit reality someday?.
My point remains, if you can't convince enough people to accept your version on reality to make a large enough dent in the political spectrum, then how on earth are you going to convince the same people to pick up arms or assert change in any other way?
If the choice is between a democracy, and the whims of a few trying to violently enforce their ideological ideals on the many, I'd be fighting for the democracy, regardless of the fact I don't particularly like how it's panning out year on year. At least with the current system, collectively, we only have ourselves to blame.
Both of those statements are the same regardless of the fluff, and you could make much better arguments than that. Either way, if you feel you know the solution, it costs nothing to make a coherent argument and educate your neighbors on these issues.
Still, it's a very negative proposition. We live in a country with accepted widespread political wastage due to unwieldy large bureaucracies and bonkers spending policies. The idea the average person needs to take the hit, and experience a lot of pain whilst others roll about in piles of money is never going to go down well with someone struggling to make ends meet.
You fail to think things through fully, firstly there is nothing in my proposed system that prevents a high tax/high spend setup, just that you cannot treat someone's earnings differently from another. if you want a high universal credit and a high tax rate on income, you can have it, but it applies to all.
Secondly, I am yet to be shown any actual evidence (the statistical abomination that is the spirit level certainly does not count) that reducing the gap between rich and poor is desirable on an objective level, especially where the principle driver of the gap is the choices of individuals.
I find it especially ironic that you appeal to moral integrity as a justification for the highly selfish values and horrific authoritarian behaviour your brand of socialism requires to exist...
Me neither, however I am also somewhat of a realist and so far no one seems to be offering a workable alternative to the current system.
Being a penniless student I would find it hard to pay any tax never mind more...
Not really sure the work placement I am on would be overly keen on me doing political campaigning in a high school on the run up to GCSEs either!
It's inevitable that the corrupted form of capitalism that has evolved over the last 30 years would lead to conflict with the vast majority of people who lose out because of it. It shouldn't be this way, capitalism was supposed to be the best system for most people, not the privileged few.
On this subject there was an interesting talk on this subject at the TED conference recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
On this subject there was an interesting talk on this subject at the TED conference recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
While I agree in principle, is that what you are advocating, high tax & high spend?, or this this just a smokescreen for what you are really supporting (low tax & low spend)?.
I don't believe choice is worth squat in a system with such a disparity of opportunity
Firstly, you are wrong on almost every single count - I'll explain why.
- I would personally lose out by reducing the gap between the rich & the poor, I fail to see how wanting to increasing the standard of living of OTHERS (not me) is selfish by anybody's standards.
Ahh...this old gem.
Left or right wing can be libertarian or authoritarian - social equality does not equal an authoritarian state, regardless as to how many times you pedal this flawed view.
The capitalist & socialist views are neither authoritarian or liberation in nature, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the political compass.
My brand of socialism?, I'm in favour of a Technocracy - who said anything about socialism?.
There are always outliers, but the vast majority of people who work for minimum wage over a long term probably are lazy. There is nothing stopping a person, in their free time, from self training a number of professions which will result in a reasonable amount of renumeration. There may be a glass ceiling, but it should be significantly above minimum wage for just about everyone.
Yes, there are many for whom it is easier, some who'll never need to put a days effort in during their entire life time. But the idea that any healthy individuals are limited to street cleaning from anything but their own accord is complete and utter bull. It's called going above and beyond, and getting up and going to work is the bare minimum that most people can do.
As a matter of interest how are you going to enforce a significant redistribution of wealth without being authoritarian? Also isn't a technocracy inherently authoritarian as it automatically removes all political choice and you end up with an effective dictatorship but by the scientific/technological classes?
While I agree in principle, is that what you are advocating, high tax & high spend?, or this this just a smokescreen for what you are really supporting (low tax & low spend)?.
I don't believe choice is worth squat in a system with such a disparity of opportunity
Firstly, you are wrong on almost every single count - I'll explain why.
- I would personally lose out by reducing the gap between the rich & the poor, I fail to see how wanting to increasing the standard of living of OTHERS (not me) is selfish by anybody's standards.
Ahh...this old gem.
Left or right wing can be libertarian or authoritarian - social equality does not equal an authoritarian state, regardless as to how many times you pedal this flawed view.
The capitalist & socialist views are neither authoritarian or liberation in nature, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the political compass.
My brand of socialism?, I'm in favour of a Technocracy - who said anything about socialism?.
left wing economics is fiscal authoritarianism, ie tight state control of finance. I am familiar with the political compass, perhaps your aren't as familiar as you think, as really the 'left' and 'right' labels refer to fiscal authoritarianism and fiscal liberalism. freedom requires both social and fiscal freedom, and thus can never be provided by the left.