Rowan22 Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Were they? They must have realised socialism is a pile of cow crud. No they just sold out their morality to the highest bidder to get elected. No fear of that with the right wing though, they don't have any morality to start off with now do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Clavin Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 It was only to be expected once the Tories sneaked into No.10 they love to kick the working classess where it hurts. Oh and if I hear about this inheritence rubbish again I'll scream. Are they telling us they where so nieve that they didn't know what sort of debt the country was in??? If so then they shouldn't be in power in the first place, the idiots!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 No they just sold out their morality to the highest bidder to get elected. No fear of that with the right wing though, they don't have any morality to start off with now do they? It's clear the extreme right are a bunch of daft gits. The moderate right, my beloved Tory party, openly state we are for people making themselves the best they can be. The left always sell their principles out. It's average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It's clear the extreme right are a bunch of daft gits. The moderate right, my beloved Tory party, openly state we are for people making themselves the best they can be. The left always sell their principles out. It's average. Now when you say "people" you probably mean "the people" right? .I'm afraid a political party which at its core relies on Aristotelian ideas of "birthright" is delusional and dangerous, and only means (its people, its class) For all its shortcomings, Socialism challenges and refutes this dogma by proving that a "peasant" can become and engineer can become an architect can become a scientist. It takes the notion of "birthright" or to give it its modern face, genetic determinism, and it proves it to be a fallacy. Now given this, whether you regard yourself as being on the left or the right facts are facts. And an ideology whose central premise has been proved to be fallacious cannot by some kind of insistence become accurate. The left falls victim to the old "nannying" I concede that. Not good for people to be so reliant on the state. It saps innovation and all but dries up passion, in all but the most fanatical Socialists. So where does the answer lay? Well it doesn't lay in the current smash and grab economics, and it is doubtful that it lays in strict Communism, unless we do see a worldwide collapse of the economy. Then out of necessity it will emerge. How about a ceiling on profit? Let’s say you are a businessman, and you invent the longer lasting light bulb and you make fifty million. What can you do with fifty that you can’t do with ten? with five? How’s about in this spirit of compromise we limit personal wealth to a figure like five million and redistribute the rest? Investing in schools, hospitals, Social care? How does that sit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Birthright - Great idea. A bloke works like hell to make a pile then one of two things happens. Under Marxism bull, it's taken by the state and wasted on cretinous ideas about shared ownership. Under a capitalist system, it's passed to the very people who have also got the genes proven to be ideal for gaining wealth. They use that to employ the stupid, thus helping the idiot (Labour/other daft lefty party voters) out of poverty. I believe everyone has the right to improve themselves and shouldn't have to pay for the lazy to sit on the pub talking about their greyhounds and ferrets over a state sponsored pint of lager. That improvement should come as a result of hard work and innovative ideas, not some idiotic dogma including paying the failed to be lazy. Scrap the dole and replace it with a one off payment intended for use to start a business. If they go direct to the pub and pee it up the wall, that's the landlord's good luck and tough titty to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Birthright - Great idea. A bloke works like hell to make a pile then one of two things happens. Under Marxism bull, it's taken by the state and wasted on cretinous ideas about shared ownership. Under a capitalist system, it's passed to the very people who have also got the genes proven to be ideal for gaining wealth. They use that to employ the stupid, thus helping the idiot (Labour/other daft lefty party voters) out of poverty. I to believe everyone has the right to improve themselves and shouldn't have to pay for the lazy to sit on the pub talking about their greyhounds and ferrets over a state sponsored pint of lager. That improvement should come as a result of hard work and innovative ideas, not some idiotic dogma including paying the failed to be lazy. Scrap the dole and replace it with a one off payment intended for use to start a business. If they go direct to the pub and pee it up the wall, that's the landlord's good luck and tough titty to them. I to blieve in improving oneself. But not with the external validation sought by the plastic ten bob millionaires. You know the ones. They feel that what other people think of them is reality. It speaks of a profound sense of insecurity, and its hallmark is the desperation with which they seek to adorn themselves with the trappings of everything others tell them is valuable. Since they have no inner locus of evaluation to actually know what is intrinsiclly worthwhile, and what is just someone ripping the **** out of you and charging you for the privelidge. I rely on my own measure of success, not some socially engineered notion dreamed up by "party H.Q" to motivate the gullible. Or some marketing strategy to implant values in consumers’ minds so they buy brand x over brand z. All the while, creating an illusion. Linking the selection of one or the other with key attitudinal "hooks" which virtually ensure that selection. Sounds like Pavlov’s dogs to me, and not very worthy of human free will or personal advancement. As for the "lazy" who rely on the state. The really indolent figure out ways to make money from not working. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree there. Capitalism is all about getting someone else to do the hard work so you don’t have to. It has very little to do with "fit genes" since the innovation is usually someone else’s; it therefore only seeks out the lowest common denominator in all areas, because that is where the profit is. Avarice, ruthlessness and greed are hardly phrases we tend to equate with the enlightened are they? Whereas empathy, uniqueness and sharing are terms we recognise as valuable. Things which, if they are passed on through a realtionship enable creativity and cure destructive blind ambition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 . Capitalism is all about getting someone else to do the hard work so you don’t have to. It has very little to do with "fit genes" since the innovation is usually someone else’s; it therefore only seeks out the lowest common denominator in all areas, because that is where the profit is. And the problem is? Of course it's about making cash. If I can make money I really don't care who does the hard work. If I can pay some socialist dreamer to get sweaty while I sit in a nice office raking the cash in, sounds good to me. That pleb should have thought of how to exploit the idea himself. Instead he'll complain about the guy who did while sat in the pub with his useless pals. Capitalists take the risks while workers get paid for their labour. The workers have no say on the running of the company or have any right to a share of the rewards except their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 And the problem is? Of course it's about making cash. If I can make money I really don't care who does the hard work. If I can pay some socialist dreamer to get sweaty while I sit in a nice office raking the cash in, sounds good to me. That pleb should have thought of how to exploit the idea himself. Instead he'll complain about the guy who did while sat in the pub with his useless pals. Capitalists take the risks while workers get paid for their labour. The workers have no say on the running of the company or have any right to a share of the rewards except their wages. I think the fact that you have only responded to the section you have illustrates the problem quite nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So you are a parasite then? I think of myself a a creator of jobs and wealth for the masses. Well a few of them over the years but I retired a while ago. I'm a worker myself now; one with the right attitude and willing to do whatever is required to get things done. That gets me a salary nine times that of the admin staff and more than most peasants in the UK get. That leaves me with a jolly nice lifestyle and all without a vote or anything as stupid as a union. You don't need those wallys when you work with the company instead of against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So you are a parasite then? Surely it's more of a symbiosis? No companies = no jobs= no money and no workers =no company=nojobs=no money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.