Guest Steve Cook Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) I agree with your description, but it needs to be put in the historical context. A million trained killers returned to the UK in the late 1940s who were not going to put up with the same crap their parents had in the 30s and before. The continuing presence of alternative social systems to capitalism meant the capitalists needed to keep the peasants onside. Hence, free education, social housing, pensions, healthcare and the rest. Now, the communists states have failed. Everyones a capitalist and free to steal and ****** each other with the moral approval of the govt as long as you pay your taxes and dont upset the media (hence you cant sell dope but you can sell weapons to Africans who dont have a pot to piss in). Meanwhile, as there is now no alternative to capitalism, the social benefits the elites have had to provide are being taken away - hence you pay for your education and healthcare, the value of your pension reduces, one is chained to a lifetime toil and debt to have food and shelter. In the peasants revolt, after his knights had killed Wat Tyler (who was under a flag of parley), the 14 year old Richard II charged at the leaderless mass of the peasants shouting, "You shall no captain but me!" After they had gone home he wrote, "Wretches you were and wretches you shall be". Quelle change? Same as it ever was I spit on the name of William of Normandy. The origin of the trajectory this sorry country has taken down the centuries. The direct descendants of William and his men still own the largest single portion of the land in this country that they stole ten centuries ago. Edited July 25, 2009 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No idea. You'll notice folks, that injin always resorts to the imbecilic use of a smiley whenever he is on particularly thin ground. Answer the question injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Why don't you guys go and get a room? (no offence, your both great posters, but the sexual tension in this exchange is killing me ) Elizabeth. you are way of mark here. The issue being pushed here is fundamental. I'm sorry if you've missed that, but it does matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'm starting to think that you think this word game is actually relevent to anything. Nice try at avoiding the central problem this addresses by attempting to trivially dismiss it. This issue is central to ownership, what it means, and how it is maintained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Same as it ever wasI spit on the name of William of Normandy. The origin of the trajectory this sorry country has taken down the centuries. The direct descendants of William and his men still own the largest single portion of the land in this country that they stole ten centuries ago. Nothing has changed at all in the last several millenia, he thought to himself as he typed into his PC, while musing over who to vote for at the general election..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Nothing has changed at all in the last several millenia, he thought to himself as he typed into his PC, while musing over who to vote for at the general election..... I don't vote injin. Or at least, I might if there was a "none of the above" option. Even then, it would hardly matter. Or, if it did, they wouldn't allow it.......................oh, wait a minute And by the way, I thought you weren't speaking to me injin..... I was wondering when you'd crack... Actually, I find it quite touching that you can't live without me...... Edited July 25, 2009 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSV Gray Area Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I say lets start the revolution now!! yer the tyranny of the proletariat here we come who's with me any one? any one hello err any one still here.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) I say lets start the revolution now!!yer the tyranny of the proletariat here we come who's with me any one? any one hello err any one still here.. The trick to starting a revolution is to ensure that the proletariat have nothing to lose except their chains. As long as they are thrown a few crumbs off the ruling elite's tables they will never risk losing access to those crumbs with anything as messy and unpredictable as a revolution. The majority of people value stability over freedom. Sad but true. Stability means you can at least predict the future and somewhere along the line squeeze some kind of life, no matter how limited, out of that prediction. Freedom, on the other hand, is unpredictable and can sometimes mean little more than the freedom to die. Our ruling elites learned this lesson long ago. Which is why they throw a few crumbs now and then. Edited July 25, 2009 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveAndLetBuy Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 socialism isnt state control, that is state capitalism. to take resources away from one person and reallocate to another is capitalism controlled by a central body.in fact capitalism requires a large state in order to enforce the rule of the game. the evolution of socialism is towards no state at all. the system only works through the enforcement of rules and law. socialism puts the control to the people rather than the state, bottom up rather than top down, like a co-operative. So you are saying that socialism does not involve state ownership of industry, and you're saying that capitalism is based on the state redistributing of wealth from one group of people to another? By your definitions, Thatcher was a socialist and Scargill was a capitalist. nothing we have seen today is remotely like socialism because it doesnt work today. under a selfish society it doesnt work. it need to evolve in the aftermath of capitalism, and we havent finished with capitalism yetcountries like sweden are moving in that direction though. for example you would hardly call the swedish government, a large oppressive government controlling all resources and how the population works. How does the Swedish government generate wealth? Where does it get it's income from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 How does the Swedish government generate wealth? Where does it get it's income from? Norway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.