Capitalism vs Socialism - Your View?

[Glen Quagmire]

Wiki defines aristocracy as "a form of government in which a few of the most prominent citizens rule".

That definition could be taken that the politburo and the assemblies of former Eastern Bloc countries were an aristocracy. I'd have trouble believing that.

[Dynamite Duane]

If recall when I last posted one of my points regarding democracy was the idea of no political parties. Just thought I'd drop that back in, since the thread has gone in a different direction. Currently all the established political parties are corrupt, some individuals voted in might be good people but the parties are corrupt in my opinion. Plus there is no choice between the 3 established parties, hence the hung parliament.

 

Also should politicians be career politicians?

 

If we aren't happy with the status quo then people need to start thinking of ideas of how to change it all for the better.

[King Pitcos]

Of course they're corrupt, they're all lizards.

 

Have you reported any acts of treason to the police yet, Duane?

[Carbomb]

In fairness, a broken clock's right twice a day, and I think he's made a very good point about the party system. There was an episode of Yes, Prime Minister where a professor suggests to him that the electoral system should be reformed, so that there are a couple of layes of representatives: one for each town block, who then report to a conference to elect a constituent MP. Because everyone knows (or, theoretically, should know) the guy they're voting for, he and the MP become their direct representatives, rather than party hacks, and thus will make decisions and representations to the MP for real issues concerning their area. This way, they only answer to their voters, and doesn't have to worry about overall party decisions which might cost them their seats, or about the whip being used.

 

In the episode of Yes, Prime Minister, Jim Hacker turns it down on the basis that there's no guarantee he'd be elected in again, which makes sense IRL: who'd change the system which got them into power?

[Loki]

Wiki defines aristocracy as "a form of government in which a few of the most prominent citizens rule".

That definition could be taken that the politburo and the assemblies of former Eastern Bloc countries were an aristocracy. I'd have trouble believing that.

Yeah, again I think we covered that about 4 pages ago in a discussion on oligarchy.

 

I liked your last post though, twas good. You should drop the gimmick more often!

[David]

An interesting read titled "Is human nature a barrier to socialism?";

 

The world is a mess. War, poverty, and oppression are now part of the daily lives of billions round the globe. Even during the last boom 80% of the world

[patiirc]

David, you dont half repost some utter bollocks these days. and as Ive said plenty of times posting your sources would be helpful.

 

After Hurricane Katrina, individuals around the country donated $4.25 billion to help the victims, whereas corporations donated a pitiful $400 million (Charity Navigator, 8/8/06). These figures show the enormous sacrifice and solidarity working people are capable of.

 

Yes, that report went there. 'We give more than you and will always be better as a result. So nerr nerr ne nerr nerr' over peoples pain and suffering

 

Unbelievable Jeff.

[David]

I think the report is probably trying to point out that this demonstrates that the average Joe in the street isn't actually all that greedy and self centred.

 

Then again, I could be wrong, and it could be a case of "nerr nerr ne nerr nerr", whatever that's supposed to mean/be.

[Dynamite Duane]

Have you reported any acts of treason to the police yet, Duane?

No, but plenty of people have including a former policeman. The Lawful Rebellion movement is gaining momentum in this country. The great thing about it is it's not a bunch of pot smoking drop-outs but instead a lot of professional and intellectual people.

Albert Burgess - A case for treason (video)

[BionicRedneck]

Yeah, you can tell that the movement is full of intellectuals by the way they go "WAHEY" when he mentions hanging people.

[patiirc]

I think the report is probably trying to point out that this demonstrates that the average Joe in the street isn't actually all that greedy and self centred.

 

Then again, I could be wrong, and it could be a case of "nerr nerr ne nerr nerr", whatever that's supposed to mean/be.

 

 

As far as I know, people giving donations for disasters, given the various appeals over the world has never been an issue At all, ever. So using it to prove something else as well, is er, a bit odd

 

These figures show the enormous sacrifice and solidarity working people are capable of.

 

It doesnt. It shows that you can politicise anything if you want. The figures arent broken down to donations by income, ethnicity or class and so on. Its using such wording to justify a poorly constructed argument, and is yet again patently bollocks. You cant determine how much of that money would have made people worse off, who gave more than they could afford who only gave a little and whatever. To then say it's 'enormous sacrifice' Is it fuck there isnt enough information and thus its a glib assumption on the part of the author

 

Then we have the 'oh, the corporations only gave $400 million dollars' and the implication that by default 'average', sorry 'working' people are morally better is really pathetic. Instead of looking at the bigger picture of a disaster and, just you know, helping people rebuild their lives Its effectively saying that 'workers money' is somehow better and 'more courageously donated in the heat of battle than that donated by corporations. Though yes, people did give more than corporations it should be irrespective of where the money came from as long as its used to help. )Where is the government funding as a comparsion?). Saying that people give money and have done and will continue to do sor, rather than using it for sub A-level political point scoring and hyperbole trying to quantify the system (which is something that comes across in the whole article) would be entirely more useful and less loaded.

 

It may as well say that people should stay away from the evil corporations as they will eat your babies of something?

 

As for 'nerr nerr ne nerr nerr'. You seriously dont know what it means or havent heard it at all ever?

[Kenny McBride]

patdfb - the point being made is that the popular argument against socialism (that people are naturally selfish and unfettered capitalism naturally and inevitably leads to the best results for everyone) is bollocks, since corporate giving was utterly dwarfed by normal working people's desire to help their fellow man. I'd actually use the example of people sending five and ten dollar bills to help JYD when Michael Hayes blinded him as a better example, but it might go over the heads of a lot of people here, never mind in a mainstream publication. Who gave what and how much and blah blah blah is completely irrelevant. The point is that a lot of people are altruistic and aren't only out for themselves, never mind what the invisible hand might get up to. Your counter-argument is silly because it doesn't actually address the issue - companies didn't help. People did. Thus, Compassionate Socialism 1-0 Capitalism.

[King Pitcos]

The figures arent broken down to donations by income, ethnicity or class and so on.

They don't need to be. Those sorts of statistics probably aren't going to help the polemic, and slanted hyperbole is always more effective than actually examining or contextualising facts. When you're trying to start a revolution, you don't want people to realise that it's all shades of grey, you need goodies and baddies. If you're the sort of person that believes the sort of bullshit in that article, you already "know" that all rich people are self-centred and evil and all poor people are the salt of the earth. Thus it's obvious -- if you are that sort of person -- that every penny of the donations came from "normal hard working people" who graft down mines and probably went hungry for a day or two because of the money they kindly gave.

[Georgie Pin]

I don't think that article makes any big deal about the "working class" or the "poor" but more about individual people. The point seemed a simple one to me - individual people, many of whom work for the corprorations in question and may indeed be major players in them, contributed a fuck load of money. The corporate input was miniscule in comparison. Therefore if you are looking for help when the shit hits the fan look to the guy next door.

[Tommy!]

Capitalism. Why should a doctor and someone who works in McDonalds get paid the same wage?

 

I may be wrong (n