Plebs 1 Toffs 0

[Serial_Apologist]

Where i think I disagree with AIC is that the economic success of the west has surely been built on exploiting the developing world..perhaps he meant that it didn't HAVE to be that way, just that this was how it in fact did happen.

And AIC would be wrong in this. The evolution of capitalism was accompanied by the greatest ever expansion of colonialism and neo-colonialism in human history. To survive, firms are forever forced, through the pressures of competition, to relocate to the sources of cheapest resources including labour power. It isn't a "moral issue" other than the systemic contradictions of capitalism being arguably considered a moral issue in terms of those who argue its inevitability for all time or benefit disproportionately by dint of its operations. Those enterprises that don't relocate go under, it's that simple.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And AIC would be wrong in this. The evolution of capitalism was accompanied by the greatest ever expansion of colonialism and neo-colonialism in human history. To survive, firms are forever forced, through the pressures of competition, to relocate to the sources of cheapest resources including labour power. It isn't a "moral issue" other than the systemic contradictions of capitalism being arguably considered a moral issue in terms of those who argue its inevitability for all time or benefit disproportionately by dint of its operations. Those enterprises that don't relocate go under, it's that simple.

Well I could be wrong, I could be right, but you'll never know because I never made any comment on colonialism.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Even sock puppets have a life outside this forum, you know.

Even sock puppets have a hard life!

[Serial_Apologist]

Well I could be wrong, I could be right, but you'll never know because I never made any comment on colonialism.

My comment was on teamsaint's observation - apologies if I misinterpreted you, AIC

[amateur51]

Hardly a ringing endorsement that such Nirvana-states can exist withoud the aid of 'signlficant' filthy capitalist lucre ?

Is that what you asked for, scotty?

**sound of goalposts being dragged across scotty's lounge**

[MrGongGong]

The alternative is anarchy.

What a marvellous idea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62N_SjIzC8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8szRgIcYlY

[teamsaint]

or we could try this system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

[Resurrection Man]

Good points all, for one should never say never and likewise should never assume that anything along these lines is somehow immutable and ineffable - and yet and yet - the mere fact that nothing is necessarily destined to last indefinitely on the grounds that it might somehow have become widely regarded as a perfect or near-perfect system of government does little, if anything, to justify or endorse any particular system, however constructed and the principal problem here is that, whatever system anyone might devise and seek to implement anywhere at any time, certain people who are supposed to function within it are likely to do something else if, as and whenever they may so choose. Where does that leave any system?

Please...please...oh, please ...can you split your sentences up into bite-size chunks so us lesser mortals can understand what you're saying ?

[ahinton]

Please...please...oh, please ...can you split your sentences up into bite-size chunks so us lesser mortals can understand what you're saying ?

If you really need to do that, can't you do it yourself?!...

[heliocentric]

If you really need to do that, can't you do it yourself?!...

What he's saying, which I agree with, is that assuming you have a point you're trying to get across, it isn't getting across.

[ahinton]

What he's saying, which I agree with, is that assuming you have a point you're trying to get across, it isn't getting across.

To him, that is - which is why I suggested that if, to him, the problem was merely the fact that the thoughts concerned happen to be expressed within a single sentence which, for his personal benefit, might need to be broken down into two or more such, he could do that himself without much bother! Any problem with that?

[heliocentric]

Any problem with that?

Ummm... I still don't understand that post, but never mind.

[Resurrection Man]

Yes, or as Marx put it (Theses on Feuerbach) "the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." The idea that "human nature" is greedy, or ambitious, or violent, is one which certainly the ruling class and its ideology would like us to hold, because it benefits from that idea being held, which might at least raise the suspicion that it isn't the whole truth.

Psychologists might just have a different take on this or are you going to say that they too are part of 'the ruling class' or whatever bogey man is currently at the top of the 'Socialist Workers' envy-list ?

[ahinton]

Psychologists might just have a different take on this or are you going to say that they too are part of 'the ruling class' or whatever bogey man is currently at the top of the 'Socialist Workers' envy-list ?

I'll refrain from commenting on psychologists' possible views on this (other than to observe en passant that, like so much else in life, they are as unlikely to be identical across that profession as they are across any other) but, as I have had cause to point out on several previous occasions, this term "ruling class" is usually employed by those of socialist fundamentalist bent as a euphemism for "wealthy class" on the perceived grounds that (a) wealth - and only wealth - can give power and that such power is accordingly unacceptable because it is dependent upon wealth, (b) there can actually be such a thing as a "class" of people identified purely on the basis of their wealth and (c) "wealth" is in any case a dirty word because it is unacquirable other than corruptly and by disadvantaging those who are supposedly forced by the wealthy not to acquire it. That's not, of course, to deny the existence of any ill-gotten gains but to try to present a more balanced view of the phenomenon and the application of wealth, a term which, in any case, means different things to different people.

It's transparent proto-socialist nonsense, of course; I am "wealthier" than some people (just!), so do I therefore "rule" them? - I am poorer than many, so am I therefore "ruled" by all of them? Where is the evidence for either? It is surely not too much to say that, in lacking credibility, the term "ruling class" as thus applied to present-day societal structure appears to do the cause of socialism no favours whatsoever.

Anyway, your contextually apposite sign-off quote "communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff" comes, of course, from the same man as reputedly said that "all the good music has already been written by people with wigs and stuff", that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture" and who gave as a definition of rock journalism "people who can't write doing interviews with people who can't think in order to prepare articles for people who can't read - not to mention his retort to an interviewer's "so Frank, you have long hair; does that make you a woman?", namely "you have a wooden leg; does that make you a table?". I have no idea how much socialist fundamentalism he thought there was around but I do recall that he once observed that "there is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe and it has a longer shelf life".

[MrGongGong]

whatever bogey man is currently at the top of the 'Socialist Workers' envy-list ?

I'm neither a Socialist Worker nor one possessed of "envy"
but find this assumption to be indicative of much muddled thinking
It really isn't true that we all aspire to the same things and are therefore consumed with "envy" at those who have the things that we don't !
Sure, I would rather like to go and spend a bit on esoteric microphones but am not "envious" of those who have them
similarly my objections to the royal family are not born of "envy"

In more extreme examples this (I think this is the right phrase ?) cognitive dissonance accounts for the inability of many involved in politics to understand at all how other people think. USA (and to some degree UK) foreign policy being a prime example , it simply is impossible to comprehend that some people in the world don't want 500 TV channels, microwaves or big flash cars.

I'm also no psychologist but i'm sure that if I was there would be interesting things to say about those who use the idea that others are simply envious to justify their wealth (often whilst pretending to subscribe to a religion that tells them the opposite !).

Scotty's take on Anarchy is a bit odd
Anarchy is NOT Chaos