Millionnaires have some more money

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I was fairly polite to you throughout, and so was Vurtual (utterly polite in fact), who's posts remain unanswered.

You were one of the posters I was referring to when I said some people are intelligent, who don't need to be offensive. It seems I can't reply to your posts and get a discussion going without people being asswipes. Ill PM you and we can continue it without the likes of SHM and his ilk around, perhaps we might move each other in one anothers direction slightly without such distractions?


And kate, I don't take my opinions too seriously. I just get fed up with people going nuts at me because they are so utterly attatched to theirs...

 

[i against i]

the absolute bile from stonehappymonday in this thread is fucking disgusting. wishing death on someone because they disagree with you? why can't you have a rational debate ffs? you just look like a mongaloid with no real points. and then calling out mr smokes blunts for his insulting yes, but nowhere near as bad replies, at least his involved coherent arguments.

this comes from a very leftwing person. this kind of shit makes us look like poo-flinging monkeys.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Inverted storm front? Bwahaha. Yes, we all want to forcibly remove and kill anyone who doesn't agree with us, we're not interested in getting high and not being a cunt at all....

No, you just come across as a greedy, clueless little tory shit with too much money and fuck all compassion, who's never stopped long to ponder why that is.

I think telling people to kill themselves and stuff like that is harsh and bang out of order on a community forum though, personally. That's not to say you didn't write some fairly unpleasant stuff yourself, although it's good you apologised above fo sho. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back. There's always the "get off the internet" option if it bothers you that much also hah.

This is the main problem on here - people are always incapable of clicking page 1, and seeing that I started out completely civilised until other people started attacking me... What am I to do? Just let them carry on with it? I think you will also find if you read this thread that a few posters have said they want to wipe the rich out. Just replace jew with rich guy and voila. Most are equally intollerant of anyone who disagrees as they are...

And you don't know me. I don't have very much money at all. I don't even own my own house... And I have compassion, I just think there is more than one way to solve problems, and we've tried the throwing money at it route, so I like to look at other options. If anything else everyone else is being greedy, I am advocating policies which don't benefit me one iota, but they stand to gain lots from theirs. Indeed it is the only way they can hope to have more than they do now, which is probably half the reason they get so upset at me challenging them.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

the absolute bile from stonehappymonday in this thread is fucking disgusting. wishing death on someone because they disagree with you? why can't you have a rational debate ffs? you just look like a mongaloid with no real points. and then calling out mr smokes blunts for his insulting yes, but nowhere near as bad replies, at least his involved coherent arguments.

this comes from a very leftwing person. this kind of shit makes us look like poo-flinging monkeys.

Thank you. I thought I was going a bit mad there, but I must keep reminding myself there is a very tribal mentality on here. I regret that I keep allowing these people to drag me down to their level, but I dunno what else to do when they won't engage in rational discussions without getting emotive at the drop of a hat .

 

[thought_]

far enough if you take it to PM's but it would be a shame, as i think in between the insults there have been some genuinely interesting posts. anyway just wanted to say that - MSB am I right in thinking you believe that entrepreneur's are to be desired? your Bill Gates example made me think of this;

'The surprising truth about what motivates us' http://vimeo.com/13677854

 

[i against i]

Thank you. I thought I was going a bit mad there, but I must keep reminding myself there is a very tribal mentality on here. I regret that I keep allowing these people to drag me down to their level, but I dunno what else to do when they won't engage in rational discussions without getting emotive at the drop of a hat .

put them on ignore.

 

[knock]

far enough if you take it to PM's but it would be a shame, as i think in between the insults there have been some genuinely interesting posts.

Yeah I think it would be best to keep the discussion here if it's going to continue. NB I won't be continuing it in depth today as I have stuff to do.

 

[Marmalade]

All gone quiet, is the 10 minute teaser just about to start on sky?

you love drama so much! 'cept your own

Ah seems the keyboard gangster is in full swing, wishing death on people, wow, surely not meant?

As I said people sitting behing their computer should be alway respectfull of what they say, gentlemen.

Wishing death is low, low form of communication, or is it meant to be wit, I doubt not.

QFP

they could always wish death, then delete it and pretend they didnt say it, rather than have it stand (since they made the comment publicly) and then retract it publicly and explain or issue an apology, rather than just delete it and pretend it didnt happen and therefore try n bypass accountability for their words.

people who delete, rather than publicly retract (or apologise) are who I'd class as a 'keyboard' gangster. sound familiar behaviour? do you relate?

from what i can observe here, the people making 'questionable comments' in this thread would probably not have a problem with accountability though, and would all be man enough to take accountability for their words, when pushed.

I can't see any of them being pussy enough to delete them, or create an 'alter' or drag in an accomplice to back up their point while deleting their own words so as not to 'look bad'. cant see such pussy behaviour here atm anyways.

[edit]
and just in case of confusion. I'll clarify:
you've got tons of working class chips on yer shoulders. unfortunately they're all the wrong ones
Get back to yer 'champers' you judgemental cunt

[edit]
see this thread for reference, & in case of confusion. altho it's not really worth bothering to look, since most of the posts have been deleted 'for appearances' by bluebell (her 'buddy' george gives her a helping hand tho)

 

[koneko]

^
settle down with the champagne bottle bashin' marmz..

glass n' formatting is ouchy

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

far enough if you take it to PM's but it would be a shame, as i think in between the insults there have been some genuinely interesting posts. anyway just wanted to say that - MSB am I right in thinking you believe that entrepreneur's are to be desired? your Bill Gates example made me think of this;

'The surprising truth about what motivates us' http://vimeo.com/13677854

That video was enjoyable. I learnt about quite a lot of that whilst doing business studies, with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once people's basic needs are satisfied, they want to feel fulfilled. I am of course of the opinion that entrepreneurial skill is very important to the world and it's economy. However, entrepreneurs are more of the connection between discoveries and the markets. Without the financial incentive, and supply and demand, no socialist state has ever managed to bring commercial goods to market as rapidly as people will create/discover them. Socialism essentially requires that a state hires/orders people to decide which goods to commission and when.

What the video did not convey was the questions that were asked that required cognitive skill. The questions that were asked were always questions which required thinking outside of the box, which is far less likely to happen when money is on the line because thinking outside of the box requires creativity which is hampered by the stress of money. This is why most innovation comes from universities where the bulk of people are paid about £16-30k a year. The love of something will always get someone further than paying them to do it, but love+freedom+money in an entrepreneur can do great things. For instance, I don't think Apple would have ever existed in the USSR.

Also, if we all had equal amounts of money nothing that pushes the boundaries would ever come out. Lets take mobile phones as an example. The first ones cost thousands of pounds, and were the reserve of the very rich. They covered the cost of the initial innovation. Now we have a situation where most of the worlds poor have a mobile phone in their pockets. I don't advocate capitalism as an awesome model, just the best that exists, and the one that gels best with a libertarian/anarchist outlook.

Sorry to everyone whose points i've missed, I was posting on my phone on trains all weekend!

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Hi msb - seems to me that if you really understand socialism in the way i do you wouldn't say that it's been tried when referring to (i guess) soviet russia or china. Neither of these implemented socialism. Socialism by definition (in my and many others' opinions) will include democracy - so-called Leninist communism seemed to want to adhere to this initially through the concept of worker soviets, but only after a period of 'dictatorship of the proleteriat' - the theory being the party elite had to run things until they were ready for actual socialism/democracy (e.g. to fight against foreign invasion etc.). In practice however, the dictatorship kept finding reasons to put this stage off as it would have reduced their position (the problem with all elites) and just remained a dictatorship (as you should know).

This many think was the problem inherent in marxism itself (as argued by Bakunin) - however socialism is a much wider concept than just marxism. This argument was had between marx and bakunin in the late 19th century, causing a split between the german/british (authoritarian socialists) and french/spanish (libeterian socialists (or anarchists if you will)). The libertarian (that word's too US-loaded now though) socialist roughly went on to influence the continental (and hence south american) socialists and lead to the sort of attempts at socialism that emerged in the spanish civil war (e.g. anarcho-syndicalists) - this is a better (if brief and failed) example of socialism (and indeed anarchism) being tried in the world. It actually was pretty effective in many ways, before being betrayed by (among others) the statist dictatorship of stalin - thus showing where his regime stood on actual socialism.

It irritates me a bit when people explain away communism/socialism using these dictatorships as examples - to me as idiotic (the idea not you) as the american right-wingers who insist that hitler was a socialist because the name of his party (they never heard of a misnomer). These pseudo-socialist dictatorships actuallly imo have much more in common with our own western systems than with actual democratic socialism (not social democrats - that's another capitalist variation, and another rant...)

/and happy b'day, you nazi scum (sorry i mean right of centre person)

I don't rule out Marx's initial thoughts that the end of capitalism i.e. capitalism completed (when the total monopoly exists), socialism could come about and work. I think that the USSR and China totally forced it, and we would be forcing it now. We need the entire world to finish developing, and all of our economies to even out so to speak, before anything like what you are talking about could be contemplated. I am fully aware that Marx is not the only school though. I still think that by it's very nature, the state is going to at least initially require massive amounts of totalitarian power in order to forcibly seize ownership - and once they have this power, do they ever give it to the people? Do they fuck!

I still think Socialism generally requires way way too much central planning, which technology may well solve for us in the future somehow. I am not stupid enough to think that socialism must mean totalitarian autocracy, my point was that even with total power over everything I don't think as much was accomplished as should have been. This central planning problem is the biggest clash that I see with your wishing for the world to be both anarchist and socialist simultaneously. A totally socialist economy would need to be manually altered constantly, whilst a capitalist one is reasonably efficient all on it's own. These planners also have their hands tied because they lack the feedback that a capitalist market will give you - I mean how do they know that more people want size 10 shoes, or how many tins of baked beans to put on the shelves etc. etc.

I also believe that private ownership is fundamental to personal power and to maintaining ones own freedom and liberty. With someone else in control i.e. the state, or volunteers, or whatever, it will and usually results in the rise of another middle class with an even tighter grip on power. I believe the saying is that those who want a castle advocate capitalism, and those who want a wall round their castle advocate socialism.

Finally, I think competition has brought us to where we are today. Competition has been responsible for almost every single enlightenment humans have been through. When the state has a monopoly, obviously there is no competition. Take schooling as an example - the state doesn't really answer to anyone, and I am of the opinion that schooling has improved very little, or even gotten worse over the last 30 years. Private schools, however, compete with each other for students. They want to do better, and they aim to achieve the best. That isn't to say that we should go bezerk privatising anything and everything, but I do rather like some other countries models (especially in health care). Take Switzerland as an example, where almost all healthcare is 'private'. Those with the money pay, and choose their provider - which creates competition. Those who can't get covered by others, and they too can choose and participate in these markets. This has resulted in a much much better health system than ours. Plus, when people are paying directly for their services and can see where their money is going, and have the power to withdraw that money at will, they are much more likely to pay more into that system.

Like I say, I wouldn't rule out that in the very distant future we could get to a point where it is vaguely feasible, but my personal preference is for a capitalist semi-libertarian society. I think the market should be reasonably harnessed to totally and perfectly fulfill the basic needs of everyone, but going beyond that is an unjustified usurping of people's freedom in the name of want. I regularly hear that all private companies care about is money. Well, at least I know which way their bread is buttered. I don't know what the fuck these beaurocrats in government want. Is it money? Is it power? Or is it to help? If those private companies want my money then they'd better do a good job or i'll take it to another private company! I have very little choice over which state I give my money to.

I think this post answers many of knock's points, and many of your other points, but if i've missed anything do let me know.

 

[Allein]

That video was enjoyable. I learnt about quite a lot of that whilst doing business studies, with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once people's basic needs are satisfied, they want to feel fulfilled. I am of course of the opinion that entrepreneurial skill is very important to the world and it's economy. However, entrepreneurs are more of the connection between discoveries and the markets. Without the financial incentive, and supply and demand, no socialist state has ever managed to bring commercial goods to market as rapidly as people will create/discover them. Socialism essentially requires that a state hires/orders people to decide which goods to commission and when.

What the video did not convey was the questions that were asked that required cognitive skill. The questions that were asked were always questions which required thinking outside of the box, which is far less likely to happen when money is on the line because thinking outside of the box requires creativity which is hampered by the stress of money. This is why most innovation comes from universities where the bulk of people are paid about £16-30k a year. The love of something will always get someone further than paying them to do it, but love+freedom+money in an entrepreneur can do great things. For instance, I don't think Apple would have ever existed in the USSR.

Also, if we all had equal amounts of money nothing that pushes the boundaries would ever come out. Lets take mobile phones as an example. The first ones cost thousands of pounds, and were the reserve of the very rich. They covered the cost of the initial innovation. Now we have a situation where most of the worlds poor have a mobile phone in their pockets. I don't advocate capitalism as an awesome model, just the best that exists, and the one that gels best with a libertarian/anarchist outlook.

Sorry to everyone whose points i've missed, I was posting on my phone on trains all weekend!

I'm not going to nit pick your post but I get the feeling that you measure human success by innovation and ultimately the creation of wealth and technology. Your statement that "entrepreneurial skill is very important to the world and it's economy" is questionable I'm far from convinced that we need further innovation that is driven by the need to make money. Look around you and see what the capitalist society has done for us in the last 50 years.

• Loads of privately owned cars instead of great public transport.
• A seemingly endless and increasing need for oil that has caused chaos across the globe
• Countries starving to death because we are unable to share the worlds bounty
• A system that relies on the majority of people being poor so the few can be rich, this is the central ethos of the current system
• I could go on and on - I usually do

I'm not convinced by your statement that "innovation comes from universities " really I'm not so sure I've experienced much of that, whilst some great research goes on in universities (apparently I didn't have the advantage of a university education) most if the innovation I see is driven by commercial need and only gets to market if there is money to be made.

Why are we in such a rush to innovate more "stuff" we have the technology to feed the world and provide everyone with a decent standard of living, of that there is no doubt. The only thing standing between that and what we have now is the current capitalist system of money which all the main political parties support. Which is why I don't support any of them.

You talk about "thinking outside of the box" but the box is very, very big and to genuinely think outside of it and implement realmeaningful change that would really impact the world isn't something we've even started to do yet. It certainly is not:-

• mapping the genome
• making electric cars
• Spending €6Billion on the Hadron Collider
• Or releasing the latest Ipad - I'd be glad if Apple didn't exist and we had a standard cheap pad for all or no pad at all

As you can see I'm not interested in trading insults,many people, share your view point, I guess that's the point your view, s shared by others has shaped the developed world we live in today and I don't think it's all it could be in fact I think we've feked it up in a big way and it will take a massive sea change to make any meaningful difference to the abject spiritual disaster we have created. Very few in the developed world are innocent of contributing to it certainly not me, Ican;t speak for everyone, clearly

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I'm not going to nit pick your post but I get the feeling that you measure human success by innovation and ultimately the creation of wealth. Your statement that "entrepreneurial skill is very important to the world and it's economy" is questionable I'm far from convinced that we need further innovation that is driven by the need to make money. Look around you and see what the capitalist society has done for us in the last 50 years.

• Loads of privately owned cars instead of great public transport.
• A seemingly endless and increasing need for oil that has caused chaos across the globe
• Countries starving to death because we are unable to share the worlds bounty
• A system that relies on the majority of people being poor so the few can be rich, this is the central ethos of the current system
• I could go on and on - I usually do

I'm not convinced by your statement that "innovation comes from universities " really I'm not so sure I've experienced much of that, whilst some great research goes on in universities (apparently I didn't have the advantage of a university education) most if the innovation I see is driven by commercial need and only gets to market if there is money to be made.

Why are we in such a rush to innovate more "stuff" we have the technology to feed the world and provide everyone with a decent standard of living, of that there is no doubt. The only thing standing between that and what we have now is the current capitalist system of money which all the main political parties support. Which is why I don't support any of them.

You talk about "thinking outside of the box" but the box is very, very big and to genuinely think outside of it and implement realmeaningful change that would really impact the world isn't something we've even started to do yet. It certainly is not:-

• mapping the genome
• making electric cars
• Spending €6Billion on the Hadron Collider
• Or releasing the latest Ipad - I'd be glad if Apple didn't exist and we had a standard cheap pad for all or no pad at all

As you can see I'm not interested in trading insults,many people, share your view point, I guess that's the point your view, s shared by others has shaped the developed world we live in today and I don't think it's all it could be in fact I think we've feked it up in a big way and it will take a massive sea change to make any meaningful difference to the abject spiritual disaster we have created. Very few in the developed world are innocent of contributing to it certainly not me, Ican;t speak for everyone, clearly

I think you are being slight glass half empty about it all atm! Capitalism has also had a great deal of success. I doubt that there would be as many people on the planet now were it not for the innovations in medicine and agriculture bought about by capitalism, don't you? If it was I saying saying all the bad things that had ever occurred under socialism, and were therefore socialisms fault, people would be saying "that wasn't real socialism." I guess that would be invoking the 'no true scotsman' fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman), so I won't do that as it is a tad too easy and a little disingenuous for my liking.

I am happy to hold my hands up and say that capitalism is far from perfect, and has led to some pretty horrible outcomes for a lot of people. But it has also done an awful lot of good that I don't think socialism would have done, and I don't think socialism is or ever will be a magic bullet to any of the problems you have listed. I think the assumption that we would have public transport were it not for capitalism is a rather poor one, because we used to have better public transport (or so i'm told - at least more extensive?), but that was before most people got the opportunity given to them by capitalism to own their own car (and before capitalism resulted in our country growing by over 10 million). Now, you might say that is a bad thing because it stopped everyone being totally reliant on the state to get them from A to B, which therefore took the money away from the state and into the hands of private business. But without effective personal transport many jobs would be nigh on impossible to do, and most would take a lot more time to do as well. And that's before we get into transporting not only our own goods around, but also others goods, and tools and stuff for work. Further to this, the revenue the government get from the tax on fuel is a staggering 26.2 billion, which is over a quarter of the cost of the NHS! Now compare this to public transport, which the government has almost always made a loss on, and you can see why the situation we are in is so much better.

I think of all your examples, fuel is probably the best one to challenge. What makes you think socialism wouldn't face similar problems? (assuming you are advocating socialism in it's place). Do you think we use more fuel because global output is higher because of capitalism? If so, why don't we just go back to the dark ages and forget all about capitalism. Let's do away with all the cushyness of capitalism - lights, computers, beds etc. Let's go back to a time when the infant mortality was sky high, and the average life expectancy didn't top 30. I am of course being absurd, but my point is that it is a trade off, and I don't think humans are capable of engaging in anything whatsoever without there being some degree of greed and evil. Socialism won't remove that. On the other hand, thanks to innovation and capitalism we are looking at a future where we could well have a plethora of alternative fuels, and the main one I am interested in is nuclear fusion. This means that although capitalism took us through perhaps a few decades of turmoil in certain hot spots, it ultimately came good and provided us with unlimited clean and virtually free energy. Socialism on the other hand probably would not have innovated in such a way, or not as quickly any way, and probably would have caused equal problems the world over in their quest for fuel.

Almost all innovation starts in universities, of that i'm sure. Maybe not so much in the computer industries, but in science in general it certainly does. Most new materials, processes, discoveries etc. come from universities. I think the best example would probably be quantum physics, which started in university physics labs around the world, and has now been gradually adopted and integrated into products by entrepreneurs. Even when Apple is deciding what to make the next ipod out of, their engineers will keep draws full of composite materials and computers full of university papers to delve through to make their decisions. They don't have time to create everything from scratch, and besides that isn't their field of interest.

I think the innovation that is coming from the need to make money, no matter how hollow a motive, is going to herald an amazing technological age in the next 100 years. I'm thinking self replicating nano bots, powered by fusion, that can become anything you want them to be. I'm thinking 100% safe cars that drive themselves. Bathrooms that you walk into that can diagnose you with a multitude of diseases. The possibilities are endless, and you only have to look at how far we have come in the last century thanks to capitalism to see that. Socialism never really proved it was capable of getting anything of any real life changing ability to the consumer in the way capitalism has. Yes, like I said it has it's faults, but it is the best of a bad bunch. Let me finish by taking your ipad example. We are currently in a situation where a few people have them, and lots want them. But it's early doors. Give it 20 years and you'll be able to pick up an ipad from a local dump. You would have been saying the same thing about mobiles 20 years ago no doubt, and now even children in slums have better phones than any city banker ever had. We won't all get one by making the current ipad slightly worse, we would just end up in a situation where none of us got one, and none of us had the prospect of ever getting one. We are fast approaching the point where chips are going to be cheaper than paper!

Sorry, this was all quite disjointed and i'm guessing I missed some points you wanted addressed. I appreciate that you have managed to make your point without treating me like the reincarnation of Hitler too, thanks mate.

 

[Allein]

I'm not very eloquent with words, I'm really talking about moving forwards not backwards, we could argue until the genetically modified cows come home about what Capitalism v Socialism has done for the world thus far, it would change a thing.

I'm, talking about where we are now and the best way forward, and I do not belove that a system based on money and profit is it, in fact it is proving to be destructive and more and more so.

On a practical and immediate level, yes I would re nationalise all public services but I don't have to label myself as a Socialist or Communist to hold those views anymore than I would label you a Nazi for holding yours.

I think all those systems are anachronisms anyway.

The point I make about fuel use is that much of what we do in our daily work is a total waste of time and just feeds the capitalist system, producing goods which serve no real purpose other than to make profit, remove the profit and much of the material output would not be required. however as I said the world need that sea change for that to happen or we are all feked that's the bottom line.

Medicine should concentrate on dealing with illness not augmenting the human race or all that weird shit they get up to of which we only get to know about a faction.

Technology should concentrate on conserving power and making peoples lives genuinely better in as many ways as possible all over the world. Not waste their time building weapons of mass destruction or spending Billions trying to work out the origins of the universe, much of the world is still starving to death FFS.

We should all work together to feed the starving and redress world balance so all do not want for food or shelter or basic need, this is easily possible with the resources we have today, its criminal that people are still dying of I'm not very diseases we cured decades ago instead of trying to cross carrots with marmosets.

I'm really talking about moving forwards not backwards, we could argue until the genetically modified cows come home about what Capitalism v Socialism has done for the world thus far, it wouldn't change a thing.

Forget Capitalism, Socialism ............. there all no longer fit for purpose all we do is argue about which one is better whilst nothing really changes, If Labour had got back in at the last election we would still be as feked as we are now, with just slightly different polices.

We need to let go of the past, stop behaving like medieval mankind and have the courage to start over leaving the whole plot behind, its served its purpose but we need to evolve spiritually and wake up and smell that fekin coffee before we ruin our chance of Nirvana.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

'Much of the world is still starving to death'? I tend to disagree. Around 5 million people starve to death per year. So about 1 in 1000 people, which is far better than when I was younger even though the world has at least a billion more people on it. This is of course unacceptable, but it isn't capitalisms fault in any way shape or form. It is the states fault - usually the state the starving person lives in. Indeed the majority of deaths by starvation and famine that have ever happened can be pinned on states that claim to be socialist and for the people. Which makes your position, that they the ones to solve it, quite hard to defend. The state simply cannot be trusted to run a piss up in a brewery. Indeed it was states who created many of the weapons of mass destruction we dislike so much, not capitalism. Indeed the majority of the worlds nuclear weapons are in the hands of states who label themselves socialist, or at least formally did. It is not for a lack of will or an excessive amount of greed that is stopping us from solving basic issues in Africa, it is the states. Plus, added to this, is the problem that when you save one African today you must save 2 tomorrow. Live aid the first time around saved millions of people, but 20 years later hundreds of millions of people were knocking on our door to be fed, because the fundamental problem - their state, hadn't been addressed. Let's not forget that most African countries are in debt because of their states who pocketed all that money, and then some.

It is a widely held misconception that a strongly held belief in capitalism and a right wing outlook equals Naziism, when in actual fact Naziism and fascism are just another branch of socialism. Under the fascist state, the state owns or at least indirectly controls industry. I agree that believing public services should be nationalised hardly makes you a candidate to be the next Stalin though. I just think that without competition there is no accountability, and you can trace the failings of almost all state run enterprises to this fact. As well as a general unaccountability due to holding a complete monopoly, there is also the obvious problem with nationalised things like the NHS that when they screw up and you deserve compensation you are just sueing yourself, not the doctors who fucked you over.

Even if we are shamelessly wasting fuel at the moment, this situation will be rectified. I think that were it not for capitalism we would be hopelessly inefficient in our fuel use, so we would more than likely be using the same amounts of fuel or slightly less but for a lower output. And besides, people aren't buying goods to create profit, they are buying them because they want them. Capitalism definitely creates unnecessary want, but you must admit a lot of the things we surround ourself with are useful - e.g. The computers we are both on.

I think we need to look at real solutions that we can actually implement. Many of the things you advocate I find relatively agreeable, but way too idealistic. I mean we can't even get people to stop littering, despite it being on every piece of packing and being taught not to on a near daily basis at school and by our parents.. How do you think this complete reversal in the human mentality is going to come about? Even if it did 1% of the population is psychopathic and would fuck everything up any way! If we are to succeed it won't be via changing people's mentality, which would take thousands of years.

 

[Furious George]

Indeed it was states who created many of the weapons of mass destruction we dislike so much, not capitalism.

I'm not going to enter this debate as it's even more pointless than God debates. A person's political persuasion is derived from their own personal experience of the world and their underlying belief in human nature (i.e. people are predominantly compassionate and sociable, people predominantly are cruel and self-interested). Almost impossible to influence or change it with words on Teh Interwebz.

That said, I just notice that you give Capitalism credit for innovation and invention, yet blame the nuclear technology issue on the state. The truth is that the state (via state funded weapons, space, health and education programs) is the creator of most new technologies. These publicly funded discoveries are then taken by entrepreneurs (as you said earlier) and made into privately profitable commodities. I think if you're blaming the state for nukes, you should at least credit them with with the rest. The Soviets were able to put satellites in space, men on the moon, and nukes in their rockets without ancillary capitalist help.

Anyway, I'm glad this has become a more civil thread even if it is a pointless load of old bollocks.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I'm not going to enter this debate as it's even more pointless than God debates. A person's political persuasion is derived from their own personal experience of the world and their underlying belief in human nature (i.e. people are predominantly compassionate and sociable, people predominantly are cruel and self-interested). Almost impossible to influence or change it with words on Teh Interwebz.

That said, I just notice that you give Capitalism credit for innovation and invention, yet blame the nuclear technology issue on the state. The truth is that the state (via state funded weapons, space, health and education programs) is the creator of most new technologies. These publicly funded discoveries are then taken by entrepreneurs (as you said earlier) and made into privately profitable commodities. I think if you're blaming the state for nukes, you should at least credit them with with the rest. The Soviets were able to put satellites in space, men on the moon, and nukes in their rockets without ancillary capitalist help.

Anyway, I'm glad this has become a more civil thread even if it is a pointless load of old bollocks.

I said earlier that capitalism is responsible for bringing those innovations to market, which is the vital component missing or underdeveloped in socialist countries. Of course state run/owned universities are responsible for the majority of the initial discoveries, which are then bought by entrepeneurs, which then finances more discoveries. I do credit the state with utilising these discoveries/inventions, and I don't think the state is all bad. The USSR was capable of those things you listed, but it never managed to use those things to improve it's citizens lives. It did those things for itself at great expense to the people.

 

[knock]

MSB, I can't compete with the sheer volume of misinformed nonsense you write. I don't currently have the time or motivation and having seen your last few posts I think you're a lost cause anyway! Please forgive me as I decline this opportunity to be persuaded by you.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

MSB, I can't compete with the sheer volume of misinformed nonsense you write. I don't currently have the time or motivation and having seen your last few posts I think you're a lost cause anyway! Please forgive me as I decline this opportunity to be persuaded by you.

I don't particularly mind, but if you have nothing valuable to contribute why post anything? If only I had realised a simple 'you're wrong' would have sufficed as a rebuke, it would have saved me a lot of time. Then again I have been waiting to see a doctor at a+e for about 6 hours now, so I have nothing better to do. With so many lost causes on the planet, how will your socialist plan ever take off given that it requires an awful lot of acceptance and implementation from the public? You can't be bothered to convince one person, or you simply can't, so what about the other hundreds of millions who roughly agree with me?

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

MSB is Spinal Tap +1

Its ok. MSB. I'll kill myself. IRL I think its a valid philosophical point.

LOL Interwebz. Big funny joke innit.