Parasitic capitalists - a point to ponder.

[John_fi_Skye]

Well fair enough. I assumed because of your left leanings you might be involved in some perderast version of Balamory. Still if you're too lazy to help out the disadvantaged in the inner cities and your too scared to approach one of those butch young men that like to wear shorts and chase each other around fields of an afternoon, it leaves little option.


Now you've got me thinking you either lurk under the Syke bridge exacting a toll of first born sons or you got a sex slave from Argos. Not very prole friendly

You've got me sussed so perfectly.

[mistermack]

I see, would they be a member of the the Portree Rent-Boy union or do you just trawl the big cities at night?

And Portree Rent-Boys? All the Portree boys play shinty, and have you ever seen what a mad, violent game that is?

Well, I always thought that shitny was a girl's game anyway, so the Portree boys must have picked up bad habits from the lasses.

[John_fi_Skye]

"SHIT-ny"???!!!

[Svartalf]

don't mind mackie, he majored in poo flinging at monkey college, university of the scilly isles.

[John_fi_Skye]

don't mind mackie, he majored in poo flinging at monkey college, university of the scilly isles.

Sounds like a good course. Now I'm retired, I may consider it.

[mistermack]

"SHIT-ny"???!!!

I typed it wrong, but liked the look of it, so left it like that.

Anyway, it's maybe not a girl's game. I think I got it confused with Camogie, or something.
My sisters used to play it at school, so I thought it was a girl's game.

[John_fi_Skye]

"SHIT-ny"???!!!

I typed it wrong, but liked the look of it, so left it like that.

Anyway, it's maybe not a girl's game. I think I got it confused with Camogie, or something.
My sisters used to play it at school, so I thought it was a girl's game.

Was she nice? Camogie? Never heard that name.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... d#p1203217

[Coito ergo sum]

The profit motive is the only driver of the ruling class at the moment. There was a period where the benevolent largess of a few rich people was spent on making the lot of those they exploited a little better. No longer however except in a few exceptional cases.

There was? What period was that?

The profit motive sees greater and greater competition to reduce staff costs and currently the developed world is in a race to reduce its costs to compete with the newly emerging economies. That will result in increasing poverty for ordinary people in the developed world as more and more people are thrown out of work or take very poorly paid jobs.

Isn't the developed world unfairly wealthy now anyway? I thought it was time for income to be redistributed to the less fortunate and the developing world?

Of course capitalism has its own in built contradictions, one of which is that it destroys its own markets by doing this.

Governments will try to keep social order in the face of the above, but in due course the people will revolt again. Marxism is not dead - not by a long way.

All economic systems have their own in-built contradictions, and socialism is no exception.

Marxism, of course, has no sympathy for "the poor," although its devotees seem to be convinced that it does. Marxism promises only that each individual will be allocated "according to his need." Since the capitalists countries have gone well beyond that, and have provided "to each according to much more than his and her need..." there is only one way to go but down for the vast majority of us. And, most of the Left applaud that, since their assumption is that the developed world is not "sustainable" and that we are already too rich and have too much.

Marxism does not promise to lift up the developed world, so that we can all live in the luxury those of us in the developed world have. It promises only that you will be required to give according to what the governing authority things you are able, and that you will receive not a fair wage for your contributions, but what you "need." Folks should be able to see that this means you're most likely going to have to do with a lot less than you have now. If not that, then what is the promise of Marxism?

EDIT: Note also that Marxism advocates the abolition of all private property. That generally isn't something most folks relish the thought of. Until then, Marxism also advocates the confiscation of the property of emigrants, and anyone who dissents or is labeled a "rebel." Communications and transportation are to be centralized in the State.

Note also the "equal obligation to work and the establishment of industrial armies." Who's going to volunteer for your industrial army?

No matter how bad capitalism is, my friends. Marxism doesn't offer an improvement. Does it?

[John_fi_Skye]

The profit motive is the only driver of the ruling class at the moment. There was a period where the benevolent largess of a few rich people was spent on making the lot of those they exploited a little better. No longer however except in a few exceptional cases.

There was? What period was that?

The profit motive sees greater and greater competition to reduce staff costs and currently the developed world is in a race to reduce its costs to compete with the newly emerging economies. That will result in increasing poverty for ordinary people in the developed world as more and more people are thrown out of work or take very poorly paid jobs.

Isn't the developed world unfairly wealthy now anyway? I thought it was time for income to be redistributed to the less fortunate and the developing world?

Of course capitalism has its own in built contradictions, one of which is that it destroys its own markets by doing this.

Governments will try to keep social order in the face of the above, but in due course the people will revolt again. Marxism is not dead - not by a long way.

All economic systems have their own in-built contradictions, and socialism is no exception.

Marxism, of course, has no sympathy for "the poor," although its devotees seem to be convinced that it does. Marxism promises only that each individual will be allocated "according to his need." Since the capitalists countries have gone well beyond that, and have provided "to each according to much more than his and her need..." there is only one way to go but down for the vast majority of us. And, most of the Left applaud that, since their assumption is that the developed world is not "sustainable" and that we are already too rich and have too much.

Marxism does not promise to lift up the developed world, so that we can all live in the luxury those of us in the developed world have. It promises only that you will be required to give according to what the governing authority things you are able, and that you will receive not a fair wage for your contributions, but what you "need." Folks should be able to see that this means you're most likely going to have to do with a lot less than you have now. If not that, then what is the promise of Marxism?

EDIT: Note also that Marxism advocates the abolition of all private property. That generally isn't something most folks relish the thought of. Until then, Marxism also advocates the confiscation of the property of emigrants, and anyone who dissents or is labeled a "rebel." Communications and transportation are to be centralized in the State.

Note also the "equal obligation to work and the establishment of industrial armies." Who's going to volunteer for your industrial army?

No matter how bad capitalism is, my friends. Marxism doesn't offer an improvement. Does it?

No. Did anybody say it did? I didn't.

My point is that as a species we must (and I believe we can) find a better way than capitalism. Marxism (NB NOT the ways communism was implemented by totalitarianists, which were all wrong) was a fumbling attempt at finding a system based on altruism. I believe that one day our descendents will find a successful system based on altruism, and they'll laugh at how primitive we were. And although I've said "our descendents", I see no reason not to start looking for it right away.