|
sophiemp
|
|
|
|
Quote: Nestat, Tuesday, 23 Mar 2010 23:27Quote: sophiemp, Tuesday, 23 Mar 2010 22:40If it had any negative effect, it was to make me much less patient with people who don't appreciate what they have, and with people who whinge about minor inconveniences like having to wait for a review... And that is quite a negative effect, as it colours your interpretation of people's words and your attitude turns them against you. Being short with people who you feel are being petty only makes you feel better, it does not feed starving orphans or stop violence. And yes, people often don't realise the bigger issues in life. But just because someone moans about little things, doesn't mean they don't care about important things too. And I would also say that one of the greatest barriers to happiness is feeling that you cannot talk about your problems because you are scared they will seem insignificant to others. I don't expect my attitude to stop violence or feed orphans, nor is it my job to make petty people feel better about themselves. I've noticed that a lot of elderly people reach a point where they decide to cut through the bullshit and say what they think. I've decided not to wait until I'm old. I would say one of the biggest barriers to happiness is not knowing the difference between a real problem and a manufactured one.
|
|
NickP
|
|
|
|
Quote: awrigley, Tuesday, 23 Mar 2010 17:57Its just increasingly pathetic attention seeking. He thinks he is the victim of middle class intolerance, which is probably better than telling us that a pink elephant is flashing him just below this text.  So...your long rambling quasi-philosophical posts? The most blatant attention seeking and attempt at self promotion I've seen. Of course Lawrence wants attention, so do you, so do I. That's what a forum is, no? Lots of pathetic attention seekers.
This post was last edited by NickP, 24 Mar 2010, 06:08
"...the likes of NickP can rant on if they like"
|
|
notleyab
|
|
|
|
Quote: sophiemp, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 01:02
I don't expect my attitude to stop violence or feed orphans, nor is it my job to make petty people feel better about themselves. I've noticed that a lot of elderly people reach a point where they decide to cut through the bullshit and say what they think. I've decided not to wait until I'm old.
I would say one of the biggest barriers to happiness is not knowing the difference between a real problem and a manufactured one.[/quoteAs you say, better not to beat abt the Bush. But taking up yr earlier point abt capitalism/consumerism it wd have bn so much better if someone had beaten the Bush. I'd watch out if I were U. The British came to save you. Now Sarah Palin is coming.
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
Quote: sophiemp, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 00:54Quote: awrigley, Tuesday, 23 Mar 2010 10:40So the moral is: the longest standing alternative to capitalism/consumerism is just another latin american police state that for some reason has lasted longer than any other. Andrew I've often heard it said that communism is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't work in practice because of greed and corruption. I think it's time we admitted the same is true of capitalism. Communism. as with so many theories, turns out to be a trenchant critique of the system it opposes, but fails to institute a successful replacement in its stead. I don't buy the argument that capitalism is the best system we've got, but damned if I know what system of societal organisation would be.
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
awrigley
|
|
|
|
The logical flaw with communism is the assumption that the sum of the wealth of a society is a constant. As a result, the theory goes, someone can only get richer if someone else gets poorer. This ignores the fact that wealth can be created or destroyed. Ie, wealth is not a constant. An example of wealth creation is to improve the health of the population, allowing people to live more productive lives. The function of the state, in any society that ever was, is twofold. It has to prevent internal conflict by imposing how things should work within its own borders but also it has to mediate with the world to get the best deal possible in the rough and tumble of international trade and alliances. Cuba does the one to idealistic perfection, but is in denial regarding the other. Anglosphere capitalism is more efficient because it presumes that wealth can be created and because it does not presume to be perfect. Therefore it can adapt to historical change, history being, unlike Marx, not at all dead. Corruption is an obvious baddy, as it does involve expropriation of wealth rather than creation of wealth. But, if creation of wealth is good for all of us, what is wrong with greed? Just don't expect it to make you happy. And whilst wondering what would be the best way to organise society, make you mind up if you want to be Indian or Chinese.
Memory... What was that?
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
late Marx writings posited a withering away of the State. But you are absolutely right Andrew that he offered a fixed, static endpoint Utopia model, which of course makes no account of history, technological development and people's aspirations. Although the later was beautifully analysed by Gramsci who declared it to be a hegemonic function used to disguise the true power relations upon which the State is built (opiate of the masses etc). Only the substructure counts, the superstructure is all fluff and garnishing.
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
awrigley
|
|
|
|
Quote: sulcus, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 10:44late Marx writings posited a withering away of the State. But you are absolutely right Andrew that he offered a fixed, static endpoint Utopia model, which of course makes no account of history, technological development and people's aspirations. Although the later was beautifully analysed by Gramsci who declared it to be a hegemonic function used to disguise the true power relations upon which the State is built (opiate of the masses etc). Only the substructure counts, the superstructure is all fluff and garnishing. I think you are saying that what counts is reality. In which case I agree with you. But what do you think about greed? We all know that corruption is bad and exists everywhere, but what about greed? We now know that Marx was wrong, but was Thatcher so wrong? Were we any happier in Harold Wilson universe?
Memory... What was that?
|
|
NickP
|
|
|
|
More people were happier pre-Thatcher than post-Thatcher cos of a few factors. First, the opportunities for progression, "improving your lot", aspiring to great office etc appeared greater. The plebs were breaking through into positions previously a closed private/public school shop. Social advancement was possible AND those in power approved. They were happier because they believed that we were working towards a meritocracy. Thatcher changed all that. She brought the "ladder up, I'm all right, Might is Right attitude back right alongside the lie that was "wealth cascading down through the ages". As though the rich ever voluntarily parted with a penny to help protect the health, well being or progression of their "serfs". Capitalists are unhappy because they are money grabbers and misers. Anti-monopoly and anti-corruption laws exist precisely because Thatcherite principles do not work. Just don't ask what DOES work. Although Germany and Sweden are looking a bit less bankrupt and care a bit more for their citizens than the USA or us.
"...the likes of NickP can rant on if they like"
|
|
awrigley
|
|
|
|
Quote: NickP, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 11:18More people were happier pre-Thatcher than post-Thatcher cos of a few factors. First, the opportunities for progression, "improving your lot", aspiring to great office etc appeared greater. The plebs were breaking through into positions previously a closed private/public school shop. Social advancement was possible AND those in power approved. They were happier because they believed that we were working towards a meritocracy. Thatcher changed all that. She brought the "ladder up, I'm all right, Might is Right attitude back right alongside the lie that was "wealth cascading down through the ages". As though the rich ever voluntarily parted with a penny to help protect the health, well being or progression of their "serfs". Capitalists are unhappy because they are money grabbers and misers. Anti-monopoly and anti-corruption laws exist precisely because Thatcherite principles do not work. Just don't ask what DOES work. Although Germany and Sweden are looking a bit less bankrupt and care a bit more for their citizens than the USA or us. Capitalists are no more unhappy than others. And they have the money to prove it by going to the kind of shrinks that most of us can't afford. Corruption is universal, so it is unfair to blame that on Maggie. Anti monopoly laws are also nothing to do with Thatcherite principles or their consequences. They are about preventing the accumulation of wealth as a result of abuse of economic power, thereby forcing the greedy amongst us to accumulate wealth by creating it rather than appropriating it from individuals, companies or groups of individuals, with less power. I note that the system that is working at the moment in the world is China. Being a communist state, it can exploit its workforce to create wealth and not pass any legislation that would prevent this. I think you need to write a longer post to explain yourself better...
Memory... What was that?
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
As much as I despise Thatcher and everything she stood for, her argument would be that she actually opened up opportunity and aspiration to a wider group of people than previously; through sale of council homes to their tenants, the denationalisation of business that went with share ownership being opened up to whole new demographics (the fact that we were all ripped off our stakes in these companies being sold off on the cheap notwithstanding) - what she did was cream off the upper echelons of the working classes into the middle class, thus leaving a rump lumpenproletariat of unemployed, black economy workers and other disadvantaged people cast aside (closure of mental hospitals for care in the community etc). So some were rewarded in a new meritocracy, while others plummeted further into the mire as those above stepped on them in their haste to better themselves. So now we in Britain are offered a homegrown version of the American Dream to aspire to. But we still have enough remnants of a class system through our educational institutions to prevent it being realisable. The National Lottery and Fame Academy however can deliver instant millionaire status, so that's all right then. What Thatcher did that was so pernicious was attack our belief in society, in an unwritten but broadly accepted social charter, by attacking community and collective enterprise where ever it existed. That is what we are suffering from now, no one left to pick up the pieces of broken Britain.
This post was last edited by sulcus, 24 Mar 2010, 11:59
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
'Spare us your misery' book judge tells authors
24 Mar 2010, 01:02
