hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 974 of 988 FirstFirst ... 474874924964971972973974975976977984 ... LastLast
Results 19,461 to 19,480 of 19757

Thread: (UK EURO THREAD) UK POLITICS MK2

  1. #19461
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    "I love capitalism apart from the all parts of capitalism that define it"
    Literally the only thing that defines it is the private ownership of capital for profit. Everything else is just editorialising and that Merriam Webster quote (which is NOT taken from the definition but rather a "did you know?" box aimed at school children) is ridiculous. "Pure capitalism" is a nonsense phrase just as "pure socialism" is a nonsense phrase. Presumably in "pure socialism" no one owns their clothes or toothbrush. Perhaps not even hair or teeth or organs! Grrrr socialism bad!

    This childish semantic quibbling is nonsensical. A social democracy has widespread private ownership of capital, including means of production, infrastructure etc, for profit. Saying that isnt capitalist because you found some retarded schoolchild explanation of capitalism that says the only true capitalism is a system with no police or streetlights is intellectually feeble. Engage with the ideas not semantic childishness.
    Last edited by Lallante; October 21 2021 at 10:26:15 AM.

  2. #19462
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,299
    I'm not entirely sure about capitalism. I mean, industrialization made capitalism feasible, when factories started to be more efficient than individuals making goods by hand. Soviet union managed to improve the quality of life of their citizens (albeit less than capitalistic west) even without capitalism. What was the thing that had a bigger impact: industrialization or capitalism?

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  3. #19463
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    I'm not entirely sure about capitalism. I mean, industrialization made capitalism feasible, when factories started to be more efficient than individuals making goods by hand. Soviet union managed to improve the quality of life of their citizens (albeit less than capitalistic west) even without capitalism. What was the thing that had a bigger impact: industrialization or capitalism?
    Id say Soviet union did more... They were literally in a fevdal system beforehand. Industrialization did the heavy lifting in improving their standard of living by providing more goods/food/etc. Capitalism was present in 1850 England for example and didnt really help the lower classes even by start of industriaization then. It kept pushing them in the ground. Strong labour movement helped in their standard of living. Does capitalism help with industrialization? It does in some way but it also makes sure that the benefits of it arent there for anyone else but the owner of capital.


    

  4. #19464
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    4,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    "I love capitalism apart from the all parts of capitalism that define it"
    Literally the only thing that defines it is the private ownership of capital for profit. Everything else is just editorialising and that Merriam Webster quote (which is NOT taken from the definition but rather a "did you know?" box aimed at school children) is ridiculous. "Pure capitalism" is a nonsense phrase just as "pure socialism" is a nonsense phrase. Presumably in "pure socialism" no one owns their clothes or toothbrush. Perhaps not even hair or teeth or organs! Grrrr socialism bad!

    This childish semantic quibbling is nonsensical. A social democracy has widespread private ownership of capital, including means of production, infrastructure etc, for profit. Saying that isnt capitalist because you found some retarded schoolchild explanation of capitalism that says the only true capitalism is a system with no police or streetlights is intellectually feeble. Engage with the ideas not semantic childishness.
    That's a terrible description of social democracy if there ever was one and I can see why you're having the tantrum about "childish semantics"

  5. #19465

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    7,724
    FOR YOU Lord Haw Haw of Internetshire?

    fuck off
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  6. #19466
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,798
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    "I love capitalism apart from the all parts of capitalism that define it"
    Literally the only thing that defines it is the private ownership of capital for profit. Everything else is just editorialising and that Merriam Webster quote (which is NOT taken from the definition but rather a "did you know?" box aimed at school children) is ridiculous. "Pure capitalism" is a nonsense phrase just as "pure socialism" is a nonsense phrase. Presumably in "pure socialism" no one owns their clothes or toothbrush. Perhaps not even hair or teeth or organs! Grrrr socialism bad!

    This childish semantic quibbling is nonsensical. A social democracy has widespread private ownership of capital, including means of production, infrastructure etc, for profit. Saying that isnt capitalist because you found some retarded schoolchild explanation of capitalism that says the only true capitalism is a system with no police or streetlights is intellectually feeble. Engage with the ideas not semantic childishness.
    That's a terrible description of social democracy if there ever was one and I can see why you're having the tantrum about "childish semantics"
    It wasnt a definition, it was a description of one aspect.

  7. #19467
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    FOR YOU Lord Haw Haw of Internetshire?

    fuck off
    Go back to bumming bald right wingers on steroids mate.

  8. #19468

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    6,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

    I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.

  9. #19469
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Portugal, laaaa
    Posts
    6,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

    I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.
    No no we need someone more centrist to defeat the tories like *checks notes* Gordon Brown, or *checks notes* Ed Milliband, or *checks notes* Keir Starmer. Either of them would do fantastically better than Corbyn!
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Also that didn't sound like abloo bloo to me, PM me and we can agree on a meeting spot and settle this with queensberry rules, that's a serious offer btw. I've been a member of this community since 2005 and i've never met a more toxic individual.

  10. #19470

    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    3,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

    I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.
    It was a good job he then didn't lead Labour to it's largest defeat in several decades so the Tories could just enact those policies without meaningful resistance then.

  11. #19471
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Portugal, laaaa
    Posts
    6,324
    Quote Originally Posted by El Capitano View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

    I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.
    It was a good job he then didn't lead Labour to it's largest defeat in several decades so the Tories could just enact those policies without meaningful resistance then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Also that didn't sound like abloo bloo to me, PM me and we can agree on a meeting spot and settle this with queensberry rules, that's a serious offer btw. I've been a member of this community since 2005 and i've never met a more toxic individual.

  12. #19472

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    6,634
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

    I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.
    No no we need someone more centrist to defeat the tories like *checks notes* Gordon Brown, or *checks notes* Ed Milliband, or *checks notes* Keir Starmer. Either of them would do fantastically better than Corbyn!
    Literally anyone but Corbyn would be 20 points ahead in the polls!

  13. #19473
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    15,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    The disconnect here is you wilfully disregard the insane social progress we have collectively made due to capitalism over the last 150 years; the relegation of hunger and extreme poverty to small minority issues in a handful of poorly run countries; the conquest of many of life's worst diseases and deprivations; the wholesale uplifting of the overwhelming majority of people in the world's standards of living.

    For you, these things happened despite capitalism through some unnamed but presumably universal and extremely powerful mechanism of action that didnt exist 300+ years ago.
    you are confusing industrialization with capitalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    For me, the statistics and basically all economic evidence, these things happened BECAUSE of capitalism and the impact of innovation, efficiency seeking, entrepreneureship and competition that are its saving graces.
    yet the first 2-3 generations of industrial capitalism was a endless shitshow of grinding poverty for anybody outside the property holding classes. the change for the better came with worker militancy trough things like unions and outright revolts.

    social democracy didn't spring from the largesse of the property owning classes, it was taken, by force, threatened and actual. using the measures and methods you consistently reject over and over again. so i ask again lallante, where do you see a social mechanism that can enforce such a change against the interests of the capitalists ? because according to you, it's not on the radical left that, historically, fought, bled and died to make these things happen, it's not with the unions because that is outdated and "inefficient" cartel that actually damages productivity, so where is it ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    No one is denying all the horrible inequities of our current system, but you are in fantasy land if you think they (taking the world as a whole) arent the best they've ever been in humanity's history.
    we are careening towards a extinction level event that somehow cannot be addressed because it would cost the rich money, and you honestly argue that things have never been better ? things aren't "the best they've ever been in humanity's history" they're shit, significant material wealth is confined to a small and shrinking proportion of the population, the vast majority still live in grinding poverty and the promise of a better tomorrow has never sounded more hollow and false than it does now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    yet you openly mock any attempt at doing so in favour of tory-lite hacks like Starmer
    I mock him because he isnt radical. He misunderstands what made Blair a fantastic labour prime minister. He thinks centrism is about being wishy washy, which is a fundamental misconception.

    We need a new Blair, ideally a woman.
    so your ideal leader is a war-criminal who spend a whole lot of time and effort eroding civil liberties in the name of setting up a surveillance state and who spend a whole lot of time making PFI's a thing, but who ideally, is also a woman.

    this doesn't sound like any branch of social democracy i know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    holding the tories accountable for running the entire country off a fucking cliff.
    Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has. Labour has been consumed by infighting since they came to power and Momentum started trying to undermine sitting MPs.
    since momentum tried to make the sitting MP's accountable you mean. and there was 1 deselection during Corbyns 5 years at the helm, versus 3 for Browns 3 years at the helm. so what you're actually saying is that a grass-roots organization within the party that threatens the established order is bad because it invariably causes a degree of strife.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  14. #19474
    August's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    633
    Industrialization in the west occurred in the framework of capitalism, so of course you can attribute its successes to capitalism as well. It seems to me you're sort of trying to have your cake and eat it too, because later on, you attribute the extinction-level event to capitalism, but couldn't you attribute that to industrialization? After all, it's the industrialization process that enables the mass-stripping of Earth's resources and the Soviets did it as well.

    Sure, you can say the first 2-3 generations of capitalism was shit. I don't really care whether that's true or not, to be honest, because we're in the 15th generation of capitalism and many aspects have dramatically changed since first 2-3.

    Yet you're so stuck with defining capitalism by its earliest iteration. You constantly do that. It's like declaring that computers are forever shit because the old IBM computers that took up a whole room sucked ass when, bro, we're on iphone 12 now.

    Now, regarding quality of life, it is absolutely true that according to contemporary western metrics, which you value too, we have the highest quality of life ever. True, there are plenty of metrics by which our quality of life sucks. If, like earlier iterations of Western societies, you prioritize a high percentage of marriage in the population, longevity of marriages, minimization of abortions, minimization of drug use, etc. then yeah our quality of life today sucks. But I know you don't give a shit about that so wtf are you talking about.

  15. #19475
    Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 24, 2011
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Devonshire
    Posts
    8,732
    Rapidly rising property and energy prices and ever decreasing real wages and levels of life satisfaction are actually amazing, you're right.


    Poland treats me like shit and I hate them as a result of it

  16. #19476

    Join Date
    May 30, 2011
    Location
    asleep
    Posts
    7,399
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    ... and the Soviets did it as well.
    Literal First paragraph American Dipshit socialist whatboutism fuck off.
    Please don't teach me what to do with my pc.

  17. #19477
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    15,325
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Industrialization in the west occurred in the framework of capitalism, so of course you can attribute its successes to capitalism as well. It seems to me you're sort of trying to have your cake and eat it too, because later on, you attribute the extinction-level event to capitalism, but couldn't you attribute that to industrialization? After all, it's the industrialization process that enables the mass-stripping of Earth's resources and the Soviets did it as well.
    whataboutism is not a argument.

    China is doing a markedly better job of climate adaptation than the "liberal democracies" of the west, not that they're doing enough for it to meaningfully matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Sure, you can say the first 2-3 generations of capitalism was shit. I don't really care whether that's true or not, to be honest, because we're in the 15th generation of capitalism and many aspects have dramatically changed since first 2-3.
    and more have not, the shit aspects have not gone away and there is no indication they will.

    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Yet you're so stuck with defining capitalism by its earliest iteration. You constantly do that. It's like declaring that computers are forever shit because the old IBM computers that took up a whole room sucked ass when, bro, we're on iphone 12 now.
    literal "poor people aren't poor, they have fridges now!" tier argumentation.

    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Now, regarding quality of life, it is absolutely true that according to contemporary western metrics, which you value too, we have the highest quality of life ever. True, there are plenty of metrics by which our quality of life sucks. If, like earlier iterations of Western societies, you prioritize a high percentage of marriage in the population, longevity of marriages, minimization of abortions, minimization of drug use, etc. then yeah our quality of life today sucks. But I know you don't give a shit about that so wtf are you talking about.
    so your idea of a "good life" is doubling down on conservative family values as the metrics to measure by. and since you know i find those pointless actively oppresive, i clearly have no reason to to be unhappy ?

    okay, so did you have a point, or what ? or was it just a exercise in this ?
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  18. #19478

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    775
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    China is doing a markedly better job of climate adaptation than the "liberal democracies" of the west
    L O L


  19. #19479
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,110
    Yeah thats a yikes

  20. #19480
    August's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    633
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
    Rapidly rising property and energy prices and ever decreasing real wages and levels of life satisfaction are actually amazing, you're right.
    Oh noes, my AMZN stonk dipped and isn't at all-time highs anymore. Guess I better sell.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •