Anglo-Saxon capitalism is a genetic disorder

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't believe in utopia.

I didn't say I did either, just that technological advancement would take us "closer" than agrarian stagnation. That much should be obvious.

Originally posted by Kidicious
Even if there could be such a thing I don't think working in a factory would get you there.

I never said choosing the factory over the field would get the individual worker get anywhere, only that the individual factory worker would help get society somewhere. The peasant would not.

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think that capitalism hasn't gotten us to communism though. It's gotten use where we are today, and I don't think that that is communism or capitalism.

I never said anything different.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871
I didn't say I did either, just that technological advancement would take us "closer" than agrarian stagnation. That much should be obvious.

Whatever you are trying to say, working in a factory only contributes a small part to it, just like working in the field contributes a small part to it. I don't know people who think like that. They just want to get paid more and stay out of trouble.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
working in a factory only contributes a small part to it, just like working in the field contributes a small part to it.

Correction:

Originally posted by Kidicious
working in a factory only contributes a small part to something, whereas working in the field contributes a small part to nothing.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Agathon


The French at least had the common decency to behead most of their aristocrats. In Britain, the modus operandi is to ask the wealthy at what angle one should bend over to afford them a comfortable entry.

By and large, the British peasantry faced the choice of industrialization or starvation, but they were too craven to try to do anything about it. Look, even the Americans got pissed off at the British aristocracy enough to chuck them out. Look at Britain now... the chinless cretins are still there.

Utter rubbish.

The American revoultion had little to do with the British Aristiocracy, it was about tax. Tax was the remit of the house of commons who were not heridatry.

The french may have got rid of all those titles but they are still as class ridden as are most countries. We hust kept the titles which makes it more obvious

[Provost Harrison]

That sums it up. Yeah, British society is class-ridden, those with money and the right background get further than those who don't. This certainly makes it far from unique in the western world.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TheStinger

Utter rubbish.

The American revoultion had little to do with the British Aristiocracy, it was about tax. Tax was the remit of the house of commons who were not heridatry.

Yeah right. The "House of Commons" must be one of the biggest misnomers of all time.

You might want to try reading up on the Enlightenment sometime.

The french may have got rid of all those titles but they are still as class ridden as are most countries. We hust kept the titles which makes it more obvious

Stupid Pom.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
That sums it up. Yeah, British society is class-ridden, those with money and the right background get further than those who don't. This certainly makes it far from unique in the western world.

Certainly can't account for failing. All my ancestors living in 1901 were farm labourers by trade. My family and my cousins are now in jobs that would mean easily middle class.

I speak anecdotally of course, but get the right mix of ambition, nouse, luck and charm and you too can be an accountant or lawyer or architect. Does it mean it's a meritocratic society? No. Just as the fact that there are landed gentry does not make it an aristocratic society.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yeah right. The "House of Commons" must be one of the biggest misnomers of all time.

You might want to try reading up on the Enlightenment sometime.



Stupid Pom.

May be I will when you show that you have a morsel of knowledge regarding British history

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I speak anecdotally of course, but get the right mix of ambition, nouse, luck and charm and you too can be an accountant or lawyer or architect. Does it mean it's a meritocratic society? No. Just as the fact that there are landed gentry does not make it an aristocratic society.

Well let is hope that luck finally falls in my favour, or that I am not trying to piss against the wind.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Well let is hope that luck finally falls in my favour, or that I am not trying to piss against the wind.

No. It takes 5 generations. You're ****ed.

[Snotty]

*Snotty is feeling the love in this thread*

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TheStinger

May be I will when you show that you have a morsel of knowledge regarding British history

You obviously have no clue.

Gee whiz... if the Americans had just been annoyed at taxation without representation, they could have set up their own carbon copy of the British system. But somehow they didn't.

Silly Tories.

[Provost Harrison]

Silly Agathon

[Cort Haus]

Darius is correct here - capitalism is ultimately a progressive system compared to feudalism and Marx not only recognised this but considered capitalism a precondition for socialism.

Under Feudalism the surplus value went to the Lord, and King, for their wars and aristocratic pleasures. Under capitalism a precentage of that surplus was reinvested in capital - and had to be reinvested to remain competetive. Yes, wars and opulence for the rich remained, but there was an element of growth and advancement of the forces of production - forces which remained perpetually stagnant under feudalism.

There would not be much to choose between the miseries of proletarian life and the miseries of peasant life - but at least the former yielded eventual improvements for the descendants.

Apart from the development of capital, the organisation of labour was the other factor that Marx considered ultimately progressive, though he recognised that such organisation would not be possible without conflict - hence the notion of class struggle.

The downward mobility being discussed is an interesting idea, and I have no idea of it's validity, but there may be an element of truth. If it did exist it should be taken as an influence, rather than an absolute. It wouldn't mean that all proles were ex-aristos, but some proles would have come from higher up the ladder. Trades can become obsolete, and upheavals and disasters can decimate livelihoods. People hit hard times, and not all those who were doing OK can continue to do OK, and must therefore lower their horizons.

Upward mobility should be taken as a given, so the idea that all people are destined to be stuck in their class is a nonsense. I've known plenty of people who've moved up a gear or two in just one generation.

As for Agathon's playful trolling - best ignored really.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
There would not be much to choose between the miseries of proletarian life and the miseries of peasant life - but at least the former yielded eventual improvements for the descendants.

When did Marx say that capitalism would yield improvements for workers.

Apart from the development of capital, the organisation of labour was the other factor that Marx considered ultimately progressive, though he recognised that such organisation would not be possible without conflict - hence the notion of class struggle.

Just because it's progressive doesn't mean that capitalism was better for the workers than feudalism. Marx certainly held the opinion that communism will be far better than either however.