I was musing the other day about “socialism” and in particular about why “socialists” so dislike “capitalists”. This dislike seems to me utterly illogical, for the following reasons.
-
Socialists in general are good, caring people who selflessly want to spread wealth around to alleviate the problems of the most vulnerable in society. Capitalists, on the other hand, are (as far as most socialists are concerned) mean, exploiting and money-grabbing and often heartless toffs; devoted mainly to grinding the noses of the poor into the dust while they selfishly amass great wealth for their personal use.
-
So, the chief desire of the socialist is to altruistically dole out welfare to the needy. However, it is (or should be) obvious that this most noble of aims cannot be fulfilled unless you actually have the money to dole out. (Many socialists do of course borrow it against future growth, but this is not the place to discuss “Alice in Wonderland”).
-
This of course is where the capitalists come in. Socialists – while being wonderful, caring and touchy-feely people – do not specialize in making money, only in dishing it out.
-
It is in fact “capitalists” (all in the rather – for socialists – odious private sector) who actually create the wealth that the socialists seek to redistribute to the deserving needy.
-
To restate this – just to make sure it is clear – socialists NEED the capitalists to CREATE the money that the former want to redistribute. I am not sure how many die-hard socialists will agree that they need capitalists – indeed, could not manage without them – but you can argue that one among yourselves.
-
If you agree with my theory about the capitalists being a necessary evil, then it further follows that the MORE money the latter create the MORE the socialists can take off them to redistribute.
-
And logically, if that is the case, it follows that socialists should do EVERYTHING they can to make it easy for capitalists to create wealth, since the more they create the more can be taken from them to do the touchy-feely, caring bit.
-
In other words, the successful capitalist is the socialists’ best friend, since without the former the latter would have no money, as is clearly shown in Cuba, where there are no capitalists and correspondingly no money, meaning that everyone is just about equally poor with little redistribution needed.
-
Of course, everything is a question of balance; you can have too much of either “ism”, just as you can die from drinking too much water. However, it would be nice if the socialists would sometimes accept that without people creating wealth they (the socialists) would have no justification for their existence, since they would have nowhere near enough of anyone else’s money to redistribute. I am hoping in particular that Mr Francois Hollande, President of France, will take this on board. In truth, however, this hope is tempered by realism.
Much of the above falls into the category of “the bleedin’ obvious”, but I have always loved this saying of Talleyrand:
“Cela va sans dire, mais cela va d’autant mieux en le disant.”
HAVE A NICE DAY!
Tags: socialism.capitalism
The most depressing thing I ever heard at school was: “I’m not interested in politics.” Even at the age of 10, this seemed to me bizarre, for politics is at the heart of everything. It decides what we can eat, how much money we have, what sort of shelter we have, health, education, defence, what it takes to get locked up, EVERYTHING – including in the USA of course gun control …….
“Politics” completely arranges the environment of our existence, within which we can be individuals and lead some kind of “private life”, but nothing can function in a civilised manner without politics.
There is only one circumstance I can imagine when the statement: “I’m not interested in politics.” might possibly be justified, and that is if you lived in a society where everything was perfect: no injustice, hunger, or discomfort; excellent health, education, shelter and sustenance in a peaceful environment with nothing to worry about ….
There remains a niggling doubt about whether such a society would be just a teensy bit boring. However, the point is, has there ever been one? Does anyone KNOW one? Are they accepting immigrants?
If we accept that politics decides everything, then there are certain conclusions to be drawn. If it is so fundamentally important, is it not then legitimate to oblige everyone to vote, as they do in Australia for example? Then again, is it acceptable that we so easily tolerate as “democracy” elections where only 30% of eligible voters actually vote? And is it acceptable that the teaching of “politics” and all it involves holds such little place in our schools?
I would say “NO!!” And in fact, the study of politics involves so many branches of knowledge. You can’t (or shouldn’t) be taught “politics” without teaching psychology. Why is X saying that? What are his motivations? What is the psychology of voting groups. Or without studying logic, so as to recognize false arguments, of which there is no lack. You need to study what evidence is, since a political policy should be based on evidence, not fantasy or demagoguery.
In fact, just as politics decides everything then a study of politics involves just about every branch of knowledge, too. You cannot vote sensibly for party X which wants to build zillions of windfarms or go full-steam ahead on shale-fracking if you don’t have a reasonable understanding of the science, and of course environmental consequences. You can’t sensibly vote for or against grammar schools without a sound knowledge of the social and psychological rationale behind them or indeed of their history. The same applies to religion of course, and almost any other area you care to mention.
No, politics as a subject of study, discussion and involvement is vastly undervalued in our society. And the fact that politicians are often venal and incompetent liars is not a reason to be LESS interested in politics but a compelling reason to be MORE involved!! If you don’t get informed and involved, the politicians will do it THEIR way, and you have to ask yourself one final question: Do you REALLY trust them to do it in YOUR interests?
Tags: politics
A True British Socialist
- A true British socialist is one sufficiently well off not to have to bother about the economic meltdown he or she brings about through the utter and incompetent misuse of money taken from people who create it (usually lumped together with yawning sneers as “capitalists”).
- The true elite British socialist is a great thinker, usually in some posh part of the country such as Hampstead, where he or she is surrounded by like-minded people, almost all of whom have never done a real job such as postman, check-out assistant, dustman, farmer (unless country gent) or bog-cleaner.
- Having thought at great length on behalf of the plebs (for which of course the latter should be eternally grateful) and after a formative passage from prep to public school and then on to Oxbridge the true socialist is now well-equipped to set about his self-anointed task of bringing his country’s economy to its knees on behalf of his less-privileged fellows.
- Once the inevitable collapse of the economy has been accomplished but after a brief period of delusional voter-bribing euphoria during which it is announced that bust and poverty have both been abolished to be replaced by perpetual boom then he or she then retires to his or her Hampstead (or Scottish) retreat or indeed his or an oligarch mate’s yacht in Monaco and sends best wishes to the plebs left behind while blaming it all on the incoming government and of course Mrs Thatcher.
- Of course, not all true socialists are effete and idle thinkers in Hampstead. Some inhabit leafy rural towns and villages well away from the problems created by their gurus. The archetypal true British socialist has a very large income wrenched by the sweat of his or her – or often someone else’s – brow and wisely invested in a large property from which he or she can rail against the unfairness of non-socialism while refusing the overpowering temptation to exile him or herself to a foreign true socialist paradise such as Cuba, where the people are dirt poor but rumoured to be deliriously happy even though those trying to escape are locked up as lunatics and/or traitors.
- (The fact that the world’s vast army of economic migrants is busting a gut to get into Britain rather than Cuba is a bit puzzling, but no doubt there is an explanation for this that no doubt you have to be a true British socialist to explain. This is apparently called “socialist dialectic”.)
- Finally, a true socialist is of course someone who sneers at anyone with a contrary view, labelling them “clowns”, “fruitcakes” or indeed “idiots”. In this respect true socialists are no different from idle, effete, over-privileged capitalist tossers such as David Cameron and Ken “I’ve never-been-right-before-and-I’m-not-going-to-start-now” Clarke.
CYCLES: As we all know, life is a succession of cycles: the nitrogen cycle, the menstrual cycle and the bicycle, to name but a few, and the British political cycle is no different:
- The true socialists are voted into power and get on with doing what they do best.
- A weary public eventually gets fed up with spin, debt, poverty and chaos and votes them out.
- A nasty, vicious, capitalist right-wing bunch of utter toffs replaces them – aided and abetted by moronic Liberal-Demopratts landed from another planet – and sets about putting the damage right.
- This involves a certain amount of pain and sacrifice, though not by the true British socialists sending goodwill messages from their yachts, Scottish castles or indeed leafy East Anglian enclaves, or indeed the House of Lords.
- The (it must be said) fairly moronic and long-term suffering but short-term memoried British public soon gets fed up with living within the country’s means and votes the true British socialists back into power, thus completing the cycle for another round of the same game.
- The top former true British socialists who ran the country into the ground get made Lords and/or sent to Brussels as Commissioners or in Blair’s case no doubt made eventual World President and roving Chief-Pontificator to the Masses, or rather to select groups of capitalists who pay him 50,000 GBP a session to hear his pearls of wisdom.
- A (so-far) minority of the British public is a bit tired of this repeated game and would like a complete change but is of course (see above) labelled as “clowns”, “fruitcakes”, “racists” and numerous other choice phrases from “The Over-Privileged Left-and-Right-Wing Tossers’ Book of Brainless Personal Insults” by the afore-mentioned over-privileged and self-appointed and righteous dinosaur political parties who are the willing players in the endless cycle described above. As far as this goes we are reminded of the immortal phrase of the delectable Miss Mandy Rice-Davies: “They would say that, wouldn’t they.”
- However, in true Greek-hubris style it seems that the “clowns” have had the latest – if not yet the last – laugh, which of course is entirely appropriate.
PS Concerning “clowns”, it is rumoured that the UK branch of the Worldwide Clowns Union is taking the Tories to the ECHR on the basis that – clowns or not – they have as many rights as anyone else, including those illegal immigrant criminals guilty of GBH and other serious offences who cannot be exported owing to their human right to “have a family life”. No doubt the dinosaur parties would like to see the right to vote removed from all those designated (by them) as “clowns”, but this will be fiercely resisted by we clowns and our growing army of supporters. HA, HA ……
PPS Capitalism: a system whereby people who don’t want to be poor beg, borrow, earn or inherit money and use it to create wealth, some of which they are happy to give to the rest in the form of taxes but also in the occasional donation (see “Bill Gates Foundation”).
Socialism: a system whereby people with no idea whatsoever of economics take the capitalists’ money and distribute it like confetti until their country’s economy collapses, at which point they blame it all on capitalism (and Mrs Thatcher)
Tags: socialism, soclialist
J’accuse l’élite politique française …..
-
de trahir le peuple en amenant le pays au bord de la ruine
-
de ne pas avoir présenté de budget équilibré depuis près de quarante ans
-
de faire preuve d’une arrogance stupéfiante en prétendant que la France est trop importante pour respecter les lois économiques qui s’appliquent à tous les autres
-
de créer un état dont le coût qui s’approche de 60% du PIB n’est pas supportable
-
de créer un régime d’impôts qui est parmi les plus élevés et les plus complexes du monde
-
de tolérer un taux de chômage permanent et honteux dans un régime oû l’âge moyen d’accès au premier CDI se situe au-dessus de 30 ans.
-
de croire que l’Etat peut créer des emplois, alors qu’il ne peut que créer un environnement oû les emplois peuvent fleurir – ce qu’il ne fait pas, bien évidemment
-
de créer par contre un régime d’emploi rigide qui est néfaste pour l’emploi – alors qu’on nous fait croire qu’il est bénéfique
-
d’imposer des charges tellement lourdes sur l’emploi qu’un entrepreneur ferait tout pour ne pas embaucher
-
de promettre d’année en année – d’un changement de gouvernement après l’autre – de remettre les choses en ordre sans jamais faire le nécessaire (parce que c’est trop difficile – mais on vous élit pout cela!)
-
de permettre l’accumulation d’une énorme quantité “d’acquis” pour des groupes favorisés: en fait un syst me par lequel on espère acheter des votes avec l’argent des électeurs
-
de ne pas avoir le courage de prendre des mesures difficiles, par exemple de réduire la taille de l’Etat, de réduire les impôts, d’en finir avec les acquis pour des groupes favorisés, de simplifier la paperasserie.
-
de mentir aux électeurs pour se faire élire (Oui – nous sommes tous des “pauvres cons” ….)
-
de venir majoritairement des grandes écoles (qui représentent 34% du budget national d’éducation, mais seulement 6% du nombre total d’écoles), oû l’on ignore apparemment l’impossibilité de dépenser à perpétuité plus que ses revenus
-
de ne savoir qu’augmenter les impôts, dans les bonnes périodes tout comme dans les mauvaises
-
de s’attaquer constamment aux innocents, par exemple aux expatriés britanniques, allemands, hollandais et autres en augmentant leurs impôts, alors que ces étrangers ont investi d’énormes sommes dans la France et ne sont pas responsables des imbécillités économiques des gouvernements successifs
-
de favoriser les grandes entreprises prestigieuses au lieu des PME et des petits commerçants
-
de ne jamais culpabiliser, et de toujours accuser les autres : les Yanquis, les Anglo-Saxons en général, les banques, les agences de notation, les Grecs, le capitalisme, les Chinois, MacDonalds – et maintenant MEME LES ALLEMANDS!! QUELLE FOLIE!!
-
d’avoir permis de créer l’euro alors que tous les économistes renommés ont dit qu’il pouvait réussir seulement avec une union politique et fiscale – pour lesquelles AUCUN CITOYEN EUROPÉEN n’a voté
-
d’avoir – une fois dans l’euro – rapidement permis au budget national de dépasser la barre des 3% du PIB d’excédent budgétaire en disant: “Cette règle était conçue pour les petits pays, pas ceux comme la France.”
-
de permettre à l’élite de Bruxelles de se payer des sommes d’argent et des bénéfices pharaoniques avec très peu d’impôts
-
de ne jamais donner son soutien à la Grande-Bretagne, qui est pourtant très “pro-Europe” en principe mais refuse les imbécillités et les actions quasi-fascistes de Bruxelles (salaires et bénéfices insensés, refus de votes nationaux, imposition sur des pays souverains de dirigéants choisis par Bruxelles, la France et l’Allemagne etc.)
-
de vouloir en fait se débarrasser des britanniques, qui pourtant versent CHAQUE JOUR près de VINGT-CINQ MILLIONS D’EUROS NET à Bruxelles
Messieurs/Dames de l’élite – malgré vos diplômes de grande école, vos situations prestigieuses, vos belles paroles, vos gros salaires et vos bénéfices, VOUS AVEZ ÉCHOUÉ. Mais le pire, c’est que personne ne l’avoue; personne ne s’excuse. Tout le monde est responsable, sauf vous. Et vous ne faites que continuer avec les mêmes politiques, quel que soit le parti au pouvoir. C’est incroyable.
On méritait mieux … quand allez-vous assumer vos responsabilités?
Chris Snuggs – Ancien Directeur Des Études de l’ISUGA à Quimper
Tags: EU, France, French politicians, politique
“GOVERNMENT & EU FINANCE FOR DUMMIES”:
Law 1 of Government Finance: Whatever CAN be stolen by a government WILL at some stage be stolen.
Law 2: There is not a lot of point in ordinary and sensible people saving and wisely – but not greedily – investing their money as sooner or later some moronic government will steal it to bail out the morons who have spent and borrowed far beyond reason (usually the government itself of course). This theft can be achieved either by simply taking it or by engineering vast inflation to wipe it out and/or inventing some daft acronym such as QE or OFT.
Law 3: The plebs are so downtrodden and passive and with a memory span of about 10 minutes that governments can get away with Laws 1 & 2 without even having to deal with riots in Trafalgar Square.
Law 4: Go back to Law 1 and start again ……
Tags: laws, tax
-
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
-
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
-
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
-
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
-
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Tags: equality, tax
Many DID see it coming, especially those involved in it.
So your question, M’am, is indeed naive.
“Why didn’t anyone do anything to prevent it?” would be a better question, to which the answer is:
- Those creating the problem were doing too well out of it to give a toss.
- The THREE THOUSAND people working for the FSA are presumably idiots – one has to ask what their point was – or is. Or did one or two raise doubts and then get told to keep their gobs shut?
- Gordon Brown studied history at university and had not a clue about management, finance, economics or indeed much else.
- His fawning acolytes, including the fairly odious Balls, did nothing either during thirteen years of binge, boom and humungous bust. This total failure was a combination of not daring to stick their head over the parapet, being cowards (the same thing) and incompetence.
I have my own question: “What % of the truly guilty have been punished in any way?”
To which the answer is – at a guess (and probably vastly inflated) – 4%.
Tags: Brown, crisis, debt, FSA
I will not lurch – yet …..
I read this morning that some Muslim women medics are refusing to bare their arms in accordance with the new NHS guidelines about preventing the spread of MRSI & e-coli. It is apparently against their religion and culture to bare any part of themselves apart from their face. And it seems that they are “getting away with it”.
What is Cameron doing about THAT? Or must people’s risk of picking up lethal infections in hospital increase even more than they are already? Will people die on the altar of lunatic PC?
One bit of good news: Theresa May intends to take us out of the ECHR. Fine, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Tags: Cameron, election, UKIP
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is always an excellent read. However, I had to take issue with him today on the subject of “central bankers”:
Ambrose
Forgive me for disagreeing with your emphasis.
The debt crisis has been caused by GOVERNMENT OVERSPENDING of money they HAVE NOT GOT.
It is NOT the fault of Central Bankers; nor of ratings agencies, the Anglo-Saxons, the banks, or anything else.
I would prefer a headline:
”Government should be brought to heel by elected parliaments.”
However, the latter are craven, short-termist, greedy and unconscionable, so maybe we even need the headline:
“Government should be brought to heel by the people, through direct action if the former are incompetent to do it.”
To put it another way, GOVERNMENTS run the country, NOT Central Bankers, who should therefore ALWAYS do what they are told by the law-making institution.
Tags: central bank, government
