|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 14:54:42 GMT
Of course, they could. And naturally someone who favours the status quo is going to say that any change will be bad. No surprises there. I didn't even say they were bad. I'm offering a possible explanation for a reality that must pose a total conundrum for you. If societies work better without the concept of wealth / hierarchy, why don't we see at least some successful societies without either? It's a real brain teaser if you assume that the rich having their wealth is just a net negative that can be forgone without cost Here is another puzzler for you - Why don't they let people spend any borrowed money without having to pay it back? If paying the loan back is where the pain is, why not just drop the pain and just have the spending part on its own? Aren't you just asking why human history has been slavery and feudalism? I don't know. But it obviously doesn't have to be that way. And when you talk about successful societies, what do you mean? Successful for who? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:00:08 GMT
Of course, they could. And naturally someone who favours the status quo is going to say that any change will be bad. No surprises there. I didn't even say they were bad. I'm offering a possible explanation for a reality that must pose a total conundrum for you. If societies work better without the concept of wealth / hierarchy, why don't we see at least some successful societies without either? It's a real brain teaser if you assume that the rich having their wealth is just a net negative that can be forgone without cost Here is another puzzler for you - Why don't they let people spend any borrowed money without having to pay it back? If paying the loan back is where the pain is, why not just drop the pain and just have the spending part on its own? And it isn't the case that societies with unequal wealth distribution naturally fare better. If I remember correctly, Sparta worked well while there was an equal distribution of wealth, but began to fall apart when wider disparities between the rich and poor appeared. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 15:05:39 GMT
I didn't even say they were bad. I'm offering a possible explanation for a reality that must pose a total conundrum for you. If societies work better without the concept of wealth / hierarchy, why don't we see at least some successful societies without either? It's a real brain teaser if you assume that the rich having their wealth is just a net negative that can be forgone without cost Here is another puzzler for you - Why don't they let people spend any borrowed money without having to pay it back? If paying the loan back is where the pain is, why not just drop the pain and just have the spending part on its own? And it isn't the case that societies with unequal wealth distribution naturally fare better. If I remember correctly, Sparta worked well while there was an equal distribution of wealth, but began to fall apart when wider disparities between the rich and poor appeared. They had rich and poor and a hierarchy. The societies that exist all have the richness and poorness - which suggests that there may be consequences for not having this. Now you are backpedalling to 'more equal' |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:09:38 GMT
And it isn't the case that societies with unequal wealth distribution naturally fare better. If I remember correctly, Sparta worked well while there was an equal distribution of wealth, but began to fall apart when wider disparities between the rich and poor appeared. They had rich and poor and a hierarchy. The societies that exist all have the richness and poorness - which suggests that there may be consequences for not having this. Yes, they had a hierarchy, a ruling class. But there was a communal sharing of wealth. Things went downhill when discrepancies appeared. Anyway, we have had capitalism only for a couple of centuries. Slavery and feudalism have been around for literally thousands of years, and it is still only part of life among a small percentage of the world's population. So, shouldn't you be saying that slavery and feudalism are 'natural' and necessary to society? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 15:14:38 GMT
I didn't even say they were bad. I'm offering a possible explanation for a reality that must pose a total conundrum for you. If societies work better without the concept of wealth / hierarchy, why don't we see at least some successful societies without either? It's a real brain teaser if you assume that the rich having their wealth is just a net negative that can be forgone without cost Here is another puzzler for you - Why don't they let people spend any borrowed money without having to pay it back? If paying the loan back is where the pain is, why not just drop the pain and just have the spending part on its own? Aren't you just asking why human history has been slavery and feudalism? A better question is, why does the enterprise of civilisation come with inequality? There may be a good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:16:20 GMT
Aren't you just asking why human history has been slavery and feudalism? A better question is, why does the enterprise of civilisation come with inequality? There may be a good reason. A good reason for slavery and feudalism? Maybe. It's hard to imagine what it might be, though. Especially, as slavery and feudalism have been shown to be unnecessary to the existence of a successful society. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 15:18:33 GMT
They had rich and poor and a hierarchy. The societies that exist all have the richness and poorness - which suggests that there may be consequences for not having this. Yes, they had a hierarchy, a ruling class. But there was a communal sharing of wealth. Things went downhill when discrepancies appeared. I wouldn't normally bother catching all this, but this is the second time you have tried to imply too much from too little. Discrepancies (inequality?) also appear when things become corrupt or dishonest. Sparta was very far from a society based on equality. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 15:19:53 GMT
A better question is, why does the enterprise of civilisation come with inequality? There may be a good reason. A good reason for slavery and feudalism? A good reason for seeing inequality itself as a necessary (unavoidable) consequence of civilisation |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:20:58 GMT
Yes, they had a hierarchy, a ruling class. But there was a communal sharing of wealth. Things went downhill when discrepancies appeared. I wouldn't normally bother catching all this, but this is the second time you have tried to imply too much from too little. Discrepancies (inequality?) also appear when things become corrupt or dishonest. Sparta was very far from a society based on equality. Fine. If you say so. Try Google, then. The first thing I came across said that societies have existed without oppression or inequality for a longer period of the time man has existed on earth than otherwise. Maybe, you'll be kind enough to read it. I can't be bothered. solidarity.net.au/marxist-theory/the-original-egalitarian-societies-what-human-history-tells-us-about-human-nature/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20for%20the%20majority,within%20the%20last%2010%2C000%20years. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:22:18 GMT
A good reason for slavery and feudalism? A good reason for seeing inequality itself as a necessary (unavoidable) consequence of civilisation When slavery and feudalism were around, it was impossible to conceive that anything else might work. But it does, obviously. Just because you can't conceive of it, doesn't mean it's impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 23, 2023 15:23:25 GMT
I very strongly believe that in some instances, the British public ARE willing to pay a bit more for certain services, one of which would be the NHS. I too do not think of myself as particularly Left wing, the term "Leftie" is banded around far too much, and too casually in here, you should not tar me with the same brush as Left wing militants or Corbynites, because thats just not me at all. To me, one huge difference between Conservatism and Proogressives / Social Democrats, is that we strongly believe that Free Market Capitalism must not be allowed free reign, instead it has to be regulated in order to protect employers and employees, consumors, the sick, the aged and disabled, the vulnerable, the poor, the renter and the mortgage holder etc etc. But the British public are not willing to pay 'a bit more' to entertain wasters and allow an influx of perceived freeloaders. It is the daily comparison that usually upsets people, they see their children struggle to get by and paying the 'bit more' on a daily basis that goes on numerous projects like the help to tackle climate change, the money to Ukraine, and keeping illegal migrants comfy. This is at the same time as belts are tightened, winter clothes are donned indoors and heaters are allowed to sit idle. Capitalism has never been give free reign it has always been regulated in some size shape or form. The idea is to regulate effectively so that Capitalism works and society benefits however there are limits to what society will accept thrust upon them by way of either taxes or societal changes. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 23, 2023 15:31:58 GMT
However these societies managed to all come round to slavery and Feudalism and inequality, mostly of their own volition. Sparta also had slaves and citizens as well as kings and the military training was enforced. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:36:43 GMT
However these societies managed to all come round to slavery and Feudalism and inequality, mostly of their own volition. Sparta also had slaves and citizens as well as kings and the military training was enforced. Yes, but Sparta still started to fall apart when the wealth disparity between its citizens widened. I don't know what your point about coming out of slavery and feudalism of their own volition is. It's still the case that those two things have been around for a lot longer than capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 23, 2023 15:40:43 GMT
Hey Oliver Twist even came across it, no shit Einstein.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 23, 2023 15:47:01 GMT
However these societies managed to all come round to slavery and Feudalism and inequality, mostly of their own volition. Sparta also had slaves and citizens as well as kings and the military training was enforced. Yes, but Sparta still started to fall apart when the wealth disparity between its citizens widened. I don't know what your point about coming out of slavery and feudalism of their own volition is. It's still the case that those two things have been around for a lot longer than capitalism. The point is the egalitarian societies degraded to some form of Capitalism or inequality or slavery as a natural progression, being around for a long time does not really cut the mustard if they worked they would have stayed working throughout all time but they largely disappeared. The critical point of course is these societies were egalitarian within a tribal society, interaction with others tended to see non-egalitarian wars, battles and skirmishes break out for a multitude of no doubt different reasons. The past is indeed a foreign country and the lessons we learn should not be seen through those rose coloured glasses. |
|
