|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:47:36 GMT
Hey Oliver Twist even came across it, no shit Einstein. As our resident philosopher poet, you have artistic license to write as many posts that nobody understands as you please. Keep up he good work, Sheeps! |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:48:51 GMT
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. Yes, they disappeared. Nobody denies that. Because they disappeared, it is ridiculous to say that only states and societies based on inequality can work. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 23, 2023 15:51:08 GMT
Hey Oliver Twist even came across it, no shit Einstein. As our resident philosopher poet, you have artistic license to write as many posts that nobody understands as you please. Keep up he good work, Sheeps! I am pleased you picked it up, as one or two of your posts reminded me of you asking for more. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:52:47 GMT
As our resident philosopher poet, you have artistic license to write as many posts that nobody understands as you please. Keep up he good work, Sheeps! I am pleased you picked it up, as one or two of your posts reminded me of you asking for more. It's always nice to have one's work peer reviewed. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 23, 2023 15:59:22 GMT
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. Yes, they disappeared. Nobody denies that. Because they disappeared, it is ridiculous to say that only states and societies based on inequality can work. Huh? WE have a multitude of egalitarian societies that effectively died out. There must be a reason for that and not working effectively with greater populations is probably closer to the truth. There is also the fact that most were based largely on family/tribal groups where there was some form of homogeneity within the group and there was a tie to the group of some form of kinship. If one creates a Multicultural/Multi-racial society then that homogeneity through kinship/tribe disappears as there are greater strands of inequality and differences working through normal human intercourse. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 16:02:55 GMT
Yes, they disappeared. Nobody denies that. Because they disappeared, it is ridiculous to say that only states and societies based on inequality can work. Huh? WE have a multitude of egalitarian societies that effectively died out. There must be a reason for that and not working effectively with greater populations is probably closer to the truth. There is also the fact that most were based largely on family/tribal groups where there was some form of homogeneity within the group and there was a tie to the group of some form of kinship. If one creates a Multicultural/Multi-racial society then that homogeneity through kinship/tribe disappears as there are greater strands of inequality and differences working through normal human intercourse. Huh! We have a multitude of non-egalitarian societies that effectively died out, too. There must be a reason for that. And I can't think of a society more closely based on family/tribal groups than the aristocracy. What's your point? As far as I can see, both egalitarian and non-egalitarian societies have succeeded. And both egalitarian and non-egalitarian societies have failed. None of this is a firm basis for the claim that only unequal societies can prosper. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Dec 23, 2023 16:11:17 GMT
Where - down the back of the sofa?. Tell me you are not that gullible...  By selling off some of the UK gold, financing was also needed for filling the big black economic hole left in the education system, thanks to Thatcher 'Grant Maintained' education funding that left the majority of state schools seriously underfunded. Two big black financial holes created by Thatcher and passed onto New Labour by John Major. I suspect Righties like yourself are the gullible ones for swallowing and promoting so much misleading Tory propaganda. Do you really believe the absolute b*llocks you post? Or are you really a bot trolling forums? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 23, 2023 16:14:12 GMT
Huh? WE have a multitude of egalitarian societies that effectively died out. There must be a reason for that and not working effectively with greater populations is probably closer to the truth. There is also the fact that most were based largely on family/tribal groups where there was some form of homogeneity within the group and there was a tie to the group of some form of kinship. If one creates a Multicultural/Multi-racial society then that homogeneity through kinship/tribe disappears as there are greater strands of inequality and differences working through normal human intercourse. Huh! We have a multitude of non-egalitarian societies that effectively died out, too. There must be a reason for that. And I can't think of a society more closely based on family/tribal groups than the aristocracy. What's your point? As far as I can see, both egalitarian and non-egalitarian societies have succeeded. And both egalitarian and non-egalitarian societies have failed. None of this is a firm basis for the claim that only unequal societies can prosper. The aristocracy based their rule upon family and demanded that all others accepted that within the society. However the egalitarian societies that were the earliest societies according to you, and were around far longer did not work, all other societies tend to keep to the same general plan of being is some form of hierarchical either through family, religious, wealth or elite.Unequal societies tend to thrive in general terms and as they change they tend to change within the context of being the same but with a different ruling class. Egalitarian societies disapppear altogether |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Dec 23, 2023 16:24:02 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. Far too many home grown wasters are entertained by our welfare state (migrants are another issue) , there is insufficient personal responsibility and seemingly a refusal to apply the concept that choices have consequences , previous posts about community shared wealth ignore the fact that historically a populace worked /was self sufficient or starved / survived on charity scraps. There was no legal entitlement to non workers being able to live at a level of a worker as there is now. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 17:11:42 GMT
This doesn't really contend the point. If these societies actually existed and were outcompeted or over-run by societies with elites and wealthy, then it, if anything, it just lends credence to my point. We don't know much at all about the kind of societies people lived in before about 3000bc though |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 23, 2023 17:23:35 GMT
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. Far too many home grown wasters are entertained by our welfare state (migrants are another issue) , there is insufficient personal responsibility and seemingly a refusal to apply the concept that choices have consequences , previous posts about community shared wealth ignore the fact that historically a populace worked /was self sufficient or starved / survived on charity scraps. There was no legal entitlement to non workers being able to live at a level of a worker as there is now. Depends what you mean by 'home grown'. If we look at the immigrant communities the level of economic inactivity and dependency on the state in the pre retirement age groups is significantly higher in most of these groups than it is amongst the white British. This makes a mockery of 'home grown' as it is the disparity in the multicultural communities that is destroying the homogeneity and resulting in a lack of care as regards taking advantage of society as far as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 17:56:22 GMT
This doesn't really contend the point. If these societies actually existed and were outcompeted or over-run by societies with elites and wealthy, then it, if anything, it just lends credence to my point. We don't know much at all about the kind of societies people lived in before about 3000bc though If an egalitarian society turning non-egalitarian proves your point, a non-egalitarian society turning egalitarian proves mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 17:58:14 GMT
Huh! We have a multitude of non-egalitarian societies that effectively died out, too. There must be a reason for that. And I can't think of a society more closely based on family/tribal groups than the aristocracy. What's your point? As far as I can see, both egalitarian and non-egalitarian societies have succeeded. And both egalitarian and non-egalitarian societies have failed. None of this is a firm basis for the claim that only unequal societies can prosper. The aristocracy based their rule upon family and demanded that all others accepted that within the society. However the egalitarian societies that were the earliest societies according to you, and were around far longer did not work, all other societies tend to keep to the same general plan of being is some form of hierarchical either through family, religious, wealth or elite.Unequal societies tend to thrive in general terms and as they change they tend to change within the context of being the same but with a different ruling class. Egalitarian societies disapppear altogether They did work. They worked for 95% of the time mankind has been on this earth. Societal structure changed when material conditions changed. There is no reason to believe societal structures won't change again if material conditions change again. Let's hope it's for the better this better time. Unequal societies do thrive. You won't get any argument there. But they tend to 'thrive' for a small number. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 23, 2023 18:07:10 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. what leads you to this conclusion? - when the LibDems were advocating a penny on Income Tax to pay for the NHS their share of the vote went down. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 18:18:34 GMT
This doesn't really contend the point. If these societies actually existed and were outcompeted or over-run by societies with elites and wealthy, then it, if anything, it just lends credence to my point. We don't know much at all about the kind of societies people lived in before about 3000bc though If an egalitarian society turning non-egalitarian proves your point, a non-egalitarian society turning egalitarian proves mine. I never used such to substantiate my point. My point is that we don't see it. Successful societies are not egalitarian - this suggests there are advantages to being non-egalitarian. |
|
