That seems to be the trend in Europe?
Greece, Spain, Italy, UK, France... isn't it all the same story?
Thatcher and Socialist Sentiment
- Thread starter maybenot
- Start date
Greece, Spain, Italy, UK, France... isn't it all the same story?
And yet very few are recipients of state help at all. IMO it goes back to memory of stone age tribes when survival meant the tribe watching each other's backs. Most people just like the idea that if they were in trouble the tribe would help. The kinds of people who think there is no such thing as society and there will never be any need for the tribe's help are the anomalies.
In America, 50% of people are net recipients.
I don't think you need to receive loot to be an ideological socialist.
People don't watch each others backs and they never did. People act in their own self interest, and it was in one's interest to help the tribe survive.
The difference here is, I want people to help or not voluntarily. To me, society must be civil. Civilized relations are not based on violence or coercion.
This is pretty interesting. I didn't agree on the local democracy part, but I do on the Iraq and slush fund parts. It does depend how you define socialists, I guess for me it's what I put in my posts above, and not much else I can think of now. So those who opposed or on the other hand were for the war could have been anything. I'm not looking at Blair, slush funds etc as socialist or not, that was just me getting worked up about it.
If I had to try and define it in one line I would say it's a "you owe me something for nothing" mentality.
I can understand why you'd say this. Most of the people I socialise with don't think like the people on this board, especially in this thread. They belittle, insult and try to bring down those who are successful.
So I guess I came here because I want to meet others who aren't like that. That's where it began.
Then I add in that I know how brutal this place is, so therefore I know I can't just come in and expect anyone to give a shit. Sad as it may be, it could be seen as working your way up - or alternatively, gaining others' trust.
Ultimately my goal is to make some decent friends, possibly meet up with them when we all emigrate to Chile, and at the same time engage in conversation and learn from others' views. I don't flat out reject anything, though I admit my opening posts on this thread were full on. I was wound up by a comment I saw and got carried away.
To answer your question, I don't know where I stand on free health care. Sometimes I think that some minimum level is best for society (like an emergency department), but then I can't reconcile that with how it would have to be paid for by force. I'd like to hear some opinions on it.
OP is spot on. It doesn't piss me off as such but I don't want to listen to their shit. Constantly thinking that society owes them something. You should see the fucking state of some people here. Unsurprisingly it's usually the thick-as-shit pricks who's only ability is to suck opinion via osmosis from tabloids. Most of them are racist fucks too, such is their ignorance.
Some absolute mess of fat fuck who can't be bothered to work hard sponging off the state, whining that they're somehow 'owed' something like they haven't be given enough already - (I'm actually grateful of my grandfather - he fought in the WW2, and I appreciate the sacrifice his and my parents generation made, I consider that is more than enough to give my generation). They will then complain about blacks, asians, Polish, whoever taking up a shitty low paid job here 'stealing our jobs' FFS.
Ok - it does grate my gears, I'll admit it. I actually just have to walk away from people like that and put them on ignore, and continue with making my own way in the world by working, studying & improving myself in some way every day. What annoys a bit too is the ratio of thick sponging chavs to intelligent successful people here. It's a little disheartening to say the least.
It's not a shit-hole of a country by any stretch, and as a Londoner it's not as bad as other parts, but there is still a 'owed something' attitude here. People even fucking moan about free services like NHS. Can you believe it? Moaning about free healthcare! I've even heard my own family whine about them! If you want a good service pay for it. If you want a free service expect it to be non-premium LIKE EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD. (Mind you they have been a liability in some cases but that's another thing altogether.)
But back to the point of Thatcher love-in, I was quite shocked yesterday how the BBC painted it all. Later in the day a reporter suggested that half of London had come to a stand-still to mark their respect. Really nothing like the truth - not even slightly, so I wouldn't say she's been getting a bashing by the media, but I would imagine anywhere north of Birmingham were celebrating yesterday.
Some absolute mess of fat fuck who can't be bothered to work hard sponging off the state, whining that they're somehow 'owed' something like they haven't be given enough already - (I'm actually grateful of my grandfather - he fought in the WW2, and I appreciate the sacrifice his and my parents generation made, I consider that is more than enough to give my generation). They will then complain about blacks, asians, Polish, whoever taking up a shitty low paid job here 'stealing our jobs' FFS.
Ok - it does grate my gears, I'll admit it. I actually just have to walk away from people like that and put them on ignore, and continue with making my own way in the world by working, studying & improving myself in some way every day. What annoys a bit too is the ratio of thick sponging chavs to intelligent successful people here. It's a little disheartening to say the least.
It's not a shit-hole of a country by any stretch, and as a Londoner it's not as bad as other parts, but there is still a 'owed something' attitude here. People even fucking moan about free services like NHS. Can you believe it? Moaning about free healthcare! I've even heard my own family whine about them! If you want a good service pay for it. If you want a free service expect it to be non-premium LIKE EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD. (Mind you they have been a liability in some cases but that's another thing altogether.)
But back to the point of Thatcher love-in, I was quite shocked yesterday how the BBC painted it all. Later in the day a reporter suggested that half of London had come to a stand-still to mark their respect. Really nothing like the truth - not even slightly, so I wouldn't say she's been getting a bashing by the media, but I would imagine anywhere north of Birmingham were celebrating yesterday.
Maybe you just socialize with really shitty people?
I dunno... Most of my friends and family are just middle class 9to5ers, and I honestly wouldn't say they have a hostile attitudes towards success and money.
Quite the opposite, a few of the more financially successful people in my social circle are well regarded, respected, and looked up to...
I guess we all have different experiences of the world.
Assuming we're talking about volunteers, because they perceive it is in their self-interest.
what about a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save the lives of others?
you could argue that that too is in his self interest, seeing as its in his self interest to preserve his men, tribe, family, homeland, etc... an that is ultimately "in his self interest"
but i never bought into this argument... expand the concept of tribe from a nation state to a species, maybe even to life itself. and we are moving this way, our conception of what is our tribe is expanding...
does this mean that doing something selfless will still alway be "in our self interest" in some sense? that a sincere gesture of selflessness is ultimately impossible?
approaching it from that point of view seems pointless to me. i sacrifice myself for the good of the human species, but because my self interest is for human beings to flourish and survive its actually a selfish act? alrighty then... on some level that makes sense, and on another thats totally ridiculous.
i've seen the good in people, i've had strangers look out for me and i've done the same for others because it's what humans generaly do. i can't imagine we would have survived these 100,000 to 200,000 years if that wasn't a real part of who we are.
along with all the other fucked up shit of course
you could argue that that too is in his self interest, seeing as its in his self interest to preserve his men, tribe, family, homeland, etc... an that is ultimately "in his self interest"
but i never bought into this argument... expand the concept of tribe from a nation state to a species, maybe even to life itself. and we are moving this way, our conception of what is our tribe is expanding...
does this mean that doing something selfless will still alway be "in our self interest" in some sense? that a sincere gesture of selflessness is ultimately impossible?
approaching it from that point of view seems pointless to me. i sacrifice myself for the good of the human species, but because my self interest is for human beings to flourish and survive its actually a selfish act? alrighty then... on some level that makes sense, and on another thats totally ridiculous.
i've seen the good in people, i've had strangers look out for me and i've done the same for others because it's what humans generaly do. i can't imagine we would have survived these 100,000 to 200,000 years if that wasn't a real part of who we are.
along with all the other fucked up shit of course
Perhaps you need to spend more time thinking about why people chose to act or not act.
I believe it is impossible. It's a fantasy delusion people hold up as an ideal.
If I save your life, does it matter if I did it because it was in my interest or totally not in my interest? Humans have an obsession with motivation instead of consequences. I think it is because we want to forgive failure with good intent, and punish success brought on by mal-intent.
As I frequently have to remind people making socialist arguments, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I already addressed this. It's probably an evolutionary trait to look out for one another because in the past, pre-markets, pre-individualism, pre-technology, there was safety, survival and security in numbers. It probably is bred into us.
So basically, are you arguing that most altruism is false-altruism?
I believe much of it is, but don't think for a second that man is an island. We're all connected to each other on a much deeper level then I think most ppl are willing to admit.
I wouldn't just chalk up our need for security in numbers or our drive to help out our fellow man as simply some arbitrary evolutionary remnant.
I believe extreme individualism is our downfall.
And no, I'm not a socialist, although I do vibe with a few of their ideals.
Ok
And I believe that it is possible.
On some level yes and on some level no. In terms of pure consequence, if I'm the one who you saved, then definitely no I don't really care why you did it. The consequence of your action was that I was saved, regardless of your motivation. But in the overall context of the spiritual & psychological evolution of man, if that is of any importance, then yes, the capacity to be motivated by selflessness in a situation is important, and it opens the door to decisions, actions, and consequences that may not otherwise be available.
Will selfless acts, or an obsessive need to be selfless, or a belief that one is acting selflessly, potentially end up causing more harm than good? Yes, definitely. This is why selflessness is not in itself the answer, it must be combined with Wisdom.
I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I think it's a testament to your humility that you question the motivation behind "selfless" actions, especially since you seem to be one of the more selfless & generous members I have seen on this forum.
We should always be on guard against our capacity to deceive ourselves, because as you say the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. And self righteousness is not a foe easily defeated, it can be buried very deep, far beyond our conscious awareness, and it can often lead to very very bad things. Totally with you on this stuff man.
But does that mean that man does not have the potential or the capacity for true selfless love and action?
Your original statement that I took issue with was that "People don't watch each others backs and they never did"
Now you're saying that it's just an evolutionary trait that has been bred into us. Does that somehow makes it less real?
As I said, I actually agree with most of what you're saying, and I think to not take into consideration your point of view is a very very dangerous thing, but I also think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Sorry one last thought...
Whether or not this leads to "good" or "bad" outcomes is not what I'm arguing. I agree with you that we pay far too much attention to motivation instead of consequences. Taking the time to think before acting is most often needed by the people who are too obsessively invested in trying to do good, in trying to be selfless, trying to fix the world...
But it is there... I believe... the real capacity to be selfless, and to want what is best for others, no matter how poorly carried out, with all of its disastrous consequences.
Mankind is a fucking infant. We are like a baby trying to make sense of all the shapes and colors of the world, everything is all distorted and fucked up, especially when it comes to perceiving our own nature, psychology, motivations, impulses, desires, etc..
Just because some of our higher capacities like selflessness are a little (a lot) out of wack, or out of sync with wisdom and consequence, doesn't mean they should be written off or discounted though imo.
blah blah blah now I'm just rambling...
Cheers Guerilla,
R.
I think Ayn Rand deconstructed how nonsensical the idea of altruism is quite well.
In hyper-abbreviated form, there is no such thing as selflessness, because without self, none of us could act.
You're either an individual or you're not. It's binary.
I run into this sort of pseudo-dissonance all the time (it is incredibly old...). People think that if they take a middle ground position, that's superior than coming out with conviction and determination for something.
Is rape wrong? or are we just against extreme rape?
Is killing wrong? or are we just against extreme killing?
Is abusing people mentally wrong? or are we just against extreme abuse?
Is stealing wrong? or are we just against extreme theft?
Some questions require a yes or no answer. I'd rather someone be for killing, than this wishy-washy, "well sometimes, maybe, depends on the situation" crap.
/rant
I addressed this in my last post.
I was picking an argument. Yes, they did practically, but we can't know the motivation for why they did it specifically. However, we do know that man acts towards satisfying himself psychologically, and so if he does something that benefits others, that explicitly benefits others, then he must then necessarily believe that the benefit of others is of benefit to him, if nothing more than a sense of having done, "the right thing".
I hope you didn't think I was being insulting before saying you should think about it more. I meant it with the best intent. Maybe it's worth mulling over in your free time for the next week. Try to nail down some ideas that are firm, and can withstand challenge from a couple different directions.
I dunno, maybe you'll spot something I missed. It's entirely possible.
Ayn Rand trashed the idea of EXTREME altruism. Altruism is simply unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. Ayn's criticism of altruism is based off of the assumption that you can't be altruistic unless you're ALWAYS altruistic 100%. The definition of altruism doesn't imply a time-frame or the mutual exclusion of self-preservation. So she was essentially attacking a straw man (or at least the idea in its EXTREME form).
But with all things in life, you need to find a balance - A balance between self-preservation and honest concern for the welfare of others.
Lastly, comparing individualism with rape, murder, etc... is ridiculous. You're a logical guy - c'mon now.
Individualism is an ideology/social outlook, whereas murder and rape are ACTIONS (that, ironically, are often symptoms of extreme individualism).
Because individualism is a social outlook/philosophy, there can be varying degrees of it. Ever hear of situational individualism?
A radical individualist is someone who acts in his own self-interest the majority of the time without any form of compromise (while completely neglecting the needs of others). Is that wrong? You tell me.
An extreme altruist is someone who acts in the interest of others unceasingly, often times to their own demise/self-negligence. Is that wrong? You tell me.
But you're right: Some questions do require a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
A philosophy with its own complex spectrum of is not one of them.
I'm not sure people do hate those who succeed financially. If someone truly worked their ass off, took risks and ended up wealthy then many people would be happy to see them succeed. I think the anger is directed at the individuals who are educated in Westminister, go to Oxford and end up getting lots of money from "Daddy" at the end. I.e. those who have not worked for their money.
Also as WF's Socialist Representative I can say that when Thatcher came to power something certainly had to be done, the Unions had the country held hostage. She did however come across as extremely power hungry and "police state" centred. I am 100% that if the majority of you Americans had been around at the time, you would have loved a couple of her economic decisions but hated her hunger to control.
Obviously no one should ever celebrate anyone's death however some deaths I am not too bothered about. Tony Blair was just as crooked and power mad.
Stay strong left wing comrades!
Also as WF's Socialist Representative I can say that when Thatcher came to power something certainly had to be done, the Unions had the country held hostage. She did however come across as extremely power hungry and "police state" centred. I am 100% that if the majority of you Americans had been around at the time, you would have loved a couple of her economic decisions but hated her hunger to control.
Obviously no one should ever celebrate anyone's death however some deaths I am not too bothered about. Tony Blair was just as crooked and power mad.
Stay strong left wing comrades!