Democracy: crap/not crap

[William of Walworth]

The objections you lay out are shot with liberalism all the way through (as well as being patronising rubbish). Everybody reading the Guardian (a pillar of the truth) does not make a society more democratic.

To whom am I being patronising??

And what relevance has the Guardian to any of this? I didn't mention it (OK maybe I hinted at it with the first "(etc.)"), and I have a list of criticisms of the Guardian as long as your arm as it irrelevantly happens**. But there's already a massive thread about the Guardian's faults elsewhere on Urban.

**Just in case you've bought the old Urban myth/lie that some on here used to repeat incessantly a few years back, that I worship the paper unquestioningly just because I buy/read the bloody thing

This thread's about the faults of democracy. I don't see how you can discuss the faults of democracy without including some talk of how some peoples' ignorance/ill-informedness about politics is exploited by those with power.

I just don't get your 'patronising' point.

 

[Obediah Marsh]

Just make voting compulsory. If all the pro-EU college kids had voted instead of staying in bed Brexit wouldn't have passed.

Spoil your ballot if you want, but everyone must be at the polls on the day.

 

[gorski]

You would get a lot of that, OM, for sure - but maybe we wouldn't be heading for Brexit right now, if this practice (Brazil has it) were to be the law...

On the other hand, education levels are poor in the UK, too, so perhaps this is not the best argument for compulsory voting...

 

[DotCommunist]

What a utterly bizarre argument.This one's got to be a wind up surely.

straight up capitalist realism going on that brain. That fisher book is damn good at explaining the totality of capitalist reality- projecting back and to the future. Alternatives deemed unthinkable, always doomed to fail and fall back to...capitalism

 

[redsquirrel]

To whom am I being patronising??

And what relevance has the Guardian to any of this? I didn't mention it (OK maybe I hinted at it with the first "(etc.)"), and I have a list of criticisms of the Guardian as long as your arm as it irrelevantly happens**. But there's already a massive thread about the Guardian's faults elsewhere on Urban.

**Just in case you've bought the old Urban myth/lie that some on here used to repeat incessantly a few years back, that I worship the paper unquestioningly just because I buy/read the bloody thing

Because it's a continuation of the same stuff you've been coming out with for years. With those awful people (in this case Leave voters) who don't think like you being duped by the press - unlike you and your mates you manage to see through it all. If you don't see why this

This thread's about the faults of democracy. I don't see how you can discuss the faults of democracy without including some talk of how some peoples' ignorance/ill-informedness about politics is exploited by those with power.

isn't patronising then I can't help you.

 

[William of Walworth]

Even if that last para by me that you quoted is patronising (which I'd still dispute), I stand by my claim that what I said in it is a fact. Exploitation of ignorance happens.

Plenty resist propaganda and see through it. Resisters/challengers of establishment tripe are not in any way confined to 'me and my mates'.

You didn't really mention class yourself TBF, but I suspect you think I'm dismissing 'all' of 'the working class' (or all Leave voters) as ignorant. Very far from and I never said it, nor did I even want to imply it.

 

[William of Walworth]

I think you're even more deluded than me though, if you imagine that the Leave vote was fuelled principally (or at all, to any significant extent?) by anti-capitalist leftie activist impulses. I said 'if' you imagine that ...

 

[nardy]

So self-made billionaires, who are about as common as two-headed cows, are proof of capitalism working, but hundreds of millions of people living in poverty aren't proof of capitalism failing?

There are plenty of self-made billionaires in the UK. But when it comes to MILLIONAIRES, the figures explode ...

“1 in 65 U.K. adults now a millionaire”
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/27/number-of-millionaires-in-uk-rises-by-200000

“Britain has higher rate of self-made millionaires than the U.S.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-wealth-selfmade-rich-idUKTRE74P2YB20110526

“Millionaires: number of wealthy Britons rises despite recession”
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/recession/8819427/Millionaires-number-of-wealthy-Britons-rises-despite-recession.html

 

[nardy]

So how do you explain the existence of democracy without capitalism e.g. in antient Greece or capitalism without democracy as in e.g. China?

I’ve never said that democracy and capitalism always go hand in hand. I’m saying that I support capitalism in the UK for reasons given in post 169 (page 6).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There are plenty of self-made billionaires in the UK. But when it comes to MILLIONAIRES, the figures explode ...

“1 in 65 U.K. adults now a millionaire”
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/27/number-of-millionaires-in-uk-rises-by-200000

“Britain has higher rate of self-made millionaires than the U.S.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-wealth-selfmade-rich-idUKTRE74P2YB20110526

“Millionaires: number of wealthy Britons rises despite recession”
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/recession/8819427/Millionaires-number-of-wealthy-Britons-rises-despite-recession.html

Half a million home owners are 'property millionaires'

Vancouver is the same way. There's no detached house in the city worth less than one million dollars. So there are many thousands of property millionaires.

But becoming a millionaire via luck -ie the vagaries of the real estate market, is a different thing from working class people becoming millionaires via striving to succeed in the capitalist system - which I believe is the argument you're making.

 

[DotCommunist]

Half a million home owners are 'property millionaires'

Vancouver is the same way. There's no detached house in the city worth less than one million dollars. So there are many thousands of property millionaires.

But becoming a millionaire via luck -ie the vagaries of the real estate market, is a different thing from working class people becoming millionaires via striving to succeed in the capitalist system - which I believe is the argument you're making.

today you aren't really a millionaire unless its liquid.

 

[nardy]

But becoming a millionaire via luck -ie the vagaries of the real estate market, is a different thing from working class people becoming millionaires via striving to succeed in the capitalist system - which I believe is the argument you're making.

Yes, that's the argument I'm making.

 

[nardy]

today you aren't really a millionaire unless its liquid.

I agree.

 

[mojo pixy]

So most ''millionaires'' in 2017, aren't. Their status depends on property and stock values.

And then there's that awkward ''other'' sixty-four people of the sixty-five. They're still there, and most of them are still struggling. They'll struggle till they die. Because of capitalism.

 

[nardy]

So most ''millionaires'' in 2017, aren't. Their status depends on property and stock values.

And then there's that awkward ''other'' sixty-four people of the sixty-five. They're still there, and most of them are still struggling. They'll struggle till they die. Because of capitalism.

Not because of capitalism. Capitalism provides opportunity. They'd struggle in any system, except one that gives them everything.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Capitalism provides opportunity.

Capitalism provides the illusion of opportunity.

 

[nardy]

Capitalism provides the illusion of opportunity.

No it doesn't, as anybody who has had a good life in capitalism - and that includes me - will tell you.

Generally, people who blame capitalism for their personal failure need to look in the mirror to see where the fault really lies.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No it doesn't, as anybody who has had a good life in capitalism - and that includes me - will tell you

But what you've been talking about, is the 'opportunity' created by capitalism. The opportunity to rise above one's economic station; to become a milionaire.

That's something different from arguing that capitalism is capable of providing a reasonable economic life for some percentage of citizens.

 

[nardy]

But what you've been talking about, is the 'opportunity' created by capitalism. The opportunity to rise above one's economic station; to become a milionaire.

That's something different from arguing that capitalism is capable of providing a reasonable economic life for some percentage of citizens.

There will be winners and losers in any system, except in a system which gives to every loser.

 

[mojo pixy]

Capitalism provides opportunity.

One's opportunity is another's failure. But there's really no need to base our entire socioeconomic system on that.

They'd struggle in any system, except one that gives them everything.

Would you disapprove of such a system? Your tone suggests you would, so I wonder why?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There will be winners and losers in any system, except in a system which gives to every loser.

Capitalism is like a Ponzi scheme: it tells everyone that they can become rich; and then trumpets the few instances where that actually happens, to keep the rest credulous.

 

[nardy]

One's opportunity is another's failure.

No it isn't. If I develop a product/service that people want, it's no-one else's failure.

Would you disapprove of such a system? Your tone suggests you would, so I wonder why?

Would I disapprove of what system?

 

[nardy]

Capitalism is like a Ponzi scheme: it tells everyone that they can become rich; and then trumpets the few instances where that actually happens, to keep the rest credulous.

A Ponzi Scheme says you can become rich without effort. Capitalism says the opposite.

 

[DotCommunist]

as anybody who has had a good life in capitalism - and that includes me

how incredibly suprising that someone who has done well out of an inequitable set up thinks so. I say suprising sarcastically by the way. Genuinley suprising is when the people doing a-ok out of the system dare to challenge its iniquity. Does happen, and fair play to those people

 

[DotCommunist]

A Ponzi Scheme says you can become rich without effort. Capitalism says the opposite.

it says that at base productive labour forms what is then expropriated by others yes. Even that racist Ford got this

 

[mojo pixy]

There will be winners and losers in any system, except in a system which gives to every loser.

Would you disapprove of such a system? Your tone suggests you would, so I wonder why?

Would I disapprove of what system?

a system which gives to every loser.

Would you disapprove of such a system?

why?

 

[nardy]

how incredibly suprising that someone who has done well out of an inequitable set up thinks so.

And how incredibly suprising that someone who has NOT done well, thinks that the system is inequitable.

 

[nardy]

it says that at base productive labour forms what is then expropriated by others yes. Even that racist Ford got this

Marxist claptrap. Profit is the reward for risk and enterprise.

 

[DotCommunist]

And how incredibly suprising that someone who has NOT done well, thinks that the system is inequitable.

oh I do ok chief.

you seem quite keen to stress your own superiority and the system that got you there tho? I bet you have a massive house.

 

[mojo pixy]

Profit is the reward for risk and enterprise.

Why?