Hilarious!: ‘Too rich’ Brits lack desire, says Heseltine

'It is entirely possible to increase living standards without littering the globe with widgets'

Businesses create widgets and hire people to create those widgets. Businesses create employment and raise the standard of living of their employees and of society. As society becomes richer, the standard of living increases. 100 years ago most people had outside toilets, now with the increase in wealth brought about by capitalism, this is no longer the case.

Austerity and depression will set back the progress of the population and reduce the standard of living created by hard-working people and hard-working businesses.

Business require capital in order to thrive and they are being starved of capital by banks who are building up their own balance sheets with billions of pounds of public funds. In Cyprus, we have seen banks raid the accounts of the public and businesses and churches and of pensioners' life savings to build up their balance sheets. The people who have raided the people's capital are not capitalists, they don't run businesses, they are a ruling elite who have decided to dispropriate the people.

'I think it is entirely possible to cut production and reduce population without starving people into an early grave'

It is about reducing the standard of living of people, making them work longer, cutting their pensions, cutting their benefits, cutting their rights. It is happening because there is no growth, a reduction in production and consumption, a reduction in the production of widgets by companies. The solution is growth, not more austerity. The solution is a cutting of carbon taxes, an end to double digit rises in fuel bills, so that hard-working people have more money in their pockets. The solution is an end to the picking of people's pockets in order to reduce their standard of living.

'we do have a population problem'

That is what the elites and the greens say. They don't believe in production or the productive capacity and abilities of the population. They don't believe in growth and progress, they believe in cuts and austerity.

I think it is entirely possible to cut production and reduce population without starving people into an early grave claig. I am not Christian and have no interest in what some funny little book written by jumped up sexist men has to say about reproduction we do have a population problem, there said it, now what? It is entirely possible to increase living standards without littering the globe with widgets.

The greens and elites want to reduce production and consumption. They say that production is wasting resources. They intend to reduce the standard of living of the population, to set them back by limiting their productive capacity and pricing it out of existence by carbon taxes which raise the cost of energy thereby hindering production.

Capitalists want production, they want to create goods and create wealth for their companies and the employees that work for them.

A socialist regulated controlled production system confines and regulates the population. A free, open, capitalist production system frees the population to pursue their own interests and dreams rather than communally dictated ones, and creates innovation and progress for the population. That is why controlling elites and their puppets want to suppress the creative spirit of capitalist enterprise and production.

Human beings are naturally productive and want to produce. I think that even the Bible says something like "go forth and produce". But the elites and the greens want a reduction in world population, a lowering of production of people and goods. One is natural, the other is unnatural.

Marxist do not believe that structure of society starts and ends with production. There is a dialectic btw production and social structure. This means that production shapes society, society shapes production. Chicken and egg and all that Claig.

'The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure'

The Marxists wronly believe that social structure is caused by "production". It has nothing to do with production and everything to do with power and privilege passed down through history. It is social mobility and capitalism that allows people like Alan Sugar to become a Lord that reforms the social structure from one based on privilege to one based on merit.

The social elite and ruling classes hold back the population and true social mobility by using false proletarian prophets who spout fallacies, destroy freedom and force communal uniformity on people.

The UN recognised Pol Pot as a legitimate government for 15 years after teh genocide.

Pol Pot's regime believed in communal values and suppressed individual freedom.

"Property became collective, and education was dispensed at communal schools. Children were raised on a communal basis. Even meals were prepared and eaten communally."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

This is unnatural and imposed on the population by a ruling elite. That is why it has passed and natural order has once again been restored. Puppets and their masters will one day try to suppress the people again, but such tyranny and unnatural social structures will never prevail because humans yearn to be free. That is nature and it will always prevail and the utopian, dystopian messiahs are always doomed to fail.

Capitalism creates unemployment. How often have you seen me jumping up and down about benefits cuts? I don't believe in paying people to sit idle but capitalism creates both the exploitation of workers for profit and the exploitation of workers who pay taxes to keep other workers that capitalism chucks on the unwanted heap.

I am not saying that North Korea is a Marxist state what I am saying is that they have attempted to move towards socialism and they are undermined, in the same way as Russia, Bolivia, Argentina, Vietnam, China, Valenzuela and Cuba and many more.

This will make you think about how capitalism wins it's wars

This is also worth a watch as it explains both the reasons why and the methods used to undermine other states so that corporations can profit from privatising that countries resources such as oil.

'The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure'

How are families and marriage determined by "production of the means to support human life"?

'the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced'

But aristocrats produced nothing so why were they at the top of the tree?

'the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange'

But it is brains (or lack of) that generated Marxism and the argument that "modes of production and exchange" needed to be changed?

'Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living...'

That is correct and only natural. The past plays a large part in the present. Who you are today depends on your past and your history. History matters. But that is why Marxists are unrealistic since they want to banish history, tear up the past, remake history and create a "year zero", a nirvana, a utopia that only exists in their "brains" and not in "modes of production and esxchange".

Are you saying that North Korea is an example of a Marxist state and that you would prefer to live there than say the USA?
And also are you saying that we should have the choice not to work at all and therefore exploit the hard work of others ? I thought that you were against the explotation of workers.

And that choice is? who to sell your labour to, whether to work at all????? not really. There is no choice.

You can not have socialist states sitting beside capitalists states. Look at the news today, what is America up to? flying training flights over North Korea. That tells you all you need to know about how socialism is undermined by imperialist forces. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21972936 and don't get suckered in by the corporate bias in the reporting!

The problem is one of a corporate owned press feeding bullshit to those of us in the west so that we back American imperialism.

I notice that you have not answered my question in that you did not name a Marxist society that has remained true to the principles of Marx and is stable. You may want to ponder why such a society never has existed (and never will). All you can say is that people 'need' to change how they think.

Capitalism is precisly about mutual beneficial behaviour and creating synergies between the different parties. Most of the human race are not so hung up on class (or ownership of the means of production as you put it) as Marxists are, because in a free society (such as ours) we have a choice.

oh and this is an excellent read : www.marxist.com/historical-materialism-study-guide.htm

"?it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.?

"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange"

""Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living...."

But thought existed before capitalism and capitalism was created out of thought, not vice versa. Even in tribal societies, the chief and his family probably got the best cuts of meat and the rest had to make do. That is human nature.

'You will need my pasta for your pot in the same way I need a pot in which to cook my pasta or better still, we need our pot to cook our pasta'

But I don't want pasta and don't need your pot, because I want lasagne (and preferably without any horsemeat in it). I don't want to play the "community spiel", I want to keep it real, I don't want the "community" meal in "our pot", because I want to be free to decide what I want to eat in "my pot". I don't support Pol Pot.

You can buy your own pots and pasta, and I can buy mine and different privaye producers will provide different versions of them all.

I believe in a capitalist cornucopia of choices and listening to individuals' voices.

ElBurroSinNombre I will try to answer you but DP is on the rampage round the house with a saw, asked to do some DIY, he is now a very bitter man!!

It would seem that exchanging "commodities" is part of human nature when in actual fact the ability to and now under capitalism the requirement to exchange through the market shapes human nature just as much as the other way around.

Did men seek to find ways of producing surplus that would allow the formation of class society, creation of mediums of exchange (money) private property and wealth/social power ? Did anyone think that far ahead? History doesn't happen to us, we shape it in our quest to acquire our subsistence but in doing so it shapes us. The mode of production shapes history/society those changes shape our means of production etc,..

So are we competitive and selfish by nature? No. Going back to tribal society, the strong and the fit would have surrounded and protected the children/women/vulnerable as there was a division of labour, what they produced they would have shared. No point hunting wild boar and eating all of it if you end up with no women, how will you reproduce? who will scavenge for berries or make pots.

The same could be said even now, if tomorrow capitalism came crashing down (it won't) then we would find other means of meeting our own needs, that doesn't mean that in meeting my own I can't allow you to eat. Adam Smith said that the best economic system is one where people compete to do what is best for themselves and their folks, socialism is about the realisation that in meeting my needs I meet yours. If you make pots and I make pasta, we must realise that we need each other in order to eat. The capitalist mode of production and the exchange of commodities in the capitalist market obscures this relation.

The main difference: under socialism workers are in control of the means of production and no one takes a surplus from your labour to get rich. Property can be held in common and we can start to see the "social" nature of production. You will need my pasta for your pot in the same way I need a pot in which to cook my pasta or better still, we need our pot to cook our pasta. The defining characteristics of capitalism is worker exploitation and capital accumulation because "capitalists" own the means of production and therefore social power.

The human nature argument actually is fairly weak but hegemonic capitalist thinking and propaganda in education and media, in people's communities etc, is accepted without question. It doesn't require an argument but different way of thinking but the way in which people think is shaped by the totality "capitalism"

Mini,

I am intrerested in what you are saying as a Marxist. I will outline my argument very briefly;
Earlier on in the thread you concede that almost every society has had a means of exchange (be it shells, stones, money etc.).
Take a step back and ask yourself why this same economic system has arisen spontaneously and independently in so many different societies. To me, it is because it is in our very nature (i.e. it is a behaviour that has evolved with the human race). And for the same reason that is why Marxism is doomed to fail whenever / whereever it is attempted (because it is not in our nature). I doubt very much that you can give an example in the whole of history of the Marxist / Socialist model that has ever existed that is stable and remains true to Marxist principles.
This does not mean that we should accept unfettered capitalism without any constraints. It just means that we should accept that capitalism is the least worst option - given our nature - and make a form of capitalism that allows all of the population to have - at the very least their basic needs met.

"What would you have, starve the people into perpetual poverty just so they work harder"

That's a silly argument. However, what I do think when I hear people who have all the advantages of being born into a free and socially responsible Western society saying 'what's the point'... of working hard, or getting an education, or even something as simple as relocating.... is that they are squandering chances and opportunities that others would give their right arm for.

The royal mail is not comparable to water Claig

So you don't consider water, shelter, warmth or food to be essential to life. I think you'll find that these essentials must be met long before access to state of the art medical care, unless you want everyone DOA. Go back to your biology books, what is essential to maintain life food and water or operations?

What would you have, starve the people into perpetual poverty just so they work harder. Is that what the WTO, The fed and the IMF are doing in the third world, indebting them so that these people work harder?

What do you think when you see a war torn and ravaged part of the world with children begging? oh bless look at them, how hard they work?

"Germany, Denmark, Italy, France, etc. are some of the richest countries in the world"

Italy? France? Most developed Western nations with a social welfare system are...let's call it 'comfortable'... when compared with some of the emerging or third-world nations. Some might say that, freed up from worrying about basic needs by guaranteed health-care, a good standard of living, free education etc., the population can aim high. Others might observe that in spite of having basic needs met and many opportunities/privileges besides, there is a disturbing CBA or 'what's the point?' attitude.

'So you'll join my protest over the privatisation of water then'

Yes, but only if you join my protest over the possible privatisation of Royal Mail.

No, I don't think those things are matters of life and death or safety and security like the NHS, fire service and police service.I don't think farms should be nationalised, because I believe in freedom of the individual and believe in an aspiration nation where individuals produce more when they feel they are in control of their own affairs and work for themselves rather than for a collective.

Water can't be free anymore because we live in a sophisticated society and someone needs to purify the water, fix the drains and sewers and fix the broken water pipes and that all costs money. But I think it should be nationalised.

I think we have more say in how Apple operates than we do in Westminster

Fewer people vote because people are realising that our elected representatives do not act in our interests. Politicians are the puppets of business, so increasingly people lobby the business by withholding their custom. This is because of corporate and wealthy sponsorship of think tanks and because of direct/indirect lobbying, party donations and party membership.

Because healthcare is not a product, it is a matter of life and death and we pay our taxes to have that service provided

So you'll join my protest over the privatisation of water then

What other things should be considered a matter of life and death......food perhaps, clothing, shelter? I can think of many others too, child care, education (at least basic life skills) reproduction, warmth, travel to be able to access all of the aforementioned necessities.

Health care wasn't always free and paid for through tax but fire wood was free until you had enclosure acts, water was free, many of the main necessities of life could be had without exchange for money.