Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've come to the conclusion that politics is the constant battle between two polarised concepts.

    Capitalism v Socialism
    Greed v Fairness
    Selfishness v conscience
    survival of the fittest v provision for all
    evil v good

    It seems to me that it is the conflict that exists within every individual, the innate human desire to get to the top at all costs, up against the spiritual, moral conscience.

    The reality is that both sides have always existed and always will do. When there is huge imbalance, there is war.

    for example, money is always hoarded by the greedy few but the more that increases and becomes obvious, people fight back to re-gain their equality. Likewise in a socialist society designed to eliminate greed, greed always resurfaces and the system breaks down becomes it is undermined by people who think they are superior to others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How does your theory account for the fact that inequality is ever-growing under the present capitalist system whilst stability is, if anything, increasing?

    How does it deal with the ever-increasing growth we are experiencing concurrently with this inequality, surely undermining what is an equilibrium-predicated theory?

    As an aside, how does it deal with the fact that 'good' and 'evil' are inherently subjective concepts?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm struggling to come up with a non-ironic response to this post...
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by niall c)
      How does your theory account for the fact that inequality is ever-growing under the present capitalist system whilst stability is, if anything, increasing?

      How does it deal with the ever-increasing growth we are experiencing concurrently with this inequality, surely undermining what is an equilibrium-predicated theory?

      As an aside, how does it deal with the fact that 'good' and 'evil' are inherently subjective concepts?
      Depends how you define "inequality", which will always exist.

      You cannot really say it is growing when it is not quantifiable. :rolleyes:
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      I am struggling to come up with a response that doesn't involve me calling you a retard.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by niall c)
      How does your theory account for the fact that inequality is ever-growing under the present capitalist system whilst stability is, if anything, increasing?

      How does it deal with the ever-increasing growth we are experiencing concurrently with this inequality, surely undermining what is an equilibrium-predicated theory?

      As an aside, how does it deal with the fact that 'good' and 'evil' are inherently subjective concepts?
      what do you mean by growth?

      hmm if you can't grasp the concept of good and evil then maybe ignorance v enlightenment would be a better analogy.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by im so academic)
      Depends how you define "inequality", which will always exist.

      You cannot really say it is growing when it is not quantifiable. :rolleyes:
      I've not got them to hand, but would citing such statistics as those that say the top 10% is now however many times as rich as the bottom 20% not be enough? Further, whist flawed, can the Gini coefficient not give you an insight into inequality?

      That there are issues of accuracy and a slight muddying of the waters with inflation is no excuse for simply throwing your hands up and saying 'oh well, we just have no idea.'
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by garethDT)
      what do you mean by growth?

      hmm if you can't grasp the concept of good and evil then maybe ignorance v enlightenment would be a better analogy.
      http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kru...orldgdpa_2.gif

      Ignorance and enlightenment are, likewise, subjective. Christians, Muslims and Buddhists see themselves as 'enlightened' and on a higher plane of knowledge than us short-sighted rationalists. It also causes issues for your simplistic dichotomy theory: are you trying to argue that the stupid mob is often more 'enlightened' than the generally rather intelligent elite with all the money? If nothing else, the elite has time to read classics and sip sauvignon, becoming educated and enlightened (as Prince Charles shows, of course, only a minority actually carry through on this...) in contrast with the work-exhuated masses your theory posits.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by niall c)
        I've not got them to hand, but would citing such statistics as those that say the top 10% is now however many times as rich as the bottom 20% not be enough? Further, whist flawed, can the Gini coefficient not give you an insight into inequality?

        That there are issues of accuracy and a slight muddying of the waters with inflation is no excuse for simply throwing your hands up and saying 'oh well, we just have no idea.'
        We cannot improve the life standard for the majority of the people in this world, let alone eradicate inequality unless we have a clear idea of what inequality is, what our specific objectives are to do so and the implications of them.
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by garethDT)
        I've come to the conclusion that politics is the constant battle between two polarised concepts.

        Capitalism v Socialism
        Greed v Fairness
        Selfishness v conscience
        survival of the fittest v provision for all
        evil v good

        It seems to me that it is the conflict that exists within every individual, the innate human desire to get to the top at all costs, up against the spiritual, moral conscience.

        The reality is that both sides have always existed and always will do. When there is huge imbalance, there is war.

        for example, money is always hoarded by the greedy few but the more that increases and becomes obvious, people fight back to re-gain their equality. Likewise in a socialist society designed to eliminate greed, greed always resurfaces and the system breaks down becomes it is undermined by people who think they are superior to others.
        this is just a recycled version of Hegelian/Marxist dialectical theory. politics is far more dynamic than your over simplified adversarial interpretation of political ideas. there are many more ideas than your crude left vs right. there are other ideas in the mix aswell such as political realism, postmodernist thought, anarchist theory among others; which don't seem to fit on your rather narrow scale of X vs. Y. secondly, there isn't even a constant battle, if you observe the history of political ideas and philosophy, you would notice that some ideas come in and out of fashion and others are totally vanquished in political discourse and practice.

        your conclusion is faulty as well. capitalism is only about 200 years old, earlier forms of economic practice include mercantilism and feudalism. furthermore, it is a major philosophical moot point that good and evil actually exist at all; the philosophy of Emotivism expresses that good and evil aren't actually things that exist at all; they are simply an expression of approval and disapproval- i will not labour this point any further. but the biggest problem with your theory is that you haven't offered a viable axiom to which you can logically deduce your conclusion. therefore your theory is just a bare assertion.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by im so academic)
        We cannot improve the life standard for the majority of the people in this world, let alone eradicate inequality unless we have a clear idea of what inequality is, what our specific objectives are to do so and the implications of them.
        Yeah, as if average living standards have not been increasing across the planet for the past century as a side-effect, not deliberate policy-driven result, of capitalism. It's not as if the poverty rate has decreased four-fold or anything.

        Likewise, it's not as if you've just completely ignored my response and spouted a plausible but irrelevant piece of politicobabble. Engage with the question of how to measure inequality - including my suggestions as to how to do so - or go shine shoes and stop wasting everybody's time.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by niall c)
        http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kru...orldgdpa_2.gif

        Ignorance and enlightenment are, likewise, subjective. Christians, Muslims and Buddhists see themselves as 'enlightened' and on a higher plane of knowledge than us short-sighted rationalists. It also causes issues for your simplistic dichotomy theory: are you trying to argue that the stupid mob is often more 'enlightened' than the generally rather intelligent elite with all the money? If nothing else, the elite has time to read classics and sip sauvignon, becoming educated and enlightened (as Prince Charles shows, of course, only a minority actually carry through on this...) in contrast with the work-exhuated masses your theory posits.
        You seem to confuse education and religion with enlightenment. Neither the working classes nor the intelligent elite are enlightened per se. It depends on the individual, everybody has the capacity to be enlighten themselves, but most do not.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        simple outlook is simple
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by garethDT)
        You seem to confuse education and religion with enlightenment. Neither the working classes nor the intelligent elite are enlightened per se. It depends on the individual, everybody has the capacity to be enlighten themselves, but most do not.
        Hence nicely undermining your simplistic dichotomy. Thank you.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by niall c)
        Hence nicely undermining your simplistic dichotomy. Thank you.
        Explain to me how it undermines my original post
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by garethDT)
        Explain to me how it undermines my original post
        If these various ways of dividing society (greed vs fairness, survival of the fittest vs provision for all (an extremely stupid dichotomy, by the way), ignorance vs enlightenment) do not overlap - e.g. if the greedy versus the fair are not also the
        ignorant versus the enlightened - then how precisely is the balance to be redressed automatically as you claim? Won't the conflicting loyalties undermine this?

        TBH, this is the least important problem with your simplistic theory. How about answering some of my other queries?
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        I suggest you read Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by niall c)
        If these various ways of dividing society (greed vs fairness, survival of the fittest vs provision for all (an extremely stupid dichotomy, by the way), ignorance vs enlightenment) do not overlap - e.g. if the greedy versus the fair are not also the
        ignorant versus the enlightened - then how precisely is the balance to be redressed automatically as you claim? Won't the conflicting loyalties undermine this?

        TBH, this is the least important problem with your simplistic theory. How about answering some of my other queries?
        The conflicting loyalties do overlap though, that is my point. There has not been a single person or civilisation in which the two have not overlapped.

        If you think I mean that some people are good and others are bad then you are very much mistaken, it is quite the opposite, every person has within them the conflict of selfishness v conscience. In the context of society, if greed is allowed to dominate then eventually people's conscience will compel them to fight against the establishment. Likewise in a society in which fairness dominates, the human desire to get ahead will cause some to upset the balance.

        What were your other queries?
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        I despair.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by garethDT)
        I've come to the conclusion that politics is the constant battle between two polarised concepts.

        Capitalism v Socialism
        Greed v Fairness
        Selfishness v conscience
        survival of the fittest v provision for all
        evil v good

        It seems to me that it is the conflict that exists within every individual, the innate human desire to get to the top at all costs, up against the spiritual, moral conscience.

        The reality is that both sides have always existed and always will do. When there is huge imbalance, there is war.

        for example, money is always hoarded by the greedy few but the more that increases and becomes obvious, people fight back to re-gain their equality. Likewise in a socialist society designed to eliminate greed, greed always resurfaces and the system breaks down becomes it is undermined by people who think they are superior to others.

        Gee, wonder which side you support...:rolleyes:
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.