The State of Englishness

[Universe Prince]

Since when do you own exclusive rights to sarcasm. Talk about ridiculous.

Okay, I will. Ridiculous is you suggesting I claimed exclusive rights to sarcasm when, in point of fact, I did no such thing. Ridiculous is you complaining about how hard it is to address a notion without my definition when clearly you've easily done so before, even if it was in sarcasm. Ridiculous is you criticizing me for not giving you a definition when you refuse to answer any and all of my questions.

Or at least clearly provide and argue for an opposing position, you know, like in a debate.

If i am agnostic, pending clarification, i don't have an opposing position.

Yeah. I got that. Hence my "like in a debate" remark as a reply to your proclamation of claiming agnosticism as being "in the spirit of debate".

I don't fear criticism, as I have already explained.

Yet throughout this thread you accuse me of asking questions so i can criticize you, not just your response.

[...]

So if there is no fear, why the reluctance to clarify.

If there is no fear, why the reluctance to answer my questions?

As previously stated, I'm not reluctant to clarify. I am reluctant to continue if the only reason you're here is to criticize me. That I have no fear of criticism does not mean I desire to have a conversation where all you do is criticize me. Maybe you think you're too good to answer my questions, maybe you're as afraid of criticism as you keep claiming I must be, maybe there is some other reason. Whatever it is, this conversation with you is not a debate, and certainly is not an examination of my position. That I can recognize your attempts to criticize me does not mean I fear them, it just means I know what is going on. And once again you have shown that criticizing me is the reason you're in this conversation. I've explained my willingness to continue discussion of this topic, and I gave you a choice. Several times now, I have repeated the offer that if you give your definitions, then I'll give mine. Rather than give your definitions, you chose instead to repeatedly criticize me.

As Plane pointed out, we've passed the point of diminishing returns. You're unwilling to discuss beyond criticizing, and I am tired of waiting for you to provide any sort of response that is actually in the spirit of debate. So we're done.

[Plane]

Sometimes you just have to quit , because quitting is the best choice offered.

I thought this thread had better potential than what we saw it develop.

Oh well , U can't win them all , though UP does seem capable for winning many.

[_JS]

"Classless & equal societies won't exist under this economic system......"

Why not?

Because a basic product of capitalism is class and inequality. If you're honest, and not simply prone to contradict everything I post, you'll admit that the history of capitalism is a history of extremely unequal and class-based societies.

[BT]

Because a basic product of capitalism is class and inequality. If you're honest, and not simply prone to contradict everything I post, you'll admit that the history of capitalism is a history of extremely unequal and class-based societies.

Why is a broad spectrum of wealth in society a bad thing?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why is a broad spectrum of wealth in society a bad thing?

==============================================
It isn't. But when 1% of the population owns 50% of the producing land and assets of the nation, that IS definitely a bad thing.

Suppose you could be born a Peruvian or a Dane. What would you choose?
 

[Plane]

"Classless & equal societies won't exist under this economic system......"

Why not?

Because a basic product of capitalism is class and inequality. If you're honest, and not simply prone to contradict everything I post, you'll admit that the history of capitalism is a history of extremely unequal and class-based societies.

I do feel a duty to contradict everything , am I not doing this well enough?

The classes you speak of what is the bad thing or the bad effect of them?

They are not heriditary , people move up in class constantly .

I would be frustrated if I were trapped in a caste , but I don't feel that anyone is.

[Religious Dick]

Because a basic product of capitalism is class and inequality. If you're honest, and not simply prone to contradict everything I post, you'll admit that the history of capitalism is a history of extremely unequal and class-based societies.

So, show me a "classless society". Even in socialism, somebody gets the corner office, and somebody else doesn't...

[_JS]

"Classless & equal societies won't exist under this economic system......"

Why not?

Because a basic product of capitalism is class and inequality. If you're honest, and not simply prone to contradict everything I post, you'll admit that the history of capitalism is a history of extremely unequal and class-based societies.

I do feel a duty to contradict everything , am I not doing this well enough?

The classes you speak of what is the bad thing or the bad effect of them?

They are not heriditary , people move up in class constantly .

I would be frustrated if I were trapped in a caste , but I don't feel that anyone is.

You asked me a question and I answered it. Apparently you agree with my answer, judging from your questions now. So why did you ask the question if you knew the answer - that capitalism cannot produce a classless society?

[_JS]

Because a basic product of capitalism is class and inequality. If you're honest, and not simply prone to contradict everything I post, you'll admit that the history of capitalism is a history of extremely unequal and class-based societies.

So, show me a "classless society". Even in socialism, somebody gets the corner office, and somebody else doesn't...

If you think that a corner office is what constitutes class then you clearly have never read Marx.

[_JS]

Because a basic product of capitalism is class and inequality. If you're honest, and not simply prone to contradict everything I post, you'll admit that the history of capitalism is a history of extremely unequal and class-based societies.

Why is a broad spectrum of wealth in society a bad thing?

I was watching a television program where some scientists were arguing that the world is facing a devastating overpopulation problem over the next half-century. One of the folks on the panel even went as far as endorsing China's population control methods as well as India's 1970's policies - both extremely coercive and amounting to gross human rights violations. Behind their argument lay this notion: there aren't enough resources to sustain a growing human population.

What they did not mention, not once during the program, and this was on BBC Newsnight, was that there are enough resources for everyone to live a fine modest life. The issue is not that we do not have enough resources. The issue is that the minority in the world live very well-to-do lifestyles while the majority struggle.

Historically, this must be so until class consciousness is reached and capitalism has done an effective job of doing what it is capable of doing - both good and bad.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What they did not mention, not once during the program, and this was on BBC Newsnight, was that there are enough resources for everyone to live a fine modest life. The issue is not that we do not have enough resources. The issue is that the minority in the world live very well-to-do lifestyles while the majority struggle.

Historically, this must be so until class consciousness is reached and capitalism has done an effective job of doing what it is capable of doing - both good and bad.

=====================
Eventually, if the population continues to grow, people will run out of resources. We have not yet reached that point.

There are easily enough resources for each American to live in a nice doublewide and drive a motorcycle with a sidecar, even.

There are not enough for everyone to drive a Hummer and live in a mansion like Donald Trump's Palm Beach Mar a Tierra.

[sirs]

Why is a broad spectrum of wealth in society a bad thing?

I was watching a television program where some scientists were arguing that the world is facing a devastating overpopulation problem over the next half-century. .... What they did not mention, not once during the program, and this was on BBC Newsnight, was that there are enough resources for everyone to live a fine modest life.

And who gets to define modest?  Who gets to mandate the limit of success??  Who gets to tell someone "No, you can't become any more successful than you are??  The complete antithesis of what the American Dream is all about

[Universe Prince]

that capitalism cannot produce a classless society?

That depends greatly on what you mean by class.

[_JS]

Why is a broad spectrum of wealth in society a bad thing?

I was watching a television program where some scientists were arguing that the world is facing a devastating overpopulation problem over the next half-century. .... What they did not mention, not once during the program, and this was on BBC Newsnight, was that there are enough resources for everyone to live a fine modest life.

And who gets to define modest?  Who gets to mandate the limit of success??  Who gets to tell someone "No, you can't become any more successful than you are??  The complete antithesis of what the American Dream is all about

Clearly success for you is defined by how much wealth one accumulates. Who got to define that as the measure for success? Who got to determine that consumerism defines society?

Who determined that the American Dream meant that some should live like kings while others starve?

As I said, capitalism will do well for what it does best. But class and inequality are unavoidable. Eventually the majority will become class conscious and the lifestyles of the minority will be redefined, not just in America, but throughout the world. The elite will have little say in the matter and the bourgeoisie will have a choice I suppose.   

[_JS]

that capitalism cannot produce a classless society?

That depends greatly on what you mean by class.

Class is defined by one's relation to labor and the means of production. When I say "class" I do not mean the common capitalist bourgeoisie meaning of grouping by income (e.g. $20,000 to $45,000 per year). That is a relatively useless definition subject to countless variability.

At the broadest level is the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but there are a number of class distinctions within those broad categories.