Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[Limehouse]

Bob is quite correct.

The poor hapless masses haven't a flamin' clue what to do and the true natural 5% of leaders never make mistakes....because they are the ones who know what is best.

That is until they [the Nat5] are shown later what they should have done by the rest of us poor slobs, when they [the Nat5] have made a complete balls up of it.

I have a very interesting statistic that I read the other day.

The late great Arbuthnot St. John Purple Helmet said "that if you take 100 introspective poets and asked each of them who was the best they would all vote for somebody else."

Of course it is not true, I just made it up. Just like Bob Hinton's ridiculous statistic about 5% of us being born leaders.

It's all about self confidence and not taking any crap from the myriad of short arsed, chip on the shoulder, angry Hitler types that pop up all too often.

Derrick

Hi Derrick - not long ago I saw a programme on BBC2 that was analysing what went wrong with British industry. It seems that for decades - 80% - yes 80% - of British companies were managed and run not by men who had studied business but by those who got their jobs vis the old-school-tie network. They had no business expertise at all and the success of the company depended on the minions below them.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=jason_c;177337]Not to sound like Hitler but Capitalisms main benefit is its Darwinian leanings. Survival of the fittest has been a proven theory in the natural world.

Survival of the fittest companies in the long term serves us well. Unlike Communism, Capitalism understands the human psyche perfectly.[/QUOTE

Fair enough comment Jason - but it really all depends on HOW those companies become the fittest. Some of the UK's most successful companies are so because they have a strong worker voice and profit sharing (Waitrose for example) whereas some global companies are successful because they use child labour and slave labour and some of them avoid paying taxes.

[jason_c]

Bob is quite correct.

The poor hapless masses haven't a flamin' clue what to do and the true natural 5% of leaders never make mistakes....because they are the ones who know what is best.

That is until they [the Nat5] are shown later what they should have done by the rest of us poor slobs, when they [the Nat5] have made a complete balls up of it.

I have a very interesting statistic that I read the other day.

The late great Arbuthnot St. John Purple Helmet said "that if you take 100 introspective poets and asked each of them who was the best they would all vote for somebody else."

Of course it is not true, I just made it up. Just like Bob Hinton's ridiculous statistic about 5% of us being born leaders.

It's all about self confidence and not taking any crap from the myriad of short arsed, chip on the shoulder, angry Hitler types that pop up all too often.

Derrick

Not to sound like Hitler but Capitalisms main benefit is its Darwinian leanings. Survival of the fittest has been a proven theory in the natural world.

Survival of the fittest companies in the long term serves us well. Unlike Communism, Capitalism understands the human psyche perfectly.

[Derrick]

The biggest fault with workers taking over is that whereas a leader can always roll his sleeves up and dig a ditch a worker can’t say where the ditch should be dug.

Bob is quite correct.

The poor hapless masses haven't a flamin' clue what to do and the true natural 5% of leaders never make mistakes....because they are the ones who know what is best.

That is until they [the Nat5] are shown later what they should have done by the rest of us poor slobs, when they [the Nat5] have made a complete balls up of it.

I have a very interesting statistic that I read the other day.

The late great Arbuthnot St. John Purple Helmet said "that if you take 100 introspective poets and asked each of them who was the best they would all vote for somebody else."

Of course it is not true, I just made it up. Just like Bob Hinton's ridiculous statistic about 5% of us being born leaders.

It's all about self confidence and not taking any crap from the myriad of short arsed, chip on the shoulder, angry Hitler types that pop up all too often.

Derrick

[Derrick]

And your point is, Derrick?

Hi Phil

EddieX was implying that Count Volta, a member of the aristocracy was to be thanked solely for inventing the battery on behalf of the rest of humanity. He didn't, he relied heavily on the work of others who had gone before.

My point was to show that our technological base has evolved slowly and is built upon by successive generations. Mother of invention and all that.

Prehistoric technology was simple, effective and could be understood, built and handled by everyone.

Nowadays the general populus' understanding of our technological base, which we in the West rely on so much, is virtually non existent and most of us have lost the basic skills our ancestors had 20,000 years ago to survive.

I am sorry if I didn't make myself more clearer and hope that this helps.

Regards
Derrick

[Bob Hinton]

...lazy middle class idiots...

the Chinese discovered during the Korean war that they had to divide prioners of war (POWs) into two groups. One, the followers, could be guarded with 1 guard to 100 POWs - this group constituted 99% of the whole - they were docile, biddable and showed no initiatve. The second group, the 1%, had to be guarded almost 1 to 1 because they had initiative, were risk takers and would use every opportunity to try to escape.

Phil

I think this came from a discussion with the famous explorer Stanley (he who found Livingstone). He was asked once what would happen if he fell ill on an expedition, would he be able to find someone in his party who could replace him as leader. Without hesitation he said one in twenty - that is 5%.

Strangely enough his estimate is correct, about 5% of people are leaders, the rest are followers.

That is why communism could never work as the first stage in revolution is to kill all the leaders, which kinda leaves you floundering around looking for more. The biggest fault with workers taking over is that whereas a leader can always roll his sleeves up and dig a ditch a worker can’t say where the ditch should be dug.

Most people who applaud communism are all for it – if they can be in charge!
Getting back to the Korean War analogy the people who fared best in the camps were the Turkish prisoners, solely due to the way their army was constructed. In most armies you have a formal system of command. You have officers, Non commissioned officers and then the rest. By taking away the officers and the NCO’s the rest are fairly easy to control because they are leaderless.

However the Turks had a slightly different system. Everyone in the Army had a place in the command structure. Of course you had officers and NCO’s as well but even the privates were ranked in order of seniority. That way if the leaders were taken away you had an automatic leader waiting to take over. The Chinese could never actually separate the leaders because they were all leaders.

Special Forces are somewhat similar in that formal rank doesn’t count much. A corporal for example may be put in charge of an operation with authority over senior NCO’s and officers.

[Phil H]

And your point is, Derrick?

[Derrick]

What about Count Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta, the inventor of the battery? You proles would have nothing to power your technology without his invention.

What about the Baghdad batteries then?

Nothing is really invented in isolation. Volta relied on the work of many other predecessors. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.

Most people have heard of Alan Turing but little public credit was given to the achievements of Tommy Flowers a bricklayers son until the 1970's. It was he who designed the worlds first electronic programmable computer for use at Bletchley Park during WWII which gave the allies a considerable advantage prior to the Normandy Landings.

Derrick

[Phil H]

...lazy middle class idiots...

Are surely the ones who organise, inspire, lead and accomplish, while the "idle working class animals sit in the gutter..."

I jest to make a point, calling groups by "class war" names is just ignorant. We live in a society where people fill the available "roles" as best the can.

But I would make this serious point, I think it's in one of Colin Wilson's books, that I read decades ago, but the anecdote has stuck in my mind.

the Chinese discovered during the Korean war that they had to divide prioners of war (POWs) into two groups. One, the followers, could be guarded with 1 guard to 100 POWs - this group constituted 99% of the whole - they were docile, biddable and showed no initiatve. The second group, the 1%, had to be guarded almost 1 to 1 because they had initiative, were risk takers and would use every opportunity to try to escape.

Anyone know where Wilson got this information?

It does however, lead me to conclude that society is much the same, there are the leaders and the led, and the leaders will ALWAYS come out on top.

Finally, cannot think of ANY revolution which has not ended as a military dictatorship.

Phil

[jason_c]

Hi Errata

Marx's principal economic work was a critique of capitalism, Capital (3 volumes), which is very hard going but explains the theory of historical materialism better than anyone else had done previously and since. Marx was writing about the capitalist world in the 19th century yet his writings have actually foreseen globalisation and the problems that we face today.

I do not agree with his political solutions per se but he was right about the vicious system that capitalism is.

Why would anyone want to toil endlessly on the land? 99.9% of us are Marxist protetarians.

With all of the advances in technology, which was designed and built by proles, then why shouldn't we proles just use it and do our couple of hours of toil a day and spend the rest just taking it easy and listening to some decent music and/or just getting laid? Cut out the middle man, that's my motto.

If some lazy middle class idiots protest then well they can either join us or starve and push their SUV's around the village.

Take it easy pet.
Derrick

This is the problem with Marx. He viewed the latter Victorian period as advanced capitalism. Marx predicted few further advances in technology. His Labour theory of value was a static model, he didnt include human ingenuity into his theory.

"People dismiss communism based on events in Russia and China and justify capitalism on that basis"

Limehouse

How many chances does communism need? Russia, China, East Germany, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam and others.

Blaming communist atrocities on Marx himself is of course silly, if not irrelevant. But every communist regime did site him as an inspiration. The outcome of such communist regimes does suggest either his theories sucked or they were impractical.

"He expected it to happen in an advanced industrialised society"

Natalie

1917 Russia was of course not advanced industrially. However by the late 1970's Russia was an advanced industrial society in Marxist terms. It ought to have flourished under Brezhnev. Instead it died a slow painless death. Again, it doesnt bode well for Marxist theory or principles.

[Limehouse]

Hi All,
Marx never envisaged a country like Russia becoming communist.He expected it to happen in an advanced industrialised society such as England or Germany with a strong working class familiar with the concept of workers councils or soviets in each town.He judged that to be essential to the success or otherwise of any revolution.The working class as Marx defined it barely existed in Russia which was almost feudal in 1917.The bureaucrats soon took charge ,and corrupted the emergent Worker's state.
There has never been a revolution in an advanced industrial/technological society ,followed by workers control during a ' transitional' situation, as envisaged by Marx ,not anywhere in the world.
Marx's dream was about the 'withering away of the state' and workers democracies not about totalitarianism .And his dream wasn't all about work-but each according to his ability each according to his needs.

Fantastic post Norma. People dismiss communism based on events in Russia and China and justify capitalism on that basis.

It's funny because Marx's advocation of the 'withering away of the state' and 'worker's democracies' based on local needs and preferences sounds just like what David Cameron is trying to sell us! (I was listening to an article about the Localism Bill on Radio Four recently). Now - is David Cameron a closet communist or does he think that if he sells his ideas wrapped in communist-speak they will sound more appealling?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,
Marx never envisaged a country like Russia becoming communist.He expected it to happen in an advanced industrialised society such as England or Germany with a strong working class familiar with the concept of workers councils or soviets in each town.He judged that to be essential to the success or otherwise of any revolution.The working class as Marx defined it barely existed in Russia which was almost feudal in 1917.The bureaucrats soon took charge ,and corrupted the emergent Worker's state.
There has never been a revolution in an advanced industrial/technological society ,followed by workers control during a ' transitional' situation, as envisaged by Marx ,not anywhere in the world.
Marx's dream was about the 'withering away of the state' and workers democracies not about totalitarianism .And his dream wasn't all about work-but each according to his ability each according to his needs.

[EddieX]

With all of the advances in technology, which was designed and built by proles,

What about Count Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta, the inventor of the battery? You proles would have nothing to power your technology without his invention.

[Errata]

Hi Errata

With all of the advances in technology, which was designed and built by proles, then why shouldn't we proles just use it and do our couple of hours of toil a day and spend the rest just taking it easy and listening to some decent music and/or just getting laid? Cut out the middle man, that's my motto.

Derrick

Hey, I hear you... but it's all fun and games until someone says "Some pigs are more equal than others"

[Derrick]

I gotta admit, the basic theory is very tempting. But I am enough of a student of human behaviour to know that it cannot work on a large scale, and on a small scale it's called communalism. Which does work actually, it's how the Israeli kibbutz works. But I don't want to farm. I really do not want to dig. I hate digging. So no Kibbutz for me, and therefore, capitalism seems the way to go. One of the great flaws of Marx's theory. No one really wants to be the proletariat.

Hi Errata

Marx's principal economic work was a critique of capitalism, Capital (3 volumes), which is very hard going but explains the theory of historical materialism better than anyone else had done previously and since. Marx was writing about the capitalist world in the 19th century yet his writings have actually foreseen globalisation and the problems that we face today.

I do not agree with his political solutions per se but he was right about the vicious system that capitalism is.

Why would anyone want to toil endlessly on the land? 99.9% of us are Marxist protetarians.

With all of the advances in technology, which was designed and built by proles, then why shouldn't we proles just use it and do our couple of hours of toil a day and spend the rest just taking it easy and listening to some decent music and/or just getting laid? Cut out the middle man, that's my motto.

If some lazy middle class idiots protest then well they can either join us or starve and push their SUV's around the village.

Take it easy pet.
Derrick