What is Liberalism to you?

Hmm, I think that all of this comes down to the pendulum of history theory. Essentially it works on the basis that there are always 3 classes, broadly upper, middle and working. The upper class make the rules, hold most of the money and focus on trying to remain there. The middle actually hold much of the means of production and distribution of goods but not much real political power, but they want it. The working class in this sense includes the peasantry, basically the people who work day in day out, suffer, toil and all the rest of it just to live. The thing is they are also the biggest group and the group capable of achieving the greatest change once they are roused. So how does this work? Well the middle class want power, they feel they could handle it much better than the upper class and since they own the means of production they feel they should be running the show. Occaisionally they will get together and try to do something, however they can not achieve much on their own and so they rouse the working class to help them. Thus middle class revolutionaries persuade the working class to support their revolution and we have change of one form or another. The upper class is deposed and the middle class take over. So what is the state now, you have the new upper class who hold the political power and the working class, the upper class have been killed or reduced in status somewhat. The thing is that some of the new upper class will become leaders and take political power faster than others. At the same time some of the working class think that they deserve a share of power (since they can not see any sign of the benefits promised by the revolutionaries) and slowly begin to try to advance themselves. This vanguard of the working class combines with the lower end of the upper class and a new middle class is formed. The process then repeats. Very little actually changes, the upper and middle class faff around and the workers suffer, thats about it though. It happens all the time, look at revolutions in the past, they have all followed this basic pattern to a degree. The big change now is that all this happens more quietly, thanks to democracy the change over happens through parliaments and so on thus there is rather less bloodshed and it is less noticable. Actually I can see it happening at the moment, I am part of the generation who are moving up from the working class into the middle class after the 1960's, 1970's and 80's when power changed hands again, the end of early 20th century liberalism in Britain and its replacement with something nameless but (so i am told) better.

I hope that hasnt confused you half so much as it confused me and if anyone can tell me what book that is 'inspired' by they get a cookie (because i cant for the life of me remember).

 

Carl: If you've got something to contribute to this discussion, then, put it on the table; otherwise, stick to what you know.

When have I talked about the development of European history in other threads? What are you talking about?

Am I on trial here? It goes much deeper?
Yeah... real deep, Carl.

Carl: It's THEIR land. If anyone's doing any "sneaking," it's certainly Israel.
You always make a point of saying how much you dislike political discussions; well, why don't you just avoid them? Clearly, you don't follow these events very closely. I mean, this would be like me barging into one of your threads on German paratroopers with a post like:

 

Stefan: This is known as Historical Relativism and you won't find a shortage of supporters for it: generally more popular in America than Europe.
It ignores the specific characteristics within the social dynamics of each era. For example, the biggest misconception here is the assumption of a working class in pre-capitalist or proto-capitalist economic formations. This was a major problem holding back the emerging Bourgeoisie: no one wanted to leave their little village and go off to work in a factory for 16 hours a day. There was no commodity production in the Middle Ages, and people did a lot of goofing off. The problem was that the feudal aristocracy had given subsistance rights to the peasantry. Capitalism is a unique form of economic organization. The Relativists believe is a sort of non-historical "Capitalism" where economies are run on self-interest and "profit" (in its loosest definition.) Arguing, though, that the Ancient Greeks were Capitalists is very difficult, and doing so robs that era of its unique qualities.
Ooops... have to get back to work...

 

KT, I was checking up and I think the version i described is a theory of historical determinism outlined in 1984 (the Orwell novel, not the year obviously). I think that the assumption of a 'working class' is only wrong in that really it is the wrong name. However the statement that throughout history there has always been a 'class' who worked to produce comodities that the classes above them would sell or profit from in one way or another. In feudal Britain this would have been the peasantry who farmed and had a heafty proportion of what they produced taken away as taxes, the same applies to the artisans and so on. In ancient Greece the same applies, a ruling class (shall we say the 'Guardians' and be very Platonic) who ruled over the merchants, artisans and peasants. All the same you have a group who work and produce goods and those above ultimatly profit from this. I find it very difficult to find a situation which this does not fit at all, obviously there will be variations but throughout history society has always been split into three sections two of which vied for power and lived off the backs of the third.

Just out of interest here is another concept to throw into the discussion: Is socialism simply an expression of middle class guilt? Basically when you think about it most of the 'leaders' of socialist movements have been from the middle classes, I would suggest that actually socialism is simply the result of members of the working class looking around them and thinking 'hang on, I live a comfortable life and have all this, this group of people dont, this must be wrong as we are taking advantage of the 'working class' 'and so on. The result is that people look for an alternative, what comes out ultimatly is an apreciation that everyone should recieve wealth according to the difficulty of their work and its value to society, thus footballers, tabloid newspaper editors and inner city workers would recieve less than miners and garbage men (sorry, sanitary engineers, must be PC). It may not have started this way but I think now people who claim to be socialist do so primairily because they feel guilty about the comfort in which they live and secondarily because they fear what they see as the alternative, that is fire spitting conservatism.

Any thoughts? By the way, I include myself in the above as I reckon that is why I am socialist and will use myself as an example if anyone wants further explanation.

 

knight, The Truth Hurts, don't it buddy? If the shoe fits WEAR IT,and this is a World War Two Forums--not a Political Forum. You need to start contributing to something useful here yourself.

I will go out on a limb here and state that I DO contribute a heck of a lot to these forums, what have you contributed to?

 

This is the Free Fire Zone, and, a lot of people here would like to talk about politics and current events. I enjoy talking about WW2 also, but, with all that's been going on in the world, I haven't had enough time. I'm reading Thompson's Empires on the Pacific, and will post a review when I'm done with it.
Your idea of contributing to the Free Fire Zone is to start threads about cartoon characters, favorite ice cream flavors, or movie quotes, while repeatedly barging into political threads to tell everyone over and over again how much you hate talking about politics.

 

Handbags ladies, calm down, lets not decend into childish insults. I thought we had just got rid of that problem on this thread. And dont bring Israel into this, I get enough pointless discussion about that at school (even sigh when reading about the latest atrocety by either side and you are immedietly branded anti-semitic and end up arguing for hours).

 

Discussions about Israel are not allowed on this forum, thanks to the Thread Gestapo.

 

knight, threads about Isreal ARE allowed here--but threads designed to cause trouble and to hear one post nothing but venomous hateful remarks are not allowed. It dosent matter if you are talking about Isreal or Iraq--or whomever, those remarks will NOT be allowed.

OWCH Stefan! and you are correct.

[ 14. March 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

Aren't I always? Simple answer no, just went into Cadet Sgt Major mode again, you are damn lucky I didn't try to make you scrub the plumbing in the ablutions block *remembers who is a FM, oops*

Anyhow, so does anyone have any thoughts on the aleviation of guilt theory? I think it holds up pretty well for my generation, I am surrounded by middle class 'communists' who insist that they believe in everything Marx said as they walk around in their designer 'dropout' kit (standard German army shirt, obviously a privatly made version, with baggy jeans and loads of badges everywhere, laughable really). I like to think that I am not bad but you see my point, the rather stupid facile attitude of these people who go to Londons top state school, are going to oxbridge and still insist that they are against the establishment. Rediculous. Once again I include myself in this, rather funny if you ask me....

 

Codetalker: I don't think even YOU know what you're talking about now.

 

Ah ha ha Stefan---you would make a great Sar-Major! and do not let anyone say you arent, and Thats an order!!

PS, im glad I wasnt drinking any Rootbeer while reading your post--or else it would have been all over the keyboard.

 

Thanks for TOTALLY hijacking this thread, Carl.

 

I would make a terrible CSM in the real army but I like to think I am a good one at cadets. I think the main advantage is that as in the case of regulars, I know all the skives and tricks a cadet can use. Comes in very handy at times. Ahh some of the storys Greenjacket and I could tell you (he is a Cpl in the same unit), unfortunatly most of the stories would be so censored it is rediculous. Ahh well, thanks for the compliment and enjoy the root beer, I wish I had some as I love the stuff, though i dont think the Root beer we have is the same as the US stuff, probably because no one over here likes it.

As for the hijacking, it doesnt matter, things were getting a little silly. So getting back to what i was saying, does anyone else here see the 'middle class guilt' phenomanon in action or remember reading about the pendulum theory in 1984 (or have i got the wrong book). Anyhow, if you want I will start a new thread so that we can discuss in here and argue in the other one all you like? There is actually a forum out there that has a special 'nation bashing and general abuse' zone so that people can get all their pointless arguments out of the way and have sensible debates on the rest of the forum. Unfortunatly it doesnt work and is rather worrying to read but oh well...

[ 14. March 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Stefan ]

 

Stefan--by all means--post those stories. As you can see--alot of silliness goes on in this forum. Besides, I need to know more about life in England.

By the way, how far are you from Durham? My mate Paul lives there as well as Captain Richard Wallace Annand VC.

 

I live in North London (near martin actually, we both go to the same militaria fair from time to time though we have never met) so a fair distance by our standards, probably not by yours though . I actually dont think I could post most of the stories as some of them wouldent get into a top shelf mag let alone a WW2 forum, and I hope to god that they dont give you an idea of what life is like over here. We really should get a 'funny stories' thread going here, I think I will do that now so that there will be pleanty going there by the time I wake up...

 

London sure is a pretty big town eh? Sherry (another good friend of mine) has been to London twice in two years. She sent me a picture of her standing with a Gent who was wearing a costume of sorts--I think they were called Beefeaters? He was dressed like a character would be in a deck of cards--I think he was a tour guide or someone to do with The Tower of London--but I cant remember.

Anyway, that would be cool for you and Martin to meet up, like Stevin and Volkbert have.

Oh and no worry on how our perceptions of life in England would be by reading magazines. I just hope all you guys dont think American is like whats in many of our movies. It really aint

I think your funny stories thread is a great idea. When you get it going--ill make a contribution or two

 

The beefeaters are the yoemen of the guard, basically a group of men (all of whom have 25 years in the army under their belts) who serve as guards in the tower of london, they are basically a tradition and a tourist attraction now but all the same, rather interesting. As for meeting Martin, maybe someday, when I am less broke and start attending fairs again .

 

Thanks for teaching me something Stefan. I am looking to get over to the land of fish and chips, within the next 2 years.