Off Topic Political Debate

Civilisation and veneer is not all about war.

 

You can say that those species which have learned cooperation most effectively are those which have increased their chances of survival, and their chances of bringing offspring into the World - over thousands of years the cooperative gene is strengthened in this way, and, through these means, have become 'natural' for most successfull species.

 

I am not sure there is a "gene" that favours cooperation. I do agree though that if cooperation is more successful then it is likely through natural selection that successful people will breed more and hopefully pass on to their offspring a favouring of cooperation - even if that is due to society and conditioning rather than genetics.
The trouble is though that often it is the poor the downtrodden and oppressed who breed faster to help in their older age and they will not necessariy have the "cooperative" element in abundance.
My view is genetically it is likely to be fairly neutral.

 

The honour among mediaeval knights has been much exaggerated. A greedy, bloodthirsty lot most of them...especially by the time of the Crusades. Also not so many people as you suggest were close to the blood and gore. Battles were often little more than skirmishes. Most communities were small and many were isolated. The conventional history of the period is really a history of minorities. Archaeology is beginning to show people led more settled lives than is generally supposed.

 

This is not really a biological debate Arturo - we are both using this to justify our own economic and political theories. You have spoken elsewhere about the achievements of capitalism - but in direct competition, a centrally planned economy works best. Peeling away all of the myths is difficult - since 1989, we have just been told - Communism didn't work, and the USSR was 'proof' of that. This is an attempt to rewrite history because it did work - at least measured only on economic grounds, as opposed to those of human rights. From it's inception in 1928 to the end in 1989, Soviet Socialism never once, except during the war years, stumbled into recession, nor failed to provide full employment.

Moreover the Soviet economy grew faster than capitalist ones which had been at the same stage of development in 1928 - and faster than the US. economy throughout most of it's history. Certainly the Soviet system never caught up, or surpassed, the advanced industrial economies of the west, but it started the race a lot further back, and was not aided, as western countries were, by histories of colonial plunder & economic imperialism, and was constantly the object of Western attempts to sabotage it. Particularly damaging to the USSR. was the necessity of diverting material and human resources from the civilian to the military economy, to meet the challenge of Western military pressure. It was the cold war, and the arms race which kept the socialist economy from overtaking the west. Despite the West's unflagging efforts to cripple it, the Soviet economy produced positive growth in each and every non-war year of it's existence, providing a materially secure existence for all. Which capitalist economy can claim equal success in such a short span of years ? To give an idea of the decline after the USSR. The life expectancy in the USSR. in the mid 80s was seven years higher than it was 10 years later after the dismantling of that system.

 

I bet Winfrith (spelling ?) has seen more than a few skirmishes. My own knights were brave men with lots of honour too

 

Exactly. Whatever the background we both believe man is a mixture of competition and cooperation.
Your history itself is a rewrite and based on Soviet untruths.
In order to move from cottage industries capital was required. Banks facilitated this and the modern economic and industrial age are the children.
Countries like Japan and Russia used what had been created elsewhere and often stole the secrets that enabled them to copy and sometimes develop further. You have no unemployment if you define everybody as employed. That is what happened in communist countries. People were not really gainfully employed but if they were given a crust of bread for pushing a pea round a plate they were said to be employed. There are many examples of factories who had targets to meet in the mass of production for example. They would then produce massively heavy and inefficient products to meet their targets. Central planning has failed in most countries because the people in charge were inefficient and has no drive to be otherwise.I cannot really be bothered to go into another debate on capitalism versus communism. I just observe that no communist country (as 90% but not you define it) has ever been successful. China took off when it effectively turned capitalist - even while calling itself communist.
Grew faster. Statistical misuse as always. Easy to grow from 1 to 10 and have ten times growth. The advanced country going from 100 to 200 only achieves a doubling - but it is much better..
Believe in communism if you like but do not try to convince any but the blind that communism is anything but a blind alley.
If you really think communist societies are so much better then why do their citizens risk death to leave?

 

Just a point of order here Arturo. There has never been a country which officially called itself 'Communist' in it's title. Even the USSR. avoided calling itself this. According to it's ideology socialism was an intermediate step along the transformation to communism - communism means rule by the commune, it does not mean rule by the state. I do not think that even you would deny that. I do not think that the USSR. consciously thought about the erosion of the state as being it's end goal - or maybe Gorbachov had this in mind. All I am saying is that the USSR. achieved a rate of growth which was unparalleled amongst other countries which started from the same starting point - it was an agrarian country at the time of the revolution with many of it's population little removed from serfdom. Their industrial revolution occurred in little more than 20 years - a rate of growth which has no parallel.

 

Yes - we have had this discussion before.
I am happy to use the word communist in the way 90%+ or the western world uses it. Whether or not it is an accurate depiction of the flow through from Christ to the Levellers to Kropotkin to Marx to Engels to Lenin to Stalin to Trotsky to Castro to Mao to Kim il Jung - not necessarily in that order - I just do not care. It is a good word as we know what we mean and it covers a certain type of republic that runs its affairs in a supposedly non capitalist way.
Japan industrialised rapidly and more successfuly too - and as I said they just did catch up. No decent goods come from the communist states - not even chocolate bars - let alone anything we use today. They did have the Zil as a state car I suppose. And Konkordski - oh no - that was just another rip off of capitalism.

 

Correct spelling, Arturo, and another volume on the way soon. First draft done and about a third of that edited. Your own knights were brave but not perhaps without occasionally falling short of your expectations

 

I think they were a randy bunch - not least Sir Lamorak the Green.
How many books is that now then?

 

This is number 5 and will be titled "The Leechbook". Not leech in the sense of bloodsucker but a person with knowledge of how to cure ailments. When it's available on Amazon and Kindle I'll post the details.

 

Just seen this.... cheeky!

But this is what i wanted to share from Lord Sugar, a Blairite who has now left the party


Shocking........................

 

Still funny though - well as funny as Cameron and the pig were.

 

Funny for some.... but in terrible taste...... but yes it works both ways too......I have been guilty of that.....

 

I agree - if Alan Sugar could be demeaned this would demean him.

 

I assume leech as a person with knowledge of how to cure ailments nevertheless derived the name from use of leeches in doing that?

 

Probably a separate derivation, Leo, though no-one's absolutely certain. There are similar Celtic and Old Frisian words covering meanings like 'gatherer', 'enchanter' and 'healer', so who knows?

 

True - but I find that kind of thing fascinating.

 

I do not understand Corbyn. He says he wants Labour to become the next government yet on issues like anti-semitism he goes out of his way to meet with oddball extremists who seem opposed to mainstream judaism. On Russia he continues to suggest that unless proof of Russian involvement is given he will treat Russia's involvement as no more likely than any other suggestion. Neither of these stances are likely to endear him to people who do not already support him.