Who says Capitalists don't love Communism?
"It is not a cover for anything. I was talking about the Big Society and encouraging volunteering, encouraging social enterprises, voluntary groups to do more to make our society stronger, I was talking about that way before we had a problem with cuts and deficits and all the rest of it."
Also announcing plans to use dormant bank accounts to fund projects, Mr Cameron said the concept would be a "big advance for people power"....
"There are the things you do because it's your passion," he said.
"Things that fire you up in the morning, that drive you, that you truly believe will make a real difference to the country you love, and my great passion is building the big society....
These schemes and others in the future, he said, would represent "the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street".".
source: Independent, BBC
I’ve often found that capitalists just lurrrrrrve communism. They love mutual love and empathy, caring and sharing, loving another as one would oneself, not doing unto each other as one would not want others to do unto oneself, people giving up their intellectual property for the common and corporate good in brainstorming sessions and work improvement teams, band-aids and live-aids, and a myriad and multitude of other selfless ventures. And all so that they continue to maintain a hierarchical and class ordered status quo divided along a host of lines for the purpose of maintaining a hierarchical redistribution of wealth and power.
It’s all about ‘coping’ mate. Enable people to cope, and they’ll put up with just about anything. The effort to cope is itself an effort to reduce or reorder the human persona so that the goodness-of-fit between one’s personality and the demands of the system matches. But coping is needed for that. One still needs to be able to survive and live and feed and f**k ones genes into the next generation. Allowing people to cope to the point that they can do just that and nothing more is that which leads to people being completely satisfied with being able to do just that and nothing besides.
So when politicians talk about social responsibility, sharing and caring, filial piety, volunteerism, mutual love and empathy at the grassroots level, believing in faith, hope and charity; and aristocratic celebrities, be they ball-kickers, singers or talk-show hosts kicking off a charitable drive for this or that cause; I shake my head with arms akimbo. Give me an equal society and i’ll give you all of that. Give me an unequal society and promote communism at the grassroots level, and you simply just end up maintaining a system which requires continuous charity on your part so that THEY can continue to laugh their way to the bank.
It is paradoxical indeed, that when people talk about redistributing power, and not wealth, it serves as a means to ensure that people are empowered to do everything they can to cope with not having much of the latter as opposed to doing what they can to ensure that they do. Pull off this trick, and the system as it stands stands in perpetuity. Thereafter, failure will simply be your fault. You haven’t done enough, you haven’t helped each other enough, you aren’t communistic enough. You see, you either have a consciousness of your class as a class in opposition to the exploiting classes, or you are conscious and conscientious about helping your class cope with the way things are. A call for the latter tends to compromise the former.
I’ve often said, that an angel in hell is soon rendered off its wings, and thus loses the ability to rise above the conditions wherein its good deeds serve as nothing more than fuel for the fire.
[the following is a comment placed at a site discussing the aforementioned matter]
This ‘big society’ thing by Cameron seems not too unlike the Legalist-Confucian approach to reality. That is, self-reliance and responsibility at ground level as a means by which top-down oppression/pressures can be coped with as opposed to the top constantly being contended with directly.
This way, everyone can have the opportunity to do something about ‘the problem’ whilst being detracted from its source. This, of course, works best where people have been sufficiently depoliticised. However, the means by which one copes with depoliticisation can also serve as the means to depoliticise.
Marx might call it ‘bourgeois socialism’, but as Legalism-Confucianism came first, the credit ought to go to them i suppose;)