Tainted conceptions of socialism

There's one word in my title that would jump out and suddenly create judgements and that is socialism. Now I don't want to argue for or even against socialism but rather look at it as a whole and its reactions from it.

I wish to start from the simple statement that the word socialism has become a word that people wish to avoid to associate themselves. This is understandable considering some of its theories have had serious implications, as shown in events such as the Cold War. 

However, I do not wish to go into historical debate but these events have shaped our views towards socialism. Now what are these views? I believe that I do not need to say as widespread this stereotype is, it is implanted into anyone interested in politics. This stereotype of socialism is that it is a threat to our freedom, security and something to be feared. I agree that a small minority is something we should not adopt by the 'left.' However there is a small minority of the right we should not adopt as we have seen with the rise of fascism. But I ask why is the concept of socialism seen as dirty, whereas conservatism is seen as a perfectly plausible.

The reason I believe is the use of propaganda, purposely aiming to taint the concept of socialism by associating it with tragic and awful events caused by unjustified use of power. If however such propaganda was used to taint conservatism then it would succeed, but why?

Well those to the right of the political spectrum tend to have money and power or aspire to have money or power. Therefore they have the willingness and resources to produce this propaganda to enforce a hatred towards a political ideal they do not agree with.

I shall conclude that socialism is a political concept we should not stamp out, reject or hate, neither should we fully accept it but see it as a perfectly reasonable conception of politics. Socialism has shed new light on social responsibility, equal opportunities and has challenged the existing power relations. Therefore if the new age of neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism has been brought about by the manipulation of a political concept, then we must reverse this propaganda to establish a political spectrum that has equal weighting. Otherwise we would end up with a political consensus that would lead to a more unjust weighting in power leading to the more extreme right.

Who's topped the maths tables? - Does it really matter?

I agree that Maths is important and a key aspect of your future, however this differs from the importance of Maths tables by country. I feel that while this country should improve its scores for maths, it should be given no more a priority over English, Science or even History.

While it may seem that we have truly been whooped by Asia's rankings in the Maths league tables, this does not show that it has the best education system. I believe that in such countries such as Shanghai there has been an over emphasis on Maths whereas skills such as analytic skills, essay writing, communication and teamwork etc. have been neglected. Therefore, we must not follow suit into this one subject specialisation to pamper up our education system but rather it excel in a wide range of subjects not the few/one.

Furthermore, should we want to have a high statistic on pupils grades, that would be simple, make all education private and make it so that only the wealthiest can afford education (assuming that low income correlates negatively on grades.) But clearly this seems wrong, and it is! So why obsess over statistics (as much as they can be helpful) and not take a step back and view it as a whole.

I believe that while improvement shouldn't go a miss in the education system, we should not feel urge to leap forward into one subject specialisation as people are better at different things and we need future employers/employee's to have a range of skills, not just the one.

Outright Elitism

The statement that simply "some people just aren't intelligent enough to be successful" by Boris Johnson is clear evidence of their distance from reality and their over fuelled egos. I firmly reject such comments as those such as Boris Johnson would clearly not have a hope in hell in succeeding if his circumstances were somewhat different as a child. This distinction of top cornflakes and bottom cornflakes shows his lack of sense of the real world and exposes the idiocy in himself as opposed to the people he is trying to attack.

This is completely the opposite of the very theme of meritocracy, you work hard and you get the best rewards, but rather outright elitism. His pitiful distinction of cornflakes is merely an attempt to secure and protect the power of elites, the silver spoon is definitely at hand here.

I shall end this here before it becomes too much of a rant.

Boris Johnson, you clearly haven't had to work hard to get where you are top cornflake.

Consumerism as the key to happiness

GDP, Growth, Sales, Advertising and Confidence, these things are all part of our economy but are these too influential I ask? Has consumerism taken the form as progression, ambition and the common goal in life?

To answer this question (briefly) I will try to explain whether the change in consumer habits has changed our outlook in life. For the purpose of simplicity I shall not consider religious arguments as it would raise too many questions, not because it doesn't matter.

First of all we need to know what we need as a comparison, lets take half a century ago (in the 1960s.) Back in those times consumerism is not what we know of it today. There was no real high demand to consume goods such as the latest fashions apart from those who were in the 'elite' of society. So many may observe that these were the times of simple lives without vast amount of consumption. However, I object that this would mean these were 'good times' as we have it better than people had it then. I feel that people are clouded by nostalgia of what it was to live a simple life. Without 'mad consumerism' we picture a scene of a family sitting around a fire reading books, playing games and singing in a jolly way. Almost picturesque until you consider the flip side. Without consumption, choice was limited to those who could afford to pay for it. Scenes alternatively pictured of families eating bread and butter to get by, and even when people had the choice they had the choice of what was stocked in their local shop. So it seems after considering this that people would not so surely reject consumerism as a good thing to have.

However, as always, that isn't always the case. In some ways these mistaken nostalgic persons have a point. The problem of consumerism is that while it has given us choice of luxuries in which we can afford and cannot bare to say no, it has changed how we act and how we view our outlook in life. Whereas in the past many people wouldn't ask for more they could need, restricting their ambition, in recent times people ask for more than they should. This change has led to an jump from people having barely what they need to a situation where greed has clouded their decisions and judgement. To explain why an over-emphasis on consumerism can lead to disaster, I needn't look back no further than the credit crisis. To sum up the growth of the economy gave the illusion of an everlasting world of growth, causing a dangerous boost in confidence. Because of our consumerism nature that had been built up over the years, our time was now to spend spend spend, to live beyond our means and a party that led to a inevitable economic hangover.

Even if you weren't so sure before, I hope that you now consider that consumerism isn't as clear cut. It seems neither good nor bad in itself but the extent to which it improves our lives and the extent to which it dominates our lives. Both extreme saving and extreme consumerism can never be bad, the solution is the middle ground. But where is this middle ground, well if you can answer this feel free to put yourself amongst the top leading economists. The truth is that we have to balance blindfolded at the moment as people try determine the complexities of the economy, market and consumer behaviour.

Note: I will consider different responses in order to further edit this short piece in the future. 

Social Media: Is it enlightening us or dumbing us down - short.

Recently I have decided to sometimes do short snippets of a Blog post to whatever comes to mind and make a short paragraph on that, whichever receives great interest I shall continue and build upon that (like a to-do list.)

My first short paragraph is on social media and whether its existence is a tool for knowledge or a cause for ignorance.
It can be seen as great, we know what's going on, how to contact someone and what's happening all in the space of our laptops and mobiles. This does seem that our social capacity can indeed expand to a point that could not be imagined a decade or so ago. We follow celebrities, like what we like and get to see what our friends are doing, what could be better?
However, is there really a cost to these benefits we get, and if so, do these costs have serious implications. Well the trouble with all this convenience can make us extremely impatient at times. I admit myself, after I send a text or message, I am expecting a response quickly and it can be frustrating when this is not the case. Secondly, can this get us addicted to social media? If when you refresh Facebook or Twitter and you still have the same, then you are addicted, hooked on the online lives of others.

Now I'm not saying we should all go outside and go play with Kites in that 'ideal perfect' world but rather I ask, should we restrict ourselves from being indoctrinated by the social media lifestyle?

'Google goes through your emails.' Is it a step too far?

Recently, Outlook has performed an attack on Google's reputation by exposing it as a privacy intruder. However, like always I am sure that Google or whatever company that comes into question will just throw up its terms and conditions in an attempt to smokescreen the situation.

It may seem they have a point, if we accepted their terms then we must abide by those conditions. Although, the big BUT here is that terms and conditions may have lots of legal jargon that can protect these companies but the real fact is, Google is the one in control. By establishing a large, loyal and regular users into their Gmail, YouTube Blogger and +1, they have been able to hook us into a advertisers goldmine.

But people can surely just move can't they? Just abandon Google?
No, because Google have integrated all their programs, blogs, videos, accounts and even their social networking together we cannot just opt out of Gmail going through our emails. It's not just controversial but it is a violation of a person's right and this angers me. The fact that they are using this blog, my emails, your searches and what you liked makes me angry, surely they have breached the our trust. While I thought what you posted on Facebook being used for advertising was crossing the line a little, this 'blows things out of the water' so to speak . Our privacy is being used for wealth, our interests and vulnerabilities exploited.
You can use your Terms and Conditions, but you cannot ignore that people have privacy rights.

Hopefully this post will protect our Freedom of Speech on the internet and keep our private messages, private.

Anksthay orfay eadingray!

(If you don't understand... http://www.keepyouremailprivate.com/)

Pushing China to the limit - Why China is not to blame for the USA's problems.

I understand that the majority of the internet world and even a majority of readers of this blog are in fact from the USA. Therefore, I thought I'd give a bit of time dedicated to blogging about the social, economic and political impacts and influences of the USA. This blog post is about challenging the conceptions given of China that is a evil growing superpower that plans to dominate the world, in favour of a more rational approach.

As the sweet turned sour in the USA and the rest of the world in terms of the economy, it can be seen that China is merely the USA's scapegoat for its own inherent problems. I will now explain why this may be the case.

Let's cast our minds back to the so called 'good times' where money was rolling in and prices remained fixed. At this time, the whole 'western' world (i.e. USA, UK, Spain) was engulfed by the greed for even more, and what happened? Well they got more. More money, more goods, more consuming and more or less more of everything, but the question I now pose is, at what cost?

Sure enough the good times can't go on forever and especially in this case the so called 'good times' had been stretched to the limit powered by greed and extreme confidence. As soon as it seemed to be never ending, it sure enough it did. Confidence was destroyed and money was lost, but out of the depths of the downward economic spiral out came a cry 'It's not our fault.'

The desperate attempt to blame something else soon came to be with China. Such attacks on this country escalated stating that it 'stole jobs', made things too cheap and generated unfair competition. However, I argue differently from this one sided narrow view that China is solemnly to blame for the problems in the USA. While I happily could go into the economics of this, I shall not for the purpose of simplicity (although I may, if popular, go into it at a later date) but rather focus on why the blame is not held totally by China.

We know that China makes a lot of goods for the USA, is this the problem of the USA? Well if it is then China is only supplying demand, the USA is not forced into demanding these goods but rather the USA is very familiar with living beyond its means (demanding more than what you can afford.)
Although, some may in response say that this is because these goods are so cheap, if they weren't so cheap then we wouldn't have this problem. I deny this argument for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes the USA sound out to be some sort of shopaholic stuck in the centre of a Mall (Shopping centre for us UK people) and clearly this is absurd if the USA as a country cannot control itself. However, assume for instance that cheap goods in china did not exist, would this fix these problems? No I argue because it is a inherent problem with the USA (mainly USA but other countries such as in Europe too) rather than its overseas trade partners. If China did not produce cheap goods the USA would simply indirectly demand another developing country (such as India) to supply its never ending demand.

I hope that this gives a bit more insight to how slander is directed to countries that are simply scapegoats of powerful countries and how that there are inherent problems within one's own country rather than it being pinned on the rest of the world.

Feel free to Comment or even follow/share below, the more opinions the better =)

Challenging the feminist stereotype

This post has been dedicated to a fellow blogger in which I share interests. While it has permission to be posted on the other blog, my views may or may not be shared by the blog owner. Since the blog was just starting off I thought I would just make a contribution. The blog in which it is posted is at http://www.thefemaleorg.blogspot.co.uk/

Follow this blog for updates!

'Butch, brute and man-hating' is often the description that is labelled to someone who calls themselves a feminist. But why I ask? Is it true that this idea matches the conception of what some people think?
Clearly not, and the reasons why these conceptions are drawn and exaggerated are because of the fear of change. Those who have dominated for centuries feel vulnerable to the exposure of an equal society growing ever more conservative (not to be confused with The Conservative party.) This imaginary conception is there to manipulate our intuitive feelings towards an equal society to instead favour the traditional gender roles and domination of one sex. Therefore, it can be easy to expose the small extremes of feminism to manipulate people's view on the idea making it seem almost ridiculous.
However, while some may say feminism is outdated and old news, I couldn't disagree more. While women have the ability to vote, own their own property and anything that a man can do, there are some psychological factors that oppress one sex in favour of the other.
While equality of the sexes before the law is now a reality, the deep psychological factors and issues with self-consciousness remain. While it is a slower process, to achieve full equality of both male and female there must be gradual changes in societies attitudes towards women, elimination of gender stereotypes and a point where at any given moment we are seen as equal persons.
Although, while this seems ideal to many people, those who remain in control aim to resist this gradual change, attempting to rather sweep equality' under the carpet' so to speak in favour of such 'traditional values.'

Or maybe feminism is Butch, brute and man-hating and shouldn't you really..."Calm down dear."

Link calm down dear to this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211577

Political disengagement fuels the wealthiest in society to be powerful.

Over the years we have become less engaged with politics and the political system. Our love for democracy and our love to participate has faded away dramatically. However, I shall explain why that lack of interest in the political system and lack of participation is not in our own interests.

Some may argue that this disengagement is due to the trustworthiness of politicians has more or less withered away and feel by not taking part in politics would be your stand against this. Unfortunately not, a lack of participation does not show your resentment but rather amplifies the votes of those who benefit most from this twisted sense of democracy.

Parties are too shy to adopt anything that is not consensus. Parties make the policy and 'shift our interests' to try and make it fit. This stems from decades of merging interests such as career prospects, income and wealth and what we expect from the state. Although we are to blame as much for this political consensus, it is our votes (or non-votes that I will explain) that are being taken for granted. By saying that 'They will not get my vote' is not showing your discontent, but what is actually being said is 'I will let someone indirectly use my vote.'

Why you may ask is this the case? This is because politics is still (unfortunately) dominated by the middle to upper classes, while everyone else has the vote, they do not have the willingness to use their vote. So a system of politics that appears to be dominated by the middle to upper classes from within follows that the majority of those who are represented by those within the system are politically engaged. So it follows what you are doing with your non-vote is emphasising the votes of those who tend to have a large influence and are largely represented in the political system. The result being is that those who largely don't use their vote or have little influence over politics are those which are 'victimised' by consensus politics. Therefore, political disengagement fuels the representation of those who are politically engaged (who are positively correlated to those being the wealthiest in society) have a indirect influence over all of our lives.

Example 1: Without Political Participation

	Party A	Party B	Party C	Total
Class A (best-off)	30%	12%	7%	50%
Class B	12.5%	7.5%	5%	25%
Class C	2%	10%	3.5%	15.5%
Class D (worst-off)	0.5%	6%	3%	9.5%

Example 2: With all members participating

	Party A	Party B	Party C	Total
Class A (best-off)	7.5%	2.9%	2.1%	12.5%
Class B	25%	15%	10%	50%
Class C	3.3%	16.1%	5.6%	25%
Class D (worst-off)	0.7%	7.9%	3.9%	12.5%

                                               

Finally, the example above shows that political participation and engagement has the power to change politics, therefore if all members participated in society then it would restrict one group from taking hold and influencing key decisions that affect our lives. As a result, I conclude (and I believe) that political disengagement fuels the wealthiest in society to be powerful.

You may take this argument two ways. Either that political engagement must be increased to those who are not represented in politics (in general I just used classes as an example) or that the state is an unfair system and must be abolished, in which you are an anarchist. Although, I prefer the former (first) I cannot exclude opinions of those who believe different to myself or even  exclude it based on majority beliefs.

Fairness and Majority.

A real brainteaser to help everyone to take a step back and think about things a little more rationally. A lot of the time when our opinions get awoken, it seems to be that we act and speak on impulse. The idea behind these little exercises are to get you to avoid such things.

Our first case is about Fairness and Majority. If I was to say 'what would make a successful democracy?' you would probably answer back, 'well when the party with the most votes wins.' Simple as that? Indeed it is not, what if the majority does not necessarily mean fairness?

The case being that (for simplicity) 75% of people vote for Party A who support X and the remaining 25% vote for Party Y who support Y (for purposes of simplicity there would be no other options). It would seem you have no problem with saying to an extent that it was fair. However, what about those 25%? should they accept defeat of their preferences because a lot more other people say different.  Such a puzzle gets more difficult when proposing an alternative case. For this instance, 51% of people vote for Party A and 49% of people vote for party B then such a view of fairness and democracy becomes vague. If you say that this makes no difference Party A still wins fairly then you must admit to disregarding to 49% of the population which can be seen as harsh. However, if you say 'no! there's something definitely unfair', well unfortunately you come into problems too. You say there's something wrong with a 51%/49% split but there is nothing wrong with a 75%/25% then you must ask yourself, is there something special about a large majority? Should we allow the majority to rule over our lives? And where do we draw the line at a large majority.

If however, you have read to this point and disagree with everything that I have said, well you are most probably indeed are an anarchist and there are plenty of people like you who disagree with everything that is 'democratic.'

How to build your confidence?

While writing a blog may seem the opposite of building confidence, it can actually be a helping hand. Being able to be confident is translated by what you think and how you express it, therefore it can be shown through anything whether it be writing or speaking. So in this I will explain a few tips how to build your confidence, not egoism, but confidence.

We have all been in the situation where everyone's eyes have been glaring upon you and only you listening to every word that draws from your breath. At the time it can seem nerve-racking and makes you feel vulnerable, causing your confidence to wither down. Sometimes the silence of a split second drifts through the air and you find yourself panic struck trying to fill each silence with words. However, these such moments can be avoided, nerves can be turned into emotion and silences can be transformed into moments for people to reflect. This is about how to build your confidence when it matters most.

While it's not as silly as imaging people in their underwear, it is something remarkably similar. This is to remember, that is to remember that the people in front of you are only human, just like you and myself. There is nothing potentially worrying about talking to your friends but as soon as it's in front of a group of strangers our attitudes suddenly change. For no apparent reason our confidence is knocked and the best way to avoid such things are to follow a few steps. (From my own personal experience.)

·         Try to be calm, take deep breaths and articulate your thoughts slowly.

·         Practice what you are going to say

·         Put a bit of emotion into it, no one likes a droning monotone voice they could fall asleep

·         Who you addressing are only human, (to be cliché) be yourself

·         Know your stuff. If you do, it will all naturally flow.

·         Make eye-contact

·         Use "open" body language

Don't whisper and don't shout...talk at just the right volume.


Hope this has helped and I will keep adding and editing.

A discussion blog

In relation to my previous 'little note' on bloggers, I am starting to introduce topics in my blogs that can also generate opinions. The idea being if you follow my posts (by subscribing/+1) you can follow both my notes on current affairs and any questions that are up for discussion. So if this blog sparks your interest, be sure to comment and share your ideas.

Help to Buy - An obsession with the housing market.

It could be good or it could be bad, who knows? But what we do know is that we as a country are obsessed with the housing market linking it dangerously close to our economy. A house price is seen as a filler in our money bags and shows our wealth increasing year on year. What could possibly go wrong?

Though I ask, have we or do we ever learn from our previous mistakes? Hindsight is clouded in our minds as we forget the years before and see our houses as the knight in white armour coming to pull us from sluggish growth into the boom era again. It seems we have forgotten the credit crunch already and the real root of the cause of it. Our houses as bloated as our minds and our pockets with hypothetical cash fuelled our buy now spend later mind-set.

Although,  you may ask why would encouraging growth in the house market have a negative effect on our economy and what lessons should we have learnt from the credit crisis? Well firstly, in the pre-crisis period the housing market was at its prime with house prices or value skyrocketing each year. This then led people to an illusion in which they think they had more money because their house was worth more. As a result, people had the opportunity to borrow a vast amount of money for personal consumption whether it be reinvestment into their property or general spending. People in all countries were high on getting more than what they earn.  However, while it was easy to spend it was less easy to pay and when the repayments came in the sweet turned soon sour. Their houses devalued, the market drained, pay cuts, pay freezes and redundancies meant they paid the price for easy cash.

So why would help to buy scheme's be a bad thing? While I'm not saying it is a bad thing to help people to buy their own home, it is a matter of wrong timing. Our economy is heavily bloated by the expansion of the housing market which has been clearly shown is and always has been extremely fragile. It is an addiction we have and a short term fix to our economy that we need to be less dependent on. Therefore, we should be addressing other factors of our economy whether it be jobs, education or infrastructure if we are to build a sustainable economy.

Just a little post

This post is just about the small bloggers and how they should be valued. After all, opinions matter and if we conform ourselves to the opinions of a few organisations we would become their slaves of their opinions. Although I have nothing against media, I do think that the large organisations form peoples into divisions. Blogs, especially my blog, is about a range of opinions not just one view that is printed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (given it is not intentionally offensive i.e. sexist, homophobic etc.) Bloggers are not just the stereotype's that argue furiously and refuse to accept anything but their view. The internet is for everyone to make their opinion count and be valued.

Always wanting more. Why a recession may not be such a bad thing.

By the title you are probably thinking how could you possibly think that? But before I start I would like to say that I empathise with those who are and have been struggling  throughout this hard period. My aim is rather to provide a general overview to why continuous economic growth would not necessarily be best for us.

So wouldn't life be so good if we got more, more and more? Probably not, there inevitably needs to be a limit somewhere and good reason too. If for instance we just kept on growing what are the implications? By imagining a infinitely growing society, there would be greater and greater competition between individuals, so much so there would be a fiercely selfish society that would emerge. Ready to get that extra bit extra on offer, people would become obsessed and disillusioned with no real goal in life.

Following this, it would not only be working life that would be effected but also in our spare time. Continuous economic growth, as shown in the last decade before the credit crisis, would drive people consumerism madness. Without the realisation of risk people would spend without a second thought, saving would be non-existent and consumerism like work would proceed to take over our lives. Sometimes we do need that push back to push us back into reality.

Also, we have to consider that consumer products and growth does not come magically out of thin air, someone and something has to suffer. This would be our environment and developing countries that would suffer. Our quality of life would diminish as we push the lives of those who can be exploited are worked to the death, while our generosity to charities would decrease as we become ever more tight with our money.

Furthermore, while we call it the 'bad times' some of the best ideas and businesses have evolved out of the poor economic climate. Without it we would promote inefficiency as there's no need to innovate and improve. Though this may be short but an important point.

Finally, I shall end by saying that while no one likes the 'bad times', we wouldn't be necessarily better without them. Rather we should take these times as a lesson before we get caught up in the rush of a boom and not to forget that the bad times again may be round the corner. Therefore, growth, work and money isn't everything but it can be over prioritised in the good times and the bad.

Should the unemployed be forced to clean our streets? A rubbish idea.

This is reference to the UK conservative party proposition to make the unemployed in the UK clean up the streets in return for their benefits.

'They are a burden on society, A waste of our taxes and they fuel a something for nothing society'  is what I normally hear when this topic usually arises. However, I believe in a society that is predominately influenced by the more affluent in the country that this view is actually distorted from the reality. I admit that a minority of the population are 'benefit scroungers' and will never be shaken off from society unless we completely dismantle the foundations of the welfare state, which implies more cost than benefit. Although, while the minority are what we name 'benefit scroungers' the majority are those which are not and I will explain why such people should not undergo what I feel is slave labour of the current government.

Firstly, I would like to state that some unemployment is not necessarily bad. Although this may seem surprising at first, a society without unemployment is one that is static and immobile. The reason for this is that unemployment can simply be a transition period for many people between one job and another or one career and another. Let me provide an example to show this, take for instance a working family which one of the adults has got a higher paid job in another city. Now the other adult(s), assuming they want to move, are deemed unemployed until they get a job in that city. Are these people scroungers? Clearly not, they are an example of labour mobility and without such cases the economy would be like I said, static and immobile. The aim should be to reduce employment by promoting work and helping people to help themselves, not to achieve full employment to make the statistics look good.

Furthermore, I would like to say that any policy that targets the unemployed to undergo voluntary full-time work in order to receive benefits would limit people in society. Getting people back into work is not a one-size fits all policy as people have different skills, specialities and interests. Therefore, we should help build upon this through skilled based learning rather than funnelling everyone into one role, one job. Those that are unemployed and seeking work need time to find and get a job and making these people work full-time will limit their motivation to do so, thus limiting their motivations in life.

Finally, 'the unemployed should be forced to clean the streets for their benefits' is a statement that is clearly degrading. For the unemployed? No, for those who work day in and day out to help keep our streets clean, empty our bins and provide a nice environment for all whilst also doing a job that many people may reject. So to say that the unemployed should do this job as a punishment for not having a job already is simply degrading to those who already work cleaning our streets putting them on the same scale as the 'benefit scroungers.'