Browse Members |
New Members |
Spiral-Awake 20 year old female London (GB) xXx Pretty girl. Pretty boy. Pretty insane. Pretty fucked up. xXx Instant_Death 20 year old male Сталингра́ What was God doing before he made heaven? Making hell for people who ask stupid questions. Reicher_Massa... 20 year old male Al-revis (US) "Hmmm...I wonder if I can trust my heart to anyone, can I?" AlongCameAshlyn 15 year old female The 810, MI (US) No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. [more]
|
Author | Message | |||||
|
Yeah thats what I was pointing out. There's a difference between neo-liberalism and republican style corporate welfare which has become known as neo-conservatism. A huge difference. One supports economic freedom(neo-liberal capitalists) while the other supports the large scale subsidy of corporate interests and monopolies. Republicans are not even anymore in support of economic freedom really as they've forsaken their neo-liberal creed. And there's also a difference between a social liberal and an economic one. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Now expanding to meet the needs of the DS Bureaucracy™. | |||||
|
Social authoritarianism is also a rather handy way of maintaining the model of Society born during the Industrial revolution, one that squeezes the most productivity out of the workers. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Sorry. The forums are under maintenance, please call one of our Phone Operator in Malaysia for more infomation. | |||||
|
There is a stark difference between a politicians social and economic political perspective. This is the most important sentence of this entire thread. If you can understand this, you will realize that politics isn't black and white. There is a myriad of various perspectives all across the board, depending on the particular social and economic views which someone holds. You can be against economic freedom, but for social freedom. Or, you can be for economic freedom, but against social freedom. Or, you can be for economic freedom and social freedom. Or, you can be against both. In other words, just because someone doesn't want gay people to have the right to marry each other doesn't automatically mean that person also wants people to have no economic freedoms. In one instance, they want people to have less freedom, while in another they may want people to have more. You aren't either "for freedom" or "against freedom." In one context you are and maybe in one context you aren't. And that's the point, that there are different contexts. | |||||
|
On October 28, 2009, 2:31PM, rlc said: uh, what? that's not what it means at all. it means that you're opposed to radical changes. since america has pretty much always been about freedom (not for everybody, but like i said, radicals on either side are trouble), how would it mean that you're against freedom? In my opinion, Derrick went a bit into too much technicality when he responded to this. To respond more simply: usually, when people oppose radical change, that change is usually the result of an attempt to increase social freedom. So, it's not really radical change, in general, which conservatives seem to tend to oppose, but merely any radical change which attempt to increase social freedom. Hence, the word "conservative" is usually associated with authoritarian attitudes which stem from religion and morality, whereby social freedoms are limited. Society is always trying to break away from these religious and moral restraints, which leads to proposals for radical social change, which leads to a conservativist attitude, which desires the prevention of such change. Seriously, most conservatives tend to oppose abortion and gay marriage. How is that "pretty much about freedom"? | |||||
|
Social authoritarianism is also a rather handy way of maintaining the model of Society born during the Industrial revolution, one that squeezes the most productivity out of the workers. Because anti-gay and anti-abortion stances increase productivity by 20%. As opposed to a system where productivity is substantially lowered, example? | |||||
|
No. How ever, Nuclear families living together, with 2 children, Christian values, church going, working Husband, Housewife, are the most productive, and these are relativly protected by many Conservative values. Go do any Historical study of Modernity, and you'll see the emergence of this pattern around the the Industrial revolution. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Please stay off the grass... We make no exceptions to posts under influence. | |||||
|
Because women spent a lot of time working in the house and raising children prior to the industrial revolution? Women's role was in the house at the time of the Romans. That isn't something that is new or particularly planned, for some maniacal tycoon plotting over how to get every last drop of sweat from his workers... | |||||
|
I'm not saying it's some maniacal tycoon! It's the natural evolution of society to cope with modernity. And actually, there were many cases of women being heads of house holds all across Europe, with several men as fathers. We did several case studies in History last year about families in London living prior to the industrial revolution, they were really not nuclear families. I can find some long academic article I used as research last year about it? ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Locking this thread in about 4 minutes [This post was last updated on November 8, 2009, 10:11PM by hezekiah.] | |||||
|
I don't see why not, the exchange of knowledge is important. But I fail to see how what you describe as a nuclear Christian family would be more productive than other examples. People work when they need to. | |||||
|
You're not supposed to say yes, now I have to trawl through .pdf files on my computer! It's kind of obvious though. Having extended family around makes the family more independant, they're able to look after each other. The Grandparents drain the ability of their sons/daughters to work for wage, as they have to be cared for. Additionally, one large family may only have 1 or 2 workers out of many possible workers, with the children working towards joining their fathers work. Grandparents in this system are also forced to work for longer. A nuclear familiy promotes the male children to leave, and "Go it alone" - creating their own family which they have to provide for, instead of staying within the extended family network. In say Iran, where there are huge family groups, the productivity of said family is considerably lower than their Western equilavents. The children work towards their fathers trade, and the daughters satelite the family as de facto house wives, along with the wife, or several wives. It's not hugely progressive, there's no drive to achieve for yourself, unlike a nuclear family. Let me find some papers on it. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Working towards the uninterchangability and disaccountability abilities in the smallest unimpossiblity of time frames. | |||||
|
or, read some Foucault. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: All our decisions are scrutinised for impartiallity by our very own DS Bureaucracy Probes™ who are proven in our conclusive studies to be 99.9% conclusive. | |||||
|
Always comes back down to Foucault for Aidan. ----- Well-behaved women rarely make history. But they sure can make a damn good sammich! | |||||
|
You are what you read. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Where modfags are homoerotic moderators. | |||||
|
I've read about 1 half a book by Foucault. I am not actually that influenced by him. My main guide in this view was a History Proffessor at my University... In fact, I'm wondering whether Foucault even talks about family structure, he focusses more on tangible tools of the Government, like Prisons, and Hospitals. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Sorry. The forums are under maintenance, please call one of our Phone Operator in Malaysia for more infomation. [This post was last updated on November 10, 2009, 2:32AM by hezekiah.] | |||||
|
A nuclear familiy promotes the male children to leave, and "Go it alone" - creating their own family which they have to provide for, instead of staying within the extended family network. In say Iran, where there are huge family groups, the productivity of said family is considerably lower than their Western equilavents. The children work towards their fathers trade, and the daughters satelite the family as de facto house wives, along with the wife, or several wives. It's not hugely progressive, there's no drive to achieve for yourself, unlike a nuclear family. Interesting points, but from that can you pull actual case studies or figures which support these concepts in terms of worker productivity? Dunno what changed in the Uk and other western countries to change the family structure like that, it wasn't very long ago that we had tennaments packed with huge families in small houses in Glasgow, for instance. Perhaps this is of some use, but then again it ties in directly to economic values which are relative | |||||
|
Yeah, it is definitly true that some areas of Britain have only recently evolved into near pure nuclear family conditions, but you could point to poverty that places like Glasgow have traditionally had, which could correllate with a large urban population living in those kinds of conditions, which don't encourage productivity. And as a result you see large levels of violent crime, and drugs from generations who haven't been given any drive from a nuclear family structure. The same could be said for other areas of subburban housing projects for working class families, which due to unemployment of the father (so a failed equation to the nuclear familiy) lead to crime/poverty/lack of drive to work. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Expanding our powers to meet the expansive needs of forum expansion. | |||||
|
On November 9, 2009, 7:43PM, ImAWhat said: Always comes back down to Foucault for Aidan. Damn straight. Aidan has good taste. | |||||
|
but you could point to poverty that places like Glasgow have traditionally had, which could correllate with a large urban population living in those kinds of conditions, which don't encourage productivity. That's an unsound allegation to make considering that Glasgow [and Belfast] were the industrial hubs of the British Empire at the turn of the century. Glasgow's ship building, chemical and steel industries were very productive, in fact at one point some of the world's finest; besides the tennanments, abject poverty and disease. | |||||
|
Yeah, but I'm not talking about what they were, but what they are now. The post-industrial has sent a decay through most of the large industrial cities of the North. In terms of the development of the nuclear family, I'd say that it's far more applicable to the modern economy of Britain; large working class families in Scotland, the North of Ireland, and Northern England existed because of poor contraception, and created a necessity to work long house in factories. Look at India, China, and other manufacturing nations. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Working towards the uninterchangability and disaccountability abilities in the smallest unimpossiblity of time frames. | |||||
|
Scotland for some time was productive regardless of poverty and large unplanned families, infact you could probably correlate the rise of planned families than the decline of the industrial era there. ... and wait, "large working class families"... "like china". :| lol |
| Last 10 Members to View This Thread | |
| Name | Time |
| ImAWhat | Nov 20, 2009, 2:33PM |
| xellence | Nov 20, 2009, 8:42AM |
| nodgene | Nov 18, 2009, 3:55PM |
| Pagan | Nov 18, 2009, 3:13PM |
| Sgath | Nov 18, 2009, 1:17PM |
| Tommi | Nov 18, 2009, 9:23AM |
| BrittanyLeigh_ | Nov 16, 2009, 10:29AM |
| x-leila-x | Nov 13, 2009, 5:20PM |
| Kashikoi | Nov 13, 2009, 4:26PM |
| Pine.Orange.Fruit.Drink | Nov 13, 2009, 5:32AM |
| nancy | Nov 12, 2009, 5:33PM |
DarkStarling Forums, v.0.8 (Virgo) © 2005 |