Well done Mark - think I'll try your version next time I play the game with the kids. It'll be interesting to see how they respond to being born with a silver spoon in their mouths - so to speak, or being bottom of the blinkin' heap
Why? We can elites only exist where they can substain themselves and evolving forces of production have been crippling their ability to do so significantly. Modern conditions are perfectly capable of sustaining a classless society, and better political systems could keep any bureaucracy accountable.
True, that would be an agreeable argument if taken on a broader context but bear in mind that having the same people in an elite is ultimately the cause of power shifting to dictatorship. Having an elite which continuously shifts over power to different individuals will help minimize corruption, vote-rigging, lobbying, gerrymandering, political oppression etc..
A dictatorship is what happens when one small section of society use illiberal means to hang onto control of the coercive power structures. While "liberal democracy" is certainly preferable to that it is important to keep in mind that it doesn't really matter who holds the concentrations of wealth and power, its the fact that those concentrations exist that is the problem.
Please take this as a compliment for your well-spoken arguments: you should be on television, radio, newspapers and any other form of media debating all these hypocrites who say nothing than what the masses want to hear. I'm serious, I'm enjoying this debate. Keep it up!
Thank you. I've been hoping to do some Youtube videos about politics and with any luck tackle some of the misconceptions surrounding socialism and marxism, although I'm afraid I don't have the comic talent of Mark here.
As to the issue of classes that challenge could be next to impossible, with many underground organizations whose members are solely comprised of people from the heights of society continuously formulating means and methods on surviving political shifts and struggles even manipulating political ideologies in their image and interests in order to secure their place in the upper class. This is no conspiracy theory by the way. (I'm saying to anyone else who might misunderstand the argument)
If it were easy it would have been done already. But great gains have already been made and I like to think its only a matter of time before the job is finished.
But actually I have started to sympathize to communistic word view. I just haven't seen any working model so far. So i treat it as nice utopia with horrible consequence if sombody really tries to build it. I have come to conclusion that communism isn't bad. It just ends badly. Stage 1 You kill rich, Stage 2 you redistribute property, Stage 3 Army or police watches that nobody tries to return to previous lifestyle or sabotage something. Stage 4 Thous at power becomes corrupted ERROR-RESTART
(continued to RevolutionarySpectre) if you're a staunch communist die-hard, spit it out! Don't resort to fabricating that soviet communism was a heavenly ideology and accusing me of being dillusional.
People starved to death (and STILL DO) thanks to the soviet communists, I know this from reality, from adult Russians that I know!
"the democracy degenerated into a stagnant and corrupt bureaucracy" - that argument is perfectly true, as is what's happening in European countries and the U.S.
I'm a communist certainly and I haven't fabricated anything, all I said was that you had misunderstood or were misrepresenting the position of the party owning most of the generated wealth, which is nonesense.
People starved to death before the communists, and the communists eliminated that problem. I don't see how they can be said to "still do". Standard of living in Russia has declined significantly since soviet times.
I don't present the USSR as "heavenly", I just consider it in context and
avoid knee jerk reactions. No one is presenting the USSR as a utopia.
There are anti-communists in Russia, there are also many people who dearly miss the soviet times. A large percentage according to the polls.
Democracy in the US and Europe hasn't stagnated, we're just still in the process of winning it. America is alot more democratic today than it used to be, misplaced idealism about the founding fathers is just that, misplaced idealism.
By the way, when we're talking communism: please let's not dwell on the Soviet Union. That communist system has collapsed; but not China, North Korea and Belarus. Speaking of which, have you a genuine explanation on why Belarus still remains a regime that arrests political opponents on stupid charges such as swearing in public or urinating on the street. It's secret police more efficient than the KGB and private medias (TV, radio, newspapers) continuously putting up with political harassment?
You brought up the USSR, not me. As for Belarus, it ofcourse has a bunch of problems and I'm not going to defend the bad things its government does. China is capitalist and has never claimed otherwise. N Korea abandoned communism decades ago in favour or a reactionary cult called Juche (It actually had one of the highest living standards in Asia back when it operated on marxist principles). Any other shots?
Thank you for your important points. I know about juche. A politicized religion and personality cult following Kim il Sung and his son kim jong il. Making North Korea the worst place to exist in on Earth.
As far as I understand, real communists in USSR started to die off or get real at about 70. And in 80, there were only communist rhetoric. Leonid Brezhnev was not a real communist. He owned many limos, liked to drive hunting, kept bunch om mistresses and lived expensively. Nice life, but not a communists life. At last years of his ruling actually largest part of society started to smell fake play. In shops were dubble selling. For most, certain products were unalvilable, but some could get them
misunderstood? So you might as well just meet up with my russian friends (who escaped the soviet union) and call them liars in their faces. And of course you haven't answered me about the Gullah prison camp, maybe you also "happen" to approve of arresting anyone that doesn't agree with your political beliefs and opnions?
I haven't accused your friends of anything. I didn't answer your question about the Gullah because I had no idea what you meant. No it seems you probably mean to say "gulag", in which case they were highly unfortunate, but one must consider that Gulags were a historical norm in Russia which had nothing o do with communism (infact abolishing them was a communist achievment too), lenin spent time in one, and abolishing the system immediatly after the revolution would have been impractical.
Its less about ideology than it is about where power lies. The Soviets failed to abolish concentrations of what Lenin called "special power" (political power seperate from the people as a whole). Administrative decision making was the job of those with the necessary education, seperate from the masses, and thus the USSR came to be a workers state in which the workers had a minimal political role to play.
however I do think they should have been abolished earlier than they were. No I don't agree with arresting anyone who disagrees with my political opinions, however I do recognise the realities of war and that from 1917-1945 Russia/USSR was fighting a nonstop war of unparelleled agression and that some freedoms had to be suspended. In the UK elections and critical press were abolished during WW2 and the war in the UK was a utopia compared to what happened in the East.
Surely genuine 21st century communists (living in the western world) cannot possibly be in support of communist countries like china, soviet union and north Korea which in fact turn out to be totalitarian regimes regardless if they run on a communist system? (Not referring to you less004) The hypocrisy of it is the ruling parties keep most of the country's generated wealth to themselves only to use it for pure personal uses. Not so different from capitalists.
Your analysis of the USSR seems detached from reality. Sure the democracy degenerated into a stagnant and corrupt bureaucracy, but to claim that the bureaucrats or the party replaced the capitalists is to ignore the transformation of the economc power structure during the Revolution and the naure of productive relations in the USSR, which were not capitalist. Surplus value was the property of society as a whole, not a privilaged class of capitalists.
No I never said the bureaucrats held economic advance! Please don't put words into my arguments! YOU'RE the one who's analysis "seems" detached from reality. Here's a question: Why does EVERY country that is or has been ruled by communism have shocking unhygienic infrastructure (the ones in which "the common people" had to live in) whilst your glorious soviets used/lived in the very palaces built by the imperialists? What about the Gullah HEH?!!! Is that part of your economic advancement?
You accuse me of claiming you said bureaucrats held back economic advancement (which I did not) and then you go and do just that.
I didn't mention economic advance once, I said the democracy was stagnant. The fact is that the USSR was an economy based on public ownership of the means of production. There was no mass appropriations of surplus value by party cadre in the way capitalists do (although there was corruption). The living conditions in the USSR were unfortunate, but a great improvement
over what came before. After a series of mistakes the USSR succeeded in eliminating the agricultural instability which had resulted in regular famine and lack of affordable food in the time before the revolution. The condition of soviet housing must be considered in the context in which it was built. The cities where most of the population lived had been completly levelled by the Nazis during WW2. If you have 10s of millions of homeless your going to have to sacrifice quality somewhere.
Its important to consider standard of living in pre and post societ Russia to get a fair view. Standards of living dramatically rose for the poorest people following the revolution, and following the war everyone had a home with heating and power (which many in the west and russia today still do not), access to all the food they needed, healthcare, one of the best education systems in the world. Consummerism isn't the only measure of quality of life. Political freedoms were lacking but they were
Let's put it this today, if a black person goes to russia TODAY in the 21st century, cops have the right to arrest him based on the colour of his skin, cops in russia have the unofficial right to beat the crap out of you without facing any official procedures.
Now realistically speaking, I fully agree with your last sentence. Sacrificing quality to help the desperate part of the population. Desperate times need desperate measures. Having said that, it doesn't justify totalitarianism. The Natural freedoms of will and thought are none negotiable.
I've never accepted the idea that the Soviet Union was "state capitalist". This was a formulation by those such as the SWP who wanted to blur the differences ("Neither Washington Nor Moscow") in order to accommodate anti-communism to pursue their own reformist agenda with regards to the Labour Party and "the parliamentary road to socialism" which seems to me to be like the M25 - crowded and circular. I always considered the Soviet Union to be a degenerated workers state.
Excellent video my friend, your points are well made.
Capitalism is essentially the tyranny of the past over the present, as Marx pointed out. When the working class is finally liberated, we will create a society in which the present dominates the past.
No longer will one class utilize the means of production to opress another.
We the working class must unite, and save our world from the econonic & ecologic destruction of capitalism. We must unite for the very future of our children.
The point is that the circumstances in which you are born, (over which, obviously, you have no say) are a major factor in determining
what happens to you. Even the current British government, which can't be described as socialist, is worried about lack of social mobility. If everyone were able to have a decent, well-paid, useful job, who'd choose to be a servant?
I'm quite chuffed at getting a reply actually! However, do you think you're views would be the same if you were born into millions that, for example, you're father earned?...
Hard to say. I'd like to think my views would be the same but, to take an extreme example, those born into the royal family must grow up thinking themselves special and thinking that privilege and master-servant relations are normal. However, were I to win the lottery, (which would be miraculous since I don't do it!) I'd try to do something useful with the money. "Earned" is a relative concept. Miner or footballer? Doctor or speculator?
Many may not have worked especially hard or done anything much 'useful' to earn their money, but the majority have made it have an exceptional skill that has allowed them to. For example, there aren't many miners who could make it into professional football. If you have that skill, you can earn the money and, in my view, you've earned it and who am i to say they don't deserve it. I pay to watch football and i buy the merchandise, why shouldn't the player take a cut?
(By the way, I would support footballers versus their bosses ; the overall amount of money in football has been recently massively inflated as a way for Murdoch et al to penetrate and dominate markets, nothing inherent in the skill of playing football.) How would a footballer (or anyone) get by without sewage workers, for example? Given the choice, which would you prefer : sewage workers or financial speculators?
I see your point and, quite obviously, would prefer the sewage worker. I have no idea of the wage the job would command, but it's less than a footballer and it's true that i wouldn't like to trudge through faeces to get to a football game through lack of sewage workers, but anyone could do the job, however dolefully. They may deserve more in comparison to a footballer or a 'financial speculator but i don't understand how you could make this system fairer without radical, improbable change.
There are two main types of work : necessary and social useful work or work (like making YouTube videos!)which may (or may not) interest others. Why not have a system were necessary work is shared (and rewarded) equally, so we can all do whatever we want at other times? We should minimise work we don't want to do, not force or pressure others to do it for us. Of course, there'll be exceptions, (we can't all be surgeons) but I think we should organise society on a fair and rational basis.
I was always rubbish at Monopoly, but it was always satisfying (as a seven year old) to flip the board over in anger and then twat my brother in the face for "cheating".
Well done, cheers!
Johnsigl1 4 months ago
Awesome statement and song!
meanmrmustard89 1 year ago
Well done Mark - think I'll try your version next time I play the game with the kids. It'll be interesting to see how they respond to being born with a silver spoon in their mouths - so to speak, or being bottom of the blinkin' heap
UtterNonsenseClips 1 year ago
No, not really. I just see no need for stages 1,2,3, if anyway we will come to 4.
skavotajs5 3 years ago
Why does it necessarily lead to 4? The whole point is for the masses and those with power to be the same thing.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Which will never happen because human nature will always dictate that an elite is in power and the masses, ah well. Pawns of the system.
Torchmark 3 years ago
Why? We can elites only exist where they can substain themselves and evolving forces of production have been crippling their ability to do so significantly. Modern conditions are perfectly capable of sustaining a classless society, and better political systems could keep any bureaucracy accountable.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
True, that would be an agreeable argument if taken on a broader context but bear in mind that having the same people in an elite is ultimately the cause of power shifting to dictatorship. Having an elite which continuously shifts over power to different individuals will help minimize corruption, vote-rigging, lobbying, gerrymandering, political oppression etc..
Torchmark 3 years ago
A dictatorship is what happens when one small section of society use illiberal means to hang onto control of the coercive power structures. While "liberal democracy" is certainly preferable to that it is important to keep in mind that it doesn't really matter who holds the concentrations of wealth and power, its the fact that those concentrations exist that is the problem.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Please take this as a compliment for your well-spoken arguments: you should be on television, radio, newspapers and any other form of media debating all these hypocrites who say nothing than what the masses want to hear. I'm serious, I'm enjoying this debate. Keep it up!
Torchmark 3 years ago
Thank you. I've been hoping to do some Youtube videos about politics and with any luck tackle some of the misconceptions surrounding socialism and marxism, although I'm afraid I don't have the comic talent of Mark here.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
As to the issue of classes that challenge could be next to impossible, with many underground organizations whose members are solely comprised of people from the heights of society continuously formulating means and methods on surviving political shifts and struggles even manipulating political ideologies in their image and interests in order to secure their place in the upper class. This is no conspiracy theory by the way. (I'm saying to anyone else who might misunderstand the argument)
Torchmark 3 years ago
If it were easy it would have been done already. But great gains have already been made and I like to think its only a matter of time before the job is finished.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Ah! Now we're both understanding where we're both coming from!
Torchmark 3 years ago
But actually I have started to sympathize to communistic word view. I just haven't seen any working model so far. So i treat it as nice utopia with horrible consequence if sombody really tries to build it. I have come to conclusion that communism isn't bad. It just ends badly. Stage 1 You kill rich, Stage 2 you redistribute property, Stage 3 Army or police watches that nobody tries to return to previous lifestyle or sabotage something. Stage 4 Thous at power becomes corrupted ERROR-RESTART
skavotajs5 3 years ago
Stage 4 Thous at power become corrupted and life is nearly as bad as capitalism. Do you really believe capitalism's track-record is better?
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
(continued to RevolutionarySpectre) if you're a staunch communist die-hard, spit it out! Don't resort to fabricating that soviet communism was a heavenly ideology and accusing me of being dillusional.
People starved to death (and STILL DO) thanks to the soviet communists, I know this from reality, from adult Russians that I know!
"the democracy degenerated into a stagnant and corrupt bureaucracy" - that argument is perfectly true, as is what's happening in European countries and the U.S.
Torchmark 3 years ago
I'm a communist certainly and I haven't fabricated anything, all I said was that you had misunderstood or were misrepresenting the position of the party owning most of the generated wealth, which is nonesense.
People starved to death before the communists, and the communists eliminated that problem. I don't see how they can be said to "still do". Standard of living in Russia has declined significantly since soviet times.
I don't present the USSR as "heavenly", I just consider it in context and
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
avoid knee jerk reactions. No one is presenting the USSR as a utopia.
There are anti-communists in Russia, there are also many people who dearly miss the soviet times. A large percentage according to the polls.
Democracy in the US and Europe hasn't stagnated, we're just still in the process of winning it. America is alot more democratic today than it used to be, misplaced idealism about the founding fathers is just that, misplaced idealism.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
By the way, when we're talking communism: please let's not dwell on the Soviet Union. That communist system has collapsed; but not China, North Korea and Belarus. Speaking of which, have you a genuine explanation on why Belarus still remains a regime that arrests political opponents on stupid charges such as swearing in public or urinating on the street. It's secret police more efficient than the KGB and private medias (TV, radio, newspapers) continuously putting up with political harassment?
Torchmark 3 years ago
You brought up the USSR, not me. As for Belarus, it ofcourse has a bunch of problems and I'm not going to defend the bad things its government does. China is capitalist and has never claimed otherwise. N Korea abandoned communism decades ago in favour or a reactionary cult called Juche (It actually had one of the highest living standards in Asia back when it operated on marxist principles). Any other shots?
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Thank you for your important points. I know about juche. A politicized religion and personality cult following Kim il Sung and his son kim jong il. Making North Korea the worst place to exist in on Earth.
Torchmark 3 years ago
As far as I understand, real communists in USSR started to die off or get real at about 70. And in 80, there were only communist rhetoric. Leonid Brezhnev was not a real communist. He owned many limos, liked to drive hunting, kept bunch om mistresses and lived expensively. Nice life, but not a communists life. At last years of his ruling actually largest part of society started to smell fake play. In shops were dubble selling. For most, certain products were unalvilable, but some could get them
skavotajs5 3 years ago
misunderstood? So you might as well just meet up with my russian friends (who escaped the soviet union) and call them liars in their faces. And of course you haven't answered me about the Gullah prison camp, maybe you also "happen" to approve of arresting anyone that doesn't agree with your political beliefs and opnions?
Torchmark 3 years ago
I haven't accused your friends of anything. I didn't answer your question about the Gullah because I had no idea what you meant. No it seems you probably mean to say "gulag", in which case they were highly unfortunate, but one must consider that Gulags were a historical norm in Russia which had nothing o do with communism (infact abolishing them was a communist achievment too), lenin spent time in one, and abolishing the system immediatly after the revolution would have been impractical.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Then we agree that the soviets should have paid more heed to Lenin's ideologies.
Torchmark 3 years ago
Its less about ideology than it is about where power lies. The Soviets failed to abolish concentrations of what Lenin called "special power" (political power seperate from the people as a whole). Administrative decision making was the job of those with the necessary education, seperate from the masses, and thus the USSR came to be a workers state in which the workers had a minimal political role to play.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
however I do think they should have been abolished earlier than they were. No I don't agree with arresting anyone who disagrees with my political opinions, however I do recognise the realities of war and that from 1917-1945 Russia/USSR was fighting a nonstop war of unparelleled agression and that some freedoms had to be suspended. In the UK elections and critical press were abolished during WW2 and the war in the UK was a utopia compared to what happened in the East.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Surely genuine 21st century communists (living in the western world) cannot possibly be in support of communist countries like china, soviet union and north Korea which in fact turn out to be totalitarian regimes regardless if they run on a communist system? (Not referring to you less004) The hypocrisy of it is the ruling parties keep most of the country's generated wealth to themselves only to use it for pure personal uses. Not so different from capitalists.
Torchmark 3 years ago
Your analysis of the USSR seems detached from reality. Sure the democracy degenerated into a stagnant and corrupt bureaucracy, but to claim that the bureaucrats or the party replaced the capitalists is to ignore the transformation of the economc power structure during the Revolution and the naure of productive relations in the USSR, which were not capitalist. Surplus value was the property of society as a whole, not a privilaged class of capitalists.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
No I never said the bureaucrats held economic advance! Please don't put words into my arguments! YOU'RE the one who's analysis "seems" detached from reality. Here's a question: Why does EVERY country that is or has been ruled by communism have shocking unhygienic infrastructure (the ones in which "the common people" had to live in) whilst your glorious soviets used/lived in the very palaces built by the imperialists? What about the Gullah HEH?!!! Is that part of your economic advancement?
Torchmark 3 years ago
You accuse me of claiming you said bureaucrats held back economic advancement (which I did not) and then you go and do just that.
I didn't mention economic advance once, I said the democracy was stagnant. The fact is that the USSR was an economy based on public ownership of the means of production. There was no mass appropriations of surplus value by party cadre in the way capitalists do (although there was corruption). The living conditions in the USSR were unfortunate, but a great improvement
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
over what came before. After a series of mistakes the USSR succeeded in eliminating the agricultural instability which had resulted in regular famine and lack of affordable food in the time before the revolution. The condition of soviet housing must be considered in the context in which it was built. The cities where most of the population lived had been completly levelled by the Nazis during WW2. If you have 10s of millions of homeless your going to have to sacrifice quality somewhere.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Its important to consider standard of living in pre and post societ Russia to get a fair view. Standards of living dramatically rose for the poorest people following the revolution, and following the war everyone had a home with heating and power (which many in the west and russia today still do not), access to all the food they needed, healthcare, one of the best education systems in the world. Consummerism isn't the only measure of quality of life. Political freedoms were lacking but they were
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
the revolution and today as well, that seems like more of a Russian problem than a communist one.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Let's put it this today, if a black person goes to russia TODAY in the 21st century, cops have the right to arrest him based on the colour of his skin, cops in russia have the unofficial right to beat the crap out of you without facing any official procedures.
Torchmark 3 years ago
Where have I defended CAPITALIST Russia? Hell, atleast in the USSR you would have gotten official procedures (fair ones if you were really lucky).
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Now realistically speaking, I fully agree with your last sentence. Sacrificing quality to help the desperate part of the population. Desperate times need desperate measures. Having said that, it doesn't justify totalitarianism. The Natural freedoms of will and thought are none negotiable.
Torchmark 3 years ago
freedoms are determined by our enviroment, not by our will. It sucks, but its true.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
If your will is strong enough. you can.
Torchmark 3 years ago
Anyone with a rational mind knows that Capitalism leads to Fascism. The old Soviet Union was ran by State Capitalists.
dartaddict 3 years ago
I've never accepted the idea that the Soviet Union was "state capitalist". This was a formulation by those such as the SWP who wanted to blur the differences ("Neither Washington Nor Moscow") in order to accommodate anti-communism to pursue their own reformist agenda with regards to the Labour Party and "the parliamentary road to socialism" which seems to me to be like the M25 - crowded and circular. I always considered the Soviet Union to be a degenerated workers state.
less004 3 years ago
Nice! Organize! We are also, not far from the old Kent Road, among other places!
ProletarianCPGBML 3 years ago
Excellent video my friend, your points are well made.
Capitalism is essentially the tyranny of the past over the present, as Marx pointed out. When the working class is finally liberated, we will create a society in which the present dominates the past.
No longer will one class utilize the means of production to opress another.
We the working class must unite, and save our world from the econonic & ecologic destruction of capitalism. We must unite for the very future of our children.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Not everyone was given their money..
wolfyjoe 3 years ago
The point is that the circumstances in which you are born, (over which, obviously, you have no say) are a major factor in determining
what happens to you. Even the current British government, which can't be described as socialist, is worried about lack of social mobility. If everyone were able to have a decent, well-paid, useful job, who'd choose to be a servant?
less004 3 years ago
I'm quite chuffed at getting a reply actually! However, do you think you're views would be the same if you were born into millions that, for example, you're father earned?...
If i was rich, I'd certainly laugh! Ho Ho Ho.
wolfyjoe 3 years ago
Hard to say. I'd like to think my views would be the same but, to take an extreme example, those born into the royal family must grow up thinking themselves special and thinking that privilege and master-servant relations are normal. However, were I to win the lottery, (which would be miraculous since I don't do it!) I'd try to do something useful with the money. "Earned" is a relative concept. Miner or footballer? Doctor or speculator?
less004 3 years ago
Many may not have worked especially hard or done anything much 'useful' to earn their money, but the majority have made it have an exceptional skill that has allowed them to. For example, there aren't many miners who could make it into professional football. If you have that skill, you can earn the money and, in my view, you've earned it and who am i to say they don't deserve it. I pay to watch football and i buy the merchandise, why shouldn't the player take a cut?
wolfyjoe 3 years ago
Don't you think we are all inter-dependent?
(By the way, I would support footballers versus their bosses ; the overall amount of money in football has been recently massively inflated as a way for Murdoch et al to penetrate and dominate markets, nothing inherent in the skill of playing football.) How would a footballer (or anyone) get by without sewage workers, for example? Given the choice, which would you prefer : sewage workers or financial speculators?
less004 3 years ago
I see your point and, quite obviously, would prefer the sewage worker. I have no idea of the wage the job would command, but it's less than a footballer and it's true that i wouldn't like to trudge through faeces to get to a football game through lack of sewage workers, but anyone could do the job, however dolefully. They may deserve more in comparison to a footballer or a 'financial speculator but i don't understand how you could make this system fairer without radical, improbable change.
wolfyjoe 3 years ago
There are two main types of work : necessary and social useful work or work (like making YouTube videos!)which may (or may not) interest others. Why not have a system were necessary work is shared (and rewarded) equally, so we can all do whatever we want at other times? We should minimise work we don't want to do, not force or pressure others to do it for us. Of course, there'll be exceptions, (we can't all be surgeons) but I think we should organise society on a fair and rational basis.
less004 3 years ago
The players take a lot more than just "a cut", most of it from posing for photo shoots and publicity stunts nowadays.
Torchmark 3 years ago
I was always rubbish at Monopoly, but it was always satisfying (as a seven year old) to flip the board over in anger and then twat my brother in the face for "cheating".
Very Roy Harper song BTW.
geffel 3 years ago
This is absolutly the best one of all! You should make professional recordings:P
Lycan87 3 years ago
I believe he's done that alrady.
geffel 3 years ago
Monopoly analogies just work so well when it comes to capitalism.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago