Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Mayday rethink - Is Capitalism Evil?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
As Mayday is approaching, we would expect a group of idelogists protesting against capitalism. While the majority of us support capitalism as the model of governing the country, now it is actually a good chance for us to think again the values we have always adapted. If capitalism is perfect, there would not be so many problems around us. If you have a closer look of what the socialists (or even the communists) aruging against capitalism, you can see their points, otherwise there won't be so much socialist supporters throughout history, throughout the world.

Typical arguments against capitalism are:

1. Capitalism ignore the weaker groups in society. Capitalism emphasis on free competition. Capitalism prides itself as 'everyone got the chance to succeed'. But is it really everyone got a fair chance? Some people were born disadvantaged. For example, those born in poor families, they did not have the chance to receive proper education and get a high paid job. Some have disabilities, some because of their skin colour, that they are naturally 'filtered out' in the competition of wealth.

2. Capitalism ignores the morality of society. Because the free market is controlled by demand and supply, sellers will do whatever they can to attract buyers. Large cooporations make millions of people loyal or even addicted to their products, destroy the environment to make them more profitable, make children and teenagers to be materialistic. To the companies, they don't really care if their products are really good for the consumers, as long as they can create a dependency habit from them.

3. Capitalism plays unfairly to third world countries. Capitalist countries often use the labels of 'free trade' to exploit the developing countries - Africa, Asia and South America. They make use of their resources, buy them cheaply and export goods to these countries, which the raw materials were from them originally. Also, because of debts lent to the third world, the capitalist countries have more say than the third world countries. Therefore, developing countries will always be 'developing' and under the control of the capitalist world in this 'fair game'.

The above are not my views. I just quoted what most of the socialists protest against capitalism. What do you think of these views? Would you defend against them or would you admit the evilness of capitalism? Think about it.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by NiceK:
    [QB]
    1. Capitalism ignore the weaker groups in society. Capitalism emphasis on free competition. Capitalism prides itself as 'everyone got the chance to succeed'. But is it really everyone got a fair chance? Some people were born disadvantaged. For example, those born in poor families, they did not have the chance to receive proper education and get a high paid job. Some have disabilities, some because of their skin colour, that they are naturally 'filtered out' in the competition of wealth.

    Capitalism doesn't claim these at all. Capitalism is simply about profit. What you are describing is meritocracy. Where everybody, regardless of race, sex, age e.t.c. should be able to get to the top on their own merits. The ones who put in the most effort, gain the most. It is the most fair system, as it ensures competition, and forces people to ignore education at their own peril. It prevents people, who have put in no effort from reaching the top. Imagine a society where the dumb shits get paid the same as an Oxford graduate with lots of job experience. it's going to cause resentment.
    2. Capitalism ignores the morality of society. Because the free market is controlled by demand and supply, sellers will do whatever they can to attract buyers. Large cooporations make millions of people loyal or even addicted to their products, destroy the environment to make them more profitable, make children and teenagers to be materialistic. To the companies, they don't really care if their products are really good for the consumers, as long as they can create a dependency habit from them.

    Technically in a capitalist society, the ideal is to strike a balance between the best type of product, whilst remaining cheap. People have ALWAYS demanded luxury items, even before capitalism. And the people who provided these items were doing it for a profit. They never gave a toss about their customers or suppliers in the same way the corporations don't today. The only difference is the size of the playing field.
    3. Capitalism plays unfairly to third world countries. Capitalist countries often use the labels of 'free trade' to exploit the developing countries - Africa, Asia and South America. They make use of their resources, buy them cheaply and export goods to these countries, which the raw materials were from them originally. Also, because of debts lent to the third world, the capitalist countries have more say than the third world countries. Therefore, developing countries will always be 'developing' and under the control of the capitalist world in this 'fair game'.

    Third world countries leave themselves open to be exploited by everyone, not just capitalist nations. Communist countries have used third world nations for their own ends, the same way we have. Capitalist countries have more say, not because of economic power, but military and technological supremacy. Something we have always had over them. Countries don't refuse to pay their debts because they know we can destroy them. The same thing happened before capitalism was widespread, in the days of imperialism. Countries listened to us, because if they didn't they would face the conscqeunces.
    I believe we would still exploit the 3rd world if we were a communist country. We would still need the raw materials, and we would still need to sell manufactured goods to raise money.
    If the 3rd world hadn't lagged behind us, if they hadn't supported the influence of corrupt leaders then they wouldn't be in such a shitty mess. You don't see us ripping off countries like America or Australia. Both of which have abundant raw materials.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>


    I believe we would still exploit the 3rd world if we were a communist country. We would still need the raw materials, and we would still need to sell manufactured goods to raise money.
    If the 3rd world hadn't lagged behind us, if they hadn't supported the influence of corrupt leaders then they wouldn't be in such a shitty mess. You don't see us ripping off countries like America or Australia. Both of which have abundant raw materials.</STRONG>


    The position of the Third World today has the First World of a generation or two ago to blame. They didn't "lag" behind us because we kept their native industries from developing, so that they would have to buy our products. The Third World relies on raw material exports because of merchantist policies of First World governments.

    Of course we would still exploit them if we were Communist. I hate this argument, because it suggests that Communist leaders have altruism as a guiding hand over their foreign policy rather than national needs.

    I would agree that what we have is a meritocracy in our countries. If you work hard enough I believe you can get whatever you want. Of course there are always other people who have to work harder than others to get to the same place, but that's life. We can't ensure everyone the same starting place, but we should always strive to level the playing field.


    And corporations are not a bad thing. They give us goods at the lowest possible cost because its the most efficient way to produce. Seeing as the real world has horrible consequences for those who become destitute, the people who risk doing that by starting a business deserve whatever they get. However, businesses should be kept in check. Capitalism only works when competition is fierce and fair, and companies that have unfair advantages don't have a "right" to keep them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course we would still exploit them if we were Communist. I hate this argument, because it suggests that Communist leaders have altruism as a guiding hand over their foreign policy rather than national needs.
    There have never been any countries which have been communist. You are confusing communism with state capitalism which is what the countries of eastern Europe and China, Cuba and North Korea are. All the so called communist countries were state capitalist because the workers did not control the means of production the state did and these regimes were controled by an elite few and were not democratic! These countries were based on Stalin's idea of socialism in one country.

    Communism means a system whereby the workers democratically control the means of production and distribution and plan production for need not profit. Communism is also meant to be a global borderless system. The aim of communism is to create communism throughout the whole world to replace global capitalism so that eventualy there is no need for national boundaries so under world communism there would be no Third World countries!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stealgate, either submit something useful to the argument or fuck off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Capitalism ignore the weaker groups in society
    True, though capitalists purport to a meritocracy, there are obvious dicrepancies such as areas of poverty where people are born disadvantaged.
    Capitalism ignores the morality of society.
    True, Capitalism is completely without a moral code as we see it.
    Capitalism plays unfairly to third world countries.
    True, we buy resources from them and then sell them back finished products at a large profit.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>True, Capitalism is completely without a moral code as we see it.</STRONG>

    Is it utterly devoid of a moral code? Or is it just that it happens to be one that you (and others) disagree with? As an extreme example, "'right' is whatever I want it to be" is a moral code, but not necessarily one that you would agree with.

    Oh dear, shades of Arrow again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Meritocracy and capitalism are not immoral. They are both shoot offs from Calvinism. Another form of the protestant work ethic.
    Those who work should be rewarded, and quite rightly those who don't work deserve nothing.

    Why is that so unfair? In Western society EVERYONE is born with equal chances. Everyone is given access to free education, healthcare and employment. If people refuse to grab those chances then fuck em. They don't deserve anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I said "as we see it" as a broad definition of our societies morals which are completely alien to capiatalism.

    When I talk about capitalism I am talking about the unrestrained variety i.e. with no government.

    In the "pure" capitalist society for example someone unable to pay for health service would be left to die. If you can't afford it then you get no education for your children. An self-perpetuating elite of wealthy families with vast assets control the means of production whilst everyone else is reduced to the role of wage-slave whose purpose is to produce and to consume.

    Everything is driven by the desire for profit and efficiency within a capitalist system.

    A simple example is of the inefficient company. The company makes a profit but the shareholders insist on greater competitiveness, the maager must sack workers whom he knows have families. What kind of morals are those?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    EVERYONE is born with equal chances
    That is simply not true, you know as well as I that education in many inner-city areas is inadequate thus those people unable to get out of these areas are permanently disadvantaged.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>Meritocracy and capitalism are not immoral. They are both shoot offs from Calvinism. Another form of the protestant work ethic. Those who work should be rewarded, and quite rightly those who don't work deserve nothing.

    Why is that so unfair? In Western society EVERYONE is born with equal chances....</STRONG>

    It is unfair, as someone has already pointed out not everyone is born with equal chances. Even there are free education and benefits open to them (by the way, these things are not products of meritology), many groups of people are still disadvantaged for various reasons. It could be physical, such as disabilities or skin colour. It could be geographical, etc.

    Also, the same hard work does not mean the same reward. Take the example of workers vs entrepreneurs. Many workers work as hard as their company owners, if not harder. However, the entrepreneurs, because they own or control the companies, got 10 times higher paid or even more than the workers have. Is this fair?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie:
    <STRONG>
    Is it utterly devoid of a moral code? Or is it just that it happens to be one that you (and others) disagree with? As an extreme example, "'right' is whatever I want it to be" is a moral code, but not necessarily one that you would agree with.
    </STRONG>

    While the question of what is moral is subjective, the society as a whole however, does have some common codes. These are the values we all agree to be the good for the society. For example, preserving the environment, not wasting resources, etc.

    Originally posted by Lexicon:
    <STRONG>
    Capitalism only works when competition is fierce and fair, and companies that have unfair advantages don't have a "right" to keep them.</STRONG>

    And this is not happening in the real world, is it? I'm sure you've seen lots of examples in America. But then even everywhere else, large coporations are 'eating' the smaller ones. We see some few big giants companies are controlling the world market.

    As some communist supporters point out, capitalism, in its pure form, is simply selfishness and greediness. I am no supporter of communism but I have come across arguments like this. How would you defend this?

    [ 25-04-2002: Message edited by: NiceK ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by NiceK:
    <STRONG>

    And this is not happening in the real world, is it? I'm sure you've seen lots of examples in America. But then even everywhere else, large coporations are 'eating' the smaller ones. We see some few big giants companies are controlling the world market.

    As some communist supporters point out, capitalism, in its pure form, is simply selfishness and greediness. I am no supporter of communism but I have come across arguments like this. How would you defend this?

    [ 25-04-2002: Message edited by: NiceK ]</STRONG>

    Large corporations aren't being held in check by governments unfortunately. I think that governments should use anti-trust suits like the one the US government filed against Microsoft more often. Laissez-faire capitalism only works when there aren't corporate hegemons dominating particular industries. Unfortunately, these big businesses also pay a lot of money to election campaigns which buys them a certain amount of preferential treatment.

    As for the greed and selfish nature of capitalism at it's purest, I'm not sure that there is a solution. Avarice is a part of human nature when in large groups, small communities can keep this in check, however. Although stealgate would disagree, the Communist experiments helped prove this, with every Communist nation creating a certain privileged (sp?) ruling class. State capitalism or whatever, the intentions of these revolutions were to create socialist states and they failed.

    If the governments cannot directly control these corporations, I think greed combined with the legal system can. I'm sure that you've read about court cases where plaintiffs have forced huge settlements with corporations based on punative damages. If limits for damages can be avoided, this might help keep capitalism in check. Large companies will be limited in the extent of predatory actions because of the fear of these lawsuits by people who were wronged, as well as those who are just greedy.

    What do you think?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the Communist experiments helped prove this, with every Communist nation creating a certain privileged (sp?) ruling class. State capitalism or whatever, the intentions of these revolutions were to create socialist states and they failed.
    Communism only failed in Russia because of the enormous problems Russia faced after the revolution! Those enormous problems such as massive famine being invaded by 14 different countries and having to fight a massive war against the White Army allowed a beauracy to arise that took total control and destroyed most of the gains of the revolution except the planned economy!

    All the so called communist countries that followed were based on the Soviet model of state capitalism and so were not true communist countries to start with!

    The main flaw with capitalism is that the owners of the means of production - the bosses make the most money while the people who actualy produce the products under capitalism get the least! Another flaw in capitalism is that the workers are paid less tthan the value of the goods they produce so that they cannot buy back the goods they produce so this leads to over production and recession!

    Globalise Resistance the voice of the anti-capitalist movement.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>Communism only failed in Russia because of the enormous problems Russia faced after the revolution! Those enormous problems such as massive famine being invaded by 14 different countries and having to fight a massive war against the White Army allowed a beauracy to arise that took total control and destroyed most of the gains of the revolution except the planned economy!

    All the so called communist countries that followed were based on the Soviet model of state capitalism and so were not true communist countries to start with!

    The main flaw with capitalism is that the owners of the means of production - the bosses make the most money while the people who actualy produce the products under capitalism get the least! Another flaw in capitalism is that the workers are paid less tthan the value of the goods they produce so that they cannot buy back the goods they produce so this leads to over production and recession!

    Globalise Resistance the voice of the anti-capitalist movement.</STRONG>

    Stealgate:

    What country hasn't had enormous problems after independence? Oh thats right, just about every single one. Russia was in much better shape than many of the former European colonies after its revolution.

    I know why capitalism is unfair. Stop posting the same thing over and over again. Some of us have read the Communist Manefesto or studied political science.

    Answer one question for me. Who controls production in your ideal socialist economy? Be specific. Answering "The workers" doesn't work because you need hierarchy to coordinate the different industries to work together. This implies that there must be leaders who oversee and control for the common good. What is stopping them from seizing greater shares of the pie?

    I've asked you this question several times. Either answer it or I'll assume that you have no idea as how this would be done. In that case, you will have proved my point that there is a fundamental flaw in socialism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All industry under communism would be controlled by workers committees which would be elected by workers in each factory and would hold only temporary position and be re-callable if they did not do things right! This was how communism was originally set up in Russia immediatly after the revolution and in the Paris commune of 1871 and worked quite well until the Paris commune was crushed!

    The problems that Russia faced after the revolution were enormous far bigger than the problems faced by any other country. For example in one year 1920 6 million people in Russia starved to death. The revolution also took place while Russia was fighting the First World War which took a terrible toll on Russia, after they pulled out of that war they faced more war from the White Army and invasions by other countries. All these wars left the Russian economy and agriculture devastated! It was this that caused the revolution to fail!

    More information on communism is here.

    [ 25-04-2002: Message edited by: stealgate ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>All industry under communism would be controlled by workers committees which would be elected by workers in each factory and would hold only temporary position and be re-callable if they did not do things right! This was how communism was originally set up in Russia immediatly after the revolution and in the Paris commune of 1871 and worked quite well until the Paris commune was crushed!
    More information on communism is here.

    [ 25-04-2002: Message edited by: stealgate ]</STRONG>

    Stealgate,

    So you believe that the highest level of government should be at the factory level? How would each factory know how much to produce? How would lets say, a auto factory, coordinate with the factories that produce tires and body panels to efficiently make cars? You need centralized planning of some sort, which means that there has to bureaucracy, which means there is the possibility for abuse of position.

    Russia was not in the worst postion of post-revolution countries. Kenya, India, China, Haiti, Cuba, etc...all of these countries had problem equal to or greater than Russia in 1917-21. China...widespread famine and no industry at all. India...famine, no industry and social strife. Cuba...no industry, one crop economy, boycott by country that provided 80% of exports, threat of invasion.

    I could go on and on. Russia at least had limited industry, a large population, vast natural resources, and the most fertile breadbasket in Europe, the Ukraine. Those problems that you mentioned could have been taken care of in at the most, a decade, while these other problems that onther countries faced would take decades if they could ever be fixed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All the positions that officals hold under communism would be tempory so that a beaurocracy would not arise! All officals would also be answerable and recallable for their actions at all levels! For the first few months of the Russian revolution this was how Russia was governed and it worked. The revolution was destroyed by those grouped around Stalin who were made up of a large number of people from the old Tsarist regime and were determind to destroy the gains of the revolution.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    C'mon

    All postions cannot be temporary, nothing would get done. Leaders must do things that are unpopular all the time in the interest of the greater good. In your government they would constantly get recalled for doing these things and thus no leader would do what was necessary because he would know it would lead to the loss of his position. What would happen in a time of war. No common citizen wants to go to war, yet in certain cases its unavoidable. With your government, the country would be thrown nto political chaos as leaders were recalled when they were needed most.

    The job of leaders is to extract as much of the peoples ability as possible. This means pushing them to acheive things when it is contrary to their individual interest. It can't happen in your government.

    Perhaps in a very educated society this would work, people would see the "bigger picture" and maybe wouldn't recall a leader for closing an inefficient plant, but I doubt it. You are neglecting to think about individual interest. A plant worker isn't going to think about greater efficiency for the industry when you tell him he has to find a new job, he's going to worry about his family first.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All positions can be temporary! That is how it worked for the first few months after the Russian revolution. That position that officals would hold would be long enough for things to get done but not too short that it would be impossible to get anything done!

    If a socialist regime was in power it would do all it could to avoid war. The eventual aim of socialism is to create a global communist society that is borderless and has no national boundaries! As I have said before war is caused by the competition between countries over markets, trades routes and access to raw materials! Socialism would be a system where competition for such things would no longer exist so there would be no more war in a soicalist world!

    <A HREF="http://www.marxist.com/&quot; TARGET=_blank>
    Marxist.Com</A>
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>That position that officals would hold would be long enough for things to get done but not too short that it would be impossible to get anything done!
    </STRONG>

    What a badly worded sentence... its easy to spot which ones he isn't directly copying from a website.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>All positions can be temporary! That is how it worked for the first few months after the Russian revolution. That position that officals would hold would be long enough for things to get done but not too short that it would be impossible to get anything done!

    <A HREF="http://www.marxist.com/&quot; TARGET=_blank>
    Marxist.Com</A></STRONG>

    Exactly how long is "long enougth... but not to short". I'd like some spicifics please.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the general theme of many of the posts here is that communism is fatally flawed and this i agree with. there is no way that a whole country (especially one the size of Russia as it was) can be run for any length of time by 'bottom up' control. theoretically every decision that would be made should surely be made by every person. to elect and reelect a small group to run the business for a while is impractical, time consuming and inefficient. not everyone wants to lead in any case and there are always born leaders who will rise to the front - not necessarily for any selfish gain but just because they are naturally good at leading. Similarly the whole communist concept takes away the basic human trait of self improvement. if people are not 'rewarded' for working through some means (i.e. money) then motivation to work, to improve and to develop as people is lost. true communism is also impossible as again theoretically everyone should have the same house, car etc thus effectively creating a race of robots with no individuality. BASICALLY I HASNT AND WONT EVER WORK. a nice idea but doomed to failure
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Communism can work! The only reason that it degenerated in Russia was because a beaurocracy was able to seize power while the country was recovering from the chaos caused by several years of war that had left the country totally devastated and the fact that the revolution was isolated in a backward country!

    Once communism was established there would be laws put in place to prevent people from bringing back capitalism!

    Communism is the only alternative to capitalism a system that will destroy the planet if it is not destroyed through all the wars it causes and environmental destruction that it causes! Communism wil be system based production for need not profit and democratic control by all!

    Read the alternative to the capitalist press.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>Communism can work! The only reason that it degenerated in Russia was because a beaurocracy was able to seize power......[/URL]</STRONG>

    Would you agree that communism will eventually lead to buraucracy? When the Soviet Union first started, many people had the hope of governing the country by communism. These people included those in government. But because the country was so large, to rule the country well there needed to be a group of people allocating the resources and controlling production. And therefore a burecracy came into power. All communist countries ended up the same way and it was just simply inevitable.

    Here is the cycle:

    1. Start of communism
    2. Needs to allocate resources for production (example, allocating workers to a manufacturing plant, deciding what raw materials needed)
    3. A group of people gradually formed as a burecracy.
    4. Power continues to enlarge and corrupt.

    And why did you say communism would not lead to war as we have seen so many internal conflicts in communist countries. In case you dont know, Stelin killed more people than Hilter and their nuclear plants greatly destroyed the environment.

    Is communism really the alternative of capitalism? I pointed out at the start that true there are flaws in capitalism, but I think the best alternative is a modified form of capitalism, that is state intervenion. Let the government control and manage the 'game' so that those disadavantaged will be brought back to a fair position.

    [ 28-04-2002: Message edited by: NiceK ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here I go with another tentative argument on this thread...

    I've not read all the posts on this thread (far too many of them), but this is what I think. Many people have stated the argument that capitalism is evil and has no moral code, but there is the small element of 'supply and demand'. If this wasn't the case then many companies would go bust very quickly. I understand that these companies go out their way to artifically set demand through advertising etc, but I think it is do with how the society of today, i.e more materialistic, competitive etc has shaped capitalism, and as a result capitalism has increased to deal with this. People have the ability to say no, they are not mere puppets who can be controlled (some may disagree) by corporations. Also, capitalism does provide the best 'level playing field' in life. Right now I'm in the library surrounded by tons of other students who I know do not have the same background as me, but are now in the same situation as me. I reckon this is a result of capitalism, where everyone has the same opportunities in life, all they have to do is take them, or at least try to take them. Far too often people are cowed by the idea that becasue the come from a certain background they can't make anything of their life, and I completely disagree. To be philosophical for a moment, life is what you make it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    . To be philosophical for a moment, life is what you make it.
    But IT IS much more difficult in our society for people from poorer backgrounds to succeed, the example of students is perfect, a disproportionate people at the top uni's come from private schools that they were able to go to because they had rich parents,.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nope Toadborg, gotta disagree. I come from a comprehensive school and got to uni, alot of my friends at uni went to a comp school. In fact I know of one person who went to a private school and is now at uni. Think about it, who get's the piss taken out of them the most? Kids who go to private schools, because they are in the minority. Having rich or poor parents matters to an extent, but ultimately it is the individual who decides what to do with their life (if you belief people have an inherent sense of right and wrong)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was referring to the top universities, I know that state pupils get to uni cos I am one and so are my friends but there is a diproportionate number of privately educated individuals in the best universities.......

    There is also the issue of uni fees, students from poorer backgrounds are more likely to have to work to support themselves at uni......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I understand that, but surely grading unis in that way is derogative to other unis? And there are only 2 really prestigious unis I know of, the oxbridge unis. I get what you're saying, (I go to Glasgow uni and rate that better than a paisey uni degree), but ultimately its the quality of the perosn that counts not where they got their degree. And alot of people who go to these unis you talk of are often myseriously out of touch with the rest of society, again, I believe, because they are in the minority. And uni fees, I'm ok cause I'm Scottish, and I don't really mind working to support myself, cause I know just now and when I graduate, I don't and won't have to rely on Mummy and daddy to support me. I'm talking s***e, aren't I? <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm talking s***e, aren't I?
    No these are fair points but maybe you have a different perspective from Scotland due to your superior system....

    but ultimately its the quality of the perosn that counts not where they got their degree.
    It should be but a lot of employers take the place where you got your degree into account, hence some are at a disadvantage.....
Sign In or Register to comment.