Name: Anonymous 2006-01-13 20:59
A bourgeoise is someone who owns property. The Right Honourable Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher was an astute believer in not allowing the market to be dominated by tyranny as has ruined every nations that allowed such a thing to occur. She did not believe that only a few rich people should own everything and everyone else should work for them, she treated such people like worthless piles of shite who's success was only judged by their merit. The British Coal industry was slung into the trash heap along with all the shareholders and the worker's "unions" whom they paid to keep their business alive via malicious deceit and constant attempts to abolish civil liberties. They were leaching off the economy and were through political extremism desperately trying to keep getting paid for work that wasn't needed. Very much like an obese monarch uses a group of armed thugs to keep himself living in opulent splendour even though he isn't needed. The coal miners were the real Bourgeoise and the average blue collar working man, who didn't have an army of socialist thugs to force others to pay him to do something useless, was the real proletariat.
Margaret Thatcher is a proletariat lover and what was more she wished to upgrade them to bourgeoisie by loosenning stock market regulation and allowing more of them to buy property with the money they earned. She was not an obsessive capitalism lover, or even a conservative. She was a scientist and logician who looked at everything rationally indiscriminate of political agenda. And in her immeasurable genius she understood what was necessary for the good of the country, she realised that capitalism would be useful for education and healthcare, but that Britain was not ready for that yet and that they should continue to be funded via tax. She even realised the limitations of her genius, which in itself is a great virtue. Had she ruled for another 13 years the healthcare system and education system would have been privatised and Adam Smith's (another genius) vision of a completely open capitalist state with a democratic government there to decide how much tax should be allocated for the preservation of justice would have become a reality.
Imagine that! Karl Marx believed that everyone should work for the good of everyone and that no one should get cash going in to him for his own pleasure due to some bureacracy, like the obese kings and the un-needed coal miners. He was right, of course he was right, but in practice this is extremely difficult, it is an objective, not a solution. Margaret Thatcher would have achieved this objective.
Seriously, imagine that. If everyone was a proletariat and a bourgeoisie. Earning wages, buying their neccesities and investing a little in the stock market so they can gain dividends and steadily increase their wages over time as their nest egg grows. Not to mention the benefits if they get lucky and the company does well, they could sell off some of the shares and earn themselves a little treat. Imagine if the oppressed proletariats of the socialist 70s could invest in microsoft? What a waste.. Better than spending your life on minimum wage by far.
Imagine every ounce of work someone does is actually doing something positive for the economy. If you pluck apples off a tree and sell them for a living every time you pluck an apple you are putting 20 pence into the economy. Much better than every piece of coal you chip out of a mine adding 2 pence into the economy.
Imagine if this apple plucker decided to make jam instead. He buys 50 jars, mashes up the apples, cooks them and makes all natural organic jam and plies his trade one weekend through the market looking for buyers. Why is this man committing a crime for using his intelligence to improve the economy? Why should he be tortured and executed for owning 50 pots of home made jam? Does this make him bourgeoisie? I suppose that's the definition, but he's also a proletariat.
Margaret Thatcher is a proletariat lover and what was more she wished to upgrade them to bourgeoisie by loosenning stock market regulation and allowing more of them to buy property with the money they earned. She was not an obsessive capitalism lover, or even a conservative. She was a scientist and logician who looked at everything rationally indiscriminate of political agenda. And in her immeasurable genius she understood what was necessary for the good of the country, she realised that capitalism would be useful for education and healthcare, but that Britain was not ready for that yet and that they should continue to be funded via tax. She even realised the limitations of her genius, which in itself is a great virtue. Had she ruled for another 13 years the healthcare system and education system would have been privatised and Adam Smith's (another genius) vision of a completely open capitalist state with a democratic government there to decide how much tax should be allocated for the preservation of justice would have become a reality.
Imagine that! Karl Marx believed that everyone should work for the good of everyone and that no one should get cash going in to him for his own pleasure due to some bureacracy, like the obese kings and the un-needed coal miners. He was right, of course he was right, but in practice this is extremely difficult, it is an objective, not a solution. Margaret Thatcher would have achieved this objective.
Seriously, imagine that. If everyone was a proletariat and a bourgeoisie. Earning wages, buying their neccesities and investing a little in the stock market so they can gain dividends and steadily increase their wages over time as their nest egg grows. Not to mention the benefits if they get lucky and the company does well, they could sell off some of the shares and earn themselves a little treat. Imagine if the oppressed proletariats of the socialist 70s could invest in microsoft? What a waste.. Better than spending your life on minimum wage by far.
Imagine every ounce of work someone does is actually doing something positive for the economy. If you pluck apples off a tree and sell them for a living every time you pluck an apple you are putting 20 pence into the economy. Much better than every piece of coal you chip out of a mine adding 2 pence into the economy.
Imagine if this apple plucker decided to make jam instead. He buys 50 jars, mashes up the apples, cooks them and makes all natural organic jam and plies his trade one weekend through the market looking for buyers. Why is this man committing a crime for using his intelligence to improve the economy? Why should he be tortured and executed for owning 50 pots of home made jam? Does this make him bourgeoisie? I suppose that's the definition, but he's also a proletariat.