NOBODY has more gold than T, fool!
Posted on 03/08/2007 5:42:43 AM PST by siunevada
Socialism has worked hard to eliminate the hardship that breeds character.
"The chav mob indulge in many unaesthetic choices like outrageously obvious fake orange tans and bad make-up."
Must be the Brit version of "The Gottis."
Chavs?
I'd just figured out toffs.
What it really does is destroy the work ethic. Work is not hardship. It's good for the soul and for the community.
The chav lives in public housing called a "council estate," drives a big-bucks hot rod, wears more gold than Mr. T...
Another example of political correctness running rampant through the mainstream media. When I think of a group in America that is foul-mouthed, abuses malt beverages, lives in public housing, is car poor and hangs gold from every body part possible, hillbilly is not what comes to mind.
The hardship is the lack of wealth, the cure for which is work, which, in turn, breeds character through persistance and achievement. Socialism doles out the wealth with no demand for work, and the immediate gratification simply breeds expectation of more from the same source.
Agree wholeheartedly. But these kids are not lacking in material items, evidently.
In Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), the term refers to the 'refuse of all classes,' including 'swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and other flotsam of society.'
In the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx and Engels describe the lumpenproletariat as a 'class fraction' that constituted the political power base for Louis Bonaparte of France in 1848. In this sense, Marx argued that in the particular historical events leading up to Louis Bonaparte's coup in late 1851, the proletariat and bourgeoisie were productive and progressive, advancing the historical process by developing society's labor power and its capabilities, whereas the 'lumpenproletariat' was unproductive and regressive.
Note here that from the viewpoint of Marx, the productive classes (proletariat and bourgeosie) move history forward and slowly bring us toward a future of Communism. They are, in Marx's view, a necessary and useful social force.
But the Lumpenproletariat is a reactionary force. They are not productive. They do not help society progress but instead work to block progress.
And the irony is: modern society has subcultures like Chavs mostly because of the imposition of Marxian socialism. Socialism allows the class of unproductive workers to grow and grow and grow. This helps spread misery (which Marx approved of) but does not help society progress.
You want progress? Try capitalism.
LOL!
The mangled language also marks their similarity.
NOBODY has more gold than T, fool!
Thanks! I wondered about that.
Yes, because British socialism hands them the house, the jobs, the medicine, and the monthly dole. They've got it, but they didn't earn it, so they didn't learn anything along the way.
True.
Can someone explain what they mean by "wears a wife beater"?
Indeed. It's hard to believe this is happening in the same country that less than 150 years ago inspired Ford Maddox Brown's "Work."
Liberal media hypocrisy on parade again! As long as bigoted stereotypes are applied to whites and those applying them are nonwhites, then it's "fit to print."
Chavs sound much like our urban ghetto thug types.
I think of urban blacks, but with names like "Dilir Habibi and Ali Hussaini," I bet its mostly the Muslim immigrants in Britain...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.