Bluemoon labour thread.

[Dr.Faustus]

I think the worst thing Labour have done is to completely ruin any trust in governmental figures with their relentless manipulation of statistics; I know statistics since their invention have been used for this but Labour have gone as far as to outright lie. Three instances stand out to me; education figures (grades etc), the way almost nothing is counted as unemployed anymore (if we used the same system that was used in the late 80's I would harbour a guess that the figure now would easily exceed 3m) and those on crime; the problems of which are picked out in this relatively in depth blog- <a class="postlink" href="http://www.citizenerased.net/archives/45" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.citizenerased.net/archives/45</a>.
All of which Labour evidences its success over the last 10 years upon.

Of course they have lied. They are complete gits.

Tell me how the Tories will be different though.

I'm not entirely sure they would be, but you do not vote for a party unless you are an uneducated imbecile who does not know of the workings of the political system (and I do not aim that at yourself); you vote for a candidate- what party name they represent can change as it is a personal mandate.<br /><br />-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:53 pm --<br /><br />I think I made that unclear; I meant the Labour governments since 1997; not the party at large.

 

[Skashion]

What's it matter whether it's a commune, region or country? The only difference is perspective and (sometimes) size/population. Either way, you've been given working models of real socialist ideals (Anarcho-syndicalism)

Course it matters. None of you can give an example of where your utopia is a shining beacon to the rest of the world.

And to use a commune as an example is beyond belief quite frankly. Let's see it work for millions of people rather than a poxy commune in some suburb somewhere.

The majority of socialist 'ideals' are taken from the likes of Marx,Engels etc etc The people who used their idealogy i.e. Lenin/Mao/Castro/Stalin what condition are their countries in now? They bear no resemblance to what was set out. Though we do know if we want a complete working example we can look at Cuba can't we as the others are so far detached from the original ideals as we've seen by their excesses into capitalism after the break down of the former Soviet union and the way China works now.

Never has Animal Farm been more apt.

Erm, millions of people lived in Paris and Catalonia. It wasn't a matter of 'a poxy commune in some suburb'. It was entire city/region.

So you're blaming Marx and Engels because their ideals were perverted years after they were already dead? Might as well blame Jesus for paedophile priests then.

Oh dear. Now he mentions Animal Farm. A book written by a socialist as a rallying cry for socialism. Irony has rarely been demonstrated better than this.

Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated.

And so for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement.

Orwell on why he wrote Animal Farm in the Preface to the Ukrainian Edition of Animal Farm (March 1947)

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

When freedom exits their will be no state.

Destroy work.

In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.

Workers of the world unite!

 

[mackenzie]

Of course they have lied. They are complete gits.

Tell me how the Tories will be different though.

I'm not entirely sure they would be, but you do not vote for a party unless you are an uneducated imbecile who does not know of the workings of the political system (and I do not aim that at yourself); you vote for a candidate- what party name they represent can change as it is a personal mandate.

-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:53 pm --

I think I made that unclear; I meant the Labour governments since 1997; not the party at large.

No. There are very few of them that have the courage required to change things. And I will not, and can not, vote for someone for someone who is determined to play the party line. I know my preferences are unrealistic, but I will NOT vote for anyone that is afraid.

 

[Dr.Faustus]

I'm not entirely sure they would be, but you do not vote for a party unless you are an uneducated imbecile who does not know of the workings of the political system (and I do not aim that at yourself); you vote for a candidate- what party name they represent can change as it is a personal mandate.

-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:53 pm --

I think I made that unclear; I meant the Labour governments since 1997; not the party at large.

No. There are very few of them that have the courage required to change things. And I will not, and can not, vote for someone for someone who is determined to play the party line. I know my preferences are unrealistic, but I will NOT vote for anyone that is afraid.

Exactly, so you vote on the basis of the individual and not the party or party leader or former government like the public at large. The problem I think you would agree is the party political system itself.<br /><br />-- Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:06 am --<br /><br />I think the whole debate about the virtues of a federalist/democratic socialist system is a lovely one in theory, but unless every country adopts the same standard the primarily democratic capitalist states will always dominate the world economy and therefore most are apprehensive to adopt it.

 

[mackenzie]

One more thing.

My lad started a new job last week. He is very good at what he does.

Today the big boss threatened him with a £40 debit from his wage for texting whilst he was taking a pee. He had sacked 4 others but he doesn't sack my Son because he is bloody wonderful at what he does, and the big boss knows that.

But my Son was pulled up for it and said "I went for a piss and text a mate. How is that suddenly frickin illegal??"

There are some right twat bosses out there. Seriously.

Capitalism at it finest. Don't make me laugh.

 

[1_barry_conlon]

Course it matters. None of you can give an example of where your utopia is a shining beacon to the rest of the world.

And to use a commune as an example is beyond belief quite frankly. Let's see it work for millions of people rather than a poxy commune in some suburb somewhere.

The majority of socialist 'ideals' are taken from the likes of Marx,Engels etc etc The people who used their idealogy i.e. Lenin/Mao/Castro/Stalin what condition are their countries in now? They bear no resemblance to what was set out. Though we do know if we want a complete working example we can look at Cuba can't we as the others are so far detached from the original ideals as we've seen by their excesses into capitalism after the break down of the former Soviet union and the way China works now.

Never has Animal Farm been more apt.

Erm, millions of people lived in Paris and Catalonia. It wasn't a matter of 'a poxy commune in some suburb'. It was entire city/region.

So you're blaming Marx and Engels because their ideals were perverted years after they were already dead? Might as well blame Jesus for paedophile priests then.

Oh dear. Now he mentions Animal Farm. A book written by a socialist as a rallying cry for socialism. Irony has rarely been demonstrated better than this.

Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated.

And so for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement.

Orwell on why he wrote Animal Farm in the Preface to the Ukrainian Edition of Animal Farm (March 1947)

Yes your Paris commune is a shining example. Remind me how long it lasted again?

No doubt we'll be subjected to the 'but the ideals were there' remark.

The marx and Engels remark made me smile though. Their views have been distorted? Probably by those nasty right wingers eh?

And regard Orwell you know my remark was aimed at the 'Some are more equal than others' phrase. As this current set of incumbents in government have shown to their own gratification.

 

[Dr.Faustus]

One more thing.

My lad started a new job last week. He is very good at what he does.

Today the big boss threatened him with a £40 debit from his wage for texting whilst he was taking a pee. He had sacked 4 others but he doesn't sack my Son because he is bloody wonderful at what he does, and the big boss knows that.

But my Son was pulled up for it and said "I went for a piss and text a mate. How is that suddenly frickin illegal??"

There are some right twat bosses out there. Seriously.

Capitalism at it finest. Don't make me laugh.

I'm sure egotistical morons would exist in a socialist system; so I don't really get the connection but agree in part with the sentiment that not everything about capitalism is justified. It is difficult to argue historically however that it is not an economically dominant in a global context. The problem is however that as a wealth distribution model it is piss poor.

 

[mackenzie]

One more thing.

My lad started a new job last week. He is very good at what he does.

Today the big boss threatened him with a £40 debit from his wage for texting whilst he was taking a pee. He had sacked 4 others but he doesn't sack my Son because he is bloody wonderful at what he does, and the big boss knows that.

But my Son was pulled up for it and said "I went for a piss and text a mate. How is that suddenly frickin illegal??"

There are some right twat bosses out there. Seriously.

Capitalism at it finest. Don't make me laugh.

I'm sure egotistical morons would exist in a socialist system; so I don't really get the connection but agree in part with the sentiment that not everything about capitalism is justified. It is difficult to argue historically however that it is not an economically dominant in a global context. The problem is however that as a wealth distribution model it is piss poor.

This is a good debate Faustus. But am going bed now. Can we pick up the thread again tomorrow?

 

[Dr.Faustus]

I'm sure egotistical morons would exist in a socialist system; so I don't really get the connection but agree in part with the sentiment that not everything about capitalism is justified. It is difficult to argue historically however that it is not an economically dominant in a global context. The problem is however that as a wealth distribution model it is piss poor.

This is a good debate Faustus. But am going bed now. Can we pick up the thread again tomorrow?

Indeed; isn't it good when two people can manage a civil debate!

 

[sweynforkbeard]

When freedom exits their will be no state.

Destroy work.

In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.

Workers of the world unite!

Some sort of opticians paradise then?

 

[Lucas North]

Labour/Trades Union types always seem to be slimy, fat, untrustworthy, lazy, workshy and subversive, unless it is a coincidence.

 

[Skashion]

Erm, millions of people lived in Paris and Catalonia. It wasn't a matter of 'a poxy commune in some suburb'. It was entire city/region.

So you're blaming Marx and Engels because their ideals were perverted years after they were already dead? Might as well blame Jesus for paedophile priests then.

Oh dear. Now he mentions Animal Farm. A book written by a socialist as a rallying cry for socialism. Irony has rarely been demonstrated better than this.



Orwell on why he wrote Animal Farm in the Preface to the Ukrainian Edition of Animal Farm (March 1947)

Yes your Paris commune is a shining example. Remind me how long it lasted again?

No doubt we'll be subjected to the 'but the ideals were there' remark.

The marx and Engels remark made me smile though. Their views have been distorted? Probably by those nasty right wingers eh?

And regard Orwell you know my remark was aimed at the 'Some are more equal than others' phrase. As this current set of incumbents in government have shown to their own gratification.

How long before it was brutally suppressed, rather than collapse through its own failings, you mean? In the case of Catalonia it was suppressed by a combination of Franco, the Nazis and the 'Communists' (big C) combined. Name another country which could stand up to the weight of that force, much less a region, and a poxy one at that no doubt.

But whose ideals were where exactly? Don't even understand what you're trying to say.

You quote Orwell at me and then don't even bother to acknowledge that Marx's and Engels' views and theories were distorted by power-hungry murderers like Stalin. You need to re-read Orwell and then actually understand what he was saying, or else not bother using Orwell's socialist writings as an argument against socialism.

Doesn't matter what quote you pick incidentally. It was all there to make one basic single point; that we needed to destroy the Soviet myth to revive the socialist movement.

 

[stonerblue]

This is a good debate Faustus. But am going bed now. Can we pick up the thread again tomorrow?

Indeed; isn't it good when two people can manage a civil debate!

on a high-rise estate

 

[mat]

Can this go in the classic threads section as it's a rarity that a good debate has been created without much of tyhe petty name calling?

 

[brooklandsblue2.0]

Im so glad that the modern Labour party is still synonymous with Communism. It is a well known fact that Labour were essentially a mouth piece for the Communist Party from 1945-1980's (at least!). Whilst they state in public that the days of 'militant tendencies' are over, the card carrying commies like Red Ken, Jack Straw et al are still entrenched in this wicked little cult.

 

[ElanJo]

What's it matter whether it's a commune, region or country? The only difference is perspective and (sometimes) size/population. Either way, you've been given working models of real socialist ideals (Anarcho-syndicalism)

Course it matters. None of you can give an example of where your utopia is a shining beacon to the rest of the world.

And to use a commune as an example is beyond belief quite frankly. Let's see it work for millions of people rather than a poxy commune in some suburb somewhere.

The majority of socialist 'ideals' are taken from the likes of Marx,Engels etc etc The people who used their idealogy i.e. Lenin/Mao/Castro/Stalin what condition are their countries in now? They bear no resemblance to what was set out. Though we do know if we want a complete working example we can look at Cuba can't we as the others are so far detached from the original ideals as we've seen by their excesses into capitalism after the break down of the former Soviet union and the way China works now.

Never has Animal Farm been more apt.

As has already been pointed out to you, Catalonia, and other examples, were hardly some small suburb, they were large regions of land.

Second of all I am not a socialist. I just think that if you're going to argue against a position, philosophy or set of ideals you shouldn't strawman that position as you clearly are doing by bringing up Soviet Russia etc. True socialism is stateless and yes there is no socialist utopia, that acts as a beacon to the world, existing today but, "utopia" aside, what does it matter? Before slavery was first abolished there was no example of there being a country that didn't have slavery... so what?

-- Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:53 pm --

One more thing.

My lad started a new job last week. He is very good at what he does.

Today the big boss threatened him with a £40 debit from his wage for texting whilst he was taking a pee. He had sacked 4 others but he doesn't sack my Son because he is bloody wonderful at what he does, and the big boss knows that.

But my Son was pulled up for it and said "I went for a piss and text a mate. How is that suddenly frickin illegal??"

There are some right twat bosses out there. Seriously.

Capitalism at it finest. Don't make me laugh.

I'm sure egotistical morons would exist in a socialist system; so I don't really get the connection but agree in part with the sentiment that not everything about capitalism is justified. It is difficult to argue historically however that it is not an economically dominant in a global context. The problem is however that as a wealth distribution model it is piss poor.

Mack, aside from the reality that there will always be idiots around no matter what economic practise is prevalent, in a free market (one where anyone can setup a business without needing permission to do so by some "authority") people who are shitty bosses will, 99% of the time, lose out on business. I don't know what your view of capitalism is but in my view it is synomynous for a free market.
Today however we do not have a capitalist system (if capitalism can be called a system - it's a lack of one in my eyes) we have a mix of socialism and capitalism under a state umbrella, where governments and corporations scratch each others backs for their own benefits to the detriment of everyone else (you and me included). What we have now is not capitalism or socialism -it is corporatism/crony capitalism.

Fausto, your last sentence I couldn't disagree with you more IF what you mean by capitalism is how I view capitalism. If you mean (state controlled)"capitalism", as we have today, then I'd agree... it is piss poor as it relies on central planners.

 

[Dr.Faustus]

Course it matters. None of you can give an example of where your utopia is a shining beacon to the rest of the world.

And to use a commune as an example is beyond belief quite frankly. Let's see it work for millions of people rather than a poxy commune in some suburb somewhere.

The majority of socialist 'ideals' are taken from the likes of Marx,Engels etc etc The people who used their idealogy i.e. Lenin/Mao/Castro/Stalin what condition are their countries in now? They bear no resemblance to what was set out. Though we do know if we want a complete working example we can look at Cuba can't we as the others are so far detached from the original ideals as we've seen by their excesses into capitalism after the break down of the former Soviet union and the way China works now.

Never has Animal Farm been more apt.

As has already been pointed out to you, Catalonia, and other examples, were hardly some small suburb, they were large regions of land.

Second of all I am not a socialist. I just think that if you're going to argue against a position, philosophy or set of ideals you shouldn't strawman that position as you clearly are doing by bringing up Soviet Russia etc. True socialism is stateless and yes there is no socialist utopia, that acts as a beacon to the world, existing today but, "utopia" aside, what does it matter? Before slavery was first abolished there was no example of there being a country that didn't have slavery... so what?

-- Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:53 pm --

I'm sure egotistical morons would exist in a socialist system; so I don't really get the connection but agree in part with the sentiment that not everything about capitalism is justified. It is difficult to argue historically however that it is not an economically dominant in a global context. The problem is however that as a wealth distribution model it is piss poor.

Mack, aside from the reality that there will always be idiots around no matter what economic practise is prevalent, in a free market (one where anyone can setup a business without needing permission to do so by some "authority") people who are shitty bosses will, 99% of the time, lose out on business. I don't know what your view of capitalism is but in my view it is synomynous for a free market.
Today however we do not have a capitalist system (if capitalism can be called a system - it's a lack of one in my eyes) we have a mix of socialism and capitalism under a state umbrella, where governments and corporations scratch each others backs for their own benefits to the detriment of everyone else (you and me included). What we have now is not capitalism or socialism -it is corporatism/crony capitalism.

Fausto, your last sentence I couldn't disagree with you more IF what you mean by capitalism is how I view capitalism. If you mean (state controlled)"capitalism", as we have today, then I'd agree... it is piss poor as it relies on central planners.

Indeed, any pure theory of economic distribution is preferable but one can only assess what has been attempted; and that is far from a pure system. I mean of course, as you call it, a "state controlled" capitalist society that we inhabit today.

A system which has been subverted by Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd that is to say limited liability and financial tools such as securities. The worst offender of all are IRP's which regulate and subvert the system so much as to empower those with little worth to earn vast amounts of money for virtually no Lockean 'sweat of the brown'; a collection of cash rich chimps at a tea party- there to glare at by those with little other fulfilment. Furthermore to even recognise the concept of a plc- companies in essence to big to fail, is to entirely denounce the teachings of Locke, Smith et al all together. What happened to competition?

 

[ElanJo]

As has already been pointed out to you, Catalonia, and other examples, were hardly some small suburb, they were large regions of land.

Second of all I am not a socialist. I just think that if you're going to argue against a position, philosophy or set of ideals you shouldn't strawman that position as you clearly are doing by bringing up Soviet Russia etc. True socialism is stateless and yes there is no socialist utopia, that acts as a beacon to the world, existing today but, "utopia" aside, what does it matter? Before slavery was first abolished there was no example of there being a country that didn't have slavery... so what?

-- Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:53 pm --



Mack, aside from the reality that there will always be idiots around no matter what economic practise is prevalent, in a free market (one where anyone can setup a business without needing permission to do so by some "authority") people who are shitty bosses will, 99% of the time, lose out on business. I don't know what your view of capitalism is but in my view it is synomynous for a free market.
Today however we do not have a capitalist system (if capitalism can be called a system - it's a lack of one in my eyes) we have a mix of socialism and capitalism under a state umbrella, where governments and corporations scratch each others backs for their own benefits to the detriment of everyone else (you and me included). What we have now is not capitalism or socialism -it is corporatism/crony capitalism.

Fausto, your last sentence I couldn't disagree with you more IF what you mean by capitalism is how I view capitalism. If you mean (state controlled)"capitalism", as we have today, then I'd agree... it is piss poor as it relies on central planners.

Indeed, any pure theory of economic distribution is preferable but one can only assess what has been attempted; and that is far from a pure system. I mean of course, as you call it, a "state controlled" capitalist society that we inhabit today.

A system which has been subverted by Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd that is to say limited liability and financial tools such as securities. The worst offender of all are IRP's which regulate and subvert the system so much as to empower those with little worth to earn vast amounts of money for virtually no Lockean 'sweat of the brown'; a collection of cash rich chimps at a tea party- there to glare at by those with little other fulfilment. Furthermore to even recognise the concept of a plc- companies in essence to big to fail, is to entirely denounce the teachings of Locke, Smith et al all together. What happened to competition?

True, I just get abit picky on terms when people bring up capitalism and socialism. Both sides tend to point to the negative effects of each system and shout "see!!!" when in reality almost all of these negative effects are mainly based on the interferance of the state. When we assess both capitalism and socialism it is my view that the main talking points are, or should be, more to do with first principles and ethics moreso than wealth distribution, tho of course the ends should play a part.
I'm of the view that capitalism is the more ethical approach. I also think it is more suited to economic and technological advancment and sustainability... but that is more of a happy bonus in my eyes.
With that said, I have a sneaky suspision that I'd find living in a more socialist environment far more rewarding emotionally. I'd like to see the state dissolved either way. once that is done I think we'd find that a mix of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism emerge in a way that will benefit the general populous. Of course, this isn't going to happen in my lifetime, but I think it is inevitible (bar anything catastrophic happening). The general trend of human history has has seen an upward curve in freedom

What happened to competition? I think general ignorance and the power of state propganda has thus far outcompeted :(

 

[Dr.Faustus]

True, I just get abit picky on terms when people bring up capitalism and socialism. Both sides tend to point to the negative effects of each system and shout "see!!!" when in reality almost all of these negative effects are mainly based on the interferance of the state. When we assess both capitalism and socialism it is my view that the main talking points are, or should be, more to do with first principles and ethics moreso than wealth distribution, tho of course the ends should play a part.
I'm of the view that capitalism is the more ethical approach. I also think it is more suited to economic and technological advancment and sustainability... but that is more of a happy bonus in my eyes.
With that said, I have a sneaky suspision that I'd find living in a more socialist environment far more rewarding emotionally. I'd like to see the state dissolved either way. once that is done I think we'd find that a mix of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism emerge in a way that will benefit the general populous. Of course, this isn't going to happen in my lifetime, but I think it is inevitible (bar anything catastrophic happening). The general trend of human history has has seen an upward curve in freedom

What happened to competition? I think general ignorance and the power of state propganda has thus far outcompeted :(

Though i agree for the most part; I am not sure however that we are now any nearer to freedom than at any point in history- oppression has merely changed its guise- is it even possible to isolate human nature, to wish to dominate. Societal standards may give the appearance of progression towards freedom but in reality the system remains the same, merely different classes of people are rewarded and oppressed.