Off Topic The Politics Thread

[GoldhawkRoad]

You could say a fairer system for all, and a world where not only the few have the advantages that should be had by everyone.
A very simplistic answer I know but I’m not a great political theorist....

A worthy aim, but it's been tried before without much success. Russia, Cuba...China is advancing now because the ruling communist party is embracing capitalism, but the party retains all the advantages that should be had by everyone

 

[Staines R's]

A worthy aim, but it's been tried before without much success. Russia, Cuba...China is advancing now because the ruling communist party is embracing capitalism, but the party retains all the advantages that should be had by everyone

I’m not saying Anarchism or Communism isn’t a flawed system, of course man in itself is a greedy being and will eventually want more than his neighbour, but some of the theory behind it has got some kind of point. After all, no system of rule has ever come to pass that has been perfect, Capitalism being one.
I’m obviously not as eloquent as Cologne is my posts, sorry

 

[QPR999]

If you can get a group of neighbours to share tools rather than buying them then it's a start.

It don't work mate, I've tried it. A couple of weeks ago my elderly widowed neighbour asked if he could borrow my jigsaw.
'' I'll have it back to you in a couple of days. '' he said.
Two weeks later there's still no sign of it and the old sod is so lazy he hasn't even been out to collect his milk for the last twelve days!

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I’m not saying Anarchism or Communism isn’t a flawed system, of course man in itself is a greedy being and will eventually want more than his neighbour, but some of the theory behind it has got some kind of point. After all, no system of rule has ever come to pass that has been perfect, Capitalism being one.
I’m obviously not as eloquent as Cologne is my posts, sorry

Agree no system is perfect. But one man's greed is another man's ambition. I am unsettled by these extreme and artificial international tax avoidance schemes however.

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

Actually, to be honest Uber - I was excited about getting to the Premiership, but the novelty has worn off. It was much more fun in the other divisions chatting with real fans as opposed to the plastic ones of Manure and Chelski. As for supporting a team full of players who had to look at a map to find where Watford was before going there, well, I wish it was different in some ways, but you support your home club whatever.

It’s a circus is it not ?

I also like your style

 

[sb_73]

Actually I don't work in an organisation and I don't have a boss. If I were to commit a crime - which I would be less likely to do than most because that, in itself, would be an exercise of power over someone else (however brief) the police would have power over me but not right and justice, which is a different thing - as Gandhi said 'They can take my body but they will never have my obedience' - or words to that effect. The collector on a train is fulfilling a brief role which lasts no longer than a brief second and is then over. I have very little rubbish to put in bins - mostly we recycle it, as best we can. Anything more to add to the list. I know we misuse words the whole time - like 'Communist', Fascist etc. but one is used more constantly wrongly than all others and that is the Anarchist. I will accept the censure of my fellow man, and laws made together with him. An Anarchist is not someone who throws bombs (because this would be a form of power), nore is he a punk who asks for money from the state, or from you, because this would also introduce a power relationship. I do not have the time to go too deeply into my politics on here - look up Anarcho Communism, and particularly the works of Peter Kropotkin and you will know where I am, or rather want to be.

It starts on a small scale Stan. Not looking to change the World. If you can get a group of neighbours to share tools rather than buying them then it's a start. In fact there are interesting developments with the Transition towns network - simply communities, or small towns, developing their own self reliance. Not waiting for governments to do something about eg. Co2 emissions but rather taking the responsibility upon themselves, as far as it is possible, through favouring local production (preferably through cooperatives), local currencies etc. Trying to break down the dependence upon worldwide energy and currency systems which could break down at any time - local currencies are a part of this eg. the Totnes Pound. The key is to develop self sufficiency as far as it is possible for a given situation. The second part of the equation is not so difficult to understand - Communism means 'rule by the commune' - it does not mean rule by the state - otherwise it would have been called 'Statism'. It means that the State (if it exists at all) is nothing other than a voluntary association of communes each in control of their own means of production. Thinking about it only from an environmentalist point of view - I would rather that the local firm in my town is run as a worker's cooperative by the people who directly share my environment than by someone making decisions a thousand miles away, or by someone whose only interest is profit.

Cologne, can you give me a single example, from all of human history since the start of agriculture (I.e not including the hunter gatherers) of a society of more than 150* people that has not been hierarchical? Kropotkin himself was born into privilege, his position in a hierarchy gave him the freedom to be an anarchist (I didn’t need to look him up by the way), but he never actually achieved anything, though he was certainly committed and genuine.

Anarchism is an ideology like any other. You might make a semblance of it work at a micro local level, but I can’t see it beyond that. A single commune can never produce the range of goods and services that we take for granted nowadays. It entails an economic step backwards, reversing the tide of history since the end of feudalism.

But I am an old cynic, gave up dreaming about this kind of stuff before I turned 20.

*150 people is the absolute maximum that any one person can know well enough to trust. Cooperation in any larger group requires an shared story so you can trust people you have never met - a religion, an ideology, a company, a football team, whatever. Anarchism, humanism, whatever are just other stories. We need storiesto achieve great things, but they are not real, and some of them cripple us, eventually. Yuval Noah Harari is worth a read, though a bit irritating.

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

The big companies in this world are a lot more powerful and a lot better run than any government imo

As for the BBC? Wake up you idiots how do you honestly think the U.K. works? It’s a money grabbing culture that everyone wants some action.

Absolutely lost

 

[kiwiqpr]

Agree no system is perfect. But one man's greed is another man's ambition. I am unsettled by these extreme and artificial international tax avoidance schemes however.

what unsettles you
is it any different than the plumber doing a cashy and the customer avoiding the vat

 

[colognehornet]

Cologne, can you give me a single example, from all of human history since the start of agriculture (I.e not including the hunter gatherers) of a society of more than 150* people that has not been hierarchical? Kropotkin himself was born into privilege, his position in a hierarchy gave him the freedom to be an anarchist (I didn’t need to look him up by the way), but he never actually achieved anything, though he was certainly committed and genuine.

Anarchism is an ideology like any other. You might make a semblance of it work at a micro local level, but I can’t see it beyond that. A single commune can never produce the range of goods and services that we take for granted nowadays. It entails an economic step backwards, reversing the tide of history since the end of feudalism.

But I am an old cynic, gave up dreaming about this kind of stuff before I turned 20.

*150 people is the absolute maximum that any one person can know well enough to trust. Cooperation in any larger group requires an shared story so you can trust people you have never met - a religion, an ideology, a company, a football team, whatever. Anarchism, humanism, whatever are just other stories. We need storiesto achieve great things, but they are not real, and some of them cripple us, eventually. Yuval Noah Harari is worth a read, though a bit irritating.

Anarchism has had more influence in Spain than anywhere else Stan. The short lived collectivization of land and factories by the workers themselves in large parts of the country, but particularly in Catalonia before being crushed by the combined forces of Franco, on the one side, and the, Soviet influenced, Communist forces on the other. This is the only example I can think of from modern times. There still is a larger concentration of worker's cooperatives in Catalonia and the Basque regions than anywhere else. Prior to that most social experiments of this nature would have had a semi religious nature. People always tend to think that 'Communism', as an idea, started with Marx - it didn't. For about 2,000 years all Communist experiments had had a religious context - Fra Dolcino, Gerard Winstanley, Thomas Munzer etc.etc. And this is not confined to Christianity - the first welfare state, and unconditional income for all citizens were established by the first Caliph after Mohammed. You are right that anarchic movements have tended to be small scale - of course, they start from below and not from the level of the state as such. They have also tended to have another unifying belief such as a religion. Is a Christian Anarchist really an Anarchist when he says that all authority stems directly from God ? If so then most Quakers are Anarchists, and this group has had a decisive influence on politics, in the abolition of slavery, recognition of conscientious objection, establishment of organizations such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International etc.

I cannot quote an 'ideal' society - I can say that there are some things about some systems which I admire (the decentralization of Switzerland for example). But what I can state categorically is that we need to rethink our relationship to consumerism. To stop saying that 'growth' is always good, and consider that we may be producing enough already and that what is now needed is a fairer distribution of resources.

 

[TheBigDipper]

what unsettles you
is it any different than the plumber doing a cashy and the customer avoiding the vat

Person A takes cash for a plumbing job and doesn't put it through the books. Illegally evades paying income tax and (maybe) collecting VAT. Loss to public purse, approx £50. Illegal. Customer (maybe) avoids paying VAT. Illegal (I think).

Person B (or their well-paid advisors ) finds a loophole in the law to use a tax-avoiding instrument in a way that was never envisaged by the legislators in order to squirrel away £100M of income without paying income tax or corporation tax. Legal. Loss to public purse, approx £20-30M.

I think we can all tell which is worse for the rest of us. I know which is morally worse. What I don't understand is why some people think it's the same. Do explain to the rest of us...

 

[sb_73]

Anarchism has had more influence in Spain than anywhere else Stan. The short lived collectivization of land and factories by the workers themselves in large parts of the country, but particularly in Catalonia before being crushed by the combined forces of Franco, on the one side, and the, Soviet influenced, Communist forces on the other. This is the only example I can think of from modern times. There still is a larger concentration of worker's cooperatives in Catalonia and the Basque regions than anywhere else. Prior to that most social experiments of this nature would have had a semi religious nature. People always tend to think that 'Communism', as an idea, started with Marx - it didn't. For about 2,000 years all Communist experiments had had a religious context - Fra Dolcino, Gerard Winstanley, Thomas Munzer etc.etc. And this is not confined to Christianity - the first welfare state, and unconditional income for all citizens were established by the first Caliph after Mohammed. You are right that anarchic movements have tended to be small scale - of course, they start from below and not from the level of the state as such. They have also tended to have another unifying belief such as a religion. Is a Christian Anarchist really an Anarchist when he says that all authority stems directly from God ? If so then most Quakers are Anarchists, and this group has had a decisive influence on politics, in the abolition of slavery, recognition of conscientious objection, establishment of organizations such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International etc.

I cannot quote an 'ideal' society - I can say that there are some things about some systems which I admire (the decentralization of Switzerland for example). But what I can state categorically is that we need to rethink our relationship to consumerism. To stop saying that 'growth' is always good, and consider that we may be producing enough already and that what is now needed is a fairer distribution of resources.

I think the small scale, limited lifespan and mystical roots of anarchist and pseudo anarchist communities says it all. Essentially they are faith based - faith in a religion or an ideology. You need a lot of energy and commitment to keep that up. But if people who want to live in such communities get the chance to, excellent.

Agree that our economic growth at all costs addiction will ends in tears, and more persistent and bitter tears than those shed over the most recent round of austerity. Firstly because we are totally ****ing up the environment, secondly because unless the benefits of growth are more equitably shared it will end in violence.

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

what unsettles you
is it any different than the plumber doing a cashy and the customer avoiding the vat

Countries would fall if working on the black was controlled in anyway

Cash mate is globally and no different to a person buying a jet and putting it on the Isle of Man imo

The amounts of money of course are different but I stand anyone would do the same. Governments really are useless at business and themselves just as corrupt or wasteful

When I made a load of money in the late 90s it was very easy to legally avoid taxes through Corp tax and although I today hate money and make sure I only have enough I would do what it took to avoid my taxes being wasted or falling into the wrong pockets

 

[colognehornet]

I think the small scale, limited lifespan and mystical roots of anarchist and pseudo anarchist communities says it all. Essentially they are faith based - faith in a religion or an ideology. You need a lot of energy and commitment to keep that up. But if people who want to live in such communities get the chance to, excellent.

Agree that our economic growth at all costs addiction will ends in tears, and more persistent and bitter tears than those shed over the most recent round of austerity. Firstly because we are totally ****ing up the environment, secondly because unless the benefits of growth are more equitably shared it will end in violence.

It depends on how you define Anarchy Stan. Anarchy does not mean 'Lawlessness', it means that I want my laws to be made as close to me as possible, and that I can influence their establishment in a direct way, together with my neighbour. Along with so many other definitions which are used incorrectly the chief misusage is the word democracy. We all say this, or that, land is, or is not, a democracy but never really try to define the word. It's almost as if they have agreed that the best way to stop someone fighting for something is to convince them they have it already. Democracy is a process not a product. When you understand the word in that way then you can say that a country is democratizing - but not that it has arrived. I see Anarchy as an advanced form of democracy, and an extreme form of decentralization. You cannot describe a country as a democracy if only the political sphere is involved - and that restricted to voting between limited possibilities once every 5 years. When all organs of a state ie. education, police, army, factories etc. etc. are organized on a democratic basis then you are getting somewhere. For me there can be no such thing as democracy unless the means of production, and exchange, are also organized on that basis - or at least those means of production which produce what is needed for the country.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

what unsettles you
is it any different than the plumber doing a cashy and the customer avoiding the vat

It's (a) the scale of the money being lost to the exchequer which could be spent on hospitals, schools etc and (b) the fact that it is done by mega-wealthy people who are prepared to live in the UK but use their resources to hire top accountants to utilise off-shore jurisdictions. If a wealthy person chooses not to live here, fine, but if he or she lives here, takes all the benefits and uses aggressive tax avoidance schemes, they should be called out. So called "celebrities" like Jimmy Carr have to beg for forgiveness when they're caught. It'll be interesting to see how the public react to the Mrs Brown's Boys actors who have an artificial scheme of payments and loans utilising Mauritius. I suspect the public won't be that forgiving.

 

[sb_73]

It depends on how you define Anarchy Stan. Anarchy does not mean 'Lawlessness', it means that I want my laws to be made as close to me as possible, and that I can influence their establishment in a direct way, together with my neighbour. Along with so many other definitions which are used incorrectly the chief misusage is the word democracy. We all say this, or that, land is, or is not, a democracy but never really try to define the word. It's almost as if they have agreed that the best way to stop someone fighting for something is to convince them they have it already. Democracy is a process not a product. When you understand the word in that way then you can say that a country is democratizing - but not that it has arrived. I see Anarchy as an advanced form of democracy, and an extreme form of decentralization. You cannot describe a country as a democracy if only the political sphere is involved - and that restricted to voting between limited possibilities once every 5 years. When all organs of a state ie. education, police, army, factories etc. etc. are organized on a democratic basis then you are getting somewhere. For me there can be no such thing as democracy unless the means of production, and exchange, are also organized on that basis - or at least those means of production which produce what is needed for the country.

I’m sorry Cologne, but every detailed post underlines why this is all well meaning fantasy. If you have to lecture on what ‘anarchy’ really is and follow that up with slogans like ‘democracy is a process not a product’ you should recognise the monstrous size of the task ahead of you. Firstly you have to get everyone to agree with your definitions of various terms and ideas (simply saying that all definitions other than yours are wrong is totalitarian of course). I know very well what you mean by anarchy (I read Kropotkin before you were born if you are under 40,which I sincerely hope you are) but of course most people mean something entirely different by ‘anarchy’ - they do mean lawlessness. Why are they wrong and you right? They have appropriated your special term - my advice is to pick another word to describe what you are talking about, you are handicapping yourself.

The ultra ‘democratisation’ of every sphere of existence may seem like a dream to you, but I promise you to me, and I suspect most people, it sounds like a nightmare. It will also inevitably lead to a dictatorship, because it requires an unbelievably high level of engaged, knowledgeable participation for it the work the way you envisage. Most people don’t actually want to spend their time in factory (how very old fashioned) meetings, voting on stuff they don’t understand. And it’s not just the workplace is it? There will be work, neighbourhood, school, hospital, justice etc etc committees, all calling on their time. They’ll turn up to a few, see that there are a few very passionate people, perhaps a couple of charismatic ones, and some that genuinely care and seem knowledgeable. They will leave it to these people to make the decisions, and these people will become the new elite, the guardians of pure ideology, who will absolutely believe that they are doing the right thing on everybody’s behalf, democratically. They will become the top of a new hierarchy, a priesthood, the Party, whatever you want to call it. Such is life, where most of us just want to be left alone to enjoy ourselves with our families and mates.

Liberal political democracy is a flaky system, it gives some horrible results sometimes, but within limited terms it’s provides more freedom - freedom from things - than your view. I realise that your vision is totally benign and rather sweet, but dig a little deeper, look at the ideas of positive and negative liberty (Isaiah Berlin).

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

The problem here is that too many people run their own governments inside their heads. Education counts for nothing when man is faced with just a few primal decisions You just need minerals

We are just all very little things nothing more

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

It don't work mate, I've tried it. A couple of weeks ago my elderly widowed neighbour asked if he could borrow my jigsaw.
'' I'll have it back to you in a couple of days. '' he said.
Two weeks later there's still no sign of it and the old sod is so lazy he hasn't even been out to collect his milk for the last twelve days!

I think you will find he has cut himself in half

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

I have found the only escape is too buy land ... my kingdom and I am the sheriff. Not everyone can do this as they live their lives another way.
I have neighbours in France who after four years I would anything for unconditionally. In London I don’t even know them after 10 years.
I had to even buy a giant aggressive car just so I can fight in the capital’s traffic ( it’s works by the way as I get let out, drivers part and I am rarely contested) That is one weird culture

In France I use a pushbike

Clear which I prefer

Looking forward to the Zombie apocalypse... all ready and prepared

 

[BobbyD]

I have found the only escape is too buy land ... my kingdom and I am the sheriff. Not everyone can do this as they live their lives another way.
I have neighbours in France who after four years I would anything for unconditionally. In London I don’t even know them after 10 years.
I had to even buy a giant aggressive car just so I can fight in the capital’s traffic ( it’s works by the way as I get let out, drivers part and I am rarely contested) That is one weird culture

In France I use a pushbike

Clear which I prefer

Looking forward to the Zombie apocalypse... all ready and prepared

True...i still don't know my neighbours

As for the traffic, i have to disagree, it depends on the drivers skill and how dangerous you want to drive (i will let people in generally but if i see someone being cheeky going in a different "free" lane and then cutting in i will tailgate hard so they won't go in). I drive a ****ty car so i'm not really bothered if it got bumped into. Its even been keyed and that didn't really bother me

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I have found the only escape is too buy land ... my kingdom and I am the sheriff. Not everyone can do this as they live their lives another way.
I have neighbours in France who after four years I would anything for unconditionally. In London I don’t even know them after 10 years.
I had to even buy a giant aggressive car just so I can fight in the capital’s traffic ( it’s works by the way as I get let out, drivers part and I am rarely contested) That is one weird culture

In France I use a pushbike

Clear which I prefer

Looking forward to the Zombie apocalypse... all ready and prepared

But what you're describing is not the difference between England and France, DT, but the difference between living in a major city and a rural location. Try living off the Champs-Elysees and you'd soon get off your bike and into your Humvee...