Off Topic Political Debate

This has got me asking myself which things I would share. All members of this household have access to this computer - and my neighbour is not interested in computers or internet - but if he were, and had not internet access at home then I would have no problem with him popping round every now and then. No point in asking about my car - because I'm one of those tree huggers who don't have one. My 'line' is probably that if my neighbour came round with a request to borrow either my wife or an item of my clothing then I would have a problem - a big one in the first case !

I am not doubting that there is a competitive gene in Mankind - but would argue that the cooperative gene is stronger. No man is an island. and a man who's fundamental urge is to dominate his environment is, essentially, at war with it. Those species and individuals who have nurtured cooperative, as opposed to competitive, tendencies have survived the evolutionary process far better. So much so that I would suggest that if everyman's primary urge had always been to gain power over his neighbour then I doubt if we would exist as a species now.

Ideas of 'Social Darwinism' have been present in many of our modern political ideologies. The idea that competition is the driving force of history. For Neo liberal capitalism it is the idea that unrestrained economic competition between individuals creates 'progress' - the social image of man here being that every man wants to firstly improve his standard of living , and then subsequently acquire more and more. The Fascist idea being that competition is individual and not based on economics but on brute strength - for them everyman's primary drive is the will to power. For them the ideal state is the one which allows the 'hero' to come to the top and 'war' is seen as socially hygienic to this end. Both Marxism and National Socialism were group ideologies, but both essentially also Darwinistic - Marxism assuming that competition between social classes is the force which drives history forward, and National Socialism replacing class with race. All of them essentially to do with 'competition', which is why all of them have failed - or will fail. I can have no sympathy for Macchiavellian philosophies which presume that everyman's primary urge is to either be richer than me (through any means possible) or to exercise domination over me, because, for me, man is basically good - and cooperation will always be a stronger force than competition, and I think nature proves this.

 

Isn't the phrase "pure politics" an oxymoron?

 

good point - I think what I meant was "really really boring politics and this thread will not interest 99.9999% of the posters on here - just geeks like me who enjoy debating and thinking about politics with a small "p" rather than political parties

 

I have not seen anyone argue on here now that, like it or not, we need to have property ownership in order for society to move on from hunter-gatheirng. I also think that almost everyone accepts that you should have the right to pass on to your heirs whatever you have built.

The crunch comes when someone decides what you can do with your property, how you should manage it and how much is reasonable to bequeath.

It is perfectly possible to argue we should be nice to land, and should only do what we believe to be good things to it and should limit what we can pass on to others.

That though is where we will all disagree.

I am prepared to accept that I was born into a nation state so have to accept its laws whether or not I like them. Luckily for me I am allowed to question those laws here in England as it is in my eyes a civilised society by which I simply mean it is governed by the rule of law and is not subject to arbitrary change nor the use of force to take "what is mine". Many countries do not allow these freedoms - I am a lucky one.

Whether or not I like the distribution of land is not relevant - it exists and I must accept it or try to get it changed. For me that is what democracy is about. You can argue about how good or bad our democracy is and whether PR or frequent referenda are better forms of democracy. However you cannot move to those unless you can first get a majority for change under our present system.

If everybody asked me to set rules for land ownership would I plump for what we have now - of course not. Do I accept that due to history a few "lucky" people have far more than is fair - I do. I do not think that if you took most of the "excessive" land ownership and then parcelled it around you would significantly improve anything.

I do believe that most animals are essentially competitive - at least until their "needs" are satisfied. Then they can adopt the luxury of sharing. But until they have provided for themselves and their family then the law of the jungle rules.

 

A real difficulty I have is that I do not think people should be taxed to pay for something that someone else wants. People need to take personal responsibility and work for what they want. If you go back to primitive society then nobody hunted for someone else unless it was a family member. I am sure people who do not argue properly will not try to respond with arguments but will level at me that I must be a Daily Mail reader - that happens so often when you cannot refute an argument and so try to denigrate by association.

 

I think you have read elsewhere Leo that I am the only one on here that has placed the concept of 'inheritance' in doubt. The reason is that it is through inheritance alone that class differences are maintained - differences which should not outlive individuals become eternalized, like ''Wealth cascading down the generations'' (Not my wording but I like it). However - you were looking for a common starting point with me - and it is this. I have already described my attraction to 'Anarchist Communism' (and this means neither throwing bombs nor adherance to totalitarianism)and you have maybe also read elsewhere that I am nearly as Pacifist as you yourself. So, if you put 2 and 2 together then you will know that I can neither back violence or hierarchy/force of any kind.

I do not want to ban anything - I want to be able to see a dual development where other forms of economy have the freedom to develop simultaneously, and have the interim support of the state - in other words communalism from below. More support for cooperative forms of ownership - extension of the transition town idea - mutual aid etc. I want to see these things given priority, not just for moral but also for environmental reasons. I do not want to criticize, or to tear things down, but to be able to offer something better.

Can you answer me one straight question Leo ? Would you accept it if a tax on land value were to be so extended that it gradually replaced all other forms of taxation ?

 

Not sure that you can say categorically who they hunted for Leo - those tribes/cultures etc. would have survived better by hunting for their community. Partly because if they had had any sense they would have hunted as a group.

 

If we compare mankind to nature some of the concepts mentioned above get into difficulty. A neighbour in our hamlet kept several hives of bees. Last year an Asian bee came along and destroyed all the hives. Seems as if the idea of sharing the earth's resources hadn't got through to that insect. A fox got into the barn where 200 chickens were housed at the bottom of my garden in England. The next day 2 wounded birds were still standing, the rest killed. Clearly didn't need them for food, just a bit of fun.

In the two cases above and there are many more, it has been a case of instinct taking over. I believe that humans have an instinct to do the best for themselves first, and then those who have a conscience will look at how they can help others.

 

The debate really is about competition vs cooperation in nature, and its consequences when transfered to a human setting Frenchie. The vast majority of species live in societies whereby exists their best chances of survival. The following is a quote by Peter Kropotkin - a contemporary 'alternative' to Darwin.
'' Those in which mutual aid has attained the greatest development are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to future progress. Unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay''. A short antithesis to the Darwinian jungle theory which emphasizes that there are more examples of cooperative behaviour found in nature than examples of direct competition,also often between species. Strangely our present day philosophies emphasize very strongly the idea of 'individualism' ironically at a time in which we are more dependent upon each other for our daily needs than at any other time in history. No man is an island.

 

Now that is something I never thought I'd see when I signed up to this site - someone quoting Kropotkin. On a similar note when the Nazis and the Allies were racing to develop the atomic bomb Hitler believed that competition between science centres was the best policy, whereas the Allies believed that co-operation between scientists would get results quicker. Apparently if the Nazi scientists had been allowed to talk to each other they would have had the bomb first.

 

So therefore we must assume that if man is dependent on others, we should assume that countries with their interwoven economies are also reliant upon each other. That I will agree with and see the benefits of countries drawing closer together rather than pulling themselves into isolation. However I fail to see how most of the wild life I observe live in societies. My greatest problem as you will have read is with deer. They are scattered around throughout the area and do not live in groups that you might see in Richmond Park. Despite this they do get too numerous and cause problems to me and many others. We have many coypu living in small ponds and rivers. They only live in small family groups with the average life span being no more than three years. Just watch at the fight that takes place if one adult invades the space of another. Not much cooperation but they are certainly there in numbers.

 

You may find Frenchie that many of these animals, Deer and Wild Boar particularly, are no longer living within the boundaries/social groupings which would be found in an 'undisturbed' nature. If they had natural predators such as the Wolf in the vicinity their group behaviour would probably be different. Just as man would be different if he had a natural predator - which wouldn't happen unless another planet declared War on us.
What led to this competition vs cooperation debate was the tendency of some people to try to justify our present economic system (and its equalities) by reference to a 'natural state of affairs' ie. a type of social Darwinism which I found inappropriate and not based on any real evidence.

 

Cologne - without knowing you outside of here - I suspect that I would like you as a person very much and share in your ideals - for me, although a bit trite, John Lennon's Imagine was always close to where I believed a good society should be. I would avoid words like anarchist and communist as they have become associated with perceptions in common parlance which are unfortunate - your use of communalism is preferable.

Laudable aims perhaps but "develop simulataneously" - I just do not see it as practical.

I think my answer would have to be "no" as a single tax is likely to be clumsy and unwieldly. Also you do not make it clear whether that tax is payable through money or by reduction of land held. Without specifying when it would be levied - annually?, on death? then that question cannot really be answered.
I do favour a wealth tax and do favour very high taxes on inheritance although there would have to be a parallel tax to prevent avoidance through lifetime gifts. I favour letting people enjoy the wealth they possess during their lifetimes which unfortunately includes providing elitist education for their offspring if they so choose. That alone enables you to help your heirs have a better life than Joe Soap. It is of course not fair but is impossible to prevent without draconian central state measures. How would you ever stop a rich parent employing a personal tutor? By at least taking a huge slice of a person's wealth on death means their kids have to actually use the education they have received to build it back up again. So some kids will do well because they get a better than average education and others will do well as they have a special talent - perhaps in music, art or sport that makes people want to pay them for their skill.

Many high taxes - on income and on businesses actually act as a disincentive to try to do well - we do not want that. Most people do not accept it but to head up a large corporation takes an inordinate talent, skill and pure hard work. Some of the bosses of large corporations I have worked for literally live, eat and breathe their work - even to the detriment of their family life. I believe in paying talented people high salaries for quality hard work. I believe that teachers should be amongst the highest paid people in our society - to attract only excellent quality people - not journeymen. I believe that free education of that high quality should be available to all citizens - so that only a few would actually want to educate their children privately. I would provide free health service to all - and try to make it as high quality as could be afforded - however I would limit what could be covered on the NHS as it has the capacity to cost more than a nation can produce. Cosmetic surgery etc etc have to be considered as not being "health" related.
Most of all I would spend no money on nuclear weapons in this country. Savings made on these could go a long way to paying for other things our community needs - not free least health and education.

(I would like to go further to say I would disband the armed forces entirely but if elected dictator I would not as that is a selfish and personal preference for me and I would accept the will of the majority who would want them to continue)

I would encourage total personal responsibility. We have to have a safety net to help people who fall onto hard times. However help for them has to be considered temporary and only for as long as essential while the community retrained and supported them back into work where they regain the self esteem that comes from providing for yourself and your family. Some people with severe disabilities would need community support for ever.

Before we pay for anything out of taxes though we should stop and ask why it is necessary. That is why the bedroom tax is in principle a good idea - it is not really a tax but the reduction of benefit from people with no need for that larger size accommodation. I said in principle - in practice it is sheer stupidity as there are hundreds of reasons why a given person may need an extra bedroom for very valid reasons and the cost of looking into it properly outweighs the savings. The principle has to be there though - benefits and the like do not come from the state - they are paid for by your neighbours. If I choose to keep a dog nobody will give me "state" money to pay for it. If you choose to have a family that is your choice and you must pay for it. If you cannot afford more children that is just unfortunate - you cannot have what you cannot afford. That message has been lost in today's society where people believe they have a "right " to benefits. They do not. Benefits are the voluntary generosity of your neighbours agreeing to pay more to a central fund. Taking from that fund needs to be with the support of the community. People now in England are having free school meals for all children ages 5 to 7 - WHY??? Why is the state paying for childminders and the like. If both parents choose to go out to work it is up to them not me to support the offspring they chose to have.

I am getting into a rant so will end here.

I guess anyone with the patience to have read all this will see why I have no political allegiance to any party or group as none of them fit my "pattern"

 

One of the biggest theoretical problems I have Leo is with the idea of unrestricted growth, which is endemic to Capitalism. I would not disagree that many of those working to build up large corporations have worked very hard to do so. However, unrestricted growth leads to problems - most firms when they reach a certain size become impersonalized. Decisions are made further and further away from those effected by them, and are made by those who live far away from the environmental destruction which their decisions cause. Is it any wonder that I, as an environmentalist, would rather share my town with a cooperative - with people who actually share my environment directly. Large corporations also lead to concentrations of political power, and to monopolies which will eventually make the future for smaller family firms more untenable - thus leading to less choice in the long run. we have corporations with bigger turnovers than the entire GDP of the country hosting them - look at Maersk Shipping and Denmark ! If we compare countries GDP to the turnover of the 'global players' of this World then the following picture emerges - from the top hundred in our league table 52 are corporations and 48 are countries. This is a threat to democracy because our democracy was built upon the nation state - and it is now those corporations which are pulling the strings.

Your idea of self help, or rather responsibility for ones own actions, is laudible. However I feel I can use it to judge my own live but not those of others. Actual social mobility ie. the moving of a person from one social class to another within his lifetime has gone down in Britain. A child born in the 1950s had more chance of doing this than those born in the 1970s who grew up under Thatcherism - and the rate has remained static since then. At the end of the day I can only go so far with this theory - if I see a poor man on the street I cannot disassociate myself from his poverty so easily by saying 'he is responsible' because, under modern Capitalism, his poverty and my wealth are connected - I do not know his life history and can, therefore, make no judgement.

By the way Leo - I am a party member, no not the Anarcho Communist Kropotkinist party - as if there were such a thing in Germany. But rather in one of those boring mainstream ones (German Green Party) whilst actually agreeing with only about 70% of their manifesto.

 

I understand your concern about global industrialisation. However I also believe that industrialisation and research are powerful forces for good. We need though to look beyond the nation state. That s one of the reasons I support the EU. In the end we actually need to work towards some form of World Government - not try to back track to small community cooperatives - they do not have the power and never will to solve any other than very localised problems. Long before Green was popular I had a favourite book by a chap called Gordon Rattray Taylor called Rethink: A Paraprimitive Solution (1972). That and an Aldous Huxley book Island were inspirational for me. They envisaged societies where I would have felt comfortable. Today's world is not like that and never will be. Part of the problem is as you have said unrestricted growth not just endemic to but essential to capitalism. Another is there are just too many people in the world.

I see the Green Party as the King Canute Party. I was a member of Greenpeace many years ago - and Amnesty International - and have often voted Green - knowing their policies might be "nice" but are impractical in today's world but will never be tested.

The only solution I see is as I say a form of World Government that looks at mankind holistically and tries to balance the planets needs against the excesses of industrialisation.

Onto the microcosmic aspect I feel we cannot afford to look at our own lives alone but need to look at others too as we are all interconnected. I cannot help my brother alone - society as a whole needs to do that - but in doing so it must ensure that there is a basic expectation that people will do as much as they can to help themselves -and that whenever you receive a benefit you are taking that from someone else - possibly someone whose need is greater than yours. We should try as a society to help everybody find ways to contribute TO our society and not to take from it. There is a small percentage of people who will always seek to take - to close your eyes to that is wrong - the aggravation it causes goes far beyond it s numbers.

One last thought - a very personal one - if it were not for our industrialised society and massive chemical corporations my wife would now be dead. Thanks to R&D in the medical field and a superb NHS (for all its critics) she survived a heart attack and is now living with terminal cancer nearly four years after it was diagnosed - I would give everything I own for that - and if there was a pill available somewhere in the world that would cure her I would sell everything and go and buy it. Large corporations do a lot of good too

 

I'll begin with your last point Leo, if you don't mind. Technical and medical progress is not necessarily a result only of capitalism, and can develop in other ways. There is no automatic connection between 'capitalization' and health care - which is why the health system in Cuba is generally considered superior to that of the USA.

There is no contradiction between local cooperatives and global solutions - think globally and act locally. The municipality of Engelskirchen, which you obviously don't know (because no one else does !) has a carbon footprint of 11.7 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per head - per year (19,000 population). The responsibility for lowering this cannot only be from above - and this applies for every town and every individual. It is ridiculous that a small rural community should be dependent for 99% of its food upon 2 or 3 supermarkets which are parts of chains - dependent on a globally organized system driven by fossil fuels. Nearly all of the small shops have gone and, unless I grow my food myself, I am forced to give my money to these chains - in other words my money does not stay within the community. These supermarkets have products from over 70 different countries (on any day of the week) - despite 80% of wine being produced within the EU I see shelves also full with wine from Chile, Argentina, Australia, USA and so on - and this same pattern is repeated also in any supermarket in England. The expansion in World Trade - the amount of Ships tonnage is the same now for one day as for the entire year of my birth - has reached its breaking point. Yet continually they speak of more - they speak of container ships which will hold over 20,000 containers, but not of the prison like conditions which Phillipino workers (half of all mariners in the World) have to endure in order to get peoples t-shirts etc. to supermarkets cheaply and on time, or of the 170,000 litres of fuel per hour consumed by these ships. I see citizens being turned into consumers - and being classified more and more only in terms of their spending power.

All things have a natural limit to growth - a person does not have the freedom to decide at the age of 20 to continue growing upwards - nothing in nature has this power. To rely upon future technology to 'fix' all problems ie. we can continue consuming and producing as before but with 'green' technology, is like saying to a chain smoker that he can continue with his habit because in 20 years time there will be a cure.

 

Well maybe not all is wrong here after all. You will be hard pressed to find a shelf in any of our supermarkets with a bottle of wine from anywhere outside France. It is also quite normal here to see mainly French produce on the fruit and veg counters.

The real problem is the huge amount of goods that appear to come from the EU, but actually they have been made in China. They have expanded their economy greatly, improving the peoples living standards there at the expense of people in Europe. We are now faced with this global economy that becomes harder to stop every year.

Growth can continue to some extent by built in obsolescence. I have a TV that works quite well that is 35 years old. I also have a much newer one that I have been told will probably need replacing after five years. I am not sure that today people's views of what they should and shouldn't buy can change. Over the past 15 years I have seen less French cars on our roads and far more imports. At the end of the day what you get for a certain amount of money will make people decide.

 

I am sorry but I like to have choice and I live in the World - is it so wrong to want to sample wines - or anything else for that matter from all over the world we live in - rather than my local rhubarb patch

 

Yes it is wrong of you. You should only be allowed to sample anything from around the world if, in the process, someone else is making an acceptable level of profit to them. Just because you want something is irrelevant.

 

But what is an "acceptable" level of profit?