Anything Political

[Cliff Ton 10,469]

I've never been one for always voting a certain way - or always disliking the others.

 

In any election where I've voted, I put the cross against whoever I thought was the best person/party available at that time, based on their past record and how it affected me.

 

So at various times I've voted for all of the main parties, a few of the lesser ones as well.

[philmayfield 6,144]

5 minutes ago, Brew said:

Lib Who?

Exactly - nobody’s ever heard of them!

[AfferGorritt 868]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

our 'Democracy' is very broken.

Do you think it would be any less broken under a different party? Seems to me that 99% of ALL politicians put ego and power first, self-interest second, and the country can go to hell. It’s just a job fuelled by ego, not the vocation it should be. All tarred with the same brush, whatever the party.

John Dalberg-Acton had it spot on.

[catfan 14,793]

Lockdown rule benders.

No mention of Stephen Kinnock and his 150 mile round trip during lockdown, to take his dad Neil a birthday cake ?

[radfordred 6,284]

I'm guilty as charged your honor, since voting age I have only ever voted Labour I feel I would be letting my Dad, my Granddad down by voting any another, I not that sure most even spend that much time even looking into why they are voting & what for?

Now I have a postal vote It's crossed & returned the second it hits the floor, found it hard to vote for Corbyn & Abbott in the last election, but still did?    

[denshaw 2,872]

On 26 May 2020 at 12:27 PM, AfferGorritt said:

Er? He could have invalidated his insurance, had his license revoked, be fined £1,000. Did he really have to drive 30 miles to make sure his eyesight was ok? Could he not have just checked by reading a number plate?

I have no axe to grind with Cummings, but he insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe such utter twaddle!!!

 

I think it was nice of Dominic to drive to Barnard Castle with his wife Mary, especially as it was her birthday.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 5/26/2020 at 7:16 PM, Cliff Ton said:

In any election where I've voted, I put the cross against whoever I thought was the best person/party available at that time, based on their past record and how it affected me.

 

That's as valid an approach as any Kev. And of course it's allowed because there are no rules saying how any of us should arrive at our voting decisions. Not my approach though. There have been times, especially under Thatcher, when Govt. policy very much affected me and mine.  These days it affects me less, but I spent half my life working with people who were either directly victims of, or ignored by successive Tory Govts.  The only time things were halfway bearable were the years that Blair and Brown spent in office. (And yes.. I know it wasn't perfect.. and no Labour didn't cause the World Economic Crash.)

I also happen to be a democratic socialist.  In that order.  I believe in Democracy first and Socialist principles second.  That doesn't make me a bomb throwing revolutionary, a 'Trot', a 'Commie' etc.. Just a socialist, in the sense of the word which existed before the term became an insult.

 

On 5/26/2020 at 9:57 PM, AfferGorritt said:

Do you think it would be any less broken under a different party? Seems to me that 99% of ALL politicians put ego and power first, self-interest second, and the country can go to hell. It’s just a job fuelled by ego, not the vocation it should be. All tarred with the same brush, whatever the party.

John Dalberg-Acton had it spot on.

 

Firstly, that old chestnut is a very easy way of avoiding debate.  There was a chap in my local who was constantly spouting  that he didn't vote because 'they're all bent'... before going on to moan for the rest of the night about what the govt of the day were getting wrong. He never saw the irony of his position.  He's gone now.

 

Secondly it is patently not true.  Even I recognise that many Tory voters and at least some Tory politicians genuinely believe that what they are doing benefits everybody.  I also recognise that there are 'bad eggs' in all parties.

 

Thirdly, what do you propose as an alternative?  I for one would consider limiting terms of office for individuals.  But, that would have to be weighed against experience. And in any case, I'd want to sort out the dangerously biased press, the hugely corrupting power of lobbying, the failure to address corrupt party funding, etc., etc., before all that.

 It's not easy.  I've read Marx, Engels, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Plato, Michels, Burke, Bentham, Hobbes, Locke and numerous others on the problems of creating the 'perfect' society.  The one thing they all come up against is human nature.. which includes human selfishness and greed. It's a problem.. but it's relatively minor compared to the systemic flaws in our political system which allow it to flourish.  If we fix them.. there are immediate gains.. for the majority.  The only real losers are the ones currently screwing the rest of us.

 

As for Dalberg-Acton.. no.  He didn't have it 'spot on'. He was just good with words.  Take for example:

 

Quote

It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority.

 

The above is patent rubbish.  Both are undesirable and our present Democratic arrangements are the closest we have to avoiding them.

[Brew 5,421]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

which includes human selfishness and greed. It's a problem.. but it's relatively minor compared to the systemic flaws in our political system which allow it to flourish.  If we fix them.. there are immediate gains.. for the majority.  The only real losers are the ones currently screwing the rest of us.

 

It's chicken and egg Col. The flaws in the system and human selfishness can't be separated, they're mutually dependant, a symbiosis that needs to be recognised.  It's an autonomy that self perpetuates and has done for centuries.

You're right in that it is a problem but it won't be fixed by viewing and tackling them as separate issues.

There will never be a  Utopian society where people act purely for altruistic reasons and not self interest. I doubt we will ever truly reach Maslow's pinnacle without standing on someone's shoulders.

[DJ360 6,730]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

There will never be a  Utopian society where people act purely for altruistic reasons and not self interest.

 

Never is a long time, and economic/social/environmental conditions will eventually overturn the current norms.  For instance, history will show that Capitalism, just like previous economic systems.. is not inevitable, and only exists because it can. Capitalism simply cannot continue unabated.. It is already failing..  It is a supreme arrogance to assume that Capitalism is 'immortal'.. when previous economic systems have come and gone. I don't presume to know what will replace Capitalism. and I'm bloody sure it is not the travesty of socialism as enacted by Russia and China. but believe me.. it will change. sooner or later.

 

But yes.. you are correct, a Utopian Society is most likely unachievable and most certainly not achieveable in the short term.

 

However.. longer term I'm convinced that the logic of cooperation, which sustains many Tribal societies World wide. will re-assert itself.  Our present system depends on perpetual growth.  It is obvious that perpetual growth on a finite planet is not happening. so something has to give..  

 

In the short term. I really do believe that we can improve our democracy and shut down some of the more blatant abuses... such as a press which can print what it likes without any burden of proof, a lobbying system which essentially bypasses Parliament and a system which still allows 'big money' to do what it likes to 'little people'.

 

I'll come back on Maslow later..

[Brew 5,421]

I don't think anyone truly believes that capitalism will last forever. In a world of dwindling resources it will at some point collapse. It will come at the point where the system can no longer support and sustain the population. 

Quite why you are so sure the Chinese/N.Korean/Russian model wont come as a replacement I'm not sure, all the signs say it's more than likely. One thing I'm sure of, we won't all be happy clappy people learning the words to kumbaya.

 

Tribalism is not a system based on cooperation except in travelogues. In reality it's a world we won't recognise. a violent world where leadership is by either force of arms or inherited and fear maintains order - it's not without good reason we moved away from it centuries ago.

 

Looking around the world today I see all manner of change and not for the better. I cannot think of one instance where the opposition to the status quo advocates your brand of socialist cooperation and  liberalism. Even in the Chinese and Russian systems 'big money' still does what it likes and regardless of what the future holds there will still rich and there will still be poor.

[roger peatman 337]

Capitalism is available to everyone - unfortunately, it will also be the end of everyone.

[loppylugs 8,429]

We also need to remember that our respective systems were built on a capitalistic model.  Compared to many in the world we in the west would be considered rich capitalists.  It would take an army of servants to maintain the lifestyles most of us take for granted.  There has to be a system of exchange.  The root problem seems to be greed on the part of some.  Greed for money and the power to control others.  No system can withstand that indefinitely.

[philmayfield 6,144]

Where do you draw a line though between greed and ambition? I've always been ambitious, wanting to better myself. It's been achieved through hard work and long hours. I don't think I've been greedy along the way. 

 

[loppylugs 8,429]

Valid response, Phil.  We are all born with different talents and I see no harm in an individual working and studying hard to make a good living.  That is at least part of what constitutes freedom.  I guess things become a problem when someone becomes obscenely rich, while having not the slightest care for the hard workers who helped to make him so.  Simplistic, I know, but it seems to be at the root of a lot of heartache.  Especially when they find that power and riches bring no real happiness.

[Brew 5,421]

It depends on how you define greed

 

Greed: Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.   Ambition: a strong desire to do or achieve wealth or power. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me. The only difference I can see are the adjectives.

 

25 minutes ago, loppylugs said:

Greed for money and the power to control others.  No system can withstand that indefinitely.

 It's nice to think there is a more equitable system but greed and the pursuit of power and profit has been quite successful for several thousand years. The great strength of the capitalist system is its ability to adapt so I can't see it changing anytime soon.

[loppylugs 8,429]

Periodicaly it seems to break out in violent revolution when the proles have had enough.  From my observations over the years the replacement is often little better.  As George Orwell wrote,  "All are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Unfortunately due to the very nature of man, with power can come corruption in the never ending quest for more the temptation to bend the rules.

[Cliff Ton 10,469]

33 minutes ago, Brew said:

It depends on how you define greed

 

Greed is just wanting more and more, and being prepared to walk over people to get it.

 

Whereas ambition is just wanting to improve yourself and work your way up the ladder, with some degree of consideration for others.

 

Greed is selfish, and ambition is greed without most of the selfishness.

[Brew 5,421]

 

4 minutes ago, loppylugs said:

Periodicaly it seems to break out in violent revolution when the proles have had enough

 

It's true, the American revolution (1776), French revolution (1848) the Russian revolution (1905 - 17) and on and on... but was the replacement any better? In all events the proletariat were still ruled and controlled by the state and not necessarily for their benefit.

 

In America it was not called the 'wild west' without good reason, it was a virtual  Kropotkin style anarchy. The first French republic earned the sobriquet 'the reign of terror' for its brutal control of the masses. The Russian model saw Stalin murder millions of his own people. It has gone on since before Brutus did for Caesar with sickening inevitability.

 

Socialists used to love the word revolution without any concept of what it means and the reality of the aftermath. 

[Brew 5,421]

37 minutes ago, Cliff Ton said:

 

Greed is just wanting more and more, and being prepared to walk over people to get it.

 

Whereas ambition is just wanting to improve yourself and work your way up the ladder, with some degree of consideration for others.

 

Greed is selfish, and ambition is greed without most of the selfishness.

 

It's an interesting argument CT and the difference is purely one of semantics really. Once we have a roof over our heads, food on the table and all the necessities, what drives us on, greed or ambition? Is much wanting more greed or ambition.

I grew up a raggy arsed urchin from Sneinton and it gave me a hatred of being poor. It made me work long hours, made me try and fail and try again. Was I, am I, greedy or ambitious? 

How can ambition be greed without most of the selfishness? It either has selfishness or it doesn't.

I think it's simply different degrees of the same thing.

[philmayfield 6,144]

An electrician who sometimes did work for my company was doing a job for my mother in law. She asked him what I was like to work for. He said 'he's a bastard but at least he's a fair bastard'. That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me! 

 

[loppylugs 8,429]

Most of us are just trying to better ourselves in one way or another.  My way was by emigrating.  It helped but I quickly learned nowhere is utopia and you still had to pass exams and gain experience.  What I have observed in practice is that organizations run on a socialist model tend to stifle ambition.  There is often little point in trying to move up.  The slackers get paid the same as everyone else and it takes a govt decree to sack 'em.  So just ride the system and wait for a pension.  As it's claimed used to be said in Russia.  "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

[LizzieM 9,511]

I went through the educational system and came out with pretty average marks and all I wanted was a decent job with good pay so I could have nice clothes, holidays and good times.  I got that, then  I married an ambitious man who was, just like Brew ‘a raggy arsed urchin’, one of 6 kids with no money to spare.  He worked on a chicken farm from the age of 8 for his pocket money and thought he wanted to be a chicken farmer.  Left school at 15, worked on the farm for a year and then decided to go back and take a few exams.  Eventually he graduated as a Civil Engineer, worked for Surrey County Council with colleagues who only talked about their Government pensions, at the age of 25.  Escaped all that and got a job in the private sector, then took the plunge to start his own business, eventually employing 200 people and having 70 vehicles on the road.  It was never easy, there was so much worry 24 hours a day and so much stress but he thrived on it.  The kids took most of the business over after university and made it bigger and better (although at the present time they have more stress than we ever had)  However, the workaholic I am married to is still working and I’m thankful for that because I doubt he would find enough to occupy his time.   He’s never been greedy, he needed to be ambitious to survive.  BUT ..... behind every successful man is a good woman!  

[DJ360 6,730]

19 hours ago, Brew said:

I don't think anyone truly believes that capitalism will last forever.

 

Really?  It's clear that some of us have this 'sussed'.. but most just carry on as if there is no end to it.

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Tribalism is not a system based on cooperation except in travelogues. In reality it's a world we won't recognise. a violent world where leadership is by either force of arms or inherited and fear maintains order - it's not without good reason we moved away from it centuries ago.

 

You are clearly looking at different tribes to me.  I'm thinking more of those who live 'up the Amazon' and are pretty content with their lot in a jungle which gives them all they need. until we go charging in with our big boots on.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Looking around the world today I see all manner of change and not for the better. I cannot think of one instance where the opposition to the status quo advocates your brand of socialist cooperation and  liberalism. Even in the Chinese and Russian systems 'big money' still does what it likes and regardless of what the future holds there will still rich and there will still be poor.

 

I don't think you can compare the Chinese and Russian systems now.  China has morphed into a state controlled capitalist economy and is currently engaged in extending its economic control , particularly in Third World areas such as Africa.  Russia is now nothing more than a Gangster State, in which elections are rigged if held at all) and the opposition cynically 'neutralised'.  Economically Russia is still weak.. although our esteemed leaders have managed to engineer a situation where we are now dependent upon Russia for energy... and China to build our power stations... you couldn't make it up.

[DJ360 6,730]

9 hours ago, Brew said:

Socialists used to love the word revolution without any concept of what it means and the reality of the aftermath. 

 

That was Communists.  To Communists, 'Socialists' were wimps. 

 

However, as I've been careful to define, I'm a democratic socialist.  I just want to see a bit more socialist influence on Govt policy. I'm sure it is achieveable without revolution.

 

10 hours ago, philmayfield said:

Where do you draw a line though between greed and ambition? I've always been ambitious, wanting to better myself. It's been achieved through hard work and long hours. I don't think I've been greedy along the way. 

 

 

In a very real sense you don't.   I'm not having a pop at you Phil and I'm sure you've worked hard.  But so have millions of others who have not managed to secure the benefits that you have. Also, unless you are very much more wealthy than I guess.. you don't even register on the Tories' radar.  They'll have your vote, but you aren't one of them.

 

  How do we address this Greed/ambition thing?  How do we assign value to work?  This is at the very heart of the matter and this is the conundrum that Marx.. the Sociologist wrestled with.. that's the same Marx that the right like to portray as a bomb throwing revolutionary.  He wasn't. He was a very middle class thinker and writer.

 

As far as I'm concerned, it is Govt's job to set the boundaries and to define the difference between ambition and greed. If we discount the current measures to deal with Covid, we have a Govt. which is still determined to attack public services and protect the rich.  It's what the Tories have always been about.  They can dress it up all they like in tripe about 'taxiing people out of jobs' or whatever other drivel.. but basically they represent people who don't like paying taxes, or paying 'little people' decent wages.  They represent  the 'big money' and are supported by a press which is owned by the same 'Big Money'

 

And don't even get me started on the way they have systematically Asset Stripped our Public Services in order to further enrich themselves.. at least not until my next post...

[Brew 5,421]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

You are clearly looking at different tribes to me.  I'm thinking more of those who live 'up the Amazon' and are pretty content with their lot.

 

Seriously you want to claim that without any knowledge or experience of them or their lives? How on earth can anyone say they are content with their lot when all we know is what we are told by some bozo of an arrogant anthropologist who looks at them through a microscope, totally misunderstands and writes warmly of their reliance on 'being one' with their environment, of the quaint customs and practices before returning to his nice suburban house and life.  Unless the observer is one of them the best that can be done is stand outside, look in and use a modern yardstick to measure their lives, totally missing the fact the tribe does not have a choice.

They do not cooperate through altruism. Humans are herd animals and band together by instinct and fear of the dangers surrounding them. They only cooperate when there is some advantage or utility for themselves and all their needs are met.

 

We like to blame ourselves for the damage we do to indigenous people, for disrupting their idyllic lifestyle etc. when in fact once tribes see what our civilisation has to offer they quickly swap animal skins for jeans, tee shirts and  demand the right to vote. Only a few weirdos make the journey in the opposite direction.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I don't think you can compare the Chinese and Russian systems now.  

 

I think they are excellent examples of the way a socialist society evolves and the way capitalism develops and adapts. It clearly demonstrates humans natural tendency towards self first.

The state only manages things for the common benefit and the 'greater good' by force and fear of non compliance.

Communism v Socialism are like greed and ambition,  just different degrees of the same thing.  

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm sure you've worked hard.  But so have millions of others who have not managed to secure the benefits that you have. 

  How do we address this Greed/ambition thing?  How do we assign value to work?  This is at the very heart of the matter and this is the conundrum that Marx.. the Sociologist wrestled with.

As far as I'm concerned, it is Govt's job to set the boundaries and to define the difference between ambition and greed.

 

 but basically they represent people who don't like paying taxes, or paying 'little people' decent wages.  They represent  the 'big money' and are supported by a press which is owned by the same 'Big Money'

 

Millions of the poor and downtrodden denied the fruits of their labour, denied the right to own the means of production and share the rewards blah blah blah, it's an old song and we all know the words. Unless and until  the risks and responsibilities are shared it's never going to happen.

I'm not sure the guy working away at his lathe or whatever will fully understand when the firm goes bust and liquidators come to take is assets, house, car, savings to help pay off the companies debts and he ends up a bankrupt. I am sure he would happily take not only his salary but a share of the profits if he could.

 

'It's the governments job to determine the difference between greed and ambition'.  It does, it's called the law and if enough voters don't like they can demand it's changed.

 

Representing people who don't like paying tax? count me in! and I'm not even a billionaire, nor do I own  my own newspaper...