Return to: Home | World Affairs | Europe

294 comments from readers

Gerishnakov
04 December 2008 at 13:55

The problem with the 'accepted' policy on immigration in this country is that its all backwards. At the moment the focus is on keeping out the 'riff-raff' and only letting in 'skilled workers', which basically means only the people we need, and/or want. In terms of countries that are still at developing or under-developed level, we should not be encouraging talented doctors and nurses to leave their embattled homeland and come to the UK. If it were up to me we would only take 'skilled migrants' from countries defined as 'developed', thus not making a net loss between the two countries as it is more than likely that as say someone from the US immigrates to Britain, someone from here leaves for the US. From 'underdeveloped' countries the UK should only be taking refugees, asylum seekers, and those who can prove they can absolutely not make a living in their home country. This would allow for their country to make a 'net gain'. As the country loses its needy to somewhere capable of dealing with them, the skilled and talented workers remain behind to maintain the infrastructure that, over time as the population morphs, would begin to cope with the strain.

a.m.r.
04 December 2008 at 15:31

"The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin

Jane Greene
04 December 2008 at 16:43

Thanks for that A.M.R. So one person says something and so ends all debate? You've obviously as high an opinion of Lenin as you do of yourself!

Nilsey105
04 December 2008 at 17:35

Jane

please elaborate

Pencils
04 December 2008 at 17:38

very good article, thanks. You're dead right about the problem with the British self-styled 'left' - can you really be counted ' socialist' or 'left' if you support an unlimited influx of what is effectively scab labour, not to mention the problem mentioned by Gerishnakov above?

Nilsey105
04 December 2008 at 18:11

Its patently obvious that any shift to the left within the labour party at present will require the purging of many. If this is enforced or self proclaimed remains to be seen.

Those who choose to exhibit, as many do at present, the voice and rhetoric of weilding a big stick to those in need of more decent and supportive actions will have to find other places for their clap trap and evil.

This serves for all those who's designs are aimed at eroding the civil liberties of the citizens of the UK.

Neoliberal economics and neocon politics have been tried for the last 20 years and have failed dramatically.

For the past 10 years a Labour Government of the New variety has sought to enhance the wealth of the nation via the use of neoliberal economics. They and their policies have led us to the present situation.

There is evidence to show that the present crisis of capitalism was manufactured and is indeed embedded within the Basle Accord of 1998.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6347.html

We certainly need something new interms of policy towards a new era in our economic system.

I doubt the possiblity of left groupings forming an alliance. My own experience from the 1960s onwards, of left wing infighting tell me that it would be a futile attempt to even try to build an alliance of the left that would form a government.

This leaves the way open for the Labour Party. But here we have a totally undemocratic organisation that serves only the interests of the right New Labour.

I have seen many articles this wek regarding the demise and death of new Labour. Only if it were so.

There have also been other writings on Old labour still behind the mask of New Labour. NO WAY.

Those democratic structures upon which the party ran its business under the Old regime have gone and been replaced with a rag bag of ideas that bypass democratic action.

We are left wth one solution, as they filched the party from us so we must take it back and prepare.

Nilsey105
04 December 2008 at 18:29

The major use,by the powers that be, in relation to immigration, has been to lower the REAL WAGES of the working population. This has been done on a global basis, not in the Uk alone.

Real wages in the, worlds biggest economy, the USA have dropped steadily since the 1970s.

In the UK through the 1980s real wage levels dropped and then in the 1990s they moved higher until the influx of cheap east european labour.

Just part and parcel of capitlist economics low wages equates to higher profit margins equals increased shareholder dividends.

gnuneo
04 December 2008 at 21:05

the 'problem' of mass immigration is not immigration - it is a lack of jobs. Where there mass vacancies, then mass immigration would have much less negative impact.

equally, with 'driving the wages down', it is not immigration per se, but the *ability* of employers to drive wages down - even without immigration, this is the underlying problem. Let us say that instead of immigration, there had been another boomer generation, and it was just school-leavers looking for work and 'driving wages down'.

couldn't blame the foreigners then, eh?

compare to an economy based upon cooperatives - every new worker does NOT drive down wages, as the workforce shares the extra productivity equally amongst themselves, so if the company can see a way to employ someone whose productivity is higher than the cost of employment, then every extra worker raises the income of everyone in the company* - to put it plainly, the problem is not extra workers, it is the ability of the few to force the many to compete for income, even though the many are themselves the ones producing the surplus that becomes income.

don't blame the powerless - especially when it can be so close to basic racism - blame those who create/continue the inefficient and exploitative system.

*also, every person employed is one less on benefits, as well as having more money to consume - which can demand-lead more economic growth in itself.

neil clark: nice article, and one that gives hope, even though i despise centralised socialism as much as i do centralised feudalism. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there has been a growth of 'Social Democracy', not 'Socialism' across Yoorup though?

Pencils
05 December 2008 at 01:50

" ...it is the ability of the few to force the many to compete for income...

don't blame the powerless - especially when it can be so close to basic racism..."

This is just limp political correctness. What gives the few the ability to dominate the many? Nothing but the disorganisation of the many. And what stops them organising ? Well for one, the 'even more' who are queueing up to do the many's jobs at lower rates and conditions. Where did anyone here, or anywhere, blame the powerless? That's just a none-too-subtle hint at a racist agenda, used in the same way the zionists use 'antisemitism' to close all discussion. We all know the bosses are to blame. So what? Blaming them isn't going to change anything. Fighting them, taking power for the many, is the thing. Then, if in power, we can see that our government conducts policies, in respect of the countries from which most immigrants here originate, that help these countries to provide work for their own people. The Dutch SP have it dead right - it's ridiculous that an entire generation of Poles are in London, while our government condones and supports the crypto-fascist regime which makes leaving seem so attractive. Mass immigration undermines organised labour. It's not just the Labour Party which needs a purge, but the so-called 'labour movement' too - any trade unionist who isn't actively opposed to mass immigration is a class traitior.

gnuneo
05 December 2008 at 04:08

oh no Pencils, class movement is NOT class abandonment - when Finance Capital has Global Movement, it is only a Balance When Labour Capital has the same Freedom.

where then is Class Treachery? It is not recognising that the conditions of Class Warfare are identical in all societies - and that the best way forward - the Humanistic way forward - is to support and encourage Equal Partnership cooperatives. This is also the method chosen by the Nobel-Award winning Grameen Bank.

this is not "limp political correctness", these are facts upon the ground.

the UK could easily absorb any amounts of hard workers from the former Eastern-Europe, until these workers can earn more back in their home countries.

the only 'problem' for the local, national economy, is that instead of consuming UK production the influx of Sterling into Poland was accompanied by a growth in Tesco supermarkets - who produced in low-citizen-rights countries like China.

yes, you are right - arguing such CAN be seen as 'crypto-fascist' - but only because the underlying reasons that make mass-immigration attractive are unchallenged. Given conditions of Fairtrade, expansion based on Grameen Bank policies, and the benefits of extra productivity rewarded to those who produce the extra, and not only is mass immigration unnecessary, but is explained as what you claim it is - a method of driving the demands of Workers downwards.

imagine now a state of affairs where a neighbouring state to the UK offers our young the possibility of earning 4x what the equivalent pay here would be - would we not want our children to take advantage, and help rebuild the UK economy? Of course we would.

the Key is realising there is no contradiction between these two positions, the extra earning by Newly Capitalist immigrants, if translated into local purchases by local cooperatives, would only feed back into new exports through partnerships between East-European Countries and UK-based East-European employing companies.

gnuneo
05 December 2008 at 04:31

supporting free movement of Peoples is not 'pro-Socialism' - nor 'pro-Capitalism' - it is just simple common sense.

lets say Polish immigrants like purchasing UK Quality Mountain Bikes - would they not purchase them once back in Poland? Yes, of course.

the true aim for an Economy is to make supplying economies independent - the Free Market works best when all economies involved are also free, economically independent Markets.

our major problem is a lack of UK based production - not employment of non-UK sourced Labour capital.

Carl Jones
05 December 2008 at 09:22

Mad debate; finance and corporations don`t have to recognise borders. Corporations can also move its people where they like.

However, ordinary people are more or less traped within the state. Our government has allowed a lot of immigration. The UK is and has been the least productive developed nation for 40 years, so the only reason for mass immigration, is to keep wages low.

Wages have been forced down in Britain, US and Europe. The minimum wage stops change, its a capitalist mechanism and so is the family tax credit.

I disagree with most of the comments. The people of the world are either funding the US with debt based bailouts, or their savings are being used to buy US paper. The idea that socialism is making a return, is LUDICROUS!!!

We are fast moving into a FASCIST POLICE STATE!

Look at Gordon Brown`s "mortgage holiday". It sounds good, but the FACT is, UK PLC can`t cope with the house repossesions, they can`t re-house these people, because of 300,000 immigrants, every year for the last decade and New Labour`s enslavement to the CITY, hell bent on its debt culture, selling the mortgage (DEATH GRIP). Labour as a result has failed to build LA rentable housing.

Now the system has fallen apart, the banks can`t even sell these empty houses, they`ll be vandalised, or squatted by the homeless. The governments greatest concern at the moment is SOCIAL UNREST!

I was talikng to a bank owner the other day, he is supprised that bricks aren`t being throw through bank windows and he expects serious social unrest, millionS unemployed, "we will be on our knees by the end of next year"!

Its AMAZING how many are in denial. As far as Germany goes, I`d be very worried, they have been victims of NWO manipulation on more than one occasion, in fact, I`d say Germany isn`t really a nation anymore, its occupied, its the EU cash pot and its puppet leaders are very embedded in the NWO. German bailout $635 billion, just to keep the US in burgers...NWO fascism!!

radha
05 December 2008 at 11:45

vaikom madhu

Dec 5 2008

A very good article. Not at all one sided.

v

05 December 2008 at 12:08

Check your facts. The SP is not the former CPN. Agnes Kant is not charismatic, the former leader Jan Marijnissen is responsible for the growth and is very charismatic. The Dutch Labour Party is growing since the credit crisis and SP is losing in polls.

Pencils
05 December 2008 at 13:21

Gnuneo - you just talked round in circles, there, and repeated the same accusations of 'blaming the powerless', if implicitly. I can't be bothered arguing with that, and neither, as Neil pointed out, can the 'working class' - I just am not going to engage with any political movement or organisation where idiocies like " capital's free to move, so why not people" would be greeted with anything but howls of laughter, or preferably summary execution.

Carl Jones is right that Germany is under NATO occupation, so I think it would not be wise to have too high hopes for German 'socialism'. Any hint of real socialism there, i.e. putting the interests of the German people before that of the USA and 'international finance', will of course result in a vicious international campaign of accusations of 'resurgent antisemitism and nazism', and a possible nuclear assault from guess where.

claubruroe
05 December 2008 at 15:43

First, Die Linke in Germany and Besancenot in France do not prove as yet the success of any socialism, but the polarisation of the political system, and this thanks in great part to the ex-left towards neoliberal policies. Beware of a "Bonapartist" reaction to further polarisation. Besides, some vote for the right because the centre-left is much like a centre-right, so they prefer the original model.

But talking about capitalism like in the early XX century is a waste of time, even capitalist managers and enterprises have become "merchandise", bought and sold in the financial market, while family and local enterprises find difficult to survive. And the global private standards on financial reporting are replacing good old accounting, rewriting concepts such as ownership! in texts that are 100% their private property and that no state can modify .

So... financial capitalism is a bit different from the industrial one. So socialism will be, having a new adjective attached.

In any case, we seem to be going towards a cooperative like model, or mutliple stakeholders mixed model, thanks to the present crisis.

I believe that we have all fought big battles for democracy and accountability in politics, but not in the economy. Some in the latter still behave like despotic lords and princes, and for the sake of the planet and humanity, we should go towards more cross-checks WITHIN each enterprise, like in good cooperatives, like in republics and in modern democracies. Am I dreaming?

amanfromMars
05 December 2008 at 17:17

Gentlemen, you are completely ignoring the HyperRadioProActive Binary Underground who work at the Quantum Bit Level of Extrapolation/MetaDataMining ...... for Cloud Internet Configuration in Command and Control. For that is what is happening in CyberSpace.

And how very convenient there's so much Liquidity available for Systems Spend/Build.

And you can be Assured it is not Unknown to Everybody ..... which is the Power of Print on a Page.

amanfromMars
05 December 2008 at 17:20

And this would be Nice too ......

a.m.r.

04 December 2008 at 15:31

""The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin"

The AIMission of Socialism is Capital for All ... Vladimir Putin?

Riaz Ahmad
05 December 2008 at 20:29

Capitolism is an on going historic clash between profit and labour cost. As long as majority of the world produced little, the advanced world relied on cheap comodities from the third world that barely earned subsistance wage. Third world was forced and confined to export of primary goods through imposition of high import duties on their value added good.

With monopoly of political, economic and military power the third world was held in a straight jacket by the civilised advanced world. It took half a century for countries like India, Brazil, China and many others to develop basic infrastructure in order to join the industrialised world. Under colonial yoke, these conturies were stuck in a time warp for centuries, no economic developement took place during this period.

With the entry of new Asian and South American entities in the international economic arena, Europe and America with high wage and texation cost found it increasing difficult to compete with the rest. By necessity, the advanced world had to manufacture in low wage countries which lead to formation of NEFTA and expansion of EU to include eastren Europe. Such moves proved inadequate considering the size of the Asian populations and unparalleled rate of Economic expansion. The advanced world had no option but to promote the philosopy of globalisation. Through golobalisation, the advance world started producing in third world, leading to massive increase in global economy.

Neo-liberal philosophy of unlimitted economic expansion is a contradiction, the finite nature of resourses cannot sustain such excess. Mother earth hasn't the capacity to provide all her children with a standard of living currently enjoyed by the west. Besides, economic activity is distroying the very envoirnment on which our existance depends. Capitolism as we know it is dead. New economic system will lead to a new political system. If we do not change our life style, there wont be any life left to change in the future.

writeon
05 December 2008 at 22:03

I think that the main schism isn't between the "right" and "left" anymore, but between reality and fantasy, or rationality and mythology. The values of the Enlightenment and the post-Enlightenment world. Barack Obama vs. Sarah Palin. Science vs. Religion.

As to "Socialism", isn't the massive bailout fo the US financial system a form of socialism in action? Only this "socialism" is confined to one particular "class", for want of better term, the Capitalist class. Just as there are various types of bourgeois democracy and milder or more vicious types of captialism, there are also different and parallel forms of socialism. For example National Socialism, which though regarded as a contradiction in terms, is making a comeback in many countries, though not, as yet, in its most virulent, Nazi form.

I think it's possible to have bourgeois socialism and even capitalist socialism, just as one can have authoritarian socialism and libetarian socialism. But perhaps this is becoming silly. The point is, I think, that these old terms, may mean far less than we imagine and far more, and they probably confuse more than educate us.

FA
05 December 2008 at 22:39

Some severe problems with Neil Clark's analysis.

Firstly, none of the far left parties he describes appear to have any meaningful platform other than protectionism and command economics. The fact that in a recession people want more welfare and more regulation of imprudent practices that lead to the recession doesn't translate into a genuine shift to supporting protectionism and command economics - supprot for the parties that espouse the most welfare coudl thus be fleeting. More importantly, it doesn't make the contribution of the far left useful. The same reasons why command economics and protectionism failed (prompting Fukuyama's comments) remain in place and the far left, despite slogans of new models, is just repeating the past.

Secondly, there is no basis to think the far left in Europe can attain anything other than junior coalition partner status EVEN where strongest. This isn't a sea change - the parties of government remain centre-left and centre-right.

Thirdly, its wrong to say the far left is on the march in Europe. In France the left is a dead duck (inlcuding the centre-left Socialists who may lose out to Bayrou) and Sarkosy is dominant. In Britain the Tories are back up in the polls - and no matter how much discontent New Labour has caused, noone supports the Tories thinking they will be more socialist than Labour! In Britain, there is no evidence that the far left is on the march, no evidence that the public want far left policies nor that far left policies are what will help Labour's fortunes.

Bear in mind that in terms of our basic model of regulated market economy with a welfare state and public services, there is little appetite for more taxes amongst the public to be spent on welfare and public services. What there is appetite for is more regulation.

Currently it seems not - rightly or wrongly - the public don't perceive Cameron as necessarily being less likely to bring in the new regulation, hence Labour's gap in the polls.

Nilsey105
05 December 2008 at 22:46

The American banking fraternaty are now claiming the banking collapse is due to a 1000 year flood that was impossable to foresee. Bollox

Nilsey105
05 December 2008 at 22:47

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/12/05/banking-spi...

sorry forgot the link

Red Shift
06 December 2008 at 01:28

Do we really want to see authoritarian socialist parties in power? Would the far left in power be any different from the far right?

Rather than bang on about migration how about arguing that that we require stable Energy efficient communities, and the loss of workers from these communities, impoverishes them and pushes up energy costs. Britain remember is an island, is not a huge landmass like the states, with yet to be discovered resources, or even like central Europe.

a.m.r.
06 December 2008 at 02:34

"Why it that free markets have given more people more choice, more material comfort and better health in the past two decades than any centrally planned economy ever delivered in history? And when Marxism is praised, does anyone ever explain why it is that every Marxist state has relied on torture, a brutal secret police, purges, concentration camps and murder to survive? Oh, and why did most of them also inflict either famines that killed millions, grotesque environmental degradation or spectacular poverty on their people during their existence?"

Michael Gove

"Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end."

Leon Trotsky

antileft
06 December 2008 at 06:57

Ok, lets look at a statistic. In the EU, there are only three parties on the left that govern without a coalition. THREE.1. Britain (hohoho very left wing)2. Spain (ditto)3. I forgot but it isnt an important one.And the other... 24 is it now? Where did the NS get this?! If Europe is going communist, you would have thought that in our elections (yes, we have those unlike communist countries) someone, just SOMEONE would actually vote left?? No?? Not relevant?! Or did the writer here just not do this research?

I do love this by the way- very socialist thinking:

"An opinion poll last year showed that 45 per cent of west Germans (and 57 per cent of east Germans) consider socialism "a good idea";"

Uh huh, right. One tiny tiny thing. ITS VOTES THAT COUNT. A vote, after a serious debate in the country. Just calling up some apolitical average guy and saying "is socialism a good idea?" is likely to get a "yes". If you ask him to VOTE (after a serious debate) for a system which allows the state to own both their property and their business, while simultanously paying everyone (regardless of effort) the same, removing democracy, and impoverishing everyone, then I think that same guy might think twice. VOTES- thats what counts. Socialists always forget that- which is why they never allow a vote. ITS VOTES, STUPID. Thats what counts- and it's why only three EU countries have left wing governments.

Garreth Byrne
06 December 2008 at 09:49

Asking the question What is true Socialism? is a bit like asking What is real Art? Individual subjectivity and social relativism have so deeply embedded themselves in mass society that neither question can find a widely galvanising answer. One thing is certain from public reactions to recent developments in art and economy: laisser-faire attitudes among the public and professionals lead to decay and decline.

a.m.r.
06 December 2008 at 17:01

antileft, additionaly New Labour only became electable once they'd changed the socialist Clause IV of the Labour Party consititution to remove the requirement for "common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange."

Tony Blair also managed to wrest back to a small degree, in the replacement clause, the more inituitive meaning of socialist which has been hijacked by Marxists (or possibly earlier). eg. if I'd been asked, when younger and unfamiliar with Marxism, "what do you think a 'socialist' policy might mean, given your understanding of the word "social"?", would have replied that I assumed it was a a general focus on with making sure that everyone was, in an essential sense, being fairly treated by others and able to have a decent minumum standard of living, to the extent possible by available resources. More generally, I would have said that it meant government with a humane conscience.

I wouldn't have ever guessed that actually the "socialist" solution involves common (defacto goverment) ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, managed by a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (This is called "loading the language" by some).

If I'd been further told that, empirically, such "socialist" states had ended up murdering, enslaving and bankrupting their own people to a greater or lesser extent (socialist Marxist governments killed an estimated 110 million of their own people in the 20th century), but that some people were still pushing it as the best solution ("people just aren't doing it right"), I would have had some worried questions.

All the successful countries of Europe are western free-market democracies, including those governing with a genuine socialist agendas - there are no Marxist or Marxist-Leninist governments in Europe.

stateswoman
06 December 2008 at 18:07

It is sad that the underlying emotions in so many

comments show how narrow-minded individuals

remain. People seem unable to move away from the

'goodies' and the 'baddies' mentality and from

absolutes and superlatives.

For starters, rapidly changing demographies, such as

we have been witnessing in the last decades, clearly

call for re-defined and re-designed economic systems.

Surely, it is time for these discussions to mature away

from the pedestrian thinking they appear to reflect. It

must be eminently clear that certain concepts of 'elite

group' ownership of capital can no longer be viable in

the swiftly changing society that we have become.

If 'democracy' does have a positive meaning, the only

way that it can go on to flourish is through the

acceptance that existing economic models are no

longer effective or even desirable. Shallow 'left' and

'right' denunciations do nothing to help raise the

global economy from the mire it has sunk into. In

conclusion, therefore, we need to sing a Requiem to

egotistic individualism and the reign of 'elite

minorities' even when we, ourselves, become the

victims of this change.

josephCape
06 December 2008 at 19:06

The fact that anti-immigration may be supported by a broad base of the working class doesn't show that its any less racist than conservative neophobia - it is likely to be a short-term vote-winner and is simply too emotive to be accepted uncritically, we should support left-wing movements that don't resort to restricting peoples' freedom to live where they like as much as possible.

writeon
06 December 2008 at 20:01

Some of the comments here are so partisan, polemical, intemperate, full of vigour but not much understand, that one shakes ones head in amused disbelief.

This riciculous idea that one can create a magic, cosmic scale and weigh the dead caused by "socialism/communism" compared to Western "Liberal Democracy"; and find that, surprise, surprise, the pile of bodies heaped on the red side of the scale is higher and heavier, and that this "proves" something important, really leaves one almost speechless at the shear stupidity of such an argument and how incredibly shallow it is. Without any sense of history or context.

In the real world there is a profound difference between the tenets of formal ideology, the "utopia" sanctioned by the state/soicial structure and how society functions not in the abstract but in practice.

If one wanted to play this silly game, just to show how without sense or point it really is, one could look at the great European civil wars between the rival capitalist/nations, and the terrible consequences of their rival nationalist dogmas, and clearly tens of millions have been slaughtered too, but what exactly would that prove? That capitalism is responsible for tens of millions of dead too? Because capitalism was "only" responsible for slaughtering fifty million, are we seriously supposed to conclude that this shows that capitalism is a "better" system?! The shear absurdity of this kind of "reasoning" and the lack of virtually any conception of morality is simply astounding.

One could make the argument that Western imperialist capitalism has expanded for three to four centuries, with the sword in one hand and the swag bag in the other. Violence on massive and almost unimaginable scale, and robbery and enslavement lasting for centuries, are a central characteristic of Western imperialism. If one doubts this try taking the time to talk to an Indian, Mexican or Peruvian historian about the "blessings" of Western capitalist expansionism.

writeon
06 December 2008 at 20:36

What I also find difficult to understand is the collosal lack of basic knowegde and understanding exhibited in some of the sectarian comments. Frankly, reading some of them is an embarrassment. That one has this strange mix of arrogance and ignorance that's almost transcendent is kind of shocking. That one presents arguments of such crass stupidity with a flourish and a banging of drums, makes one almost despair. Where on earth did you receive your educations?

This rhetorical tactic of creating a strawman argument and then demolishing it, is such a tiresome device and so easily refuted. It's difficult to take seriously, but then the individuals promoting these forms of argument aren't capble of anything more sophisticated, despite their obvious conceit and self-regard for their self-proclaimed intellectual abilities, clarity, understanding of logic and almost everything else under the sun.

Socialism and or Communism are arguably Utopian alternatives to the Capitalist Empire paradigm. But then Liberal Capitalist Democracy is also a form of Utopia. It's apparent "success" is wildly exaggerated, and at what cost? The massive transfer of wealth and power from the rest of the world to the West surely has to be factored into the equation, if this "success" criteria is to have any meaning, surely? One cannot be so selective in the examples and data one plucks out of history to "prove" how benevolent and successful Western capitalism is.

Considering we are entering the worst and biggest economic Depression in history, that Western Capitalism as a system is collapsing and dead as model, it's somewhat ironic and bizarre to defend it as a form of production worthy of praise and immitation. A system that's so obviously sick to the core, racked by structural and systemic failure, a system that's dying, with probably truly terrible consequences for millions of people, isn't a "success", unless one chooses to ignore it's myriad flaws for primative political reasons.

Pencils
06 December 2008 at 21:33

Writeon - well said. I've rarely seen it put better.

Nilsey105
06 December 2008 at 23:52

writeon

thankfully you have regathered your thoughts, well said.

a.m.r.
07 December 2008 at 00:08

Marxist socialist goverments killed over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century in attempts to socially engineer their vision of a fair society. All of them ended in failure.

I find this appalling and relevant. I'm sorry you don't.

fairplay
07 December 2008 at 02:40

whatever banner these new socialist parties fly, the fact of the matter is there will still be an elite cabal running things whether there are socialists/communists or outright facists in power and they will be the same people as they have always been. and if things dont go to their liking they will change them around.

no point in arguing. thats just how it is

a.m.r.
07 December 2008 at 03:44

stateswoman: "..rapidly changing demographies, such as we have been witnessing in the last decades, clearly call for re-defined and re-designed economic systems [..] It must be eminently clear that certain concepts of 'elite group' ownership of capital can no longer be viable in the swiftly changing society that we have become [..] In conclusion, therefore, we need to sing a Requiem to egotistic individualism and the reign of 'elite minorities' even when we, ourselves, become the victims of this change."

stateswoman, could you briefly describe how the new society will work and look like? How will it prevent the formation of elite minorities?

When you say we need to say good-bye to egotistic individualism, I assume you don't want to be rid of individualism altogether. By what mechanism will we move from egotistic to non-egotistic (altruistic) individualism?

a.m.r.
07 December 2008 at 05:31

writeon wrote:

"Considering we are entering the worst and biggest economic Depression in history.."

We don't actually know that yet - you're guessing.

"..that Western Capitalism as a system is collapsing and dead as model.."

Is it? Production is still ongoing. Market transactions are still working. The global market has reduced in value (a large-scale pricing-correction) but nothing catastrophic has happened, only routine economic events - some job losses and company closures. Regulation needs to be improved, with particular examination of the risk-benefit imbalance that makes high-risk plays attractive to traders, ratings agencies like S&P need to be investigated for their failure, and those involved in mis-selling sub-prime mortgages need to be prosecuted. The market has also inflicted its own natural punishment on the banks that took bad risks by the large movement of money to more prudent banks.

".. it's somewhat ironic and bizarre to defend it as a form of production worthy of praise and immitation."

How do you imitate a market?

"A system that's so obviously sick to the core, racked by structural and systemic failure, a system that's dying, with probably truly terrible consequences for millions of people, isn't a "success", unless one chooses to ignore it's myriad flaws for primative political reasons."

An economic system sick to the core and dying? Let's see - the healthiest, most educated, most aid-giving nations, with the highest levels of human rights and standards of living are the USA, Japan, Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and S. Korea - all free-market democracies.

It's the rest of the world that is in much more urgent need of attention and help. I think our best bet is technological progress.

antileft
07 December 2008 at 06:56

"That capitalism is responsible for tens of millions of dead too? Because capitalism was "only" responsible for slaughtering fifty million, are we seriously supposed to conclude that this shows that capitalism is a "better" system?!"

Youre missing the point again writeon. It's not about comparing the body count- this is true. What people are rightly bothered by is that there has NEVER been a communist country that has survived numerous elections, created wealth, and allowed freedom of speech. NEVER, writeon. Does that not bother you? There must have been hundreds of chances. It has NEVER worked. NEVER. That's the problem. No? This doesnt bother you? You still think we should try again??

And again you do the same thing that you always do with your posts- you avoid actually saying anything. What are you suggesting here?? Are you recommending communism? Socialism? New Labour style socialism? What are you saying? Youve NEVER explained this- and this is why your posts are so frustratingly mediocre. You write a lot of poetic gibberish (oh its always so long!) as though youve really got it, but totally avoid the point. It's semi-intellectual nonsense, writeon, and although Im sure you think its wonderfully intellectual, it's actually very mediocre.

Let's hear your solution. Specifics, please.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 09:51

Democracy; like the other main political theories; socialism, communism, liberalism, conservatism, anarchism, syndicalism ect. is interesting examined in the abstract, but take a closer look and problems reveal themselves underneath the surface.

What do we really mean by "Democracy"? Are we refering to the classic, Athenian concept of Democracy as practiced over two thousand years ago? Is so, how relevant is this for us today? Perhaps more relevant and instructive than we are inclined to think.

Obviously Athenian experiment in Democracy has been highly influential in Western thought. Unfortunately Athens wasn't spectacularly "democratic" seen from our perspective. Few of us would even recognise it as a democracy at all, if the Tardis could take us back for a quick Greek holiday. Without going into too much detail, one can confidently say that Athenian "democracy" was a fake, deeply flawed and unrepresentative of the population of Athens as a whole. That's not saying it wasn't an interesting concept, interlude, or experiment, but it certainly wasn't "democratic".

If one subtracts those who weren't allowed to vote; women, slaves, those without property or enough income, we arrive at a figure close to perhaps 15 or maximum 20 per cent of the population who had the right to vote. When they voted a simply majority was required, meaning that a minority of only 8 or 9 percent of the population could push through their views and pass laws in Athens. Now, I don't believe one can define such a rigged, controlled and narrow system as a shining example of "democracy"! Still, I suppose it was marginally better than nothing and a step along the way to something better.

But what it does show is that from the very start "democracy" has been flawed, full of paradoxes, contradictions and questions of legitimacy.

Democracy, power of the people, obviously never really existed in Athens. One had a free form of voting, but this should be confused with democracy.

fairplay
07 December 2008 at 10:15

define democracy

is democracy practised in the US for example while the MSM control the populations minds? can anyone get a fair crack of the whip?

i think ron paul and his supporters might have something to say about democracy in the US. you only had to watch the debates he won hands down with so little media coverage and the way he scared the elite so much they had him ignored completely

as for aid donors per head of population there are other countries further up the list and other countries with better standards of living. all of course free market democracies. however, im with writeon on this one. just because a person can vote how much can the people in these places actually change the status quo?

writeon
07 December 2008 at 10:35

What's the point of all this history? Does it matter today? Well, yes, it does. From the very start Democracy has been problematic and qualified in myriad ways.

Was Democracy primarily about voting, and if so who was allowed to vote, a technical question, or was it about the wider concept of Power in society and how this was distributed? Clearly in Athens, the people did not have Power, unless one used the very narrow Athenian concept of citizenship which excluded the vast majority of the people from the democractic process. And even in this limited sense Athenians were involved in intense debate about the distribution of wealth, power and political influence. They never confused voting with democracy or power. They are not the same.

So, one had a nominally "democractic" voting system, but without real power to the people, the majority. The majority didn't Rule. And Democracy as we define it means rule by the people in it's purest and most simple form.

It's somewhat odd that Athenian "democracy" is held up as a model considering it's contradictions and flaws, and the fundamental crack or schism between voting and power. But the Athenian experiment was only a brief interlude and it soon vanished for centuries. Democracy existed in the minds of the educated as an ideal, a dream, a hope. In practice it was dead.

Let's jump a over a thousand years. The English Civil War was arguably the next "democratic" experiment. A time when the traditional chains of fuedalism fell off and revolutionary ideas forced their way onto the stage, ideas that had been in hibernation for centuries. However, this period was even shorter, pershaps only couple of decades, and more fragile and the despotism of the monarch was replaced by the rule of Parliament, not much democracy there. But perhaps a reconfiguration of power within the ruling elite with the Prime Minister taking over the role of monarch. A temporary, elected, monarch.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 10:53

Now we enter the more recognizable "moder" period and the American Revolution. Here we see the return of "Athens" but on far larger, national, scale. Democracy returns from the dead!

But in many respects, and this isn't surprising, given the rich men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the American Democratic system, or Republic, had a great deal in common with the Athenian experiment in "democracy." That is, it was carefully contolled and managed, it wasn't direct democracy, it was representative, and it wasn't based on majority rule or Power to the People. No women, no slaves, no poor, no Indians. How many actually took part in the democractic process? Arguably not many more than in ancient Athens.

So we return to the central "paradox" in our concept of democracy. In reality minority rule in a system supposedly given power to the majority.

Obviously voting rights were carefully, prudently, slowly, extended to more and more citizens. Voting became the central characteristic of representative, bourgeois democracy. Voting became both a ritual, a substitute, a fetish, an excuse, for real democracy. Power of course, as in Ancient Athens, real economic power, power over society, was not democratized, it remained, more or less as it always had been, concentrated in the hands of powerful and often competing minorities within the ruling elite. Again a paradox, a contradiction, supposedly democratic societies ruled by elites. In reality a functioning, practical, oligarchy and kleptocracy, cloaking itself in the garb of democracy.

What of now, the present? I think the bourgeois period of Western Democracy is over in all but name. This isn't about redundant concepts like "left" and "right" it's about Power in society. The political empowerment of the great mass of the population, the working class and the middle class is over. It happened to the working class over the last thirty years as they were no longer needed, now it's the turn of the middle class.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 11:05

what this means is that this current "crisis" which I think shows myriad signs of developing into a full-blown economic Depression, rivalling or surpassing the Great Depression, will see the virtually destruction of vast swathes of the bourgeois, middle class. This tendancy has been apparent for a long time, especially in the United States. Only the pauperisation of the Middle Class, the destruction of the American Dream, was hidden by the creation of the illusion of prosperity based on the mirage of infinite debt. Now that particular period is definitively over. The great Western middle class is going to be the loser in the coming Depression. It'll be more or less wiped out.

We are not entering a "recession" which will be over in few months or a year. We are entering a long and sustained Depression. I'm not even sure we'll get out of it in our lifetimes. It may, at least in the United States and probably Western Europe, become a permanent feature. Hopefully, the new emerging powers, China, Russia, Brazil, India won't be dragged down by the United States, but this is debatable. It may be too late.

Already we can see many signs that "democracy" and "human rights" are contracting, not expanding in the Western world. This trend will continue, speed up and intesivefy as the economic conditions worsen. I don't think we'll see the return of "socialism" though, something else perhaps, as the middle class get squeezed and paurperised, I think we'll see the return of "Revolution."

writeon
07 December 2008 at 11:29

Finally! We, in the West live in a kind of "democracy" and obviously we have more freedom and democracy than in Hitler, Stalin or Mao's totalitarian dictatorships. We have human rights and valuable freedoms, but many of these things are based on specific historic and economic circumstances, they are not natural.

How much "freedom" do we really have? This is a complex subject. I don't believe we have a "free" press. Obviously it isn't "free", it's owned by Rupert Murcdoch and a handful of his pals. A few giant and massively powerful new corporations. What about the "free market" this isn't under majority, democratic, control. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The "free market" has not, is not and will never be "free". This is a myth wrapped in propaganda. Uselful, but not particularly convincing, intelligent or impressive, fails completely when subjected to even the most superficial examination.

Once again we return to the central paradox of "democracy" power to the people, yet in reality Power is concentrated in the hands of a minority, can vast wealth and power be anything else? Yet some would seriously argue that in a democracy the people have "chosen democratically" by voting, of their own free will, to emasculate themselves, make themselves powerless, and transfer wealth and power from themselves, the majority, to others - a minority who rule. Why on earth, in a democracy, would they choose such a course? Giving up what little power they have as individuals and allow it to become concentrated in the hands of a "representative" elite.

None of this makes any real sense

One can argue that imperfect, though it is, bourgeois Democracy is better than nothing at all, or some variation of totalitarian dictatorship, of the left or right. This is true, as far as it goes. Only it's foolish not to see it in its historical context or confuse it with the ideal, the Utopia of Democracy, of power of the people, and real freedom.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 11:58

Finally, finally! It's odd, though understandable, to see how closely the bourgeois/liberal concept of Democracy mirrors their concept of political economy. The two ideas seem to supplement, reinforce and justify each othre; very usefull.

Is it just a paradox, a flaw or merely a glaring contradiction, that socalled believers in "freedom" and "democracy" argue for the benefits of elite or minority rule, by a "representative" or "best-fitted" minority, both in the fields of economics and politics? Isn't that why one insists on defending vast disparities in wealth in society and therefore power? Real power in society is based on wealth, not on votes. Luckily I have lots of the one and I don't bother to vote anymore.

In much the same way that the "free" capitalist "market" is a competatinve one, in theory at least; one conveniently avoids the role of monopolies in this idealised world; the strong survive, the weaker fall. This is form of vulgar, social Dawinism, superimposed on both economics and politics. The stronger, the best political ideas survive and triumph in the "free" political sphere in open competition.

The fact that this isn't the way the world functions in practice makes no difference at all. Dogma and ideology triumphs over objective reality every time, because it's in our interests to believe in this mythology about "freedom."

What this current crisis shows, with stunning clarity, is how different the "free market" system actually is compared to harsh reality. Reality which is normally hidden by the systems apparent "success."

antileft
07 December 2008 at 12:07

Oh god hes still typing!

This makes me chuckle by the way:

"We are not entering a "recession" which will be over in few months or a year. We are entering a long and sustained Depression. I'm not even sure we'll get out of it in our lifetimes."

Yes indeed- itll last until we die. Now, how is it that this mere history teacher who is prepared to spend hours teaching people who dont pay him and didnt ask for a lesson knows more than the overwhelming majority of serious economists?! Hmm? How does he do it?! All the main organisations in the world- IMF, world bank, economics parts of the UN, central bankers, highly respected economists, etc etc all say roughly "we dont know how long itll last- probably through 2009, maybe into 2010..." with varying degrees of disagreement... Some may say itll end in 2009, some say 2010, some say 2011. How are they all able to be so wrong when writeon here knows itll last decades more?!

antileft
07 December 2008 at 12:12

Look at the times of his posts! Dear god! See whats wrong with history lessons writeon?! What a waste of time it all is!!! What a waste of a morning!

07 December 2008 at 09:51

07 December 2008 at 10:35

07 December 2008 at 10:53

07 December 2008 at 11:05

07 December 2008 at 11:29

07 December 2008 at 11:58

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 13:10

antileft;

"All the main organisations in the world- IMF, world bank, economics parts of the UN, central bankers, highly respected economists, etc etc all say roughly "we dont know how long itll last- probably through 2009, maybe into 2010..." with varying degrees of disagreement... Some may say itll end in 2009, some say 2010, some say 2011. How are they all able to be so wrong ......"

For the same reasons they never told us the truth about how it was all aranged via the Basle Accord of 1998.

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/quigley/2008/09...

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 13:11

arranged

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 13:13

Consider this;

So far this present period of recession has thrown up a credit crisis affecting ;

Houseing finance (mortgages), the Banking system world wide, commodity prices world wide (

oil reaching a peak of $148 and a low $45 a barrel), Food prices reaching new heights,

energy prices going thru the roof, etc etc. Record levels of unemployment, in a single

month, November the US had over half a million newly unemployed.

Various measures have been put in place to avert much of the damage that is poking its nose

above the parapit. Most it seems require time to work their way thru.

However as yet from what i read there has been no discussion of what is going to be done to

stop the ticking bomb from exploding. This is the bomb of CDS, Credit Default Swaps. This is

an unregulated instrument created by a Cambrideg University Maths PhD.

The real name for this instrument of the financial sector should be CDI, Credit Default

Insurance cos thats what it is, an Insurance system. But if it were to be called an

Insurance policy then it would fall under the regulatory system.

This is just yet another of those shady areas the finacial sector created to manipulate

their gambling.

George Soros sees CDS as the next "Sword of Damacles" hanging over the financial sector and

is worth a conservative $45 trillion.

http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/04/soros_credit_defaul...

There are some who rate the amount in the 100s of $trillions, the Independent a few weeks

ago suggested $570 trillinon. Mind blowing amounts i know.

The form CDS takes in its use goes something as follows;

Two parties make a contract, one is giveing insurance to the other in the hope that if a

company ,bank, financial organisation, FAILS,( goes bust), then they will be paid out.

This is a form of protection against an investment going tits up.

However what has happened is that the original contract made between A and B then gets

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 13:15

However what has happened is that the original contract made between A and B then gets

passed on to C who then passes to to D and so on and on we go in a massive circle of bets

and leverage of the original sum. Not of which is transparent.

Now as these CDS contracts are not "insurance" and are not regulated,the firm selling the

CDS is not required to set aside any reserves from the premiums received to insure against

possible future loss claims.

Therefore the selling of CDS becomes a highly profitable affair. On the other hand if they

turn bad and the organisation defaults on the bet then it is going to be extremely

expensive.

The ever increasing likelyhood of companys, organisation, firms going bust is going to make

a huge black hole in, most of the banks of the world.

Woolworths and MFI have been the recent retailers to fall. After xmas thru to March, which

has always been the slack period in the economy, many more retailers are going to crumble

under the strain.

Its not just going to be the retail sector. The srevice sector is expected to shed hundreds

of thousands of workers. Manufactureing is also on the edge of loseing vast amounts of

workers.

Once the snowball starts to roll down the slippery slope its going to be hard to stop.

The consequences for the average person in the Uk is going to be far greater than what

happened in the 1930s.

Companies that go bust will have a CDS against them, in fact many CDSs. These are in the

vast majority of cases held by banks. The hedge funds will be winning bets hand over fist

whilst at the same time the banks will be crippled.

Lets hope the collapse of the banking sector doesnt occure.

The consequences are far to horrendous to consider.

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 13:32

writeon;

"Reality which is normally hidden by the systems apparent "success." ".

What we have now is total failure. As Bob Dylan has said;

" theres no success like failure and failure is no success at all".

writeon
07 December 2008 at 15:34

Prof. John Galbraith, son of the famous Keynsian economist J.K. Galbraith, was recently asked how come, when there's 15,000 economist in the United States, nobody had forseen the current crisis and warned people? He replied that this wasn't exactly correct, around 15 of them had, only no one was listening!

On a more personal note, a friend of mine, is a professor of economics. He's recently immigrated to the other side of the world to start again. The reason he moved from the university and country he taught in, is rather sad. For a long time he's publically warned that the property bubble was too big and unsustainable and when it burst it risked triggering a financial collapse. He's been doing this for five or six years, in print and in radio and television interviews.

He asked his students to be very sceptical about those who alleged that we had entered an age of permanent economic equalibrium, that steep and deep crashes were a thing of the past. He wanted his students to consider economic history and not just economic theories and sophisticated models about how the market functioned.

He thought most economists were extreme right-wing ideologues, fundamentalists resembling the Taliban, blind to reality and suffering from the "mental desease" of group-think. Now many of his collegues resented his attitudes as did a number of influential financial journalists who if anything were even more like the Taliban than the academics. They belived the holy scriptures with a religious zeal that probably based on faith and the mystery of studying something one doesn't really understand!

Anyway he felt very isolated in his department, as he didn't share the "faith". He felt frozen out, and journalists stopped contacting him about a year and a half ago, after one particularly savage attack in national newspaper. So his warnings weren't appriciated. He said he'd never do it again though. It just wasn't worth it.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 15:55

I should clarify my position I suppose. I am not saying that we are with 100% certainty heading for an economic slump comparable with the Great Depression. It could be worse!

In our part of the world it won't look and feel exactly like the 1930's. Society has changed a lot since then. However, it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of elite, establishment, pundits, journalists, think tanks, organizations, economists and politicians, have empirically been proven beyond doubt to have been almost completely wrong in their collective pronouncements about the course of the current economic crisis. This is a fact, and only the lobotomized would question it.

So, I would council caution and profound scepticism about anything they say as to the severity a duration of this crisis. Given their track record of clear failure anything else would be foolish and imprudent. What possible reason would one have for trusting the advice of such people and institutions? Are we to suddenly believe they radically have changed their way of thinking, seen the error of their ways and now see clearly what they couldn't see before? Of course, this is possible, though unlikely.

The proof is they keep, even now, getting it wrong. These "bailouts" are never enogh, there's always a new package just around the corner. The problem is the crisis has been underway for probably thirty years, but has intensified during the last few years beyond imagining.

A house of cards takes time to build, but can collapse in an instant.

All the signs are pointing in one dire direciton. We are heading for not just an ordinary recession, but a very nasty slump. It is of course debatable whether it will be as bad as the Great Depression or worse. Already many sectors of the economy are beginning to resemble rates of collapse comparable to the losses of the Great Depression.

In reality the Western banks are in a far worse position than at the start of the Depression, as is the wider economy.

antileft
07 December 2008 at 16:10

You both seem to be saying the same thing, only as usual writeon is saying it in the most long winded, unspecific, metaphorical way possible. (what a bore). Youre saying "they were wrong in the past so theyre wrong now and only we unqualified people know little enough to connect the dots without being fooled by bad data". Right? That's what youre saying, isnt it? You know so little that you havent been tricked. So you can simply draw the line and see that the end is nigh.

"For a long time he's publically warned that the property bubble was too big and unsustainable and when it burst it risked triggering a financial collapse."

Now lets be clear about this: many economists said that there was a huge housing bubble. I read it in the economist magazine years ago and didnt get a mortguage as a result. I now have a rather large deposit, thank you very much. Not everyone was wrong about everything. The thing that no one predicted was the credit crunch. But to say "the brightest economists were wrong about this so theyre wrong to predict itll only last a few years" is not logical. The best minds of this world were wrong before- this does not mean that you are more likely to be right now than they are just because you are being pessimistic. Does it?

The truth of the matter is that neither of you have any idea how long the recession is at all. Do you?! And you are OBVIOUSLY less qualified to call it than the brightest experts even though they were wrong before. Because they know far more than you do and you dont know anything about the situation at all.

Writeon Im still awaiting your solution. Are you right wing, left wing, center... Whats the deal? Quit dodging this question with your poetic semi-intellectual gibberish.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 16:22

What's happening is that our political leaders are fighting a desparate, and probably losing battle, to prevent a financial and economic crash comparable to the Great Depression. Even George Bush has said this, "This sucker could go down!" So, if Bush realises the dangers we face, it should come as a surprise to anybody else, unless one willfullly chooses to ignore reality for some reason that's beyond me.

I expect in the next few years unemployment will rocket upwards, as it is in the United States. In five years it'll most likely be 20% or more. These jobs won't be coming back soon. Property prices will continue to fall. There's at least 30 or 40 per cent to go before one hits bottom.

This isn't just a recession that will be over in couple of years, that is an illusion, wishful thinking, a desparate hope that because we've bounced back before, it'll happen again this time. That is not necessarily true. War ended the last Depression, will it require another war to get us out of the coming one? That is a profound and terrifying question.

The debt vortex is probably ten to twenty times the size of the entire world's GDP, that's what we are up against and trying to plug with our "bailouts" it seems like an impossible task, is it?

What concerns me, is that the coming Depression, may not just be an "ordinary" Depression, but something far worse, a serious civilizational crisis, like the ones that undermined and consumed civilizations in the past, but clearly this is highly speculative and I'm sticking my neck out a long way here.

Is it "just" a financial/economic crisis? Or is there an underlying environmental, resource, population and organizational, and other multiple crises hidden inside as well? I certainly hope not, but the signs don't look good at all.

I'd like to think that we'd rapidly create a democratic and free society, with power to the people, overturning the elite, but I'm not sure we will rouse ourselves in time.

PlanetStarbucks
07 December 2008 at 16:41

writeon,

Excellent commentary as per usual. It seems to me that the eternal struggle between the upper and middle class is swinging back in favour of the gentry. The collapse in property prices will allow assets to be seized by the upper echelons of society for a song.

As is always the way, the working class was ill prepared for its chance to take affirmative action to attempt to implement change (ten years of Labour and their pro-business rhetoric has more or less killed any working class solidarity, at least in macro terms). The middle class, shocked by the turn of events, seems lost too; they look to the laughable "credit crunch" guides in papers like The Guardian which try to soothe their pain instead of looking at the underlying problems and seeking new solutions.

A few of my friends have recently graduated with masters degrees in financial mathematics, all of them coming from a Physics or Electrical Engineering background. All did well and all are umemployed. This highlights two key concerns for me. The first being that they are merely "waiting" for the downturn to end, so they can continue their bourgeois dreams. No critical analysis required, the system is sound, these things happen. The other concern is that these people could have just as easily become engineers, teachers, pursued doctorates; careers that build and advance society. Instead, people who are in the top ten percent of intelligence in this country are drawing benefits as the system they wish to serve has failed us all.

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 16:46

antileft

I sense you are getting a litle agitated with writeon and i. Calm down and you may see the light of day.

witeon and i are saying similar things, but in different ways and styles. A persons style of writing is no reason for you to become arrogant ,abusive and petulant. You have your point of view and neither writeon nor myself have offered any such criticism of you. I am sure your parents brought you up to use your manners to other people. Please do so here.

Shirley Williams the ex MP for Crosby and member of the original Gang of Four, has been banging her drum about the property bubble, for over 6 years.

" "the brightest economists were wrong about this so theyre wrong to predict itll only last a few years" is not logical " Have you considered that these people have been blinded by their desire to simply not want to see an end to the great joy ride that they have been riding for what is most of them bast part of their lives.

They unlike you had their mortgages their credit card debts and therefore had a vested interest to push reality aside and think the downturn was someone elses nightmare and not theirs

You are correct neither of us know how long or how deep this recession will last. But if it turns into a slump then i think a period of 5 to 10 years would be near the mark.

Qualification to comment upon a subject matter is not gained via pieces of paper. Experience of life, the ups and downs, teach us all many things. If we take advantage of what we learn is up to each individual alone.

fairplay
07 December 2008 at 17:04

All the main organisations in the world- IMF, world bank, economics parts of the UN, central bankers, highly respected economists, etc etc all say roughly "we dont know how long itll last- probably through 2009, maybe into 2010..." with varying degrees of disagreement... Some may say itll end in 2009, some say 2010, some say 2011. How are they all able to be so wrong when writeon here knows itll last decades more?!

antileft, the vinnie jones of the new statesman. what a swell bunch of guys you have listed above. as trustworthy and honest as they come and all robber barons of note. nice to know where you stand

FYO vinnie, the alternative press have predicted this for over 2 years to an absolute tee. while the MSM were selling us bling there were various experts who warned us long ago. you should try reading some yourself. i would recommend the americanfreepress.net for starters. also gerald celente is another expert used by governments all over the world. he is a trend forecaster lauded by industrialists. see what he has to say. i cant guarantee he is 100% right but he has been most of the time. seek and you will find AL. but dont buy the official story. its not rocket science to work out where we are going with this. but maybe you didnt get your O' level maths

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 17:08

writeon begs the question

Is it "just" a financial/economic crisis?

I think what has started as a financial/economic crisis can run into one of 3 ways.

1) it stays solely as just an economic/financial crisis.

2) Latin America is all but a complete left wing dominated continent. Not a problem for me but i can see the CIA and the Defense Dept of the USA creating this as another Chile as it did in the 1970s. Or a Grenada in the 1980s, and Nicaragua.

3) Events in the middle east are gaining momentum and those events are not of a positive nature for peace.

Islamist uprisings are taking place in many places of Asia.

The potential for world conflagration is rapidly gaining pace. I have a feeling we have been here before.

fairplay
07 December 2008 at 17:25

and a race between the chinese and americans to gain the wealth of africa has already started too dont forget

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 17:33

Yeh true fairplay.

maybe whats going on in the rest of the world will mean the hawks of Nato dont have time for their shinanigans with the likes of Georgia and other ex Soviet republics.

a.m.r.
07 December 2008 at 17:33

Nilsey, you're right - thank you for that link by the way - CDS's need to be regulated. However, any company that decided to take the risk and trade in these inadequately-backed instruments was being foolish (and greedy) eg. UBS took out such insurance with a small hedge-fund against a potential $1.3 billion default-related loss . The hedgefund backed the guarantee with under $5 million of capital. This is probably criminal behaviour from the hedgefun, and definitely foolish on UBS's part.

Warren Buffet and others warned of the CDS timebomb - he instructed his company to leave that markets. Those that decided to take the extra risks for greater profit ended up getting burned.

CDS's themselves, designed to hedge risks, showed that they fail to cope with defaults happening en masse as happened when large volumes of untenable mortages were made (ie. they assumed that defaults would be randomly distributed). The market for such loans was created by the US government (if the government hadn't agreed to purchase these repackaged loans as a buyer of last resort, they would not have been so attractive to traders). This was clearly a terrible idea, since the defaults happened as predicted, the affected poor lost their new houses, and the effects of the risk were spread far and wide.

writeon: "I'd like to think that we'd rapidly create a democratic and free society, with power to the people, overturning the elite, but I'm not sure we will rouse ourselves in time."

So we'd create a democratic and free society, but with no 'elite' - equality of income and power for all. You're still avoiding the question - please describe how this will work in practice?

writeon
07 December 2008 at 17:38

The "Solution's" is in the Revolution! As "V" might have said, or am I giving too much away?

Maybe there is no Solution? Heresy! Democracy's the answer. I'd like to think so, I hope so, but I'm increasingly doubtful. It's not a question of pessimism, only a lack of optimism about a system I think, feel and can see, is in deep trouble. I feel cursed with the burden of realism. I wish I believed and had faith.

I just don't understand neo-classical economists and their faith or belief that one can have eternal, or infinite growth, on a planet with finite resources. But I did hear George Bush wondering allowed if the future of captialism wasn't out in the stars somewhere.

How did the Roman feel as he looked north from the walls of Rome and wondered how long it would be before the barbarians entered the city? There were so many rumours. The refugees were already crowding the roads south and camping outside the city gates. The signs were there for all to see that something was terribly wrong. What was the solution? Why had the Gods abandoned us? What did the portents say? Where were the wisemen? On the road south?

Why were there so many problems, and all at once too? Was it the inexorable march of the barbarians or what? My Roman, educated, privileged, decadent, probably didn't know the answer either, and even if he did, what could he do about it? Was anybody listening anymore? The Republic was only a distant memory and the Emperor and the army were in a panic and looking after themselves. The cloud of dust on the horizon might only have been the wind, no need for concern, have another goblet of wine and a slavegirl.

In a way he was lucky, compared to us, he knew, or thought he knew who the enemy was, maybe he never considered that the real enemy might have been Rome and the Empire itself, and the solution to that was...

fairplay
07 December 2008 at 19:21

amr

why have the taxpayers had to pay the elites debt with these CDS's?

i think the term elite doesnt neccessarily mean the wealthy. i would think it means people with power, most of it ill gotten

a.m.r.
07 December 2008 at 19:31

writeon, re: the Romans

The Roman Empire became increasingly reliant on conquest and slave labour, particularly for the vast latifundia of the later Roman Empire. It needed war to maintain itself, and expended huge efforts on quelling constant slave rebellions and uprisings. Once their expansion ended, the whole thing started to crumble.

This is different to modern-day capitalism eg. look at our trade with China. The Chinese chose (finally) to deal with us and we both mutually benefit. China's economic growth has been largely due to an opening of competitive free-markets within China and trade with the West.

re: revolution solution

You admit you don't have a better solution than free markets and democracy, yet you still advocate a revolution.

Perhaps you think that I'm blindly defending democracy and the free market - I'm not. I think most of history has been unpleasant to nightmarish for most people. Free market democracies seem to be a relative haven from the historical turmoil - I value that. Marxist revolutions promised to be havens too, but ended up as catastrophic humanitarian disasters.

I come from a country that recently did something similar to what you are advocating - discontented with the unequal distributions of income (even though the country was rapidly growing and bringing improved lives for all inhabitants), they had a revolution and smashed the system (a fledgling free-market democracy).

Unfortunately, they, like you, lacked anything better to put in its place and ended up far far worse off - a police state, executions, the liquidation of ideological opponents, the banishment of free speech - it has taken the country decades to begin to recover, and they are still in desparate shape. Like Russia and China, there are still elites, just a different (far tougher, more violent) group. They rue the day that they listened to folks such as you.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 19:39

I feel like I'm being asked an awful lot, and surely that's an understatement?! What are your solutions to the dire state of the West's economy, how would you stop us sliding into a new, Great Depression? What kind of society would you perfect as an alternative to the one we have? Are you "right" "left" or "imbetween"? Be positive man, not all this easy negativity!

I'm afraid I regard these kinds of questions as merely rhetorical devices used in a discussion. They aren't really honest questions at all, rather they are statements, that implicity make judgements about one of the parties in a discourse. It's not a new tactic. It's a kind of "ace" one has up one's sleeve and produces with smile and a flourish, and hey presto! end of discussion - I win! Only one needs skill to use them properly, rather like propaganda.

Anyway, the lost Englishman meets an Irishman in the hills and asks him the way to Cork. The Irishman shakes his head, strokes his chin and furrows his brow. Well, I wouldn't start from here, he answers with a wry smile!

That's how I feel about the demand that I promote "solutions" to the global crisis we find ourselves in! Think about it for a second. People are demanding that I come up with solutions to the global crisis of capitalism! How absured does that sound if one examines the thinking, or lack of it, behind such casual requests? Is one to take such demands seriously or what?

Is it possible for any individual to find such solutions? If one bothered would anyone listen? Keynes had a great deal of influence, but then he wasn't seen as a threat to capitalism, he was trying to save it from itself, maybe, for a time, he succeeded. But even he couldn't have imagined the sheer stupidity and greed of the last few decades, the disasterous consequences of unravelling and destroying everything he'd worked for; the state regulating and stabilizing a fundamentally unstable and intensely destructive system, a virtually suicidal system, if left to itself.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 19:45

The Solution's in the Revolution!

Is meant as a provocative slogan. Words on a banner.

On the other hand, I sort of agree with my creations attitude. Though I personally don't agree with violent revolutions. I'd prefer something less bloody and destructive.

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 19:58

writeon

we all seek solutions and to many things.

I think this was put best by none other than John Lennon when he asked ;

"How can i go forward when i dont know which way i'm facing"

Or was that his alter ego speaking?

You are well thought of on here and offer your experience from which some of us have learnt a good deal.

Thank you keep up the good work.

a.m.r.
07 December 2008 at 20:07

"The Solution's in the Revolution!

Is meant as a provocative slogan. Words on a banner."

Dear oh dear - a pathetic prevarication.

a.m.r.
07 December 2008 at 20:21

writeon, I'll fill in the logical link that you seem to be unwilling to :

The reason you are being asked 'what do you propose to replace the existing system with?' is because you are advocating a revolution and replacing the existing system.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 21:11

Golly! I do feel sometimes like I'm on trial here. I do find this judicial, meticulous, inquisitorial, "debating" tactic, or style, rather tedious. It reminds me of war or conflict, where one takes aim at the enemy's weakest spot, the chink in their armour and moves in for the kill. I've never subscribed to this. I've always thought of this as too easy, rather go for the stongest part of the argument, now that's a worthy challenge!

What I also find amusing, is the idea that I'm somehow attempting to "show off" my learning and over intellectualize, when the opposite is the case! I'm actually making a concentrated effort not to flourish my education and qualifications in peoples faces, as I've achieved way too much too easily.

Life's unfair, not everyone had my social and financial advantages, and I feel guilty about it. Would it makes any real difference if I said who I was, where I am and what my formal academic qualifications are, especially as I'm trying to hide them and not appear too conceited and overbearing? I, who came to so much so easily, don't put much store by formal qualifications. I keep worrying about all the things I still don't understand, the complexity around me, how much I've got to learn. How many questions I've got and where are the answers? Bizarrely, I've never really used my academic qualifications. I became a writer of various things because it was more fun and vastly more profitable. There I could have the world I wanted on my conditions. Nobody allowed to alter a comma or a single word with my permission. The pleasures of dictatorship!

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 21:26

the more you know you know the more you know you dont know

writeon
07 December 2008 at 21:40

The Solution's in the Revolution!

What does this slogan mean? Is it totally meaningless?

Let me see if I can make things clearer. I find it hard to understand that "liberal democrats" people who apparently believe in "freedom", at least in the "free market" are prepared to accept profound levels of inequality and the existance of inhereted wealth and privilege, the existance of elites who control so much of society's wealth and power. I have difficulty reconciling elite rule with democracy, that goes for enormous enequality too. But then bourgeois democracy has never really impressed me. I believe real democracy isn't possible in a society which is grossly unfair and wealth and power so disproportionally distributed. One can choose, on the grounds of expediency or strategy, to call such a society "democratic" and "free" but I just don't see it.

This, for me is another paradox of democracy, elite rule, the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a "qualified" elite, in a society that calls itself "democratic". I would argue that it isn't structurally democratic at all. The people do not have the power. Or it's "democratic" in much the same way that Athens was "democratic" or the American Revolution was "democratic" and that is not very much!

Now, this is admittedly a radical view. In much the same way as people demand to know where the successful "socialist" or "communist" is to be found, I want to know where the successful and real "democracy" is to be found. Of course one can argue that this is being to stringent, but isn't that what one demands of "socialism" and "communism" that their states were perfect and real? Why are there two standards? Surely non-perfect democracy should be judged by the same standards as "evil" communism?

If the power isn't in the hands of the people, but in the hands of an elite, which nearly everyone agrees is the case in the "democracies" how can one call them democracies? They are democracies only in colloquial sense.

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 22:02

maybe this link will help?

http://www.worldsocialism.org/cgi-bin/htsearch.cgi?config=ht...+is+democracy&search=Search+this+site

writeon
07 December 2008 at 22:07

Sorry, I'm sorry. I'm not doing this right, am I? Let's see.

What I'm proposing is that the people in the act of revolution, during the process of revolution will necessarily find solutions or probably fail and perish. The point is to start the revolutionary process, and this requires collective actions and ideas that contain the seeds of solutions. The revolution is, in my world, the manifistatiion of the democratic will of the people which is biased towards equality and freedom in equal measure.

Now, this means that I have an enormous faith in the democratic spirit and will of the people, and I don't have the same attitude to the elite. In reality I want to topple the elite and introduce democracy, rule by the people. What would this society, this democracy, based on human rights, equality, liberty, fraternity; look like? I'd prefer to leave that up to the collective will of the people to decide after the revolution, when the elite has been put in its place! It's not up to me, it's up to them.

But I'm defining the "Revolution" as a almost permanent state of affairs, an ongoing process as we move away from one society and towards another. And I refuse to accept relevance of Russia or China in my Utopian world. That was the past. I'm refering to the future. The revolutinary process will, I imagine, take at least a century as we move towards real, direct, rule by the people, for the people, of the people.

However, in the interim stage, one could create a humane, bourgeois, capitalist, democracy; rather like Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Finland. These are clearly still capitalist, class societies, but modified and non-extreme variants. The "class struggle", to coin a phrase, isn't completely over, but the wasteful and massive inequalties so characteristic of the Anglo-American model of capitalism, have been ameliorated, smoothed off. I'm being generous. I could live with that in the transitional phase towards my ideal of democracy.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 22:29

The Revolution is the Solution!

I'm sorrry if this is seen as a very theoretical answer, but then the question was a very theoretical question wasn't it? What would your world look like after the Revolution? The answer is simple. It would be wonderful. A stupid answer to a stupid type of question, is there any other type? And surely, in all fairness, I'm allowed to answer in my own fashion aren't I? Or is the very form of the question posed to me, the premises involved, a way of forcing me to answer in a certain way? Of course it is. These type of questions are traps for the unwary, the gullable.

So, now I've dealt with the future, democractic,"Revolution" now I've got the task of saving global Capitalism to deal with! How about if I deal with global warming, world hunger, the population explosion, war and the environmental crisis, while I'm at it, is that acceptable?

Firstly, I'd want emergency powers for a ten year period. I want to be the temporary dictator of the Western empire for ten years. I think turning around the disaster will take me at least that long. I've got a lot of work to do after all! After ten years I'll offer to retire, but I'm almost sure the people will demand that I continue for another glorious ten year period of change, hope and root and branch reform of society and democratic progress, liberty and freedom. All I can promise is that everything I do will be for the benefit of the majority fo the people, making their lives better,creating the conditions for them, when the time is right, to take control over their society, their wealth, their power. Unfortunately the elite, won't be so happy with me, but as they only make up a few per cent of the population and my reforms are designed for the other 95% I doubt I've got much to worry about.

But what's my programme, what are my policies and solutions. Well, they're a secret at the moment, but I can assure you all, they are for the good of all, well almost all.

writeon
07 December 2008 at 22:47

a.m.r.

I've just noticed what you wrote about ancient Rome. I value your meticulous imput. I'm honoured. I'm so pleased that you cleared up the reasons, the loose ends, for the decline of the Roman Empire for me. I wish I had your level of historical knowledge, understanding, wisdom and sefl-evident confidence in your own substantial abilties, and here was I thinking that the reasons behind the falll of the Roman Empire were complex, contradictory and difficult to understand, how could I have bee so mistaken, the answer was in front of my eyes, if only I had the intelligence to see it the way you do! Oh, and I almost forgot, your grasp of logic astounds me too!

writeon
07 December 2008 at 23:09

Before I crawl back into my cold, dark, tomb. And this is me attempting "moderation" and generosity. It suddenly struck me that successful capitalism really needs a powerful "socialist" opposition and "high" taxes, to temper its tendancy to go off the rails and destroy itself. The Boom followed by Bust scenario.

Depression followed by war terror.

This, social tampering, is, I believe, probably, the lesson one can learn from the "success" of the Nordic variant of capitalism, along with keeping out of wars as far as possible and abandoning the lure of imperialism. It probably doesn't pay in the long run.

Given its vast power and riches, if the United States had decided in the post war period to direct its resources towards creating a fairer, more equal, Social Democratic society, resembling Sweden; instead of a wasteful, militeristic, empire; the world and the United States, would have been far happier, peaceful and arguably more successful. But alas, it wasn't meant to be.

Nilsey105
07 December 2008 at 23:33

other than the placeing of the X on the ballot paper OUR FREEDOM is the Manifestation of the democracy were have at present

a.m.r.
07 December 2008 at 23:33

writeon, re: the Romans

You're very welcome. Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case, a little bit less welcome.

writeon : "What would your world look like after the Revolution? The answer is simple. It would be wonderful."

The question was not "what will it look like" but "how will it work? How will the formation of elites be avoided?".

Your answer, that you need complete power, but must keep your plans secret, reminds me of the antics of scam artists and snake-oil merchants, charlatans or the mentally ill.

Laurenceofberk
08 December 2008 at 03:14

WHAT IS "SOCIALISM" ANYWAY?

Since everything from Norway to the Khmer Rouge

has been called "socialist", I'm a little sad that there

has been so little dialogue about the meaning of the

word here. What, as "writeon" asks, would your world

look like after the Revolution? Not a stupid question

at all.

Is it, "a political and economic system in which the

government controls a large part of the economy and

redistributes wealth to produce social equality?" But

Francis Fukuyama is an enemy of socialism. Why

should we take HIS word for it?

If we go back to Marx, we see that socialism is

emphatically NOT government control of industry, but

control by the working class. And since workers are

the great majority, socialism = control by society.

Can a "socialist" state produce workers' control? The

history of the 20th century seems to indicate

otherwise. Socialism has to be built from the bottom

up:

co-operative systems such as Spain's Mondragon,

seizure of factories as in Argentina, or the

decentralized "communal councils" of Venezuela,

which also supervise some production.

When the majority of workers have experience with

co-operative production, or have been struggling for it,

then it is possible to have a "socialist" state, which will

be necessary, among other things, to make sure that

co-operatives function democratically. (In Venezuela

many of the co-ops are fraudulent.) But the state has

to be watched carefully by the decentralized units of

co-operation.

Lenin and Trotsky were counter revolutionaries. They

expropriated factories already being run by workers'

councils and soviets, and gave them over to the party-

state. (cf. " Bolsheviks and Workers Control", by

Maurice Brinton)

In building the "Socialism of the 21st Century,"

Venezeula has only a partial, beginning idea. It is up

to us to continue the dialogue.

jared__
08 December 2008 at 06:42

I have a problem with the given definition of socialism. Socialism DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean state control. Instead, it means a society based on social values rather than capitalist values. This could take the form of collective community control over business, Participatory Economics, or any other multitude of other approaches which put economic control out of the hands of 'capitalists'.

writeon
08 December 2008 at 07:27

a.m.r.

I think you take yourself way too seriously, along with the pantomime of society. You really seem to work hard at not understanding what I've written. This seems deliberate and somewhat unfair. I suppose there's a reason for this, though it's not my style.

Surely it can't have passed you by completely that I've "compromised" and drawn two, parallel, or alternative

future societies? One is a form of bourgeois "democratic" society, like one of the Nordic countries, with a mixed-economy, social classes, a strong welfare state, substantial inequalty ect.

The other alternative, my personal favourite, my idealised society, God! do I really have to spell things out like this? is one with me as benevolent and popular dictator. Imagine me as Robin Hood overturning the entire country and not just Nottingham. After I'd finished off the Sheriff, Gisbourne, Prince John, the whole gang. It would be King Richard's turn. I wouldn't have handed him the kingdom on a silver platter, no, I would have declared a republic and the empowerment of the peasants. Dividing the lands of the crown, the church and the nobles among the people. So that's one elite down!

Unfortunately, in the real world, it's more difficult to control the creation of powerful and undemocratic elites, compared to the mythical England of Robin Hood.

It's somewhat confusing and paradoxical that "democracies" are ruled by powerful elites. I come from this group, yet it doesn't sit well with me somehow. I suppose it's got something to do with my anarchist sympathies.

Restraining the power of elites and heirachy and the tendancy of "free markets" to create vast disparities of wealth, isn't going to be easy, but it's not impossible, difficult though. Luckily for me, I've got the combined brain power of the 95% of the population who, as Dictator, I've released from bondage and am empowering, so that in time they can take over the running of society, minus the ruling class, who are being "re-educated."

writeon
08 December 2008 at 07:55

I'm not sure my brave new world could be called "socialist" though. It could just as easily be defined as "conservative" I suppose. But it certainly wouldn't have an anti-democratic and powerful elite effectively in control of society. Capitalism would be strictly controlled and be put back inside the confines of the marketplace. Within this smaller and environmentally friendly marketplace, their would be lots of "freedom" and "competition" among the few remaining capitalists, only it would be a kind of reservation, or zoo, perhaps we'd sell tickets, so families could visit "Capitalist On the Nevernever Land" and marvel at how these people live?

More concretely, the elite would be absorbed over time into the rest of society through a punative tax system that would gradually take away their wealth and redistribute to the rest of society.

The American capitalist model, where around 2 or 3 per cent of the population control towards 75% of society's wealth would not be acceptable in free and fair democracy. No, to aristocracy! Yes, to democracy! Indeed such concentration of wealth and power is clearly a stake through the heart of any democractic society, how could it be anything else? In my Utopia, which is probably further away than even I imagine, the weath of the nation would be fairly distributed among all the citizens, because, after all they create it? After ten years of my dictatorship things should be moving along nicely with its own momentum and I'd retire to my villa to grow roses and write poetry.

And as a footnote, my "revolution" wouldn't resemble the Russian, instead it would be modelled on, and have the status of the American Revolution, and be just as successful.

a.m.r.
08 December 2008 at 11:10

writeon, so your solution is the existing Swedish model

accompanied by a large asset-grab from the existing rich.

Why did it take you so long to say so?

By the way, it's not me who is taking this 'too seriously' -

after all, you're the one who felt the need to threaten to

'unleash' your academic accomplishments, wealth and

erudition just because your posts were making you look

increasingly foolish, puerile and evasively dishonest.

So you finally retreat to a standard uncontroversial

position (although joking about "re-education" for the elite

- I assume, as members of the elite, you will be sending

your parents and family for "re-education"). I am

reminded of wealthy Bill Ayers, advocating much the

same. You seem to be another crypto-Marxist - knowing

Marxism to be pseudo-science, wrong in its assumptions,

logic, and conclusion,empirically disproved by it's

predictions, I can only assume you're into for other

reasons

At least Marx had the excuse of not knowing what a

disaster his theory, utterly misunderstanding human

nature, would turn out to be in practice.

Nilsey105
08 December 2008 at 12:47

a.m.r.

"At least Marx had the excuse of not knowing what a

disaster his theory, utterly misunderstanding human

nature, would turn out to be in practice".

Oh what a sweeping statement of inordinate magnitude. Expand your theory on this please a.m.r. and i shal gladly comment.

writeon
08 December 2008 at 13:57

a.m.r.

You can't see the wood for the trees. You really still don't understand do you? Irony seems to soar above your head. You insist in your efforts to misunderstand me quite deliberately. Your interpretations of what I've written are the exactly opposite of what I mean. I don't know why you still do this. You cannot think that it's an effective technique in a debate.

I wish you could show me where I was "threatening" anything about unleashing my academic qualificatons. I actually stated the opposite point of view, questioning their relevance and worth, questioning the value of my background, as an attempt to ligitimize or give more credence to my posts here, and what you do is twist this around to make it sound like I said the opposite and was bragging when I wasn't.

I don't understand your anger and agression, you seem to invest an incredible ammount to emotional energy in the merest trifles, in a theoretical discussion about different versions of Utopia. You seem to enjoy calling me names, odd. Though it's strangely exciting.

I'm convinced I'll never become the Western Empire's dictator so I don't there's too much to worry about on that score. Alas, the worlds' lost it's last, best, chance. Now the only way is down.

It's so tiresome, this habit you have of creating strawman arguments and then demolishing them and attributing them to me. This psuedo-judicial style doesn't impress me at all, and as for your facility with logic...

Your right though about one thing. I suppose I am a kind of "traitor" to the social class I came from.

Your right when you imply that my interest in anarchy had an ulterior motive. I found out, when I was in a band in my desolute youth, that revolutionary girls were far better at... debating than debutants were.

Then, after putting me straight about the fall of Rome, now you then launch into an attack on Marx and his ideas, Wow, old Karl was fortunate not to have bumped into you, he wouldn't have had a leg to stand on!.

writeon
08 December 2008 at 14:14

a.m.r.

First there's the Roman Empire you claim to understand, Marx and his myriad, plan as your face, errors; Ye, Gods! Any child could see where he went wrong; then almost as an aside you have fathomed that mere trifle called "human nature"; and finally, right at the end, you see through my facade too! I hang my head. It's terrible to be found out and revealed to waiting world as a sham, But, I protest! Why am I at the end of the list? I need, I want to be first, in front of Marx and Rome. After all, I'm here, alive and dangerous, and their gone! There's so much more damage I can do! I'm just getting started. I think I'll amend my slogan, "The Solution's in the Revolution!" too tame by half. Rather, "Anarchy or Chaos!"

PlanetStarbucks
08 December 2008 at 14:53

"Your right when you imply that my interest in anarchy had an ulterior motive. I found out, when I was in a band in my desolute youth, that revolutionary girls were far better at... debating than debutants were".

writeon, from what you have wrote I hope you are not one of the "well-meaning" middle/upper class whose fling with an "alternative" lifestyle at university was little more than middle class kids playing poor and living the rest of their lives in subconscious guilt.

From writings you have posted on previous topics you seem to be lamenting a life led in luxury instead of fighting the underlying problems in our society. Would you personally be ready for the effects of a "revolution"? The only way this would really work (as far as I can see) is Zizek's "egalitarianism with a taste of terror", say goodbye to consumer choice and anything remotely bourgeois (design in general) as it is capitalism that makes these things possible.

Forgive my demeanour, I would not assume I am informing you of anything here, more clearing my chest. It is very easy though to sit in an ivory tower and cast your views down to the proletariat and it worries me that this may be the case. You are however spot on with your analysis of democracy. In a world with class divide there can be no democracy as economic circumstance envelops every other facet of humanity. Only when things get very bad (will it take people starving in the streets?) will people want affirmative action, the problem is this can easily lead to the far right alternative as people seek power instead of equality. We stand at a moment not seen for decades, as many have said since the Great Depression. We have the chance to implement radical change if we get the message right, to create a just world where rape and murder and crime are still there but much less pronounced because there isn't such an economic schism smashing any notion of society to pieces. Nobody wants to listen though because consumerism won.

Pencils
08 December 2008 at 17:28

Stop! Stop! What are you talking about all this stuff for, when it has been shown by the great psychologist Sigmund Freud that what motivates a man is the desire to kill his father and make love to his mother? And so you see the bank collapse/ credit crunch/ end of capitalism is symbolic of the castration of Zeus considered as an affectless affect of a subjectless subject blah blah

Freeman
08 December 2008 at 18:39

Socialism? What, the state managing the economy?

People like Brown, Balls, Mandelson? I thought it

was the working class directly self-managing. Or in

our case, having to rebuild before we can manage.

a.m.r.
08 December 2008 at 20:01

writeon: "I'm actually making a concentrated effort not to flourish my education and qualifications in peoples faces [..] Would it makes any real difference if I said who I was, where I am and what my formal academic qualifications are, especially as I'm trying to hide them and not appear too conceited and overbearing?"

They were perfectly well-hidden until you wrote that.

writeon: "It's so tiresome, this habit you have of creating strawman arguments and then demolishing them and attributing them to me."

I've done no such thing, as I'm sure you know.

writeon: "I don't understand your anger and agression, you seem to invest an incredible ammount to emotional energy in the merest trifles"

No I guess you don't - the across-the-board failure of all Marxist states in history, and their democide of over 100 million in the 20th century, in the direct attempt to fashion their new utopia, to you is a 'mere trifle', and not worth considering - (although you made several long posts attacking me for raising the issue, and attempting to dismiss its significance). To me this is callous disregard - to you I guess it's clear-eyed revolutionary resolve, or something.

writeon
08 December 2008 at 20:11

Planetstarbucks.

I'm not sure I can answer your questions adequately without giving too much away about myself, and I'm not interested in that. I value my privacy and my numerous masks.

As I perceive much of the world as a ghastly, grotesque, pantomime; I also find it difficult to take myself or my surroundings too seriously. It's another one of my flaws. I've disappointed a lot of people. Becoming a writer, not a politician, or going into the army, or the city. One of my best friends once called me Tony Blair's evil twin. I'm not sure it was meant as compliment!

I need my ivory tower, so I can work in peace and write. Currently I'm finishing an erotic, political novel about a group of upper-class, anarchist "terrorists" set in Zarist Russia, called "The Tattooed Lady" which deals with some of the issues you mentioned; "slumming" and dilettantism and the "armed struggle." I've never publised under my own, real, name though. It's a conceit.

I'm pretty sure in real revolution I'd be on almost everyones death list, which is probably how I'd like it! It would prove I must be doing something right I suppose!

Carl Jones
08 December 2008 at 20:12

It is disappointing that "capitalism", a MSM/elite construct and "socialism", which is generally portrayed as something fron Eastern Europe,are used as pugil`s in what is a rather shallow debate.

France has over taken the UK as the worlds 5th largest economy....IT HAS A 35 HOUR WORKING WEEK....FRANCE IS BY FAR THE GREENEST developed nation on earth and some 17% of Brits wish they`d been born French...never mind, at a guess, another 20% of Brits wish they were Amerikan.

It doesn`t matter where you look, Sweden at one end and Cuba at the other. Liberal state run economies are more stable and better for the MAJORITY of their people, than pathetic capitalist examples.

I work with Poles and other East Europeans. If they were ever socialist/communist, they underwent staggering NWO brainwashing during the 90`s. Because today, they have no idea of employment rights and they certainly have no idea of the struggle to get them.

While some of you support the capitalist view. I should remind you, that the PPT (Plunge Protection Team) was setup under Raygun. You can google the "PPT", but do it in full, as "power point" ruins the search. The bedrock of capitalism, is the freemarket...but this hasn`t existed since Raygun and this is bourne out by the staggering wealth gap which has opened up over the last 30 years...the construct of STAGGERING elite wealth, was built of easy credit and the complict criminality of our elected (LOL) officials.

Don`t swallow the sweet (matrix) pill, that socialism is making a come back....march on the City and Wall St, burn down their TEMPLES and off with their heads.

fairplay
08 December 2008 at 20:17

amr

was true socialism ever allowed to work anywhere? sharing the spoils and having a fair system would be sooooooooooooooooo unfair on the elite now wouldnt it and whoever gets in power, they are always the ones pulling the strings

writeon
08 December 2008 at 20:51

a.m.r.

You're doing it again, again! You seem to have no capacity to have two or more contradictory ideas in your head at the same time!

You seemed extraordinarily biased against "Marxists" and "Marx" and blame them for the slaughter that's occured in the "Socialist" states. First off, blaming Karl Marx for Lenin and Stalin is absurd. He died decades before they came to power, and as Marx once said, towards the end of his life, "I am not a Marxist!" Can one then blame Jesus Christ for the Spanish Inquisition or the Thirty Years War? This is very primative reasoning, absurd, embarrassing.

Then you do this ghastly thing with the mountains of corpses, weighing them, as if it proves something. Mao killed fifty million and Stalin fifty million and they were socialists, therefore socialims is bad, evil, a failure. That's on the "Red" side of the scales. What about the "Black" side? Millions were killed by nationalist forces during both the Chinese and Russian civil wars, why choose to ignore them? Then one can add the great Western nationalist dictator Hitler who slaughtered millions too. Then the terror bombing of Germany and Japan that killed millions of civilians. Perhaps as many as half a million died in Dresden in one night. Then we surely shouldn't forget the United States attacks with atomic weapons on Japan - half a million or more. Then a few million dead in Korea. Five or six million when the Ameicans invaded Vietnam, Cambodia and Loas etc.

How can you ignore these corpses piling up on your scale, don't they count, why not? You seem to think that "only" killing a few million is somehow "better" than killing tens of millions, how is it possible to think like this, from a moral perspective?

In contrast I think that both sets of numbers and the killings are ghastly, incomprehensible, super-crimes, that must never be forgotten, none of the dead, yet you choose to ignore one side and only see the crimes of the enemy. Rephrehensible and daft as brush thinking!

writeon
08 December 2008 at 20:59

Carl,

Here's a juicy quote for you. It's from 1991, David Rockerfeller, at a meeting of the Bilderberg Group, that apperently rule the world, if that's not prevarication?

"The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is mayby preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." LOL!

Nilsey105
08 December 2008 at 21:14

writeon

the slaughter of human life on the red and black side i pointed out 3 weeks ago. you have left out Franco,

Salazar, amongst others . and then we come to the virtual anialhation of the new world indigenous groups and the deaths of miilions in the name of the British Empire.

I like you find it very disturbing that some commentators can only see the one side. But two wrongs dont make a right.

We have to remember the history so as to not make the same mistakes again.

a.m.r.
08 December 2008 at 21:20

writeon: "First off, blaming Karl Marx for Lenin and Stalin is absurd. He died decades before they came to power.."

I didn't blame Karl Marx for the deaths, and have never done so - I clearly blamed Marxist states. A strawman argument.

Marxist states are guilty of democide, an additional horror apart from war - the mass killing of their own subjects. Ignore it if you want to.

a.m.r.
08 December 2008 at 21:27

The reason I'm focusing on Marxist states is because the topic of the article is "Socialism's comeback". The large red flag at the head of the article suggests the Marxist socialism is what the author has primarily in mind.

Nilsey105
08 December 2008 at 21:31

The forces of repression are closeing in and surrounding the whole of Europe

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=13111

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=13108

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=13038

a.m.r.
08 December 2008 at 21:34

You'll notice, writeon, that I don't upbraid you for mentioning other atrocities, yet you object to me mentioning socialism's atrocities in a thread about socialism.

What should I do, keep my chin up, focus on the Glorious Socialist Dawn just over the horizon, and ignore the blood and body parts beneath my feet?

writeon
08 December 2008 at 22:02

a.m.r.

You seem to think you're sly. You are not. You seem to think you can split hairs with consumate skill, you can't. You are an amateur at this game, propaganda, leave it to the professionals.

Earlier, go back a look, anybody can, you use terms like "Marxist" "Marxism" and "Marx" virtually as synonyms. So, you, like Marx, draw a distinction between the man and his theories, and espcially how they are interpreted, abused and used by others before and after his death? So there's no direct link between Marx's writings and Stalin and Mao's actions? It's an indirect link then? Or, as you've stated above, Marx's ideas, (though he's personally excused), are so demonstrably wrong and dangerous, defying what we know about human nature etc. are still responsible for Stalin and Mao's atrocities. So the man is innocent, it's just his ideas that are guilty? You are definitely not clear at all that you don't blame Marx. This is too subtle for me, probably because it doesn't make any real sense. Solomon would have given up and wept at this stuff!

You keep putting words in my mouth. Do you serously think I won't notice? It's so obvious and yet you keep doing it. Why are Trolls like this?

You state that I am ignoring the Marxist states mass killing of their own people, which you seem to believe is worse than killing foreigners, why? How is mass killing of foreigners "better" than killing one's own people?

What annoys me, is your statement that I'm ignoring the mass killings on the "red" side. This is simply a fabrication, a fanstasy, a lie. The proof is in my above post where I state clearly and unequivocally that I'm aware and against the killing on both sides, "red" and "black"! The entire point is I'm against all the senseless killing, but you are clearly not!

Why do you bother to make false statements about me that are demonstrably not true, that are lies? It's a sign of desparation because you arguments don't hold under scrutiny, only this realisation is beyond you.

a.m.r.
08 December 2008 at 22:04

"Oddly enough, it is the intellectual snobbery and elitism of many of the literati that politically correct egalitarianism appeals to; their partiality to literary Marxism is based not on its economic theory but on its hostility to business and the middle class. The character of this anti-bourgeois sentiment therefore has more in common with its origin in aristocratic disdain for the lower orders than with egalitarianism."

John M. Ellis, Literature Lost

"Many whose allegiance went to the Soviet Union may well be seen as traitors to their countries, and to the democratic culture. But their profounder fault was more basic still. Seeing themselves as independent brains, making their choices as thinking beings, they ignored their own criteria. They did not examine the multifarious evidence, already available in the 1930s, on the realities of the Communist regimes. That is to say, they were traitors to the human mind, to thought itself."

Robert Conquest, Reflections on a Ravaged Century

writeon
08 December 2008 at 22:25

a.m.r.

I'll tell you what you should do, as you asked me. You should attempt to be fair, yet the word "fair" hardly seems adequate.

Your actually clutching at straws, that's when your not making men of straw!

You seem to think that you not upbraiding me for mentioning other atrocities has some sort of meaning, that it's a powerful argument. Why is that? I don't understand. You appear to believe that a thread about socialism means that only the crimes of socialism must be mentioned, why? This isn't an argument, it's merely a statement of your view, not the same thing at all.

And I didn't unbraid you for mentioning the crimes of socialism and mass deaths/killing. I mentioned them too. I criticized you for only seeing with one eye and ignoring the other deaths. Not the same thing.

You are obviously desparate, trying to defend an indefencible position, by the trite and well-known rhetorical trick of projecting your motives and arguments onto me, it's slightly more sophisticated than the strawman, or the deliberate falsehood, but not by much.

This is a simply question for you, as you've asked me so many, do you condemn and mourn all the senseless killing, the millions of innocent dead on all sides? Do you mourn the enemy dead too? The Russians, the Germans, the Japanese, the Gypsies, the Jews, everyone, all of them? Or is some mass killing good, and some bad?

a.m.r.
08 December 2008 at 22:32

"Earlier, go back a look, anybody can, you use terms like "Marxist" "Marxism" and "Marx" virtually as synonyms. "

I checked, and every usage was correct and precise - Marx when I meant Marx, Marxist governments when I meant Marxist governments, Marxists when I meant Marxists. You lie.

"The entire point is I'm against all the senseless killing, but you are clearly not!"

Please point out any statement I made that showed I was not against killing, senseless or otherwise. I didn't ever make such a statement or allude to it in the slightest sense whatsoever. You lie.

"Why do you bother to make false statements about me that are demonstrably not true, that are lies?"

I don't. Perhaps you are projecting.

writeon
08 December 2008 at 22:49

a.m.r.

And now, when you run out of your own words and ideas, you call in the intellectual giants of the right for reinforcement. Wow, to think I'm worthy of that. The bourgeois cavalry coming over the hill to save you. Impressive, very impressive, very telling, aject failure.

The reason I'm being rather harsh with you is that I really resent you putting lies on me about something as serious as my attitude to mass killings. Lying about me in this disgusting way. I find it really distastful and annoying. It's a below the belt punch. It also shows a kind of contempt. As if you think you can get away with it and I wouldn't notice or reply to such a calumny. Why don't you just apologize like an honest person, like an intelligent and educated person would? I don't mind you disagreeing with me, what I resent and have disdain for is when you brazenly and clumsily lie about me!

Are the two citations meant a challenge to me? Do you want me to demolish them line by line or word for word? There are number of false premises in both of them. Kind of like "When did you stop beating your wife?" Am I supposed to be impressed? Or quake in my boots at the strartling quality of these citations? Sorry, can't do it!

This permanently concludes our conversations from now on, from my side, goodbye.

Nilsey105
09 December 2008 at 00:00

a.m.r.

Robert Conquest was not on any of the reading lists for Russian studies at Lancaster University in the mid 1970s as he was considered far too right wing and biased in his writings. So he is dissmissed.

Pencils
09 December 2008 at 00:08

writeon - I'm in awe of your persistence and determination, but would you not consider that there is no point in try to persuade the like of a.m.r. because his like are well aware of the truth and are determined to lie that black is white, either because they are paid propagandists, or because they are misanthropes who hate notions of justice and compassion. Whatever, anyone who quotes Robert Conquest is just not interested enough in the world to do any reading, and is not worth arguing with. The maximum accusation against Stalin, by any credible authorities currently, is that he executed 750,000 over the period 1929-53 ( read J.Arch Getty et al), and there is still doubt about the makeup of that number. No one serious now blames either Stalin ( read Mark Tauger) or Mao for the famines on their watch - famines had been recurring features of China and Russian for hundreds of years. Stalin and Mao stopped them - there have been none since. In ALL areas that came under communist control, life expectancy showed the greatest increase in recorded history. No, there was never a shred of democracy in the communist world, but the overall balance of communism is positive, in terms of human welfare.

On the other hand, the machinations and violent interventions of Western capitalist imperialism in as many as 50 nations since WWII, to deter democracy and ensure rule by elites who will serve the interests of Western investors, rather than of their people, is proven beyond doubt ( start with William Blum's 'Rogue State', recommended by O.B. Ladin).Capitalism must be held responsible for EVERY death from starvation or preventable disease, because Western capitalist imperialist have actively OPPOSED every attempt to remedy these blights. Or do 'third-world types' not matter?

Nilsey105
09 December 2008 at 01:32

ffs these get rich quick market players are creating new instruments to get more funding for their greed

Currency Exchange Traded Funds (CETFs).

Just attempts to replicate Soros when he made his billions from the pound crashing.

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 01:47

Pencils,

Your figure of 750,000 dead as a maximal figure for Stalin's reign leaves out the much larger death-tolls from the gulags. The document "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm" ( http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm ) lists 14 studies for Stalin's period, 7 from the 'Big Numbers' school of estimates (avg. 50 million dead), and 7 sources from the 'Little Numbers school (avg. 8.5 million dead). Even the very lowest estimates are more than five times your figure.

The Ukrainian famine was almost certainly intentional. Mark Tauger and more notoriously J. Arch Getty are known genocide-deniers, and have little credibility amongst historians, left or right.

China's famine was also definitely man-made. The Chinese government admitted it official after Mao's death. There is also recently released contemporary footage.

Stop denying the intentional genocide.

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 01:47

"The collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union in 1932/33 (estimated excess mortality: perhaps 4 million in the Ukraine, and an additional 2 million elsewhere in the USSR) was but one of numerous deliberate Communist economic campaigns to result in massive loss of life for Communist citizens. Virtually every Communist state in Asia suffered famine when its rulers collectivized agriculture: in the case of China, the death toll in the wake of the 1958/59 “Great Leap Forward” is thought to be in the range of 30 million. (North Korea’s famine, which struck in the mid-1990s, was due to catastrophic economic mismanagement rather than collectivization: tentative estimates of its toll currently range between 600,000 and one million or more.) Ethiopia’s 1984/85 food disaster, which may have killed 700,000 people, should also be included in the tally of Communist famines. Terrible as this may sound, the fact of the matter is that if someone died of famine in the course of the Twentieth Century, he or she probably lived under a Communist government."

Nicholas Eberstad

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 01:48

"State-made famine was not the only form of mortality crisis visited upon the populations of Communist states. State-sponsored violence was also a specialty of Communist regimes, and was often meted out to the disfavored and suspect strata of the new society with particular enthusiasm. Under Joseph Stalin’s absolute rule (1929-1953), millions of Soviet citizens were executed during successive terror campaigns, or perished as prisoners under the murderous conditions of the “Main Administration for Corrective Labor Camps” (better known as the Gulag). In Yugoslavia, Tito’s regime may have killed as many as a million of its ostensible subjects between 1944 and 1987--as many as half a million of them after World War II was over. In China, at least several million landlords and other “bad elements” were programmatically slaughtered during the land reform of the early 1950s, and many sources guess that a million or more victims were later claimed by Red Guard terror during Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” that commenced in 1966--though some respectable guesses place the death toll from the Cultural Revolution as high as 7 million. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge’s 1975-79 reign may have consigned a fifth or even more of the country’s 7 million people to death by starvation or terror. In theory human beings may indeed be the most valuable capital in the world, as Stalin averred--but in practice under Communist governments many human lives were evidently assigned an official value of zero."

Nicholas Eberstad

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 01:48

"A final noteworthy characteristic of Communist mortality patterns were the long-term increases in death rates that beset the Soviet Bloc in the decades immediately preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. After rapid and pronounced general mortality declines in the 1950s and early 1960s, age-specific mortality rates for various Soviet cohorts began to rise: first middle-aged men, then almost all adult male groupings, then many adult female groupings. In the early 1970s, the official Soviet infant mortality rate recorded significant increases--after which point Moscow forbade release of this bell-weather statistic, and increasingly restricted publication of other mortality data."

Nicholas Eberstad

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 02:28

Nilsey105: "Robert Conquest was not on any of the reading lists for Russian studies at Lancaster University in the mid 1970s as he was considered far too right wing and biased in his writings. So he is dissmissed."

I'm not surprised that they didn't have Robert Conquest on the reading list at Lancaster University at that time. By the mid-1070's the university faculty must have been in the final stages of denial about the Soviet regime's massive atrocities - Conquest wouldn't have been the historian to read if one wanted to maintain the good Soviet myth. After all, he showed not just Stalin, but also Lenin, to have been architects of state genocide.

I don't think the main body of his historical work, regardless of his political views, is seriously contested by anyone, is it?

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 02:31

(1070's ->1970's in post above, sorry)

writeon
09 December 2008 at 07:26

Pencils,

I'm foolish for bothering I suppose. Being drawn into a kind of game or trap, where the outcome is pre-determined. Not being able to let lies stand un-refuted, no matter what the cost. It's another of my flaws.

But there's reason behind it. Back in the "old country", in Austria, one of my ancestors taught, he was accused, by Austrian Fascists, of various thought crimes; supposedly he "wasn't national minded" he was "an intellectual snob", he "showed disdain for real Austrian values", he was "upper class", he was a "red", he was full of "Jew thinking", ect.

In one afternoon I lost my grandmother and three aunts, gunned down and tossed into a ditch by Ukranian fascists, so it's kind of personal when one encounters echoes of the same kind of thinking and ideology that eventually led to these senseless killings; rabid sectarianism, ultra-nationalism, exceptionalism, faith in blood and ethnicity - all the old, tired, worn-out myths - it's hard to let them pass. One feels as kind of historic responsibility not to give up, but to be determined, resolute and persistant, to oppose the rising darkness and the feast of lies at the heart of nationalism.

It's an attempt not to be silenced and remember, not to forget, who killed the women in the ditch and why.

And I believe that by opposing nationalism and giving them enough rope, they eventually hang themselves with their own words, and reveal their core attitudes and thoughts about "human nature" and the enemy, and these thoughts are very dark and dangerous and seem to always come back to blood.

amanfromMars
09 December 2008 at 07:54

" Shallow 'left' and 'right' denunciations do nothing to help raise the

global economy from the mire it has sunk into. In conclusion, therefore, we need to sing a Requiem to egotistic individualism and the reign of 'elite minorities' even when we, ourselves, become the victims of this change." .... stateswoman 06 December 2008 at 18:07

Noblesse Oblige that Leads, stateswoman. Thanks for ITs Sharing.

"stateswoman, could you briefly describe how the new society will work and look like? How will it prevent the formation of elite minorities? ..... a.m.r. 07 December 2008 at 03:44

Here AI Seventh Heaven, a.m.r. ...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultana%27s_dream ..... Global Communications HQ

"The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is mayby preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." ..... writeon 08 December 2008 at 20:59

I wonder when they are going to try it, writeon? Have they not Everything they Need Yet? As a Concept, has it Few Peers and that must make IT Worthy of Shared Thought/Sublime Effort. :-)

Nilsey105
09 December 2008 at 10:02

a.m.r.

"The Ukrainian famine was almost certainly intentional."

I agree with you on this point, they were created by the Kulaks.

Nilsey105
09 December 2008 at 10:12

Why do you quote only the american propagandist

Nicholas Eberstad?

Is it that you cant find anyone else to support your onrunning ramblings?

nickpr53
09 December 2008 at 12:19

hey writeon,

Many people would argue with you that Obama is science and Mccain is fiction!! Sure the republicans are idiots but if you look at all of obama's promises at http://www.spinwhip.com/obama well it looks pretty unreal to me!

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 12:25

Nilsey105, you're quite shockingly blaming the Ukrainian famine on the the intended victims of the Holomodor, the "Kulaks", the branded "class enemy of the peasants", and feared by Stalin as a possible source of uprising against his regime, and targetted by him for elimination: "From a policy of limiting the exploitative tendencies of the kulaks, we have gone over to a policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class.".

The "kulaks" were not only the farm owners, but also any peasants who sold their excess for profit.

Perhaps you are referring to the massive slaughter of livestock that was carried out in protest against collectivisation and what was seen as state theft of property - great as it was, it wasn't enough to cause a famine - that was down the primary foodstock, grain. Ukraine was known as the "breadbasket of Europe", and the harvest was good in those years of 1932-1933. Stalin ordered the government to seize crops from the Ukranians peasants, and increased procurement quotas by 44%. In 1933, the Soviet Union placed 1.7 million tonnes of grain on the Western market, whilst the Ukrainians starved and died en-masse. It was an engineered famine.

Shame on you for denying it and blaming the victims.

Leveller
09 December 2008 at 13:18

Two points about your brief touch on the state of the Left in Britain.

a) You tiptoe round the fact that New Labour has totally renounced being a party of the Left to become merely a manager of a purely capitalist system.

b) You ignore the Scottish dimension. The SNP may not be an overtly socialist party, but they are demonstrably to the left of Labour. Indeed, as the Tories are an extinct species in Scotland and the Lib-Dems are restricted to a couple of rural heartlands, in future elections, both to Holyrood and Westminster (in the event that these latter continue in Scotland!), the fight will be between the SNP on the left and Labour on the right.

Nilsey105
09 December 2008 at 14:35

a.m.r.

Your tiresome and now have become a bore with your unquoted figures and remarks. Desist or back your arguments up. In fact dont bother i am not as patient as writeon has been with you. Endex.

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 15:12

Nilsey, are you seriously persisting in attempting to pin the responsibility of the Ukraniane famine on the "Kulak's", the group that was targeted by mass-murderer Stalin for elimination?

Here are some sources:

U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, Report to Congress, 1988

http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/findings.html

http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Uk... , by Nicolas Werth, a French historian specialising in the Soviet Union.

From the introduction:

"..the opening up of once inaccessible archives has brought to light a number of documents that have made it possible to analyze and better understand the political mechanisms behind the genesis and aggravation of the famine in Ukraine and Kuban, and the role of the Soviet leadership in this process. These sources include secret resolutions passed by the Politburo or the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party, Stalin’s correspondence with his closest collaborators Molotov and Kaganovich, and secret police reports on the situation in the countryside, in particular at the “collection fronts” "

Encyclopædia Britannica: "The Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932–33—a man-made demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians... Its deliberate nature is underscored by the fact that no physical basis for famine existed in Ukraine..."

ga4ry
09 December 2008 at 15:18

For the first time in my life I hear my countrymen utter the word "socialism" and then not cringe. I see this as the only real hope for we here in the United States.

pete999
09 December 2008 at 15:20

I must admit I did enjoy the online editors recent article about the need to clamp down on 'extreme zionist' commentators.

Seems that the apolgists for Stalin are ok though.

Phew!

Pencils
09 December 2008 at 15:39

It is now proven that the Ukrainian famine was caused not by Stalin of the kulaks, but by the combination of an exceptionally damp summer and a fungal blight which also affected other parts of Russia, Rumania and Bulgaria.

writeon
09 December 2008 at 18:10

Nickpr43,

Yes, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Obama. I was trying to make a point about the "relative" differences between the two candidates.

I think Obama is backtracking on so many promises that it's absolutely shocking. Doesn't he intend to keep any of them at all?

a.m.r.
09 December 2008 at 18:28

Pencils: "It is now proven that the Ukrainian famine was caused not by Stalin of the kulaks, but by the combination of an exceptionally damp summer and a fungal blight .."

So the findings of the United Nations, the US Commission, and the Soviet state records are all wrong?

demonax
09 December 2008 at 21:22

Nothing much can be done until globalism is controlled

and rescinded.

It was always a financial scam to pauperize the workers

in developed countries. To restore the manufacturing

base protection is needed. Market values have failed the

sooner we get over it the better.

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 01:48

Paraphrasing the extraordinary last exchange betwen writeon and pencils:

writeon: How dare you accuse me of refusing to discuss atrocities on the "red" side, a.m.r.!

pencils: I admire you writeon for putting up that monstrous propagandist a.m.r.. On the "Red" side, we all know that the Russian Soviet government was one of the best goverments in history. Stalin was not some kind of highly dangerous dictator feared by his subjects, and those heart-breaking mass famines in Russia and China were natural crop failures. Even though the grain was gathered and distributed centrally by the government, and the famines were strangely isolated to particular states, the famines were natural occurences, like the tides or seasons.

writeon: penciles, thanks but I am commited to truth at all times and cannor rest - I confront untruths always, it's hard-wired in me, I can't hear an untruth without calling it out. Anyway, good-bye.

Pencils
10 December 2008 at 02:26

" So the findings of the United Nations, the US Commission, and the Soviet state records are all wrong? "

Care to give exact and specific, checkable references for these 'findings'?

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 02:55

Pencils, the information and references that you ask for can be found at:

http://faminegenocide.com/resources/resources.html

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 03:17

"Food is a weapon."

Maxim Litvinov - Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs

"...A famine that came about without drought and without war."

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

writeon
10 December 2008 at 07:46

The totalitarian mindset never ceases to amaze me. The burning zeal with which they believe in the rightness, purity and truth of their worldveiw to the exclusion of all others is both astounding and frightening. It's like their minds are on fire. The anger and rage when faced with opposition, or alternatives which might, just might, in theory, undermine or cast aspertions on their version of "The Truth", which is unasailable, not contradictable, holy; this core attitude is probably the essence of totalitarianism.

Where does this white-hot certainty and beliedf in "The Truth", the one an only "Truth" lead to? I think it eventually leads to a dangerous, slippery slope, towards barbarism. The desire to destroy and wipe-out "non-true" ideas, the "untruth", even the "wrong thinkers", the people who express doubt, who don't "believe" in "The One Truth Party" and its "Holy Vision" for the chosen people. Opposition is tantamount to treason. There is only one punishment adequate for traitors!

And when one can't win an argument on ones own, because one is inarticulate or lacks the smarts, one calls in the "experts" in the holy script. One resorts to the trick of the "paraphrase" which is convenient, because it allows one to twist and distort arguments and the meaning of words without recourse to trifles like accuracy or fairness.

One chooses to define ones enemy as a type, group or characature, rather than an individual with the right to dissent, have their own views or opinion, because there is only, can only be, one "Truth" in the over-simplified world and mind of the totalitarian.

As a Nazi Brownshirt once said to my grandfather with a sneer, "Nuance? I spit on your nuance. Nuance is only found in the mind of the Jew!"

PlanetStarbucks
10 December 2008 at 07:48

a.m.r,

"Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . " - The Personality Cult and its Consequences, Nikita Khrushchev.

"From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me... Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute." - Karl Marx.

Stalin completely destroyed any hope the USSR had of becoming a socialist beacon with his "cult of the individual" and set the trend for all other "communist" regimes that followed it. Not quite the dictatorship of the proletariat Marx invisaged was it?

Therfore to quote agaian and again the horrors of socialism and communism by showing the horrors that Stalin and Mao cast upon their people does nothing but show its misuse, not it's inherent faluts.

You could just as easily show examples of past and current British/American atrocities commited against protectorates or colonies which were "our people". With reference to the starvation in Ukraine look at the Bengal famine of 1943.

writeon
10 December 2008 at 08:22

I think I've always got more questions than answers.

It's difficult to resist being sucked into a "discussion" about ultra-controversial, highly partisan, highly complex, highly debatable, historical events that took place long ago in the Ukraine. I don't feel qualified to launch myself into such a high-charged and highly emotional subject on a threa like this. Is there really time and space to do this vast subject proprer justice? As I've tried to point out, isn't certainty a form of blindness? An attempt to narrow down the complexity and contradictions of the world into a comprehensible whole that becomes a kind of characature of reality?

Supposedly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But what if truth is in the eye of the beholder too? That is a question, not a declaration or statement of "Truth." Whilst it's perfectly possible to believe in scientific "truths" and laws, in emperical truth, as a method in the process of understanding the world around us. It's far more difficult to apply these methods to society and history, for one thing the past is difficult to drag into the lab and conduct scientific on. The past will always remain to an unhelpful degree an unknown country for us, tantilizingly just out of view, slipping through our fingers. I sometimes wish, for a moment, that I had more faith in certainty and didn't have so many doubts, so many questions.

It would make things so much easier, so much simpler, to be certain and Know who the bad guys and the good guys really were, without any doubts. But then this would over-simplify the world and turn it into a mere paraphrase or characture. It would be daft as brush to start thinking like this. That way leads to madness.

writeon
10 December 2008 at 08:44

The present is difficult enough to understand and agree on what's happening, let alone the past. Maybe, when one comes down to it, contemporary events, like history, are all about ideology and not truth?

For example, what's happening now, in Britian? Do we really know, are we really sure, do we really understand and clearly see the events unfolding around us?

"Socialism" is there less of it today than a year ago? Who defines what kind of socialism we are talking about? Is it the "right" or the "left"? Who is neutral?

If one looks at contemporary Britain I believe one can make a good argument for the death, perhaps temporary, of private capitalism, as the State effectively takes over and increasingly intervenes in more and more areas of the economy. The people, the taxpayers, through the State, which is supposed to serve the nation, is taking over virtually the entire economy - is this Socialism? Not so much through the backdoor, but through the front door and through the checkbook and bailout!

Take the Labour Party's infamous Clause Four, which talked about the commanding heights of the economy and eventually taking over the banks and through them socialising the economy. The abolition of the clause was interpreted as a triumph of "moderation" and "Blairism", yet haven't we through the bailout effectively, de facto, implemented Clause Four and taken over the commanding heights of the economy?

And it isn't just the banks and financial institutions that are now effectively owned by the state/people, we are slowly taking over what's left. At the rate things are going, with subsidies and bailouts in line for the housing market, the auto industry, farming, the high-street, private pensions, ect. in couple of years the State will have more or less bailed-out most of the economy. What kind of system will then have? Social-Capitalism? State Capitalism? State Socialism? The Corporate State? A bankrupt Sate and nation?

writeon
10 December 2008 at 09:46

I've been distracted and indulgent, sorry.

The other day I heard a New Labour minister state that, "Britsih benefits were for British citizens!" Refering to housing, unemployment, social security and other benefits. I'm unsure whether he meant exactly what he said. He couldn't have been refering to citizens of the E.U. as this would clearly be illegal, so I imagine he meant people from outside the E.U.

I think New Labour, like lots of other European, social/liberal, christian/democratic, parties are evolving into a form of "National Socialism."

What this means is the State merging with the "free market" from the top to the bottom of society and the economy. Capitalism can only survive and prosper in tandem with the the State. But if the people, the taxpayers are being asked to bailout the system and pay for losses and provide capital and credit for Capitalism, surely they must have a degree of control or a say in exactly how they money is used? Surely this is only fair, obvious and resonable?

Bu is this Socialism? What is Socialism today? Are we seeing the socialisation of the "free market"? Is private capitalism effectively dead and buried? Why should the state subsidize the entire system of Capitalism? British agriculture has been "socialized" for decades. Farmers are really employed by the State, really civil servants, or employees like the police or the military. Are we now going to employ the entire Capitalist class in the same way?

If 75% of the economy is now service industries and the financial sector and only 14% is manufacturing, doesn't this mean that almost everyone is now a State employee? Shouldn't we then agree to pay each other approximately the same wage and saleries, with resonable performance bonuses, but no excessive multi-million pound, fat-cat pay? As we're all employing each other now, surely nobody should "steal" a higher state wage than anyone else? Perhaps five times the average wage should be the maximum anyone should be allowed?

writeon
10 December 2008 at 10:16

If it was possible to be 100% neutral, absolutely scientific, non-sectarian, non-ideological, non-poliitcal; and avoid characature, parody, prostitution, paraphasing ect. what would Karl Marx think about what's happening today and the way Captialism is evolving?

Obviously it's impossible to answer such a question, however, it's not toally impossible if one, at the very least makes an honest and fair attempt to examine what Marx actually thought and wrote and veiwed Capitalism in his day, how he imagined it would develope and compare this to what's happening today.

I think it's fair to say, regardless of whether one supports Marx's politics, which after all related to another age and other specific circumstances, that his methods and analysis, his observations and conclusions of the Capitalism he saw around him in the Workshop of the World - Britain, are very interesting indeed, arguably unsurpassed.

Marx wrote an awful lot, and he was after all, a German intellectual writing in the nineteenth century, so his style is a bit heavy for most modern readers. It's complex stuff, because he was studying a highly complex society, from a German "scientific" perspective; mixing history, economics, politics, psycology and sociology altogether.

Putting his grand theories ino nutshell and relating them to contemporary events isn't easy, but as others continually do it from a biased right-wing perspective and have no shame or qualms about distorting the old guys ideas beyond recognition and reason, surely I'm allowed an humble attempt to redress the balance somewhat?

I don't consider myself an expert on Marx or even Marxism. It's a long time since I read Marx, though I did read him with an open mind. I was mostly curious and interested in what all the fuss was about. As I considered myself back then as an anarchist, not a socialist or communist, and I was only thirteen at the time, Marx was pretty hard work for me. I asked my grandmother for help with the German.

antileft
10 December 2008 at 10:21

"Perhaps five times the average wage should be the maximum anyone should be allowed?"

There it is- proof that youre a commie at heart. What is the incentive to work hard if you cant be paid higher than "average"? What an idiotic idea- why on earth would you try to fix the system by making it LESS productive?!

"Not quite the dictatorship of the proletariat Marx invisaged was it?"

Oh right, so youd like to try just one more time would you?! You think there havent been enough different versions?! Get over it planet starbucks- marxism doesnt work. It was a bad idea. Thats's why its been tried in hundreds of different ways and yet has never managed to allow multiple elections, freedom of speech, and economic growth.

antileft
10 December 2008 at 10:29

"Market values have failed the

sooner we get over it the better."

There it is! Another one who's saying "it's the end of boom and bust!" Its just bust now, is it?! Whenre you people going to realise? Capitalism has both booms and busts. Thats the way it works. It hasnt failed- its continuing as normal, and theres a boom on the way. Its the same as it has always been. And it works less badly than any alternative. Thats why communism is dead and buried. When prices stop going down- Im going to buy a house. Wahoo! Im going to enjoy it. I know itll overshoot because all the idiots here are predicting the end of capitalism (just like it overshot in the other direction when the other idiots were saying house prices ll never drop).

writeon
10 December 2008 at 10:42

Marx wrote a lot and evolved his ideas over time. The young, revolutionary Marx, is different from the older and wiser Marx. Hopefully we all are.

First and most importantly, Marx himself was not a vulgar Marxist. Marx was not a crude determinist. He complained about how his views and theories were misunderstood and misppropriated in his own lifetime. I am not a Marxist!

Marx didn't believe that socialism was invetable, ordained by history, or that Capitalism was destined to disappear or collapse. It could and probably would, under the "right" circumstances, destroy itself and possibly drag civilization down with it.

What he believe was that capitalism was a system of profound, revolutionary power, that had obviously changed the face of the world, both for good and bad; nothing particularly controversial there. Capitalims had released enormous productive power and created colossal wealth, but at a price. In that sense, capitalism wasn't "free" at all. By just looking around one could observe vast differences in wealth between the "elite" at the top of the social pyramid and the proletariat who were the majority of the population, whose labour was turned into profits that accrued to the capitalist class.

Marx wrote a lot about social classes, but then again, everybody did in those days, so he was a typical Victorian.

One of the central conflicts in captialism was the fact that the majority produced and consumed, yet a minority controlled and disproportionally reaped the profits from this system. It simply wasn't a fair and just way to distribute the fruits of the system. And one class sucked out far more than they were really entitled to, in a way it was similar to fuedalism, where the aristocracy were parasites living off the labour of the peasants.

The richer and more complex society was becoming the more absurd it was that minority should control and rule over a system that couldn't exist without the labour and consumption of the great mass of the people

writeon
10 December 2008 at 11:06

Marx believed capitalist system and the society it created had lost of contradictions and structural problems, which led to distabilisation, unemployment, crises, recessions, wars, crime, lots of problems.

Wealth had a distinct tendancy, almost like a law, to become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Effective monopolies were characteristic of capitalism.

The periodic crises of production and consumption had profound consequences for society and were massively destabilising, leading to unemployment, suffering, empoverishment, social unrest, violence, revolutions, revolts and war.

Marx appeared to think that these capitalist crises would get worse and worse over time. This is a source of much controversy. Not all recessions are slumps like the Great Depression, but because we haven't had a slump as bad as the Great Depression since the 1930's this is often regarded as 'proff' that Marx was wrong about everything he wrote, which is stretching things a bit in my opinion.

There are obviously production cycles in capitalism, things do go up and down, that's in the nature of the beast. But in highly complex and integrated societies the consequences of the "temporary" lapses can be devastating and disasterous for millions of people's lives. Marx believed there had to be a better, more rational way of running society, that was socialism. Socialism that recognised and built on the obvious fact that as it was the great mass of the population that produced and consumed and without them capitalism and the market couldn't exist, therefore, eventually it was them who should control the entire system, for their benefit and in their interests, who needed the capitalist class, they would become redundent, like fuedal lords and knights in shining armour!

Jane Greene
10 December 2008 at 11:17

Even Lenin adopted a mixed economy model so your owning a house even in a more socialist system isn't an inevitable contradiction antileft. Just hope it's not near me though.

writeon
10 December 2008 at 11:39

Today, I think one can argue, and a lot of people are, capitalism has evolved into an even more complex and contradictory system than ever. Our ability through technology to change our world amost beyond recognition is obvious and profound.

The current crisis, which though it began to reveal itself as credit crisis, is now clearly manifesting itself in the rest of the economy too. I think this crisis has the potential, if we aren't very lucky indeed, to be as bad or perhaps worse than the Great Depression and arguably lasting longer, a permanent economic crisis.

I think this mainly because the financial system is bust and on the verge of collapse. Governments are desparately trying to stop this happening, if they fail, and their is no law that says their "bailouts" will workd, then the world will be plunged into a slump the like of which we have never seen. Secondly, If the last depression was "solved" by the "growth" contained in the wartime economy, the command economy, of second world war, what will be the motor to get us moving again this time, more war, or some substitute?

So, in conclusion, I think Marx would have looked around and when he stopped being amazed, he would have recognised the situation we're in and nodded, sagely and thought to himself that this is what he imagined would eventually happen and his solutions were still valid.

Pencils
10 December 2008 at 11:43

a.m.r. - 5 year olds might be impressed by that site you linked to. The rest of us can recognise a CIA funded anticommunist propaganda organisation at a glance. Where's the statement from the Russian government you promised? Or the United Nations? Not that we should take such seriously anyway - an admission of the crimes of Stalin from the likes of Gorbachev and Yeltsin who gave away their nation's accumulated wealth to line their own pockets, and caused the greatest peacetime increase in mortality ever recorded? Yes, much worse than even the worst claims for the 'Holodomor'. We can imagine that they might have an interest in pretending that communism was worse than their rule. Whatever, that site doesn't offer any facts or evidence, or even the statements you claimed.

The recognised ( by academic and historical institutions) authorities on the Ukraine famine are Mark Tauger, and Davies and Wheatcroft -for the time being there is still some limited academic freedom and integrity in some American universities, but I'm sure that will soon be nipped in the bud. There are powerful forces who would like to see critics of the anticommunist propaganda version of history given the same treatment as for instance Germar Rudolf, who is currently in jail in Germany for noting some inconvenient forensic evidence re the 'nazi gaschambers'. Rudolf's defence lawyer was prosecuted for defending him - this too is illegal . And hordes of UK 'leftists' are eager to see anyone, anywhere in the world who defends him extradited to Germany to face simiilar 'justice'. Well, we must all make sacrifices in the endless struggles against fascism and totalitarianism, eh? I note that a.m.r. called Mark Tauger ' a well-known genocide denier' Surprise, surprise!

writeon
10 December 2008 at 12:03

What I don't really undestand, unless it's all just primative ideological, political, or class bias, biggotry in other words; is why can't one have a calm, rational and productive discussion about Karl Marx and his ideas?

After all Karl Marx died a long time ago. One wouldn't think his ideas were still considered so dangerous. Of course I'm deferentiating between Marx, and Marxism and Marxists. I don't think one can blame Karl Marx for what others have done in a different time and circumstances. That seems hardly fair or logical.

Of course one can argue that Marx and the socialism that's implied in his writings, he didn't actually write that much about solutions as analysing the nature of capitalism was a mamoth task in itself. Does Marx contain the seeds of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and totalitarianism? Are his ideas so wrong and so dangerous that he's efffectively responsible for totalitarian repression, mass killings, destruction and war?

I really don't think one can find evidence for any of this in his writings. There is no recipe for terror or plans for a totalitarian state, that I can find.

Of course he did consider himself a "revolutionary" but he wasn't giving orders, he was writing, speaking and organising. He did right the Communist Manifesto, but he was only about 22 when he did that and revolution was in the air all over Europe at that time. There's the bit about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but that related to the Paris Commune, if I remember correctly, and wartime is usually/often a period of national consolidation and dicipline, so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

I think Marx is innocent of the worst chages against him.

In some ways Mohammed and the Koran have replaced Marx and Kapital as the new threat to the West, and with just as little justification, though perhaps that's about to change?

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 12:43

writeon, I notice that you are now describing me as totalitarian, and tried to compare me to a Nazi brownshirt, just because I dare to speak my mind, and it contradicts yours. Quite the hypocrit, aren't you.

All I did (and I'm repeating myself slightly now) was compare the benefits, including high standards of human rights, that have been conferred by free-market western democracies, to the disastrous history of Marxist revoutionary states, which have all been failures, and have nearly always devolved into a brutal police states, with impoverishment and effective state-slavery of the population. They achieved the exact opposite of what they were meant to. Socialist states were meant to end war and injustice - instead they turned war inwards, against segments of the population. The rich! The capitalists! The intelligentsia! The counter-revolutionaries! The Jews! (The Nazi's were national socialists, as was Mussolini, with some additional ideas about race, and how to 'fix' that as well. Fascism and Socialism share the same philosophical root, but had branched into 'left' socialism and 'right' fascism - both relied on the authoritarian State and subservient role of the individual in serving the aims of the State). Those who disagreed with the totalitarian state vision were perceived as dangerous, and eliminated.

So uniquely important was the Socialist/Communist program for humanity, they felt, that all means were permissable in trying to achieve the Communist State. That's the totalitarian mindset, and what I was warning about.

And for pointing that out I get called a totalitarian and compared to a Nazi brownshirt by you.

You logic and efforts are truly worthy of a medal from the the CCCP (useful idiot, second order?)

"You have protected the Communist State, comrade, even in it's grave! What would we have done with you, our friend in the West? How else could we have continued our elite rule of brutal state murder and oppression over the people for so long?"

Nilsey105
10 December 2008 at 13:57

a.m.r

"(The Nazi's were national socialists, as was Mussolini, with some additional ideas about race, and how to 'fix' that as well. Fascism and Socialism share the same philosophical root, but had branched into 'left' socialism and 'right' fascism - both relied on the authoritarian State and subservient role of the individual in serving the aims of the State)"

WOW

I wont even answer such clap trap and cant. To do so would be an insult to my own intelligence.

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 14:09

That's great Nilsey - now you have some more history to deny, along with your denial of Soviet government involvement in the Ukranian famine (you blamed the victims I seem to remember).

"It’s not as if history’s fascists hid their political allegiances. Der Führer was a National Socialist. Il Duce was a lifelong leftist. Both were revolutionaries who despised capitalism and individual liberty. Right-wingers, meanwhile, are proponents of free markets and small government. Does it really need saying that fascism never involves small governments?"

Dominic Hilton

writeon
10 December 2008 at 15:54

I'm tempted, sorely tempted...

If only history was so simple, so easy to understand, then maybe, just maybe it would be easier to learn lessons from it, perhaps then we wouldn't make so many and similar mistakes?

I wonder, can one really define Hitler as a dyed in the red wool socialist? Surely one would be guilty of pulling the wool over one's own and the eyes of others? The German NAZI or National Socialist Worker's Party, wasn't ever a socialist movement. It only used the word "socialist" as an electoral tactic because the ideas and principles of socialism were so popular in war and depression ravaged Germany. The party should have been called the German Nationalist Party plain and simple, only this would have too honest and signaled that Hitler was a leader on the right of the political spectrum, allied with reactionaries, totalitarians, conservatives and the capitalist ruling class, the army leadership and big business. Considering the vast majority of Germans held precisely these groups responsible for the calamities and disasters that had befallen the nation this would have been electoral suicide for the NAZI Party. Hitler had a pathelogical hatred for the Left and Socialists and their ideas, which he believed mostly came from the Jews. Hitler looked at the leadership of the Russian Revolution and saw how many of them were Jews; Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and many others were all rumoured to be Jews or have Jewish blood. Hitler hated Jewish Socialists with a vengence, part of his pathology.

Mussolini despised Hitler, couldn't stand the sight of him and thought he was insane, but to call him a "Socialist" too is terribly extreme view. Mussolini wasn't a socialist and niether was his Fascist Party. This is an incredible claim.

It's doubtful in the extreme that even Stalin was a "socialist", what he craved above all was Power. He wanted ot rule as a dictator more than anything else.

antileft
10 December 2008 at 16:05

"I wont even answer such clap trap and cant. To do so would be an insult to my own intelligence."

Think about it it for just one second, wont you? Fascism and communism both believe in the all powerful state. Thats a problem because the state is inefficient. Both believed that the people were second to the state. Thats also a problem as it often leads to the loss of human rights. Neither have EVER worked alongside democracy. Neither allow freedom of speech. Surely, theyre more similar to each other than to capitalism? Arent they??

Capitalism CAN (although it doesnt always) allow freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy. The other two have never survived those for a long period of time. That's why people like you who support communism/fascism are considered a bit nutty by the majority these days.

meat eating leftist
10 December 2008 at 16:05

a.m.r

"(Market) Liberalism is an outdated ideology" - Anders Fogh Rasmussen, right-wing Danish politician

I dont know how life looks like on your planet, but here, on Earth, right-wing ideologies are simply death. Especially in Europe.

Right wing parties shifted to the left and rejected their old free-market ideology. No one in Europe support laisser faire or small government anymore. Welfare state is overwhelmly accepted as well. In fact, right wing parties became virtually social democratic and centre-left. Nice.

Sarkozy, french right winger, had called for partial nationalization of key UE industries. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish prime minister, has stolen from socialdemocrats their platform and Cameron, Tory leader, is calling for more social justice. As you can see right wingers all over the Europe accepted social democracy and that is why they are able even to win elections.

Right wing is gone. Moreover, there is no such think as free market. Perhaps in Somalia and Haiti, but in civilisised world we have mixed economy based on social democratic values.

Labour is still centre-left party, even if has pladge to not nationalise any industry. Government spending during Labour years was significant and has nothing to do with right wing ideology. Implementing minimal wage as well.

Whats is more, welfare of USA had been build due to New Deal, wich was a left-wing experiment. It was not free market, but keynesianism based on state interventionism that create american dream.

antileft
10 December 2008 at 16:07

"Even Lenin adopted a mixed economy model so your owning a house even in a more socialist system isn't an inevitable contradiction antileft."

He only adopted a mixed economy because he hadnt finished his work yet.

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 16:07

Pencils,

Mark Tauger is more or less alone in claiming that inclement weather (in the 1932 growing season) was the primary reason for the famine. Most analysts, including Davies and Wheatcroft, whom you cite as the foremost authorities on Soviet agriculture, do not agree with him.

Tauger bases his analysis on an examination of incomplete (and unspecified by him) selection of reports from collectivised farms in the Ukraine. Given the greatly increased and extremely harsh grain quotas and seizures enforced by the regime, it's not unexpected that the farms would be inclined to under-report the actual harvest in order to keep some food for their own survival. Most analysts do not regard these sources used by Tauger as reliable.

Davies and Wheatcroft suggest a figure of 3.5 million dead in the Holomodor rather than the more commonly cited figure of 5 million.

According to Davies and Wheatcroft, the main reason for the famine was over-riding importance attached by the Kremlin to the policy of extremely rapid industrialisation. This was to be achieved by stripping the countryside of food through forcible grain requisitions. The food would then be used to feed the expanding urban work-force.

"A mixture of haste, ignorance, crude ideological fixations, incompetence, administrative chaos and mind-boggling cruelty caused the authorities to take way too much, thereby inflicting massive disruption on the rural sector, badly damaging crop rotations and the quality of cultivation, and forcing the peasantry to rely for food on their livestock, which in turn declined spectacularly." [FOI-requested release of FCO Internal Document – dated 30 November 2006 SUBJECT: UKRAINE: THE FAMINE (HOLODOMOR) ]

Responsibility for the famine lies unequivocally with the decisions taken by the Soviet leadership.

antileft
10 December 2008 at 16:14

"No one in Europe support laisser faire or small government anymore."

What on earth are you talking about?! EVERYONE has been talking about shrinking the state- unless you look at the last 6 months when everyone got scared (a temporary reaction). Sarkozy promised to replace only one out of two retiring public sector voters and the french (some of the most left wing in europe) voted for him. All three main parties in england are promising to reduce taxes. Berlusconi promised to reduce taxes and won his election. Where do you get your information from?

antileft
10 December 2008 at 16:21

"It's doubtful in the extreme that even Stalin was a "socialist", what he craved above all was Power. He wanted ot rule as a dictator more than anything else."

So which leader would you call a "socialist" then, writeon? Or are you one of those idiots who says "oh its never been done properly- we just have to keep trying it."

writeon
10 December 2008 at 16:35

Was it their politics that primarily characterised the three great totalitarian leaders/dictators or was it something else?

Mussolini probably shouldn't really be seen in the same company as Hitler and Stalin. He was a nationalist opportunist who had developed fantastical ideas about turning Italy into a New Rome. Probably we should see him in the same light as Peron or Fanco or Mosely, a Facist leader, but not blood-soaked tyrant responsible for the deaths of millions. He had blood on his hands, but nothing compared to Hitler and Stalin. These men were almost unique in history.

What characterised these leaders wasn't their attitude to politics or economics or the market place or capitalism or even ethnic minorities. These things were, I would argue, incidental. What's important is that they were brutal, totalitarian, tyrants who demanded total loyalty to their persons, were ready to crush all opposition, were above the law, their willingness to use violence with impunity. They were primative men, totally ruthless, obsessed with power, deeply disturbed individuals, men almost without souls, almost like medieval kings, who used the apparatus of the state to crush all those who dared to stand against them.

All three of them liked to wear uniforms and riding boots, that makes them similar, but to imagine that their warped politics, mattered to them, or that their politics was fundamentally the same and socialist is frankly ridiculous, startlingly absurd, barmy.

Of course if one an extremist on the right it's useful here and now to label all three of them "Socialists" as a form of smear and guilt by association, hoping that this dark fantasy will attach itself to contemporary socialists and undermine their ideas, credibility, ligitimacy. A vote for New Labour is a vote for Hitler and Stalin! Gordon Brown follows a line that leads to Stalin. He's got a brownshirt and riding boots hidden in his closet! Olaf Palme loves Stalin! What a load of old cobblers!

Nilsey105
10 December 2008 at 16:41

writeon

i admire your persistance to challenge both of those above i am sorry i wont become involved anymore than i have done . The two of them remind me of the national front elements i fought against during the 60s and 70s.

They both make statements as if they were absolutes and when challenged for the source of their quotes they google the topic and give out a right wing comment that fits their point.

This is no way for debate to proceed.

Dialectical methodology Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 16:54

meat eating leaftist,

Yes, but you'll notice that the best welfare systems of the world all exist within free-market democratic nations. It's the empowered mass choice of free individuals in a democratic society to care for the poor.

I think you are under a misconception, European nations still operate with free markets, which is just the voluntary exchange of goods at prices arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. Free-markets imply property rights, of course.

writeon
10 December 2008 at 17:09

The State is merging with the "market" this isn't, I would argue, a temporary phase, but the next stage in the evolution of capitalism. I doubt one can call the "nationalisation" of virtually the entire economy, or that's what'll occur relatively soon for "socialism."

What is it then? It's not socialism, because the UK and other governments don't have a socialist political agenda, unless one is on the barmy right.

I think it's the financial elite utilizing the power of the State, the seemingly bottomless pot of tax revenues, to support and subsidize capitalism to an even greater degree than it does already. In the current crisis everyone agrees that without massive state intervention the West's financial system will collapse with dire consequences for everyone.

There are of course a handful of people and economists who say leave it alone, let the market run it's course, let what is too weak to stand fall! But these people are in an extreme minority of super-liberals. Real capitalists never really believed this ideological rubbish, they just wanted to get as much profit as possible, whether it comes from the consumer or the state directly is irrelevant.

In the United States one has the formel ideology of "free market" capitalism as the state religion, but that's just for public show. In reality the state is an integral part of the capitalist economy. Massive subsidies, orders, tariffs, handouts, bailouts, pork, pork, pork. The system would collapse without state intervention. But this state involvement isn't for the benefit of the great mass of the population primarily, it's designed to support capitalism. Without control of the state modern capitalism dies. If anything is true, this is.

The state and modern capitalism are like siamese twins, and this hybrid is mirrored in the US political system where the two party system is really a twin party system. But it the state and capitalism are joined together, along with politics, where is the democracy?

meat eating leftist
10 December 2008 at 17:16

a.m.r.

Hey looney, read some about Great Hunger in Ireland. When people where dying, capitalists refused to hand over part of their crops. For them doing business and abstract liberal freedom where much more important than human lives. Moreover, government could not react, due to lack of regulation and pressure given by the local free marketers.

There was relatively more victims in Ireland than in Ukraine.

Dont forget about Bengal Famine. Wild west in USA as well as extermination of local tribes in South America where caused by the free market ideology either.

But not only this. Contrary to your and anileft paranoic visions Hitler as well as Mussolini where strong supporters of capitalism.

Economic systems of Third Reich and Fascists Italy where similar to that in Francos Spain. Are you insist that Gen. Franco was a lefty?

Nazis recieved strong support from bankers, middle-class and businessmen. They where all former voters of German Liberals.

"Data from a number of coutries demonstrate that classic fascism is a movement of the propertied middle classes, who for the most part normally support liberalism" - Seymour Lipset.

Mind you, liberalism in a european sense, which mean right wing free market ideology.

Soon after elections in 1933 Hitler formed coalition with Conservative Party. Now, he could get rid of those few left wingers inside Nazi movement who took seriously the socialist promise of National Socialism. After Nazi left had been annihilated during the Night of the Long Knives Hitler emerged as a business friendly Fuhrer.

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 17:20

meat-eating leftist,

Of course I think genuine socialism is a good thing - ie. by democratic consent, we agree that we will share some of the fruits of our efforts to sustain and help the poor. Right-wing thought has a greater emphasis on encouraging and providing the poor with the education and tools to learn to provide for themselves and become empowered.

After all, until we have incredible robots doing all the work, we're still going to have to do work. I think it's better to work in a free-market, with choices made by our individual selves, reflecting the concerns of ourselves and our loved ones, rather than some State apparatus making the decisions.

It's the Hegelian Marxist "socialism/communism" and Fascist school of philisophy that I strongly object to, with its insistence on subjugating the individual in a much more total sense to the "Greater Good". It's just slavery, and is the fruit of ill mind. Hegel, for example, was rather a failure at the exercise of rational thought.

"The State is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State."

Hegel, Philosophy of Right, "The State"

writeon
10 December 2008 at 17:35

Even in the United Sates right wing politicians, pundits and journalists have been using the great S word, the taboo subject - "Socialism" to describe the massive State intervention to save the US economy from collapse.

This isn't a secret, something I've dreamt up. It's a fact. What's happening. The Truth. Of course such blatant, massive state support for Ameican financial capitalism and the "free market" does look, superficiallly at least, like socialism. The market is supposed to be self-regulating, free and competative. Society is supposed to mirror the market. It's a market society with a market politicall system. Money is God. Mammon rules. Play by its rules or die, go under. Only the strongest, the heatlhy, the fittest survive.

Of course this is all absurd dogma. No society really functions like this, not even the United States. The market is far too destructive to be allowed to function freely. The point is to conrol the state to nuture and protect the market from competition. Monopoly captialism hates competition! Competition costs!

The problem today is the formal, official religion or political ideology of capitalism is so obviously not working as advertized that it's becoming impossible to deny or obscure how society really functions - twin rule by the state and capital in a symbiotic and anti-democratic relationship.

meat eating leftist
10 December 2008 at 17:56

antileft

Looney right strikes back.

You have completley lost the plot.

No one support minimal state anymore, my dear. There is widespread consensus about state function in Europe. Debate is only about wether we need little bit more or perhaps little bit less state in our economies.

Sarkozy pledge many things during elections, like freezing taxes and rasing benefits or even defending France against effects of globalisation. Soon after election he has created 100 000 jobs due to government spendings. And now, well, look for yourself

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy has used France's position as holder of the rotating European Union presidency to call for a massive expansion of the political bloc's economic coordination."

"European auto companies cannot be allowed to suffer a competitive disadvantage, Sarkozy argued -- especially at a time when carmakers are being forced to reorganize their production systems in order to comply with climate change targets. "We can't be naïve, we must protect our industry," he said."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,585558,00....

In Britain, Labour promised to cut VAT tax (good) and to raise top rate of income tax to 45% (lol)

And as for Berlusconi, well, he actualy promised everything, even nationalisation of Air Italia.

Dont forget about Obamas victory. State interventionism as well as raising taxes for the Rich is next to come in USA right now. Cool isnt it?

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 18:19

meat eating leftist,

The EU's giant farming subsidies (France's, really) mean that African farmers cannot hope to compete against French goods in the European market. Oh well - I guess the socialists do care, but not about the third-world - is it all talk?

Free-market trade has the potential to enrich both parties. Free trade with China, India and the developing world has already raised hundreds of millions out of poverty. What has socialism ever done for these countries (apart from cause the death of over fifty million Chinese, that is) ?

meat eating leftist
10 December 2008 at 18:22

@a.m.r.

"Yes, but you'll notice that the best welfare systems of the world all exist within free-market democratic nations. It's the empowered mass choice of free individuals in a democratic society to care for the poor.

I think you are under a misconception, European nations still operate with free markets, which is just the voluntary exchange of goods at prices arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. Free-markets imply property rights, of course."

There is no free market economy in Europe, only free market ideology. Europe is social democratic, with strong mixed economies, big governments and state interventionism. You should remeber that in so called communist Poland (where I come from) property rights also existed as well as small businessmen.

Right now another pillar of free market ideology, deregulation, is falling into pieces. This teach us, that we need more and stricted regulations.

Instead of free market minimal state, European countries created big governments and thats why we could live in welfare now.

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 18:24

Vietnam finally switched from socialism to free-markets, and suddenly they managed to produce enough so as not to starve, and to prosper.

Go try telling the Vietnamese (as John Pilger did in a recent article) that you regret the passing of socialism in their country.

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 18:29

meat eating leftist,

If I can choose which goods and services I buy, and offer goods and services at a price set by myself, then I'm operating in a free market. Almost all transactions in Europe fall under this definition, therefore Europe is dominantly a free-market economy.

meat eating leftist
10 December 2008 at 18:48

Well, speaking about giant farming subsidies, you have completely ommited one tiny fact. USA is giving even more money to their farmers than EU, which affects Latin American agriculture. Are you insist that USA is socialist state as well?

There is no free market in China and India. State interventionism is very strong in those countries let alone that property rights hardly exist.

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 18:57

meat eating leftist,

re: US farming subsidies

So it's a socialist policy in the States that's harming the South American's. Was that your point?

writeon
10 December 2008 at 19:13

I am increasingly incredulous, gobsmacked, eyes popping out of my head in disbelief!

All this gobblygook about "free markets" is so inane, so trite, so not in touch with reality, that one is at loss to know how to respond. Where does one start? It's like trying to explain how a modern jet engine functions to a peasant in medieval England!

This talk about the primacy of "freedom" in the marketplace, doesn't exist in practice. The EU, the US, no country has free markets. There are small, niches, where the free market functions, in a highly controlled sphere, but in general the vast majority of the national and international economy isn't "free" at all. Certain people may, in public, support free markets in principle, as rhetoric, dogma, faith, ideology, but the same people know that this is only symbolic philosophy, it isn't real, just something one says for effect.

People do not choose freely in the marketplace, they can't. It would be impossible to administer. The vast majority of people, working people, live through the wages they earn. There is no free market for labour or wages. The state intervenes with myriad laws that effectively control wages and the abiltiy of working people to gain higher wages, by withdrawing their labour or striking. Banks can effectively "strike" in the UK, workers on the other hand are tied by hand and foot. So workers cannot offer their labour and services freely in the marketplace, they have to accept rules dictated by the state and their employers that severely control their ability to sell their labour freely.

In reality it's almost impossible to find a single area in the entire EU where the free market exists. It's the same in the USA. The free market is propaganda pure and simple, a myth, primative dogma for children, like the tooth fairy and Santa. Nobody actually believes this stuff anymore.

writeon
10 December 2008 at 19:33

The state intervening in the economy to support various sections is, what the state is for, why we have a the state and for that matter, states/nations. From the beginning of the capitalist period, production was favoured, nutured, protected by the monarch/state. The monarch granted capitalists charters, rights and mostly monopolies which strictly controlled competition.

At first, as capitalism and trade grew the captialists had their own private armies to protect their markets and trade, but as capitalism developed, the costs were prohibitive and cut into profits, then as the capitalists were increasingly important actors within the state apparatus, they pushed the cost of imperialism onto the state and national armies. The military costs of supporting impirialism were enormous, so the state took over the burden, effectively subsidizing the development of capitalism for centuries, and it was paid for by ordinary people through taxes and bodies as they were the ones who fought and died in wars for primarily the benefit of capital. Massive state intervention coupled with massive sudsidies and bailouts.

This protection, subsidies, exclusive charters, monopolies, military interventions, wars, colonies, imperialism; was the state stepping into the "marketplace" to support capitalism with men and money on a vast scale. It happened for centuries, and it's happening still. It is the essence, the very core of the supported marketplace.

PlanetStarbucks
10 December 2008 at 19:35

The myth of the free market; a market where if I spend all my money then I have been "free" in my choice (despite companies hiring psychologists in an effort to extract every last penny from me) whereas the multinationals which are meant to really represent the market are bailed out at the first sign of troube as not to do so would upset the system!

Free market means people go up and down and those who go down are replaced by those who can do a better job. Never existed. The bailout of multinationals has destroyed this myth even for the most ardent capitalists.

meat eating leftist
10 December 2008 at 19:40

a.m.r.

"You have problem with understanding meaning of the mixed economy. It is a specific blend of free market mechanisms with state interventionism, public sector and regulations.

If I can choose which goods and services I buy, and offer goods and services at a price set by myself, then I'm operating in a free market"

haha well this is a little bit more complicated. In communist Poland people could choose goods and services, as well as some businessmen could even set prices by themselves. In Norway state control prices in some sectors as well as dictate how many of certain goods can be aquired. Market dont confined itself only to buying goods in local shops. It is much more sophisticated, but i see that your view of the world is very flat.

writeon
10 December 2008 at 19:43

Some of the comments here are not meant to be taken seriously. It's just Troll's Talk, meaning and signifying nothing.

One cannot defend superstition and mythology, dogma, which is demonstrably false about "free markets" against the evidence of one's own eyes and objective reality. It's simply not possible to do this and be taken seriously at the same time. It's almost as if one were attempting to defend the existance of angels, witches, dragons or the little people, an invisble world. Sure, one can "argue" that gravity is really devils pulling us and everything else down towards Hell, but one would have to be almost insane to attempt to do so. Or we are able to fly because angels lift us upward to Heaven, but we now know this isn't true. Hell, Heaven, angels, devils, do not exist in reality. In the world of faith and dogma, ignorance and superstition, perhaps, but nowhere else.

Nilsey105
10 December 2008 at 20:12

The Chinese economy is on the precipice of a major crisis. Exports have dropped for the first time in 7 years.

This is one of the things that may throw the world into total turmoil.

if Chinese exports continue to drop and unemployment rises there will be increases in unemployment benefits.

If the Chinese authorities decide to pay for the unemployment welfare payments from its war chest of $2 trillion it has of USA calateral then that will almost certainly be like pulling the plug on the USA.

meat eating leftist
10 December 2008 at 21:32

a.r.m.

"So it's a socialist policy in the States that's harming the South American's. Was that your point?"

Nope. My point is that there is no such think like free market. State interventionism is everywhere. You claim that Europe or EU is free market entity and then you are proving that Europe has socialist policies like farming subsidies. This is utter nonsense. Neither Europe is free market nor farming subsidies are socialist policy. Its jus a proof that we have strong interventionism in some sectors and thats why we are calling this system a mixed economy.

If farming subsidies is socialist policy and USA has them huge it would led to conclusion that USA has quasi socialist economy.

You should also know that Latin America and South America are completely different things.

I agree with Jared on his statement about socialism.

Capitalism is a place where market control society, socialism on the other hand is a place where society control market and people are not subordinate to market and social construct.

btw

I refer you to Milton Friedman. Once, he made some experiment. He decided to check up platforms of socialist and communist party of USA. What he find out was a stunning fact that in general all socialist and most of comunist principles had been implemented in USA as well as in Europe.

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 21:37

meat eating leftist,

After nearly 50 years of communist rule, Poland's economy, based on state ownership and central planning, was in a terrible shape - over 600% inflation, with inefficient state-owned monopolies and massive national debt. Although unemployment was low but wages were extremely low, and there was extreme shortage of most goods.

It wasn't until they dropped price-controls and protectionism policies and switched to a capitalist market economy that they got inflation under control and began a long-term period of economic growth which averaged 6% p.a..

a.m.r.
10 December 2008 at 21:51

meat eating leftist:

"My point is that there is no such think like free market. State interventionism is everywhere. You claim that Europe or EU is free market entity and then you are proving that Europe has socialist policies like farming subsidies."

Yes - there are exceptions, and in some cases they are correct. I have no problem with that - the market is a tool created by humanity for humanity. If it needs correcting and nudging, then it should be.

I'm not a free-market fundamentalist. I have no problem with a modulated free-market. My point is, that if you take away the fundamental freedom of the market and switch to state ownership and control of prices, production and distribution, then the situation deteriorates (as supported by the historical record so far).

writeon
10 December 2008 at 23:42

It's not really a "mixed economy" it's more accurately decribed as "mixed-up economy."

The market wasn't created by humanity for the benefit of humanity. It had nothing to do with altruism, the bottom line was profit and growth. The "market" which was never a "free market", was created by the people who controlled the market, for the benefit of the people who controlled the market, not the rest of society.

Today, seen in a wider and longer historical perspective, the "free market" is swallowing the freedom of the rest of society, sacrificing our freedom on the alter of profit for a redundent and exhausted ideology.

Capitalism is based on the creation of growth, without growth it collapses, like a wheel that stops spinning and rolling. This had a purpose in the past, but today this form of production is a real threat to all of us.

We live on a small planet with limited resources, oil, water, gas, food, soil. There are limits to how much infinite growth our finite planet can take. We are destroying the ability of the natural biosphere to support life on earth, not only human life, but many other types of life. Yet the dogma, the religion of capitalism tells us we can just go on and on growing regardless of the limits of the planet to support this endless growth paradigm.

We are simply running out of available planets to live on. If Brazil, India, China, where to attain the same standard of living as North America, which they have every right to aim for, we'd need four extra planets like earth to supply them with the resoucrs needed to fulfill their ligitimate desire to develope to a level answering to the Wests.

This is impossible. We can not create or build four brand new planets with the resources we have at our disposal on this small and damaged planet. Yet the ideology of capitalism says we can just go on and on, forget reality, we can all just live off the dream! It's insane.

antileft
11 December 2008 at 02:39

One second meaty youre missing the point. You said "no one believes in a small state anymore." If the people of europe generally voted for politicians who said they would shrink the state then your statement is obviously wrong, isnt it? Lets look at your examples:

"Sarkozy pledge many things during elections, like freezing taxes and rasing benefits or even defending France against effects of globalisation. Soon after election he has created 100 000 jobs due to government spendings. And now, well, look for yourself "

Its not what he did thats the point is it? Its what he said hed do to get elected. He said hed make the state smaller. The french voted for it. Therefor one would think at least some of them (you seem to think "no one" hohoho) want a smaller state.

"In Britain, Labour promised to cut VAT tax (good) and to raise top rate of income tax to 45% (lol)"

LOL indeed, and yet overall there is a consensus that the state is now too big. That hes raising the top rate isnt relevant- your point was that no one wants a small state- not that no one wants inequality.

"And as for Berlusconi, well, he actualy promised everything, even nationalisation of Air Italia."

Again, thats not the point. The point is that the italian people voted for someone who promised to shrink the state. Who cares that his sums didnt add up? Who cares that he probably wont be able/ competant enough to shrink the state? Again, its not relevant- because clearly his election suggests that SOME italians must want a smaller state.

A question for you and I expect you to answer:

If the left is so strong now, and if we re moving towards socialism, why is it that in the EU there are only THREE left of centre governments which function without a coalition, and even those include britain and spain which are very moderate???? THREE OUT OF TWENTY SEVEN. Hardly a mandate for socialism is it?! One might even think that europeans want smaller states.

a.m.r.
11 December 2008 at 03:25

writeon: "Capitalism is based on the creation of growth, without growth it collapses, like a wheel that stops spinning and rolling."

The capitalist 'wheel' does not stop spinning when there is no growth. There is no collapse. A strange statement, writeon.

The economic growth rate fluctuates over time, sometimes negative, sometimes positive, and sometimes zero. Nothing special happens at zero.

(There is a 'Zero Growth' school of economic thought which says that we should always be steering the economy's growth rate towards zero as it goes through its fluctuations, in order to conserve limited resources).

Individual businesses do't need to grow to survive either. The only rule in business is if you can stay in business (by breaking at least even, in the long run), you're in business.

A company can stay at zero growth indefinitely - as long as there are buyers who want the products or services, the enterprise is productive - the employees and the owners both still earn an income, and the customers gain their desired goods or service.

Of course, markets have the capacity for great growth, and they grow more often than they shrink. They grow with population - mundanely, the more people means more wants and more people to work at providing those wants.

Markets also grow horizontally with our constant creativity and delight in making and experiencing new things (and old things anew).

The government is able to take a slice of all the earnings from this market activity (some of which activity may well be for frivolous or gratuitious ends, it doesn't matter), and provide the basic elements of our good society: rule of law, democratic government, public provision of utilities, infrastructure, education and medical aid.

The market is not responsible for all this, but it does play a useful tool until we are, by technological advancement or other agency, made completely self-sufficient for all our requirements.

a.m.r.
11 December 2008 at 03:28

"tool" = "role" in last paragraph.

writeon
11 December 2008 at 07:02

An ant marched across the face of the Mona Lisa

Its antennae accutely aware of all that was around

A cobweb, a fly, a tiny, tiny, grain of sand

Always onward, through a strange, stange, land

Stephen
11 December 2008 at 08:18

the origin of capitalism:

In order to survive a human being has to be able to

eat and drink. He has to possess that food and

water. He cannot share the food and water that

enters his body with other people. The food and

water are his own private property.

There is a minimum that he needs. If there is only a

minimum available for one person sharing the food

between two people will result in the death of both of

them. If ever such a situation occurs whoever has

the means of acquiring (production) that food and

water and consuming (distributing) he survives.

Profit: the excess or property left over after

consumption.

If there is more than individual needs he has extra,

he posses more than needs at that given time. Some

other individual comes along in need and demands

that extra (the origin of socialism). Should he give it?

Would you give it knowing that in about three hours

time you’ll be needing it? Knowing that if you didn’t

find anything else in that time you’ll suffer, and be

closer to death? And you also know that your

environment doesn’t yield hardly anything so the

chance of acquisition is minimal.

The First Shepherd of the Third Kingdom

Is your answer yes, no or three bags full?

a.m.r.
11 December 2008 at 10:20

To put it more simply, democracies with a capitalist free markets have proven themselves to be the best producers combined with having the highest standards of human rights and so have been best placed to provide social welfare, whether for themselves or for other nations abroad.

Other systems, like marxist socialism, communism and fascism, all of which subjugate the individual to a much greater degree to serving what may be, by themselves, noble goals, have all ended up as failures, often with disastrous consequences for the people involved.

a.m.r.
11 December 2008 at 10:28

The First shepherd of the Third Kingdom,

I would, but I'd ask him if he can also help us find more food, and maybe get sit together and think of whether we can come up with better methods of producing more food.

Someone like writeon, of course, after I'd spent six hours chasing and finally catching that rabbit, would probably call me a rich capitalist pig, and try to hang me and take my rabbit. I object to that.

Stephen
11 December 2008 at 11:56

The origin of capitalism and socialism: it is mixed

forever in the survival of our race. There has never

been one or the other in pure isolation nor will there

ever be.

In order to survive a human being has to be able to

eat and drink. He has to possess that food and

water. He cannot share the food and water that

enters his body with other people. The food and

water are his own private property.

There is a minimum that he needs. If there is only a

minimum available for one person sharing the food

between two people will result in the death of both of

them. If ever such a situation occurs whoever has

the means of acquiring (production) that food and

water and consuming (distributing) he survives.

Profit: the excess or property left over after

consumption.

If there is more than individual needs he has extra,

he posses more than needs at that given time. Some

other individual comes along in need and demands

that extra. Should he give it?

Would you give it knowing that in about three hours

time you’ll be needing it? Knowing that if you didn’t

find anything else in that time you’ll suffer, and be

closer to death? And you also know that your

environment doesn’t yield hardly anything so the

chance of acquisition is minimal.

Stephen
11 December 2008 at 12:11

After five hours of talking you come to no solution to

obtain extra food. The other man hits you over the head

with a big stone (the origin of warfare) in attempt to kill

and eat you for he is very hungry. You are cornered. Do

you try to defend yourself and kill him and eat him. Or

do let him kill and eat you. Or do you just carry on

talking?

a.m.r.
11 December 2008 at 12:34

First shepherd,

If there's no food to possibly be had, then we'll both die, whatever actions we take. We're descended from hunter-gatherers - co-operation between humans is not a problem.

I'm not really sure what point you're making.

antileft
11 December 2008 at 14:30

"An ant marched across the face of the Mona Lisa

Its antennae accutely aware of all that was around

A cobweb, a fly, a tiny, tiny, grain of sand

Always onward, through a strange, stange, land"

Hmm sounds like you need to get out more, writeon. Perhaps its time to get a girlfriend?

a.m.r.
11 December 2008 at 16:59

antileft, it's been a strange experience posting on this thread.

According to the various posters here, with one or two exceptions :

- It's not democracy, it's "democracy"

- Western capitalist democracies haven't been successful at providing high levels of human rights, prosperity and aid to the rest of the world, they've been "successful"

- the much-vaunted freedom of expression enjoyed in modern democracies is not freedom, it's "freedom"

- reports of millions killed in the Communist gulags are just right-wing capitalist propaganda

- the Ukranian famine (7m dead) was natural and unavoidable, not a man-made catastrophe.

- the Chinese famine was natural and unavoidable, not a man-made catastrophe

- the fact that almost every marxist governement ended up with a psychopathic leader, or acted psychopathically as a government towards its people, is not something to be given any kind of consideration, it's just one of those coincidences. To dwell on it at all is the act of a vicious right-winger.

- criticising the Marxist/Communist record without criticising the British Empire is the height of bad manners

I won't bother listing the smears, lies and accusations that have been levelled against me on this thread, except to say - you are not invited to tea, gentlemen.

Stephen
11 December 2008 at 20:13

During the fight Noam Chomsky, the great socialist

thinker comes along and says, 'Stop! All power is

illegal. Come to my country, here are two world

passports'.

They follow the leader. Noam is allowed in, the other

two are stopped. Those passports aren't valid say

the shepherds on the gate, we have to protect our

flock.

The men call to Noam ' Can you give us some food

from your freezer .' Noam who has over two million

dollars in a trust/tax advoidance fund in the States

replies, ' Sorry it's for my children and grandchildren'

" Well how about that stuff in your fridge?'" (Noam

has considerable personal wealth including a lovely

house)

' Sorry I need that food. I have forums to participate

in. We are solving the problem through discussion.

We are trying to get people to reject capitalist

propaganda, band together and take over the means

of production'

The people of Zimbabwe heard these words. They

banded together and took over the land primarily

owned by the white capitalist imperialist pigs. Great

rejoicing was heard from the large Chomsky

household, the red flag fluttered magnificently in the

breeze. Famine, hyper-inflation, murder and cholrea

graced the land as a result.

A similiar event occurred in China about fifty years

ago. Mao, that great Socialist leader said,' Wouldn't it

be nice if there was an iron and steel mill in all our

back yards.' Sounds great said the Chinese, downed

their shepherds croaks and rice hoes, and built

thousands of crappy mills. A unavoidable famine

that killed millions resulted, made not by man but by

another great thinker with no practical sense and a

desire to bless thousands of girls with a veneral

disease.

Am I invited to coffee, I'll bring my own VD? I am no

gentleman, only a lowly shepherd, but the wolves

don't eat my sheep even when they dress up.

antileft
12 December 2008 at 04:22

"the fact that almost every marxist governement ended up with a psychopathic leader, or acted psychopathically as a government towards its people, is not something to be given any kind of consideration, it's just one of those coincidences. To dwell on it at all is the act of a vicious right-winger."

Isnt it amazing how communism can be tried SO MANY times in so many totally different places, with the same results, and still those in support say "no, thats because they did it badly. Lets try again!"

The idiots who posted here cant hide the poverty, the lack of rights, the lack of votes, or that fact that the end result is always more or less the same regardless of the character of the great leader who tried. They should give up like the other commies. There are so few left it must be embarassing.

david skitmore
12 December 2008 at 07:05

Haven't enough workers suffered and lost their lives under that scarlet banner.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 08:40

It's not socialism, it's "socialism"

It's not communism, it's "communism"

Why isn't kind of qualification just as valid as differentiating between democracy and "democracy"?

The West doesn't have an exclusive patent on the concept of democracy. Western democracy isn't *The* Democracy, it's a form or type of democracy, a variant, Western societies are not absolutey "democratic". They are "democracies" with qualifications. They are not all the same, they differ. Some are clearly more democratic than others. Some have reasonably fair voting systems - proportional representation, others don't - first past the post.

It is sectarianism gone mad, blinding oneself to unpleasant reality, to exclusively concentrate on the shortcomings and crimes, the mass murders of the "red" side, yet choose to ignore the mass killings carried out by Western governments for centuries and up to today. Can one ignore the 2 to 3 million Iraqi dead, the result of seige, invasion and occupation, so easily?

If one really cares about human rights and focuses on mass-killing, surely all the killing has to be taken into account, even the killing carried out by Western democracies?

And what exactly is "freedom"? Is freedom really so simple a concept to define?

And this sentimental idea that the West is so generous and alturistic with its foreign aid is yet another gross oversimplification on top of all the other partisan oversimplifications, one on top of the other.

One can choose for political/ideological and purely dogmatic reasons to devide the world into two simple catagories, the Good and the Bad, us and them. I suppose it's a comfort to imagine the world resembles a propaganda cartoon, it's certainly far easier to "understand", but such an attitude has precious little to do with complex and contradictory reality.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 09:08

This is futile I suppose, but just for the record, if anyone ever bothered to read this thread some time.

"Communism" has never been implimented by any government anywhere. Communism is a political theory about how one could organize society in the future. A theory, a form of Utopian goal. It's never been put into practice. It's a goal. Like brotherly love, the end of war, hunger and poverty. Communism was something to strive for, part of an ongoing process. As a concept it was generally held by socialist thinkers that communism would follow naturally and organically as socialism took root and evolved. The timescale envisaged was substantial, measured in centuries rather than decades. Probably the only examples of a form of primative "communism" in existance are isolated tribes in the Amazon, but this is debatable and complex. What isn't debatable is that "communism" has never existed or been tried, successful or otherwise in any modern or advanced society.

Socialism is a different story. There have been attempts to introduce varieties of "socialism" in several countries,with varying degrees of success, to say the least. It's not clear whether China is still a "socialist" regime anymore or not. Social Democracy in Europe has proved extremely successful in a number of Nordic countries. Perhaps the most successful example of a form of "socialism", but this is highly controversial, is the United States! Which could be said to have form of "militaristic socialism" or perhaps "ruling class socialism"? or "capitalist welfare socialism". It's certainly not the "free market" that primarily characterises this system, but rather a form of "inverted socialism" for the rich and Darwinian capitalism for the rest of society.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 09:46

I don't want to appear like I'm defending totalitarianism in Russia or China and the disasterous policies adopted their under the worst excesses their dictatorships. To do so would be both foolish and dishonest.

Obviously if one is an ardent believer in the blessing of Western style democracy and capitalism the follies, mistakes and disasters, the sheer brutalilty of these regimes, and their formal ideology of "socialism" are an anathema and can be used as an example of how not to organize society. This is perfectly valie and understandable.

But of course, we in the West, who feel threatened by the very idea of a socialist alternative to capitalism, the threat to ruling class hegemony, will choose to concentrate on the glaring faults of these two regimes as examples of how bad things can get.

But I think it's unfair to concentrate on the negative aspects of China and Russia exclusively. The dominant alternative system, Western capitalism, also has its negative characteristics too, which one cannot just ignore. By all means attack the socialist states and their disasterous policies, but then in all fairness one has to apply the same analytical vigour to the practice, both historical and contemporary, of "free market" capitalism, which after all is and always has been the dominant form of soical organization in the world.

It's also disingeunous to arbitrarily choose a historical cut-off point for mass murder that includes the excesses of China and Russia, yet does not include the "genocidal" and imperialist politicies of the West, which are too numerous to mention. Obviously not including them on the great "genocide scale" is politically motivated, as the number of deaths the West is responsible for exceeds that of the the bloodiest "socialist" regimes. Only, understandibly, partisans choose to forget and ignore these mountains of corpses in their ideological and dogmatic war with the "reds" on the battlefield of the "Truth."

antileft
12 December 2008 at 10:22

Oh writeon!!! Again, you fail to see the point.

" the mass murders of the "red" side, yet choose to ignore the mass killings carried out by Western governments for centuries and up to today. Can one ignore the 2 to 3 million Iraqi dead, the result of seige, invasion and occupation, so easily?"

No one is trying to justify the capitalist country's many errors, massacres, and stupid wars! What we re saying (as Ive already told you) is that capitalism allows, and has allowed many times, freedom of speech, multiple elections, human rights, and economic growth. COMMUNISM HAS NEVER ALLOWED THAT. Thats what we re saying. We re saying that yes, both sides have done bad things. But communism has ALWAYS been bad. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. Thats the problem writeon. PAY ATTENTION. Or give me a list of exceptions. GO AHEAD- ID LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY.

"They are "democracies" with qualifications. They are not all the same, they differ."

Yes but again- same thing. Sometimes capitalist countries regularly allow a proper choice between competing views. COMMUNIST COUNTRIES NEVER DO. This is the difference. Pay attention- Im tired of repeating this to you only to have you rant on and on and miss the point yet again.

""Communism" has never been implimented by any government anywhere."

Yes but its the countries that try to implement it that fail every time, isnt it?? THEY ALL FAILED. WHY SHOULD ANYONE TRY AGAIN??

"This is futile I suppose, but just for the record, if anyone ever bothered to read this thread some time. "

This is true- I rarely bother to read all your posts. The reason is that there's so much repeating, poetic gibberish without any real meaning, and just general ranting that it's hard to pay attention- this one is no exception- I dont have the patience to read your whole rant. Try to say what you want to say quicker so we dont need to skip the gibberish.

Stephen
12 December 2008 at 11:39

I like to have the opportunity to decide the course of

my life and my flocks'. Indeed I have taken it knowing

that if I saved my excess profit, invested it wisely I

would free from the shackles of other people's

expectations of my life. It hasn't been easy for I have

forsaken immediate consumption for many a year .

Four years ago at 44 I became free from the

monotony of work. My father worked hard for himself

and his flock as did my grandfather and his father

and so on. They didn't work for anyone else. I

worked for myself and my family and no one is going

to stick their hypocritical oar into my pot of freedom.

All western socialist ranting is hypocritical for in the

west we are all rich in comparison to many in the

third world. If you say you would give the man half of

your food then why don't you right now for you hold

profit. You probably consume far more than you

need. Why don't you cut back on your consumption

and give your excess to others in the third world?

Why because like me and Noam Chomsky you are

first and foremost living for yourself and your flock. I

feel no guilt. I enjoy the fruits of my labour, my

father's labour and so on. And I will pass it on to the

best of my ability to my four children over all other

people. I will resist all the hypocritical rantings of the

Chomskys, the Maos, the guilt ridden western rich

middle classes for I know that they do not do as they

say others should do.

Do you consume the bare minimum and give the rest

to others? If the answer is yes then you are a true

saint, and there is not many of them around. If it is no

then it is the H word for you. Is my point getting a bit

pointer?

The First Shepherd of The Third Kingdom

writeon
12 December 2008 at 12:29

So the millions of dead care about whether they were killed by "socialist" bullets or "capitalist" bullets? Highly unlikely.

The idea, or logic, in the argument that mass killings can be excused or justified or ligitimised because they are carried out by "democracies" fails to impress me, sorry.

Who cares whether one is butcherd by democrats or totalitarians? Saddam killed hundreds of thousands, Bush killed hundreds of thousand of Iraqis. What's the difference? That Bush allows people to criticize him?

So we have "free and fair elections" a "free press" and can vote, fantastic. None of that is relevant to the dead. None of that means that our killing is "better" or can be justified as superior to the killing carried out by a tyrant. The dead are still dead. That they've been killed in a "good cause" by "good people" for "good reasons" is hardly relevant.

The North American Indians were exterminated by the Europeans who invaded North America. The Indians weren't asked for their opinion or asked to vote about their attitude to being invaded. At the same time the Europeans had a free press, freedom of speech, elections, the ruld of law, votes about all sorts of things. This pattern of imperial conquest was repeated all over the world. Bourgeois civil rights do not provide an excuse for imperialism or tilt the scale in favour of capitalism.

For people who are opressed the difference between opression by "democrats" or "communists" is of marginal importance.

The reason capitalism "succeeded" is, paradoxically, that historically it has been far better and ruthless in destroying it's opponents and conquering, than the "communist" states ever where, and it's been at it far longer.

Now, after its supposed triumph over communist totalitarianism, capitalism itself is collapsing as the structural and systemic faultlines split it open from top to bottom. The bourgeois myth of democracy revealed for what it is, a variant of totalitarianism.

antileft
12 December 2008 at 14:10

"So we have "free and fair elections" a "free press" and can vote, fantastic. None of that is relevant to the dead."

One second writeon- we all know that the dead dont care.

But my question is: do the living care about "free and fair elections" a "free press" and the ability to vote??

Answer the question, writeon. And Im talking about the living in general- not philosophical intellectuals with their heads in the clouds like you.

Optimist
12 December 2008 at 14:35

Writeon, maybe you’re right, perhaps “communism” has never been implemented anywhere by any government. But neither has “capitalism”, arguably, and I know which kind of failed implementation I would rather experience.

And yes, just like modern socialist dictatorships, modern western democracies have unjustly killed a lot of people through military action. Modern western democracies, however, tend not to kill millions of their own people through starvation, disease, and outright murder, which is a significant difference.

Socialist dictatorships generally do not allow people to have debates like the one we are having here. Neither are they well known for producing the kind of technological innovation that has provided the means for us to conduct this debate.

I am sure that neither you, nor any worker’s committee, nor any socialist dictatorship, could do a better job of pricing access to this blog than the market has already.

Personally, I am very happy with the market price of this technology, a price which is almost free at the margin and which was set, not by any central authority, but by millions of freely expressed actions and preferences.

Socialist dictatorships, by definition, disallow freely expressed actions and preferences, usually at the point of a gun.

If you truly believe what you are saying, your participation here is contradictory and hypocritical.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 16:37

Optimist.

I'm not sure that it makes much difference whether one kills one's own people or foreigners. Why should one be better than the other? Why is this difference significant. I'm sure the dead don't see a signifcant difference.

Surely it's possible to discuss a subject rationally and objectively without being labelled an apologist for a particular regime? I am not defending "communism" or Stalin or Mao or their dictatorships!

This idea that only "communists" trampled on human rights, freedom and bourgeois democracy, is incorrect. For decades capitalist dictatorships supported by the military controlled countries all over the world, often with help from the West.

There have been socialist dictatorships. There have been capitalist dictatorships who ruled by the point of a gun too. Also it's highly debatable that during the last twenty years, since the fall of the Eastern Block, millions of people have died of hunger and desease, simply because under the capitalist system they couldn't afford to produce or buy the food or medicine they required. One cannot blame non-existant "communism" states for that surely? We choose to allow millions to die, because they can't pay for food and medicine, this is the maket system at work too. It isn't just about prosperity in London and New York, it's also about death and hunger in Africa. Only we make an ideological choice to ignore the more negative sides of "free markets" instead we assert that these deaths are somehow natural, and have no direct connection with the way we produce and distribute wealth in the world.

Modern democracies do choose to kill millions of innocent people, Iraq is a prime example, tens of thousands have been killed in Afghanistan as well.

It's easy to see the positive side of capitalism living in a rich Western country, if one has money. Someone dying of aids in South Africa and unable to buy medicine may not appriciate the blessings of capitalism.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 16:55

There are reasons why advanced Western countries are so rich and can afford so many material and other freedoms. This didn't just happen. It was part of a historical process. A long time ago my ancestors made a awful lot of money from producing sugar on Jamaica. They were, by all reports a lovely bunch of people. They loved music, the arts, they patronised artists, they built a school and a hospital for the the people in a nearby town and gave money to the poor as well. They weren't bad people at all by the standards of the eighteenth century. In fact they were very radical and supported the French Revolution, as did many of their class, for a while. Anyway, almost their entire standard of living was based on the cheap labour of slaves, hundres of them, stolen from Aftica.

Now, one can argue that this accumulation of wealth is irrelevant today, but is it? This Jamaican fortune financed the beginning of the family fortune. The profits went into three coalmines in the North, which provided profits that then went into factories in Manchester. My people did extraordinarily well out of capitalism and the "free market" though the slaves were not free and the workers in the mine didn't have much choice and the people in the mills weren't too happy with their meagre wages either. They were "free" to starve or work. Not really much choice there!

So as my family became richer so did many others in Britain and the country as a whole. Freedom didn't just come out of the sky from God. It was part of the trappings of very rich society, a society that could afford freedom and allow freedom and needed freedom. Lots of poor countries were trapped at a far lower level of development and couldn't pay for the "freedom" luxuries we developed.

Russian and Chinese and most other versions of "socialism" developed not from a tea-party, but from terrible civil wars, that brutalised everybody, ruined their economies and led to the rise of totalitarian dictatorships. This was significant.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 17:10

There's absolutely nothing hypocritcal or contradictory about my participation here.

What I find disturbing is how "right" and "correct" some of you think you are about capitalism and the blessings of the "free market".

I believe I'm far less sure about this. I'm also critical of totalitarian "socialism" as well. I don't believe I've advocated "socialism" at all, or praised Stalin or Mao anywhere. I wish I was so sure I was right as you appear to be. That must be nice, a comfort, to really believe one understands the complexity of the world with such consumate ease.

I don't think we'll ever see socialism. It's too late for that solution to stand a chance now. Perhaps if things had developed differently decades ago and all the killing hadn't happened, but it's hard to say.

But neither am I particularly optimistic about capitalisms future prospects. It's tied to growth and the exploitation of the environment and there's no way this can continue at current rates. Already the capitalist system is reaching the physical limits of this planet. Infinite growth isn't posisble on planet with finite resources of water, food and other vital raw materials.

But this is almost becoming a religious discussion. I just don't believe. I don't have faith in the capitalist religion, sometimes I wish I could force myself to, but I can't.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 17:26

I'm not sure that the living care very much about a free presss, or free elections, or the ability to vote.

I don't believe it matters especially who one votes for. The press is certainly not free, and elections is the most free country on earth cost 1.5 billion dollars, not very free in my opinion.

If these things were really were "free" this would make a difference, only they are not "free". Whatever that means in this context, in a market society where everything costs. I'd prefer far more democratic control of all our institutions. With far more elections and far more freedom and access to the media, far less control. We ration so much through the price system, which is fine, one can delude oneself that one has choice, but the choice has already been made for one by one's ability to pay.

It's funny that in a society that's supposed to be so democratic, that so much of it is owned and controlled by a minority with money. A voter has far less real power than a multi-millionaire, yet we are supposed to accept this as normal and a natural thing in a "democracy" why? Are we really supposed to believe that the majority choose democratically to relinquish democratic control over society and hand it over to an elite and very rich minority? Isn't this somewhat of a paradox?

What really characterises our society is not that it's a democracy with freedom for all, but that we live in a market society, where freedom is based not on votes, but on one's access to wealth and power. Sad, but true.

Stephen
12 December 2008 at 20:28

Write on;

You are right on a number of points write on.

-The wealth of the West has indeed been partly

achieved through the labours of the Third World and

the theft of land and subjugation of indigenous

people.

-individuals have only a binary choice between two

parties, although if one party strays too far one or

t'other they out on their arses.

- that there is a rich minority who hold most of the

wealth which in turn allows them to have power of

their lives and those of others.

However you fail to recognise that you are part of that

minority. When you see yourself in relation to all the

people in the world you are one of the richest. What

you consume is far greater than most other people.

You have the power to curtail your consumption, sell

many of your possessions, and redistribute all of the

excess to very poor people in the third world. Do I

see you doing this? Go on you be the first because

no one else is doing it. Certainly not people like

Noam Chomsky who is a multi-millionaire and makes

even more dosh by play acting the socialist.

The red flag has not be seen fluttering over Europe,

only loud hailers telling others to start hoisting it.

They make a lot of noise but keep their hands tightly

in their own pockets.

Don't worry about the future or feel guilty of the past.

Do what you need to do. Do what you ask others to

do.

a.m.r.
12 December 2008 at 22:24

Writeon, you object to the existence of inequalities.

The trouble is that the attempts made so far to provide (and enforce) equality of income and power have ended up ensuring that everyone is equally poor. And of course, the distribution of power has never actually remained equal in any historical examples.

Inevitably, some people perform better than others, whether through desire or ability. You can't make everyone run at the same speed, unless it's a very low speed.

Our successfull modern states (I speak of the capitalist market democracies) have recognised this fact, and allowed people their own head.

writeon
13 December 2008 at 00:23

I don't object to the exitance of inequalities pre se. I object to the existance of grossly unequal societies that re-inforce and entrench inequalities based on vast disparities of wealth and power. Democracy, socialist or capitalist, cannot function properly or optimally, if inequalities based on wealth and power are too pronounced and uncontrolled.

I've lived in several countries, mostly the Nordic ones, where the people generally contend that their societies are the most fair, equal, just, harmoneous and happy in the entire world. These countries are also some of the richest and most successful. Nearly everyone agrees on the need to preserve and strengthen the welfare state and one could argue that almost all the political parties are more or less Social Democratic. In these countries capitalism is under control, and here, one could argue that everyone is equally rich, within certain limits, not poor.

Vast and entrenched differences in wealth and power are a threat to democracy which requires and presuposes a high degree, not absolute, of social, economic and political equality. Surely democracy means political equality for all. Can one really have political equality without a high degree of economic and social equality? Aren't these things connected, can one really have one without the others? How one achieves this is, and to what degree is debatable and debated.

Stephen
13 December 2008 at 01:13

Write on:

You are right

Communism has never been achieved, it is merely a

theory from the great hypocrite Karl Marx (he who

drank and whored away his meagre subsidy leaving

his family in the dirt ). He saw capitalism giving away

to socialism due to

conflict between B and P. Socialism, the public

ownership of the means of production, would in turn

lead to communism. He got it wrong not only in his

description of history but in the direction that society

would take.

For instance he saw the socialist

revolution occurring in his own lifetime, and was

pissed off when it didn't.

His writings were motivated primarily by revenge

from being hounded from his job in Germany. He

was selective in the information that he presented to

support his case much the same way

people select their information today. And of course

he was financially supported by his mate Engles.

The conflict between B and P didn't intensify as

anticipated by Karl. Some of the P became B, and

some B became P as the opportunity to climb up the

ladder grew. And even if you didn't try or weren’t

lucky you and your flock prospered because the

wealth of all grew. This meant that the conflict never

intensified but dissipated. Karl got it wrong.

After Karl died other people read his

stuff and believed he was right. This was especially

true of people who were disgruntled with their

position in life for one reason or another. This is

hardly surprising as Karl was.

Lenin, the son of a minor noble, was

disgruntled for being minor not major, read a bit of

Marx and presumed he found his solution. Off he

went on his sleigh criss-crossing Europe until 1917

when he forced his reign in. The state takeover

wasn't a complete disaster but it wasn't that

successful either.

Nowadays, there is 'bottom up' socialist morality and

prediction bull, mainly from conformists in their own

sphere fitting in (e.g. arts academics, NS journos) ; a

psychological survival technique

eddie
13 December 2008 at 12:02

First Shepherd

How unfair to Karl. He was greatly loved by his children and at least tolerated by his artistocratic wife. But arguing that Marx's ideology was really an expression of psychological disorders is entirely false. At its core is a compelling argument about how value is created and distributed which has not been refuted by any reputable economist, dispite many efforts. This does not mean he was right of course.

He was wrong about value: it's created by human interaction, not isolated labour. And he was wrong about the inevitability of class confllict. We have survived (and dare I say progressed) because human co-operation has triumphed (in the end).

I say. Isn't that socialism?

proudlyleft
13 December 2008 at 13:05

Don't start counting your chickens yet! What Europe is getting is protectionism, not socialism. The rich always protect their own interests, as families or nations. THAT IS NOT SOCIALISM!

a.m.r.
13 December 2008 at 17:27

Karl Marx: ""The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production ... The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation between parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting."

Karl Marx did not have a healthy mind.

Stephen
13 December 2008 at 19:39

Eddie

Most children love their parents no matter what they

do. Maybe they did love him, maybe they didn't, we

don't really know. We do know that Karl neglected

his children and for me that is important when

assessing his words as actions speak louder.

To understand his words you have to see him as a

person who acted and was acted upon in certain

ways. What motivated this person to write in this way

was not an objective observation of the way society

is and 'should' be. Karl spent most of his life with his

nose in a book in a library. How can he know the

best way for human society to be especially as he

didn't even look after his own flock properly? Call his

mind what you want , but I just see

him as another book worm who let his sheep be

eaten by the wolves.

Karl's followers are also disgruntled people crying

'It's not fair, it's not fair. He's got more sheep than me.

We should all have the same amount. Viva the

revolution!' Sorry cool dudes you'll be crying all your

life. Get yourself a crock and start building your

flock.

I am interested to know what you mean by value (is it

wealth?). What bits are compelling to you cos I

couldn't find any? Please elaborate.

Proudlyleft:

You are right that the current policy in Europe is not

socialism as private property is still allowed. It is

indeed protectionism, protecting us rich Westerners

from losing some of our wealth. I take it you don't

protect your wealth and give it all away . Could you

pass it over to me because I collect it. Or do you only

give it to the poor in the Third World? Do your

actions match your words?

I know you told us not to, but I have counted my

chickens. There are only ten left after an intial 21.

My sheepdog keeps killing them (instinct). It's my

own fault for not securing them properly. I feel

ashamed that I have neglected my shepherding

duties. I must get me nose out of these words.

The First Shepherd of the Third Kingdom

writeon
13 December 2008 at 20:37

Karl Marx was a bit grumpy. I suppose it had something to do with living in tiny place in England, full of women and visitors and trying to work on Kapital and write newspapir articles and borrow money from Engels to pay the butcher. Even his mother wrote to him after he'd asked her for a bit of cash and said, "Karl, can't you try making a bit of capital, instead of writing about it all the time?!" That must have hurt, ouch!

Marx probably had a mistress too and a allegedly a child with a servant though apparently dear old Freddie Engels stepped in a took "responsibility."

This is all great fun and juicy gossip, signifying what? Great men are just as capable of doing ungreat things as the rest of us, so what? Dickens wrote about families and he had two mistresses one in each end of London, so what? It doesn't make "Great Expectations" a worse book!

I have lots of skeletons in my cupboard that would make Karl and Freddie and Dickens look like quireboys! Who cares? None of my myriad faults are important to my work, in fact they only make it better.

Stephen
14 December 2008 at 04:15

Write on:

I care for I would not follow a shepherd who does not

take care of his flock nor would I trust him with my

crock. Neither would you and many others. It's a bit

like trusting a pedophile with your kids .. foolish. Do

you honestly think I would take advice on child

management from such a person? It's like taking

dietary advice from Michael Moore. So why should

society take advice from someone who couldn't even

tender his own flock? His mother was right to tell

him to get his act together for his analysis of society

and predictions for the future was incorrect.

You indicate that you have done very bad things in

your past ( skeltons in your cupboard) and this has

made your work better. What kind of a person are

you now? Someone who is proud that they have

done very bad things and wearing it as a badge of

honour ('hey look at my big badge, it's makes my

work better!). It is no wonder why you are following a

path that if successful would result in more bad

things, certainly when it comes to me and my flock.

What's wrong with you? Are you trying to equalise

your wrongs by believing in such an ideology or did

you do these bad things while you believed that Marx

was right. Why exactly are you saying that some of

my sheep must be redistributed to other people?

These are my sheep, They are for me and my family.

This is another one of your faults, expecting people

to give away their sheep. Is it because you don't

have many sheep and want more? You honestly

don't think you have the moral high ground do you?

This disgruntlement of yours will only result in more

unhappiness, and probably more bad things. The

best thing you can do is to clean yourself up( no

intoxicants, lots of exercise) You may need to go to a

doctor for help or religious establishment. Next, get

rid of that 'I've done bad things so I'm better' badge.

Regret those bad things. Finally get yourself a

crock and build a clean healthy faultless flock.

writeon
14 December 2008 at 14:21

Baa, baa, baa. Lambs skipping to the slaughter, after the wools been pulled over their little eyes. Mutton dressed as lamb, not to mince words, is where we are at.

A sheep broken on the wheel of fortune. No good sheppard this time to save it. A no-good sheppard wears loose boots when Saturday comes around.

Nymphs and sheppards come away, come away, boys and girls, Pan's in the hills, Pan's in the hills.

Pain, not always, but usually. The sheppard's dog is on the prowl. Catch a lamb for dinner, catch a lamb for love?

The good sheppard knows he shouldn't but the nymph's too sweet, the nymph's too sweet.

The Pan inside him knows all about pain.

The nymphs been up the hill before. She comes for the pain, the pain and the ram.

Nilsey105
14 December 2008 at 22:14

lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world grant us peace

writeon
14 December 2008 at 23:37

Hallelujah! Brother, Hallelujah!

I'm coming down from the mountain for a while and returning to work, allowing myself to get so easily distracted is getting beyond a joke.

Stephen
15 December 2008 at 04:51

"Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate

with the wise; and to honor those who are worthy of

honor -- this is the greatest blessing.

To reside in a suitable locality, to have done

meritorious actions in the past and to set oneself in

the right course -- this is the greatest blessing".

the Buddha

Stephen
15 December 2008 at 05:04

Write on;.

You wearing your big sarcasm badge again. Do you

honestly think it works? Do you think it shows that

you are clever? All it shows that you have a lot of

hatred which is not going to be healthy for you or the

people who cross your path. It is ugly.

My friend Alan was a rabid Marxist whose rage

literally deafen us when he shouted down the

mircophone. His anger at the 'injustice' of the world

made him unhappy. He did the same politics course

as me and even went on and did a doctorate. I met

him by coincidence on Kovalem beach in South India

in the mid 80s. He was searching for his wife!

Like me he resided in Asia for quite a few years and

is now a Buddhist monk. He found that his anger

was literally eating him up and was becoming ill. He

knew he had to change his thought patterns

otherwise he would become a sick and bitter old

man. A bit like Marx.

While I don't consider myself religious I find that

religious people generally have happier lives than

socialists who are forever frustrated, mean, sarcastic

and unhappy.

Alan is a much happier person now and his humour

doesn't have that ugliness. Whilst I am not a

Buddhist, his life and words are much more attractive

and truthful than those of Marx. By focusing your

attention on Marx you are absorbing the ugliness of

this person. It's up to you if you want to lead such a

life but don't expect other people to even consider

following such ugliness.

You need to remove yourself from your environment,

Go on a Buddhist retreat (Tandy, Sri Lanka); get that

ugly dirt out of your system. It stinks. Don't you know

that people can smell it? That's the best work for you.

Because until you're clean you've nothing of worth to

write about. Don't worry you wont miss the revolution

because it's not going to happen. A slight hiccup in

the capitalist growth and you're thinking 'this is the

time, yea!' get real

I can only show you greener pastures. It's up to to

eat it.

Thomas Devine
15 December 2008 at 18:43

I was well aware that Sociallism would make a comeback after 1989. Big ideas always do. It is the quality of the comeback that counts.

American Patriotism is a big idea on this side of the pond. After Vietnam and Watergate certain folks said American Patriotism was gone forever and the USA would soon be a nuetered puppy that would jump through any hoop the European elites ordered it to. However; American Patriotism came back---as poison under Ronald Reagan.

It's not if Socialism was going to come back, it's what has it come back as. Re-read "The Monkey's Paw" or any good history of Germany 1920-1945. Socialism can easily return as a vampire.

I've no doubt that some form of democratic socialism is the way forward. But we've not seen anybody really try to make it work.

Also as an American, who in all my fourty-eighty years on this planet has been keenly aware that my nation and people are seen as pariahs, I'm aware that if a viable democratic socialism is created, neither me nor mine would ever be accepted is full citizens. You European need so much to hate us. And most of the rest of the world's people ape you in this to gain status.

Given your fudemental core of cold selfishness, I see no real future for Socialism amoung you.

writeon
15 December 2008 at 22:22

Tom,

Most people, all over Europe, don't hate Americans. Witness the outpouring of warmth and joy at the victory of Obama, his glorious appearance in Berlin. 90% of Germans would have voted or him if they'ed been given the chance. Gordon Browne loves Ameican. Sarkozy adores the United States. American culture, films, music, writers are incredibly popular. People can't get enough of it.

But what people can't stand is the American "ruling class" when it's unleashed on the world, for example, Bush the Butcher of Baghdad. He, unfairly in my opinion, is regarded as a dangerous and stupid loon, a half-crazed sheriff leading a posse of lunatics from an asylum on a fools errand to rid the world of evil.

Why do Europeans despise Bush and the ruling class? Basically because Europe is very Social Democratic and the US ruling elite isn't. They are perceived as arrogant, dangerous and ultra-right-wing.

Stephen
16 December 2008 at 05:38

Tom

Write on is correct in his analysis although obviously

some people let it spill over into hatred of all things

American. Buddha’s cause and effect ideas will be

useful for these foolish people.

I am surprised that there hasn’t been any Marxists

jumping down your throat when you used democracy

and socialism in conjunction. They would argue that

socialism couldn’t be achieved through the ballot box

only armed struggle. They would define as it as

complete public ownership and distribution of the

means of production. They see an international

revolution! If only Marxists used this word it would be

much clearer to understand the concept.

Unfortunately other people apply it to mean other

things which confuses its meaning. Democratic

socialism is seen by some as a kind of benevolent

capitalism. strong welfare net, income equalization

via taxation limited private enterprise etc. This is

seen as an evolutionary process rather than

revolutionary. I would like to see the word chucked

into the Marxist waste bin along with the rest of his

rubbish so that we can get some clarity and move

forward.

Lets call democratic socialism ‘benevolent national

capitalism’ (BNC). BNC is in place in nearly every

country of the world as most countries have private

enterprise and redistribution of wealth for

government duties, state enterprises, and welfare via

taxation. They have two basic problems. Firstly if

they tax too much private enterprise and rich

individuals tend to go elsewhere (third world, tax

havens) because they want to keep hold of their

property. Or they don’t bother creating because they

know it will be taken away from them. Secondly, the

welfare and taxation system (Italy!) are abused and

people who are doing the right thing get annoyed

and frustrated.

Then the third world puts its head in and even people

on welfare payments realize they are screaming,

‘rich capitalist pigs’ in the mirror.

A gestalt switch is needed starting with the

shepherd… and his flock.

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 12:32

first shepherd,

Your use of the shepherd and flock analogy is inconsistent.

Are the sheep your material goods, as you seem to be saying at some points? (eg. " Why exactly are you saying that some of my sheep must be redistributed to other people? These are my sheep, They are for me and my family.")

Or do the sheep refer to people eg. " My father worked hard for himself and his flock as did my grandfather and his father and so on." and "I would not follow a shepherd who does not take care of his flock nor would I trust him with my crock." (speaking of Marx's neglect of his children and family.)

antileft
16 December 2008 at 16:47

"Given your fudemental core of cold selfishness, I see no real future for Socialism amoung you."

And there we have the root of the problem. Socialism will NEVER work because people are people and very few people are actually prepared to work hard "for the love of their fellow man". That's just not human. If you cant give me extra for my hard work, I shant work hard. That's life. So socialism (at least in the "we re all equal" kind of way) does not, and will not work. Ever. Sorry, socialists. You cant square that circle.

And that's the bottom line.

William
17 December 2008 at 00:30

When the USSR broke up, the apparatus of the bureaucracy remained and learned from the new masters that was the EU. Seeing the apparency demise of the Western ideologies through the bankruptcy of the banking system, think they have come forth to the promised land.

America will revitalise itself when it has a new foe that it understands, and will rebuild whole heartedly. The biggest downside to any army, is getting its troops to actually kill its foe, then return to base and carry on as normal. National Guards in the US are trained for this continguency.

I should of listened to all and sundry that have warned as I read these columns these last few months. NWO is ready for next stage of total totalitarianism forthwith.

Stephen
17 December 2008 at 04:36

William

A fascinating analysis that took me a few reading to

understand. Could you please clarify what you mean

by 'total totalitarianism' How is it different from say

partial, semi, and slight totalitarianism? Also I take it

this NWO is the New World Order. What exactly is

this? Will it not be old if it goes to the next stage?

a.m.r.

I'll be with you in a while once I've stopped laughing

from the above and when William provides some

apparency clarity.

Stephen
17 December 2008 at 10:02

AM

Thank you for examining my text and asking an

insightful question. Whilst I hate to muddy the waters

of my message I have to tell you that I have an actual

sheep dog (Max), a real crock (inline hockey stick),

and ten actual sheep (to keep the grass down). I

have been using analogy but it’s also a useful state

of mind that has been created .. somehow!

The sheep are me, my material goods, and my

family.; they are one and the same. Reexamine my

initial message about private

property. The food that I consume is my private

property. It becomes part of me. It can only become

public ownership if someone kills and eats me.

Then someone kills that person and so forth and so

forth. Unless we all become cannibals, socialism,

(public ownership of the all the means of production)

is unobtainable. I am assuming that the initial means

of production stems from the individual.

So there is always going to be some form of private

ownership... a new individual base to start from. We

are in an environment that we must

initially survive and thrive both physically and

psychologically (both are

interlinked). We all have our own perceived ‘level’ of

material wants to satisfy our own perceived needs.

My children are a physical part of me and my wife so

I do what I can to allow them to thrive. This is not just

providing them with things like computer games but

also my time and love. To enable me to do this to

the max I think I require lots of material wealth. Thus

me, my material goods (from food, farm, to bank

deposits), and my family (people) are one and the

same: my flock of sheep. I’m in charge so I am the

shepherd.

It's a form of individual empowerment that, if many

attempt to obtain, will result in a united way forward

for society. I can show the way to the Third Kingdom

but it up to each individual if they want to go down

that path.

a.m.r. You may need to reread it and even ask more

questions. Please do so.

writeon
17 December 2008 at 10:12

I can "square circles" it's not that hard, all one needs is some elementary mathematical knowledge, it's done all the time. It's arguably the core of modern civilization, squaring circles.

What's "human nature"? From an anthropological perspective human beings are weak and fragile apes, compared to the other large bipeds. But what we did have, and why we've been so successful, despite our physical disadvantages, was our superior brains and our ability to work together for the common good of the group. Fundamentally this is why we not only survived but evolved to rule over an entire planet.

What characterises us is our incredible and deep-rooted culutre of co-operation, a "bottom line" that's seemingly built into our genetic makeup and has served us for in excess of a hundred thousand years.

Apart from our "innate" ability to work together as a species, we also trust one another to an extraordinary degree. Without trust the human group would break down.

The there's the family unit, where we constantly "work" for no direct "payment" for "free" and nurture children, love one another for "free" and take care of each other, because it makes sense, and it's the core of what it means to be human. Some families are small, some are big, some could be bigger still.

On a philosophical level, the concept of "Love", of one's fellow man, not competition, is at the heart of nearly all of them, without question it's the core of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition.

So humans from a anthropomorphic and a philosophical, and practical perspective, have for millenia rejected this crude and absurd idea that we are merely "beasts" fighting one another, red in tooth and claw, in a pit called the "marketplace." Far from being an accurate discription of what we are, what our "nature" is, what the bottom line is, this characature of what it means to be human, is merely a "blip" in our long history, a trifle, a temporary phase we are going through.

Nilsey105
17 December 2008 at 11:51

Well then who would have thought it, PRIVATISATION is making a comeback.

Only partial do i hear someone say?

Maybe thats because it will take a Royal Charter to privatise the Roral Mail totally.

Socialism's Comback my arse. We will have to fight for that never is given freely by the ruling class.

Nilsey105
17 December 2008 at 11:57

The First Shepherd;

"My children are a physical part of me and my wife so

I do what I can to allow them to thrive"

What a kind generous person you are, especially at this time of the year in "allowing" your children and wife to thrive.

Nilsey105
17 December 2008 at 12:01

Royal Mail

ooops

antileft
17 December 2008 at 14:17

Honestly writeon, you do rant.

"But what we did have, and why we've been so successful, despite our physical disadvantages, was our superior brains and our ability to work together for the common good of the group. Fundamentally this is why we not only survived but evolved to rule over an entire planet."

There are many reasons why we have survived, writeon. One of them is an ability to work together. Another is our tendency to compete. It's not relevent- your lengthened simplification of the bottom line is flawed. The bottom line is this: if you ask most people to work hard out of kindness or love or whatever- they will say NO. Simple as that! Philosophising is NOT going to solve this problem. Talking about "trust" or how a community of 10 simpletons who were all related used to love each other is NOT the point!

"So humans from a anthropomorphic and a philosophical, and practical perspective, have for millenia rejected this crude and absurd idea that we are merely "beasts" fighting one another, red in tooth and claw, in a pit called the "marketplace." Far from being an accurate discription of what we are, what our "nature" is, what the bottom line is, this characature of what it means to be human, is merely a "blip" in our long history, a trifle, a temporary phase we are going through."

Writeon, if you want to disprove my point then youre going to have to spell out how youre actually going to solve this problem! Its about INCENTIVES. Philosophy is not going to do it. Give it to me bluntly- how are you going to convince me to work hard when Im not paid more for doing so?? Spell it out, writeon. What's the deal???!!! I dont need you to tell me that "oh the backbone of society is love blah blah blah" or "kindness and love makes the world go round so blah blah blah"- tell me HOW you are going to get me to work?!

What is the incentive?! Why should anyone work hard when their wages are similar?? Spit it out. Clear. Limited sentences. Go - Im waiting.

writeon
17 December 2008 at 16:12

Nilsey,

I've come to have a lot of difficulty with concepts like "socialism" "liberalism" "conservatism" "capitalism" - I'm really not sure what they mean any longer. It's almost like we've sucked the meaning out of this words by misuse and overuse. They are like dried out pieces of old driftwood lying on the beach after the tides gone out.

I think the "battle" now and even more so if the future is going to be, as it probably always was meant to be, about democracy pitted against totalitarianism. Or much simpler, rule by the many or the few.

The immediate future is going to be very "interesting" as a lot of what we've taken for granted in modern life, virtually vanishes overnight. This "crisis" isn't a "credit crunch" and it never was. It's a deep-rooted crisis of capitalsm the like of which we haven't seen for generations. It won't be over next year and the economy isn't ready to bounce back like a coloured beach ball on a sunny day.

This is the a Big One. Arguably it has the potential to be even worse than the Great Depression for a number of reasons. If one compares where we are now in the cycle, with the Great Depression, today, things are probably worse and collapsing at a faster rate. Also Britain is far more vulnerable and a far more fragile economy and society than it was in the 1930's. Britain's economy isn't robust. It's top-heavy with "froth" millions of jobs that have the potential to disappear like dew in the morning sunlight.

The UK's skill and industrial base was undermined and allowed to crumble away to an extraordinary degree compared to most other industrial nations,and I believe we are going to pay a very heavy price for this policy of malign neglect.

Over the last thirty years the working-class was impoverished and crushed, now it's the turn of the middle-class who were duped by Thatcherism and her New Labour children. Now the years of illusion are over, perhaps never to return for most people.

The end of consumer capitalism and "freedom"

antileft
17 December 2008 at 16:39

Oh writeon! Your posts are so airy! What system do you want? Youve never said! Not in all these posts- I must have asked you 100 times already! Are you afraid people will laugh when you admit to being an old fashioned socialist who thinks that "we re all equal" and yet cant think of an incentive to keep people working? Shame on you for typing so long without actually saying anything!

If you cant defend your beliefs then theyre not worth much, and all this ranting is just semi intellectual twoddle from a second rate thinker.

antileft
17 December 2008 at 16:41

I find it pathetic by the way how yet again you couldnt answer my question. You cling onto your beliefs even as I show that theyre obviously flawed. Pathetic!

antileft
17 December 2008 at 16:43

"The end of consumer capitalism and "freedom""

The end of boom and bust- gotcha. Idiot.

Nilsey105
17 December 2008 at 22:00

writeon

17 December 2008 at 16:12

You are not alone, believe me there are many who are in a state of flux as to where their interpretations of many concepts are taking them. This is all part and parcel of the learning process.

You, along with myself and many others will learn and develope our thoughts on these subject matters. From this will come a greater understanding of what we are seeking from our adventures and those situations in which we find ourselves. Situations i may add that are none of our chooseing nor making.

All things being equal i am sure you ,like me would rather not be wound up in the present crisis. Unfortunately we do not pick nor choose the period in which we enter this world. Nor do we pick and choose those who attempt to malign and debase us.

We are above all that. If people cant debate and discuss in a manner befitting a normal human being then, the problem is not ours but theirs and their parents for bringing them up the way they have.

Nilsey105
17 December 2008 at 22:18

writeon

maybe you will find this article a little comforting.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/17/america/latam.php

Nilsey105
17 December 2008 at 22:27

and

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/17/opinion/edfriedman.ph...

Stephen
18 December 2008 at 03:24

Nilsey

I think you are a bit harsh on anti-left. If you think he

(I’m assuming this!) is merely a product of his

environment, especially his parents, then he can’t be

blamed for his name calling. Indeed he can’t even

feel any shame. Besides he has made some very

valuable contributions to the ‘process’. He often gets

right at the crux of dilemmas shedding our words of

their woolly coats. He is like a blacksmith (black

sheep!) smashing questions with his hammer onto

the anvil of truth. It is no wonder that he gets

frustrated when ‘write on’ doesn’t address his

questions but pops up from the ceiling at a weirdo

tangent. I think write on is just trolling at times.

A possible solution is that anti-left should write his

question in number form;

e.g. 1. How would you get people to make an effort

to create things if they know most of it will be taken

from them via taxation to the government?.

Then ‘write on’ pastes this question at the top of his

text and tries his best to answer.

A peacemaker must provide a practical solution.

I am pleased that you have been examining my

words, but please don’t assume anything fascistic

thatcheristic yet for my message is not complete. I do

understand the value of government, and

cooperation and generosity to others. However, my

generosity has a limit especially when it starts

appearing like a Nigerian banking request. You’ve

got to press delete at some point.

To prove my generosity, I have a present for you that

will arrive before the big day. It will be your most

precious gift ever and you can share it with others.

Oh I wonder what it will be? Any guesses?

Did you know that late December was celebrated

with present giving hundreds of years before Christ

was born? The Christians kind of grafted the pagan

festivals into their own. As Boney M sang, ‘ Ooooh

those naughty Christains’. Or was it Russians or was

it shepherds?

antileft
18 December 2008 at 04:07

"A possible solution is that anti-left should write his

question in number form;"

Good point. Here it is- without any insults or bad manners. Nilsey105 and writeon can then answer in number form:

1. If we are all paid similar amounts for our work, why would anyone work hard?

There- only one. I have, however, asked this question so many times without getting an answer that I suspect its simply a big hole in their ideas and they prefer to avoid it than deal with it.

writeon
18 December 2008 at 08:18

Unfortunately I have more questions than answers.

Are questions and questioning established ideas in themselves necessarily negative?

Are "simple" questions really as "simple" as they appear at first glance? I think not. Questions don't exist in perfect isololation from the world. There are "hidden" assumptions and premisses and implicit answers contained in almost all, seemingly innocent, questions.

Why should I attempt to answer questions that perhaps have no answer, simple or not? Why should I allow myself to be dictated to? If I'm in the dock and under violent attack, don't I have the right to remain silent if I choose?

What if the answer to a "simple" question requires a very long and complex answer?

What if I don't have an simple answer because there is no answer, there is no solution, at least not one I can find, and without calling into question the fundamental assumpstions that frame the question, yet are not explicit, but implicit and therefore open to interpretation?

It must be nice to think the world's as simple as it seems to be on the surface, at least for some people, who don't appriciate the incredible complexity of physics and the "world" of the atom.

What is Love?

Now that's a short and very simple question, surely nobody doesn't understand it, yet what about the answer? How simple is it? Can one answer in just three words? Or thirty thousand? Wouldn't one expect a very simple question to have a very simple answer, or not?

But aren't these simple questions really a form of beartrap, ready to spring? Should one really step into one of them voluntarily, why?

Stephen
18 December 2008 at 08:41

Nilsey

Why don't you have a go at anti-left's question?

Obviously writeon is not up to. Interesting excuses

though!

writeon
18 December 2008 at 08:46

However, the above "answer" doesn't really satisfy anyone. I'm "aswering" a direct question with more questions that question the validity of the original question. It gets silly and just goes round and round in circles. But whose fa

Is this really becaue I cannot answer such a simple question or because I choose not to answer? Why can't I answer in my own way? Surely that's fair? You ask a question in your own way and I aswer it in my own way? Is it really that simple? Is it really that simplistic?

If I give a simple answer to a simple question won't I appear to be a simpleton? Isn't that the point of the question in the first place? To make one answer a foolish question with a foolish answer and therefor one is forced to adopt the attitude of a fool?

"If we are all paid similar ammounts for our work, why would anyone work hard?"

How does one answer such a question? How should one answer it? What does it mean? Do I even really understand it? Aren't there bits missing? Implicit assumption and logical premisses that are hidden from view yet are probably more important and carry more real meaning than the mere words contained in the question itself? Am I supposed to answer the "stupid" question or the ideas lying unrevealed, behind the question?

The question, if I understand it correctly, relates to the thorny subject of incentives, specifically economic and monetary incentives, what one gets paid for working. Now this is how I understand the "simple" question. Furthermore it's implicit in the question that the questioner believes that the primary motivation people have for "working harder" is that they will get paid more, otherwise they won't have an incentive to work harder.

But incentives are anything but simple and what motivates people in relation to "work" paid or otherwis are not simple either. What is work anyway? Is work only what one is paid for? Who "pays" for the work people don't get paid for? Who decides who gets paid for working and who doesn't?

writeon
18 December 2008 at 09:07

Obviously this kind of answer can appear very frustrating to the person asking or demanding that one answers the bloody question for Christ sake!

But aren't I allowed to attempt to answer in my own way? Or does the very nature and structure of such simple and direct questions, force me to answer in a certain fashion with only a limited number of possible responses available or allowed or accepted?

That is, the very structure of the question forces one, or contains its own answer. So it's really not a question at all, but really a statement, an answer disguised as a question. A form of leading or rhetorical question, like "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Clearly I'm refusing to answer the question, the first in a long line, the way I'm expected to answer it, but isn't that my right? Or are there only a narrow and limited number of "answers" that are acceptable? In that case why bother to ask such a question, and if the answer is already known according to the person posing the question, because there can only be one, or very few, answers. The question contains it's own answer. So nothing is a simple as it seems, not the question or clearly my attempt to "answer."

But having said all that, which indicates why I'm loathe to answer such "simple" questions, questions that I find both simplistic and embarassing, I'll try anyway to answer, in the spirit of the question, though I doubt it'll be deemed a sufficient answer.

I'm not against finacial incentives for working. We don't live in a Utopian society where both work and money have been eliminated. We are where we are. Just as there should be a minimum wage there should also be a maximum wage in society and for similar reasons. The precise size of these wages are open to debate, negotiation, market forces and democratic control, and to be honest doesn't really interest me all that much, as the vast majority of people seem to agree that nobody should get too little and nobody should get too much.

Stephen
18 December 2008 at 10:06

Write on

I think that's a reasonable answer although it did take

a long time in coming! How about you anti-left? He

said he's quite happy with differences in wages

(although not too much.. whatever that is) nor against

financial incentives for working. So the more you

work the more you get paid.

i'm sure very few people would disagree with you on

this point. And like he said there is more to the

question than meets the eye (e.g.what is work, what

is hard, etc). It demonstrates that writeon is not a

second rate thinker.

Time to shake.

peace keeping duties over so its back to me sheep.

writeon
18 December 2008 at 10:45

It's strange, maybe it's a question of perspective or scale.

I feel rather stupid and foolish for having bothered to answer such mundane question, relating to such tiny part of the question of incentives in society.

Surely there are more important questions that confront us?

Capitalism is collapsing in front of our eyes. We are heading for a slump that will rival the Great Depression, and I'm being asked questions about wages, pay and hard work! Is this for real? Is this a pressing priority?

Wait until after Christmas, see how unemployment is going to rocket and the economy go into a nosedive, and then weigh-up the importance of a trivial, rigged, question about individual wages for hard work! What an irrelevance. Millions of jobs are going to vanish, so worrying about working harder for more wages is going to be part of history for many people.

Competition and incentives are central to capitalism, yet aren't we undermining all of this with the bailouts? If giant banks are deemd too big to fail and are effectively being rewarded for failure and incompetence, what happens to the concepts of "competition" and "incentives"?

Competition in capitalism is supposed to seperate the weak from the stong. The successful from the unsuccessful. The profitable from the unprofitable.

Enterprises have to be allowed to succeed and allowed to fail. There have to be consequences for both. Take away this form of structural incentive and one simply destroys the very core of capitalism. It's raison d'etre. It no longer really exists. The bailouts are effectively subsidising, supporting, and rewarding failure and punishing those who didn't fail and were prudent. This is the opposite of capitalism!

Surley this is a more interesting and profound set of questions that one would imagine would be a the very front of people's minds rather than childish trifles about rates of pay for pieces of work? The lack of perspective and proportion here is staggering in its implications!

writeon
18 December 2008 at 11:01

Then there's the real question which a chat with one of my friends who works for UNESCO reminded me of.

The rich countries comsume approximately 32 times the resources that poor countries do, and pump out around 32 times the waste into the environment. That's our environomental footprint.

Capitalism is based on growth and consumption and it tells us that everybody if they work hard can get rich and succeed, countries as well as individuals.

If China succeeds in matching western levels of wealth the world's consumption and waste will more than double. Add all the poor countries and our environmental footprint will rise by 12 times. We'd need at least four extra planets to support such a massive increase in global consumption of resources. Where are they going to come from? How will capitalism provide for all this extra growth? Is this path really realistic, achieveble, to say nothing of sustainable? Yet the dogma, or ideology of capitalism says it is, regardless of the limits imposed by objective reality, the limited nature of our small planets resources, which cannot just be conjured out of thin air.

So basically captilalism is today based on a dangerous illusion that everybody can attain living standards comparable to those of the West, and that we won't destroy our environment in this vain and impossible attempt. This is an absurdity wrapped in a fantasy.

So these are some of the questions I think about, and guess what, I don't have many answers for them!

antileft
18 December 2008 at 12:24

You are joking, arent you writeon?! Trolling? You spent almost 3 hours and all you gave me was:

"I'm not against finacial incentives for working."

Youre not against financial incentives. Are you for them?! Ill assume yes.

Ok- I believe I have established for once and for all that youre not a communist- at last. Now that weve achieved this remarkable piece of communication, let me ask you another question:

2. Which system would you prefer? Im going to give you some options which Id like you to pick to avoid the customary ranting. Here:

a) a system where literally everything is produced by the market and the state (if it exists at all) does nothing.

b) a system where everything is produced by the market except health, education, and a few notable others.

c) a system where the majority of things are produced by the market but the government produces more than what britain does now, such as for example cars, etc. We can include the banking system here too.

d) a system where a majority of production is done by the state (or people being paid by the state).

e) a system where everything or more or less everything is produced by the state or people being paid by the state.

Stephen
18 December 2008 at 12:45

Write on:

Answer one

I think you're correct when you say the bail outs are

a contradiction to capitalism. But we don't have fully

fledged capitalism. We have a kind of benevolent

national capitalism in which the government is a key

player. And part of its role is to make sure the whole

thing doesn’t collapse. So the bailouts are an

attempt to stop the continuation of the collapse for it

is a like a line of dominoes. The government steps

into the line and attempts to stop the rest of the

dominoes (banks, companies etc) from falling over.

Rewarding failure may be a byproduct of such

government intervention but the true motivation is to

prevent further collapse. And this will benefit all, not

punish anyone. It’s essentially Keynesian

economics.

Answer two

Obviously at present there are not four extra planets

that humans can use to raise the material level of the

Chinese to that of the West. Assuming we need this

much then such a level will be unobtainable. We’ll

just have to accept worldwide inequality. Is that so

bad? The cost of raw materials will rise as supply

dwindles but may fall if new technology enable

things to be made more efficiently. ‘The future is

uncertain and the end is always near.’ The Doors.

Besides capitalism isn’t based on any illusion that

everyone’s living standards can be the same as

those of the West. It just exists with various degrees

of government control, intervention and

redistribution. It hasn’t been decided from the

outside , it has just evolved from the human instinct to

survive (reread my previous postings).

Answer three

You answered the simple question because of social

pressure, primarily from me. I corralled you with my

crock.

Do you have any more questions that you don't have

any answers?

Oooh those shepherds.

Nilsey105
18 December 2008 at 14:47

The First shepherd

18 December 2008 at 12:45

"....capitalism isn’t based on any illusion that

everyone’s living standards can be the same as

those of the West. "

I beg to differ, for this is what underpins "neo liberal capitalism."

Its like a capitalist form of socialism.

Equality for the world in terms of resouces, financial markets, free trade for the world, etc, etc.

But the old nugget of greed cant be taken into account nor can it be controlled and so Neo Liberalism is doomed.

writeon
18 December 2008 at 14:58

Anit-left, you obviously don't understand most of the very basic words and concepts that you use so freely and wrongly. Why do you insist on exhibiting yourself like this? Is any form of attention better than no attention?

Your comments are embarassing to read. No normal individual can have such an excess of self-regard, rampant egotism and overflowing arrogance. Strange, because these massive illusions of grandeur are in inverse proportion to your actual abilities, which are so clearly based on very little wisdom, understanding, knowledge, intelligence or education. Why would a person advertise themselves like this?

I have no intention of ever complying with your demands. They illustrate a so primative, simplistic and ignorant view of the complexities around us, that one hardly knows where to start, so I won't. I've already been far too accomodating already.

You obviously crave attention. Heaven knows why, when there is so little that's worthy of notice. And I have been foolish enough to feed your hunger and your desire for recognition. I'm ashamed of myself for being drawn into your bizarre and perverse orbit. It was very wrong of me to waste my time in this fashion.

I believe you are a deeply disturbed individual, in need of psychological help and medication.

I've had more than enough of this absurd bear-baiting.

a.m.r.
18 December 2008 at 16:01

writeon, antileft's question is much more significant than you're making out. I think you misunderstand his tone and the reason why he feels passionately that the issue is important.

History has shown that the incentive problem exists whether a capitalist system is in place or not.

The Russians, the Chinese, and working collectives around the word all ran into this problem when they abolished capitalism and/or wage structures. All of them suffered from great loss of productivity until they were finally forced to (re)introduce some system of incentives and rewards, for those who do more.

An incentive system will automatically create inequalities, which will grow as time goes on. Attempts to stop this introduced inequality will just reintroduce the incentive problem.

As incentive systems develop, they will tend towards the natural monetary free-market system (which implies property and ownership rights, and the freedom to engage in mutually-agreed endeavors).

China's decision to open up to market forces (and so, to competitive pressures and private enterprises) in 1978 allowed them to begin to greatly increase their productivity and the health and material well-being of hundreds of millions of Chinese.

It's a valuable lesson from history, brought to us at incredible personal cost to those who went through it, and it's relevant to all enquiries and attempts to engineer equality of income and power in such existing circumstances as ours, in which work is still a necessity for at least some of the population.

Nilsey105
18 December 2008 at 19:04

This will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-30-is-available!-Global-systemic-crisis-New-tipping-point-in-March-2009-When-the-world-becomes-aware-that-this_a2567.html

Stephen
18 December 2008 at 19:20

Nilsey

I wondered when you’d be back. Have you been

marching again? I bet you’ve wondering what your

prezzy is? Maybe you’ve been to the shops

assessing what you can get me. I don’t want any

plastic stuff made in china if you have been on such

a mission.

Anyway thanks for the feedback. I’ll try to use other

words to explain. Let’s see society as a line (yea I

know about the circle as well) that goes from total

freedom of the individual on one side to do what he

wants to total control of the individual by the

government on t’other. Obviously we don’t have

complete freedom because there are government

laws and police to prevent us from doing certain

things. At the same time we are not totally controlled

because we choose to do certain things (e.g. nobody

controls us as to whether we wear undies or not). So

as individuals we are somewhere on that line. The

key questions for us are 1. where we think we are on

that line, 2. where we think we want to be, and then

3. how to get there. So there is constant change

occurring as individuals primarily attempt to realize

their own ends but at the same realizing that others

must be stopped if they are to do this. Society isn’t

based upon anything as it is just part of that

evolutionary process.

Did you notice that I didn’t use words like ‘capitalism’,

‘socialism’ ‘liberalism’, ‘neo’ in my explanation?

Perhaps you could explain your thoughts without

using such words as it would make what you have to

say much clearer. You may want to google ‘Natural

Semantic Meta-Language (NSM)’ to help you. It

argues that all words can be explained by using

about 60 prime words. These

prime words are like prime numbers as they can’t be

divisible (explained) by other words. These she

argues are the essence of our emotions and

thoughts. Worth a shot don’t you think?

Remember: no plastic sheep.

Nilsey105
18 December 2008 at 19:33

You sound like a typical tight arsed Yorkshire man, and i ,as a Lancastrian have to remind you the War of the Roses was never ended.

Stephen
18 December 2008 at 20:08

Eh lad you are perceptive but you are totally wrong

as I am born and bred on 't'other' side of border...

yours, from the city with the greatest football team in

the world.. you know what I mean la. And I know

where you live, and I'm really fit and a martial arts

expert (aikido.. the way of the heart)!

You must be more imaginative in your insults, they'e

a bit old hat. Take a few lessons from me.

e.g.

I clicked your link and it came up 'page error'. The

hairs on my back did come up cos I thought he's right

this is the end of the world. 'Then I found myself

thinking how did I get here in this beautiful house

with my beautiful wife' David Bryne, Talking Heads.

In other words try to be less direct and more

humourous. It makes for more interesting reading.

Give it a shot.

Love and Peace (but don't mess with)

The first shepherd of the third kingdom

Don't worry I don't know where you live (just having

you on like)

Don't worry about the prezzy if you can't afford it.

The NSM google search is seriously worth a shot.

Stephen
18 December 2008 at 21:52

Write on:

I kind of get your point. It does seem unfair that anti-

left asks the question to you. And like you said you

have every right to remain silent. And you ask more

questions than answers some of which you perceive

are more relevant. These are all valid points.

So how do we progress? Now this only a

suggestion, I don't want to put you any under social

pressure, but why don't you ask a question to anti-left

This only seems fair don't you think anti-left? To

answer one of his questions. If we can't live together

in cyberspace how can we in real life? We all must

make an effort even when we feel insulted and

trapped. We can all insult but lets not go down the

real ugly road. And lets forget and forgive. I know if

you ask antileft a question and he answers kindly

you will feel better, and that can only be good for all

of us.

Nilsey105
18 December 2008 at 22:29

The First shepherd

The greatest team in all the land happen to be EFC.

Nilsey105
18 December 2008 at 22:35

http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-30-is-available!-Global-systemic-crisis-New-tipping-point-in-March-2009-When-the-world-becomes-aware-that-this_a2567.html?PHPSESSID=916d8469e282a611d703aa0b9b57d304

try that one

Stephen
18 December 2008 at 23:23

nilsey

Now I know you're trolling toffee all over the pitch.

Who's on top of the league? What team was in

Istanbul when the miracle of miracles happened?

Time to convert from your true blue conservative kit to

the real red shirt of the third kingdom.

Go you mighty shepherds.

Honestly I keep getting error to your link. A la give us

one of those synosises without using any isms if you

know what I mean like.

Nilsey105
19 December 2008 at 00:35

no isms in that ok COYB

Nilsey105
19 December 2008 at 00:39

At the beginning of the century, the chances of socialism making a return looked close to zero. Yet now, all around Europe, the red flag is flying again

The only RED flag The First shepherd

has any alegience to is the crap football team, he supports, the other team from which EVERTON is the major team in the city of liverpool

Nilsey105
19 December 2008 at 00:40

If you know your history you know what i mean .

antileft
19 December 2008 at 09:22

"I have no intention of ever complying with your demands."

Oh writeoooon! All Im asking is what you believe!!! Simple as that!!! Why cant you explain this to us?? Are you afraid that people will laugh?? Or is it just that you actually quietly like the status quo and dont want to admit it? What is the problem?! Its such a simple question!!! What a nitwit you are!

"You obviously crave attention."

HA!!! Oh writeon Im honestly laughing here! YOU are telling ME that I crave attention?! Are you serious?! Oh writeon youre so obviously talking about yourself its unreal! Check out this post!!!

"An ant marched across the face of the Mona Lisa

Its antennae accutely aware of all that was around

A cobweb, a fly, a tiny, tiny, grain of sand

Always onward, through a strange, stange, land"

hehehe

I crave attention writeon?! Ill tell you what- you scroll upwards and do a quick post-count. You have posted at least 4 times as much as me and Ive come on almost every damn day! Look at the timing! You sometimes spend all morning on here, writing poetry, ranting, repeating yourself... Sometimes you get so bored that you just repeat what you said just the day before, only you put it differently! How many times have you made the rather dull point that "these terms like 'socialist' dont mean anything much anymore" yes we got it writeon!

You hit the nail on the head- youre just craving attention! Think about it, boyo.

"I believe you are a deeply disturbed individual, in need of psychological help and medication."

Oh how pathetic writeon! Surely you can come up with a better insult than that?! I insult your inability to articulate beliefs without ranting and missing the point, and the best you can come up with is name calling! Oh ouch, writeon! Pathetic!!!

"I've had more than enough of this absurd bear-baiting."

Good- go do something less intellectually challenging. Try yahoo chat. Theyll never upset you by asking you something as challenging as what you believe!!

Stephen
19 December 2008 at 21:36

Nilsey

I was in a port-a-loo doing my own private business

when a mob of slogan chanting people came and

pushed it over and rolled it around. As you can

imagine I was a bit annoyed as bits got everywhere.

When I got out I asked them, ’What the hell is going

on?’

To the tune of, ‘Christmas is coming the goose is

getting fat,’ they chanted, ‘Socialism is coming,

capitalism is dead we’ll going to be free cos the rich

will be dead.’

So asked them, “What exactly do you mean?’

They chanted the same thing back.

So I says to one of them ‘What do you mean,

‘Socialism is coming’

And he replied, ’ It’s obvious. Socialism is coming.

Look at this link.’

So I asked again. And he replied, ‘ It’s obvious

capitalism is dead. Look at this link.’

I asked, ‘What exactly is this socialism?’

‘Well it’s obvious. It’s socialism’

‘What exactly happens when it comes?

‘Well it’s obvious. The collapse of neo-liberalism that

is like capitalism socialism will result in the

revolution. Look at this link.’

“I’m asking you mate. YOU!’

Then he starts insulting me “You’re just a mean

Yorkshire man. You’re just another fascist who I was

marching against in the 60s and 70s. Look at this

link.’

In your own words, preferably without any ‘isms,

insults and certainly no links, ‘What exactly do you

mean?’

1. How is ‘socialism’ going to come? Is it armed or

voted in? If armed who is going to do it (a bunch of

Everton supporters waving toffees?) and how will

they overcome the armed forces?

2. What exactly will happen if ‘it’ does come? Will all

companies become nationalized (including the

football clubs) or just some (if so which ones).

3. How will wages be affected?

4. What will happen to private property, people’s

savings, possessions?

I realize you may perceive these questions as being

teddy bear traps and as a result end up as a

quivering mess in the toy department of Ikea. Give it

a go. I’ve got to get all this toffee off me.

Nilsey105
20 December 2008 at 14:40

The First shepherd

19 December 2008 at 21:36

Stick to the point and refrain from flying off a tangents.

You should stay off that Yates White its warps yeh brain.

Show me were i have said those things you accuse me of.

You cant lick the toffees la.

Last night i was at the Echo Arena, watching the Zutons, one of the support bands did a number called Heartbreak, it was dedicated to all the red nose shower . lmao.

Stephen
20 December 2008 at 18:26

Nilsey

So you've nothing to say apart from personal insults.

What are you trying to say in your own words. What

is it about this world that you are trying to say without

recourse to ‘isms,’ links and attempted personal

insults?

Is there anything? If so what exactly is it?

I think the readers know that this is your last chance.

Nilsey105
20 December 2008 at 18:53

Whats yeh problem red nose, afraid you wont win the title again.

Stephen
21 December 2008 at 17:49

Nilsey

Or should I say Neil Clark?

I wondered how you were able to delete one of you

earlier messages.

Stephen
22 December 2008 at 01:54

Let’s progress for there is more to life and death than

the footy despite what the great Shanks once said.

Besides the big day is fast approaching and my

present has yet to be revealed in all its glory.

We start from the individual not from the system, from

within ourselves, and a belief that we can change.

And from that change will affect a change in others.

But how?

I spent some time on the beach at Boracay in the

Philippines in 1992. It is a beautiful beach with pure

white sand. The sea is like the clearest swimming

pool and when you swim all you can see is this

beautiful sand.

At dawn I would walk down the beach for a mile or so

and then swim back. After a shower I’d go to

restaurant owned by an Englishman in his fifties

married to a Filipino. I would have a full English

breakfast with baked beans and oceans of tea, and

read a paper and chat. The owner was an ex North

Sea diver who had saved his money and opened up

a bakery. The bakery prospered and he was able

with his profit to build a restaurant, and a school for

his kids and his neighbours and employ a teacher.

He showed me a picture of him when he was a diver:

his body was ripped and his face shone at you like a

halo. Whilst on board a platform a diver must abstain

from alcohol, and of course submerge his body in the

water. On leave he didn’t drink his money away but

saved it.

I met another Western man also in his fifties who

slept on the beach in his clothes and dealt in drugs.

His hair and beard was long and matted. He stunk

like a skunk for he and his clothes never entered the

water. As he walked along the beach, the dogs smelt

him and instinctively barked viciously. He didn’t

have a good word to say about anything apart from

the stuff he was consuming and peddling.

There is something about water and purification, and

individual strength, creativity and love.

’ Take me to the River,’ sang Talking Heads.

I will.

4 it aint chrimbo yet

Stephen
22 December 2008 at 08:28

Here's a christmas cracker puzzle, but it's not funny

(which ones are!).

Before the 'industrial revolution' , before all the

factories, the coal mines, the railways, the big

bridges, and the canals etc what man resided in a

most suitable locality and did meritorious things for

others?

Here's a clue: Like a Buddhist monk he would often

receive reward from the excess of those he helped,

not just coins. Oh yea he met lots of different types of

people. What's in a name?

antileft
22 December 2008 at 12:46

"I wondered how you were able to delete one of you earlier messages."

Silence? Hmm interesting...

Stephen
22 December 2008 at 19:39

This I the hardest part, the wrapping of the present

without making it look like a dog’s dinner. You just

don’t know which part to start the folding especially

when the whole thing is so irregular and the end of

the cellotape can’t be found. I know, I’ll listen to me

Talking Heads 'Once in a Lifetime' CD: that will get

me head together. And of course a swim. Why don’t

you do the same?

Stephen
23 December 2008 at 03:31

The musicians provide us with the lyrical clues and a

sound that promotes a feeling of oneness. We know

there is something there but we just can’t grasp it in

words. I suspect it will always remain in that medium

and expressed in dance.

The importance of water can not be overestimated.

It is within us and around us. It is above us and

flowing underground. We have come from it, to the

marshes, to the land. Listen to the lyrics of Talking

Heads ‘Take me to the River’.

In most religions water is important not only for its

cleanliness and purification properties but also in its

ceremonial role.

Yet we hardly ever consume it in purest form. In fact

we often put poisons and sugars in it and make our

livers (and lives) sort them out. Think about all those

chemicals swilling around you the next time you

have a pint, a coffee, a coke, or a white wine from

Yates’. Is it any wonder we can’t keep our balance?

Then there is the air we breathe, some of it smelling

like the smelliest chemical poisonous skunk... right?

On wards we march into more and more clouds of it,

thinking that that this is the way when in fact we are

sprinting in the wrong direction. It stays with us

wanting to be fed more and more. It pours out

through the pores of our skin, in the looks of our

faces, in the ugliness of our words, and like the dogs

on the Filipino beach we bark and get barked at

viciously.

We need to pull all our troops out of foreign lands

because the battle is right here. All armaments

production needs to cease forthwith. This will give us

plenty of dosh to spend on converting armament

factories and military bases into free to access

swimming pools, dance halls and roller rinks. And

plenty to retrain people into swimming, music and

dance instructors.

Believe me it can be done.

The goose is getting fat, please put a penny in the

old man’s hat. Nice coral escape la, a couple of

draws on the weekend in more ways than one!

Stephen
23 December 2008 at 23:58

As the match draws to a close and the pool is

thrashing the living socks off the opposition a chant

goes up, “ You’ve all gone quiet over there, you’re all

go quiet over there.” Silence, interesting, … the

opposition has all left. No wait …they’ve all morphed

into one little ant doing his Spiderman impersonation

howling like a subliminal advertising rabbit.

Yea I’ve had yer in me sights for ages mate. Still

you’re on the right track but you need a little help to

get you over the final hurdle. The winning post is in

sight. You need to eat a bit of me Christmas plum

pudding before I call your name and say, ‘Rise sir

Neil, the Second shepherd of the Third Kingdom.’

You see while you bookworms were fighting over the

rubix cube of life surrounded by dead wood with

haphazard markings going on little fact finding

missions, I was out there swimming in oceans of it.

Submerging my whole body and mind. At times it’s

made Orwell’s sojourn in a Paris kitchen appear like

a working holiday on a Caribbean cruise. But at

others like Tommy Smith’s crunching header in the

European Cup final.

And then when I get back I find you’re all still there

squabbling with yourselves on how to get the colours

all lined up. So while you’re in the port-a-loo getting

rid of all the sticky toffee I unstick the colours and put

them in the right places. Childish I know, but

someone had to do it.

Now you know Santa is real and he’s coming. One

more sleep and you too can not only sit under

Buddha’s tree of enlightenment, but climb up to the

top and jump on his sleigh.

And find yourself in a beauty like no other.

Stephen
24 December 2008 at 02:39

just been looking at your website and do you know

what ' Ue wo muite arukou' by Kyu Sakmoto means?

Well the title can mean 'going up' depending on the

Kanji And 'sakamoto' is a compound meaning '

slope/ tree'. I spent five years in Japan. It's a

beautiful song.

Neil

Yeh I know its strange and I've been here before.

Don't worry christmas is coming and I'll give you

some pudding.

In the meantime enjoy the day. Do some ice-skating

or roller blading and listen to some happy happy

tunes.

Let there be peace on earth as there is in heaven.

Stephen
25 December 2008 at 03:19

All the way from the South Pacific, ‘Merry Christmas’.

All is calm as the kids are still asleep. I can’t hardly

wait meself to see the joy on their faces and the

shrieks of delight in the air. Please don’t spoil it by

telling us that’s it’s all western media propaganda for

money or the presents are not the true meaning and

that the birth of baby Jesus is. For I shall ho ho ho in

your face and remind you that present giving at this

time of year occurred thousands of years before his

birth let alone the TV.

And no it is not false joy; it is pure and unadulterated

love of all of creation. Wait I hear some noise, and

it’s not even five o clock. Back in a tic.

My kids have woken up and ripped open their

presents. The smiles on their faces, their cries of

‘look at this’, their jumping up and down, their

playing, their creations with the magnetic shapes and

sticks. It’s pure magic. Even my 8 month old was

squealing with delight. And their happiness brought

me tears of joy. What a load of hot air that material

possessions can not bring happiness. Whoever

thought up such tripe couldn’t have had kids. But

there again we know that it can’t be Christmas every

day, otherwise it just wouldn’t be the same.

I bet you’re wondering what I’ve got you. Now that

you’re this far you’ll be expecting something really

good. I’ve taken you to the river and plunged you in

the water. I’ve even carried you half way across.

But you’re going to have to make an effort if you

really want to break on through to the other side.

Who do think I am? Your bloody psycho slave?

You’ve got to work out my first and last name (and it’s

real) and put it in the subject box of your email.

Stephen
25 December 2008 at 03:26

Send it to engtran@bigpond.com.au

It’s short for English Transworld and yes it is on the

other side of the world… I need the space. If my

name isn’t in the subject (re:) box it automatically

gets deleted like the rest of the Nigerian banking

requests. And you can’t send more than more one

guess from the same email box… therefore no mass

name junk possibilities as none of it will stick. Don’t

even bother trying to hack through the sides or

underneath, as you’ll just end up with misleading

clues. It’s all set up like that.

So you’ve got a choice. You can either stay in the

middle of this river crossing like writeon bubbling

away, return to your side (either antileft or proudly

left) or call out my name and I will help you get to the

other side whether you’ve come from the right or the

left or even from Mars.

Don’t worry as I’m sitting in a suitable location and

I’m the king of this domain so I’ll hear you. It’s up to

YOU and only YOU.

I’ve given you plenty of clues. You have to reread

the words carefully and ask yourself what do they

mean.

I’ve even given you clues of how to turbo charge your

body and mind so you can get the answer to the first

shepherd’s puzzle of life. Here’s another : try eating

lots of bananas and plums cos they will help you get

up Buddha’s Christmas fig (what type of fig?) tree of

enlightenment. What’s so special about them?

Good these questions. Now what about the

answers?

Neil: all you need to do is send me the middle two

words of the ‘world class’ team poem that you

deleted. You know the one I mean la. Send it to the

manager, my assistant.

You’ve got to have a dream,

If you don’t have a dream,

How are you going have a dream come true?

Joe Corrighan
26 December 2008 at 15:41

SOCIALISM

Silence..mmh interesting

It's finally cum

I must have eaten them all

Even including the author

Naughty me

Yummy yummy yum

All the plum pud

In me tum

Oh no

There's no one

To email box with me

On Boxing Day

I'll just have to smack meself

Around me head

Ouch ouch ouch

Ouch Ouch Ouch

I'm dying

'This is the end

my only friend

The end

In love's eternity'

The Doors

Stephen Ford

All the way from the South Pacific

What's in a name

Get it! Not bad for me first comment page contribution

eh la. Try the box and you never know you might

even get me.

Nilsey105
29 December 2008 at 20:12

Nilsey105

29 December 2008 at 20:09

Yes Carl

I checked things out on here and was waiting to make a reply to the FIRST SHEPHERD but he has now morphed into another person who on reflection has now been excommunicated from the pages of NS.

However, he wont be missed, i think.

Unfortunately whilst the Panorama prog was on,i was watching my team deny Chelsea a win.

I have to dvd recorders but not got round to sorting them out and my kids aint bothered so sfa.

I usually do err on the side of caution when useing figures that way some of the contributors cant accuse me of exageration.LMFAO.

Nilsey105
29 December 2008 at 20:14

This is what happens when you are on more than one thread at a time.

Stay off the red wine or the computer. Is the only answer.

Nilsey105
30 December 2008 at 11:59

The sooner schools reopen the better.

stephen
31 December 2008 at 02:17

Liverpool Liverpool Liverpool

As every scouser knows that apart from the reserves, in

his heart of hearts his second favourite team is the one

across the park

citizen
02 January 2009 at 01:54

I love how the so-called Socialist Parties presented

this article have somehow aligned Socialism with anti-

globalism and anti-immigration when neither one of

these issues has anything to do with what pure

socialism is.

Pure socialism is nothing more than a system of social

management whereby the government collects wealth

via taxes and redistributes that wealth in a

disbursement of nationalised goods and services.

Welfare and National Health being two good

examples of socialist collectivist policy.

The goal of socialism is, indeed, communism as Lenin

defined it and which someone here already pointed

out and was derrided for doing as much. The Ultimate

endgame of any country that has become entirely

socialist is communism. There can be no other

conclusion. Each collectivist knee-jerk reaction of any

government brings it that much closer to communism.

A good example would be the "maximum wage." That

sounds like it could be something straight out of

Vladimir Lenin's playbook.

I do agree socialism is alive and well in Europe; that

the people are getting tired of the tax burden

presented by socialist policy; and that there is a

growing revolt.

How long the revolt will last during these difficult

economic times remains to be seen?

People tend to want to fall back on government and

blame other people (i.e immigrants) during tough

economic times such as these which can only bode

well for more government handouts (more socialist

policy) and groups such as the ones presented in this

article that wish to capitalise on the current, in my

opinion over-inflated, disenchantment the public has

with the corrupted elements of capitalism.

nicechap
08 June 2009 at 11:30

"Socialism's Comeback"?! HA! Great prediction! The How did you manage to get it so incredibly wrong?!