The Tories' Little Helpers Fall Apart

[Woodstock Jag]

If I ever bump into youse guys, it'll be beer and no politics, OK!

 

Cos you know deep down we're right.

 

I thought you were left?

[Blackpool Jags]

I thought you were left?

 

Maybe a wee Freudian slip from me.

[Meister Jag]

Where to fu**ing start, especially when faced with Tory and neo-liberal apologists. Anyway here goes...

 

So we can't afford to fund higher education - the money simply isn't isn’t there! This point has been made by many on this DG including the wannabe Communuist Comrade Jaggybunnett

 

The money isn’t where exactly? According to the Sunday Times 'Rich List', in 2009-10 the 1,000 richest individuals and families in Britain increased their wealth by £77 billion to a staggering £335 billion. Similarly, FTSE 100 directors’ pay has increased by 55% in the last year; this is a point I've made in earlier threads (although maybe I referred to bonuses). The aforementioned groups are not the only rich people in Britain and just a fraction of their wealth being returned to the State would wipe out the "deficit" tomorrow!

 

In the last three decades, the proportion of national income going to the rich has increased year-on-year. Back in 1976, the bottom 50% of the UK population had 12% of the liquid wealth in the UK; by 2003, only 1%. In the same period, the richest 0.01% have seen their income rise by a staggering 500%. Individuals in the top 1% possess average household wealth of £2.6 million; individuals in the poorest 10%, £8,800. Does even the most ardent Tory apologist see where I'm going with this? the simple fact is that poor people are getting poorer and being even more exploited while the rich are fingering their wedge (of cash!). I could go on and on; it would be easy to fill pages and pages with figures like these.

 

The fact is that since the late 70s we have had right-wing Tory governments dedicated to beating down the working class and poor for the benefit of the rich – and, let's be honest, the New Labour government did sweet f** all to reverse these trends and adjust the balance. Roll the clock forward and we have a new neo-con alliance and it's, once again, everyone's favourite whipping boy the poor, who are being made to pay through cuts in benefits and higher fees for students. Wait until the benefit cuts start to hit some of the poorer parts of the country and the riots happen. It happened in Thatcher's time and will no doubt happen again. All very sad and avoidable if there was a commitment to real wealth distribution by central government.

 

If the very rich paid a little more we could all benefit. If we had a government that really wanted to solve the crisis in a way that was "fair", it could start by increasing taxes on the enormous wealth of the rich, big business and the banks. I'm not talking about bankrupting the banks and others, just asking them to pay their way for the sake of what is "fair" and to help the country out. They caused this - not the students or the unemployed - so let them be the solution.

 

What's fair about ensuring that kids from financially disadvantaged backgrounds are denied the possibility of fulfilling their potential? In future years this will ultimately hit the exchequer as these very kids won't be able to fill the jobs that would mean they are contributing more to the economy in tax etc. At risk of upsetting those on this DG of the Empire Loyalist tendency, we could also achieve quick wins by scrapping Trident and slashing military spending. there is really no need to attack education or to slash essential public services.

 

The argument is really a simple one and comes down to what you think is important: profits and the wealth of the rich, or the services and jobs the rest of us need. The main issue though is that those in charge want to look after their own kind i.e. those who are doing quite well as the rest of us struggle. This is a government of the rich, for the rich and I shudder to think where we'll be in five years time.

[gianlucatoni]

 

 

 

 

Kwality.

 

Btw, Jaggybunnet - happy birthday. Have a drink on me fella.

 

If I ever bump into youse guys, it'll be beer and no politics, OK!

 

 

 

 

Cos you know deep down we're right.

 

and I'll be in that pub with ma dug - and he'll have yer baws down his neck before you get the lagers in!

[Meister Jag]

FAO Jaggybunnett

 

Just noticed it was your birthday mate. Have a good one - wee night down the Conservative Club is it? Enjoy your G&T.

[jaggybunnet]

FAO Jaggybunnett

 

Just noticed it was your birthday mate. Have a good one - wee night down the Conservative Club is it? Enjoy your G&T.

 

 

nahh a wee ST Mungos thank you with a wild turkey chaser

[GrantB]

I think Meister Jag is my new Thistle hero

[jaggybunnet]

Where to fu**ing start, especially when faced with Tory and neo-liberal apologists. Anyway here goes...

 

So we can't afford to fund higher education - the money simply isn't isn’t there! This point has been made by many on this DG including the wannabe Communuist Comrade Jaggybunnett

 

The money isn’t where exactly? According to the Sunday Times 'Rich List', in 2009-10 the 1,000 richest individuals and families in Britain increased their wealth by £77 billion to a staggering £335 billion. Similarly, FTSE 100 directors’ pay has increased by 55% in the last year; this is a point I've made in earlier threads (although maybe I referred to bonuses). The aforementioned groups are not the only rich people in Britain and just a fraction of their wealth being returned to the State would wipe out the "deficit" tomorrow!

 

In the last three decades, the proportion of national income going to the rich has increased year-on-year. Back in 1976, the bottom 50% of the UK population had 12% of the liquid wealth in the UK; by 2003, only 1%. In the same period, the richest 0.01% have seen their income rise by a staggering 500%. Individuals in the top 1% possess average household wealth of £2.6 million; individuals in the poorest 10%, £8,800. Does even the most ardent Tory apologist see where I'm going with this? the simple fact is that poor people are getting poorer and being even more exploited while the rich are fingering their wedge (of cash!). I could go on and on; it would be easy to fill pages and pages with figures like these.

 

The fact is that since the late 70s we have had right-wing Tory governments dedicated to beating down the working class and poor for the benefit of the rich – and, let's be honest, the New Labour government did sweet f** all to reverse these trends and adjust the balance. Roll the clock forward and we have a new neo-con alliance and it's, once again, everyone's favourite whipping boy the poor, who are being made to pay through cuts in benefits and higher fees for students. Wait until the benefit cuts start to hit some of the poorer parts of the country and the riots happen. It happened in Thatcher's time and will no doubt happen again. All very sad and avoidable if there was a commitment to real wealth distribution by central government.

 

If the very rich paid a little more we could all benefit. If we had a government that really wanted to solve the crisis in a way that was "fair", it could start by increasing taxes on the enormous wealth of the rich, big business and the banks. I'm not talking about bankrupting the banks and others, just asking them to pay their way for the sake of what is "fair" and to help the country out. They caused this - not the students or the unemployed - so let them be the solution.

 

What's fair about ensuring that kids from financially disadvantaged backgrounds are denied the possibility of fulfilling their potential? In future years this will ultimately hit the exchequer as these very kids won't be able to fill the jobs that would mean they are contributing more to the economy in tax etc. At risk of upsetting those on this DG of the Empire Loyalist tendency, we could also achieve quick wins by scrapping Trident and slashing military spending. there is really no need to attack education or to slash essential public services.

 

The argument is really a simple one and comes down to what you think is important: profits and the wealth of the rich, or the services and jobs the rest of us need. The main issue though is that those in charge want to look after their own kind i.e. those who are doing quite well as the rest of us struggle. This is a government of the rich, for the rich and I shudder to think where we'll be in five years time.

 

 

i will give this my attention later, wife says 10hrs straight on the PC is not on.

 

you dont believe in santa as well do you????? as he is as real as what you have above

 

sorry to Blackpool Jags ref the santa bit, i know it will be a shock to you that he dosnt exist

[Woodstock Jag]

Where to fu**ing start, especially when faced with Tory and neo-liberal apologists. Anyway here goes...

 

So we can't afford to fund higher education - the money simply isn't isn’t there! This point has been made by many on this DG including the wannabe Communuist Comrade Jaggybunnett

 

The money isn’t where exactly? According to the Sunday Times 'Rich List', in 2009-10 the 1,000 richest individuals and families in Britain increased their wealth by £77 billion to a staggering £335 billion. Similarly, FTSE 100 directors’ pay has increased by 55% in the last year; this is a point I've made in earlier threads (although maybe I referred to bonuses). The aforementioned groups are not the only rich people in Britain and just a fraction of their wealth being returned to the State would wipe out the "deficit" tomorrow!

 

It's their money. It's not your money. It's not my money. It's not the government's money. They are under no obligation, nor should they be, to pay the debts of other people.

 

In the last three decades, the proportion of national income going to the rich has increased year-on-year. Back in 1976, the bottom 50% of the UK population had 12% of the liquid wealth in the UK; by 2003, only 1%. In the same period, the richest 0.01% have seen their income rise by a staggering 500%. Individuals in the top 1% possess average household wealth of £2.6 million; individuals in the poorest 10%, £8,800. Does even the most ardent Tory apologist see where I'm going with this? the simple fact is that poor people are getting poorer and being even more exploited while the rich are fingering their wedge (of cash!). I could go on and on; it would be easy to fill pages and pages with figures like these.

 

Just because more of the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the richest does not mean that the poor are getting poorer. That's just lazy and factually incorrect.

 

There is nothing wrong with the rich getting richer faster than the poorer. Indeed our tax system already places the vast majority of the tax burden on the rich. The top 1% of earners contribute 23% of income tax revenues. Extend that further, the top 5% contribute 42%. The top 10% contribute 53%. The bottom HALF of earners contribute... 11.5%. Yep. That's right. The top 1% of earners contribute twice as much as the bottom 50% to the Treasury coffers. The top 5% contribute almost 4 times as much and the top 10% contribute near a staggering 5 times as much of the income tax burden. To paraphrase Peter Mandelson: the rich have suffered enough!

 

The fact is that since the late 70s we have had right-wing Tory governments dedicated to beating down the working class and poor for the benefit of the rich – and, let's be honest, the New Labour government did sweet f** all to reverse these trends and adjust the balance. Roll the clock forward and we have a new neo-con alliance and it's, once again, everyone's favourite whipping boy the poor, who are being made to pay through cuts in benefits and higher fees for students. Wait until the benefit cuts start to hit some of the poorer parts of the country and the riots happen. It happened in Thatcher's time and will no doubt happen again. All very sad and avoidable if there was a commitment to real wealth distribution by central government.

 

That's just a lazy explanation of the late 70s and 80s. Tory government was not "dedicated to beating down the working class"; they were dedicated to rolling back the state and getting individuals to take responsibility for their own lives instead of punishing people for being successful with 83% supertaxes.

 

And yet again we see this lazy use of the term "neo-con" when actually it's neo-liberalism you're seeing in action. Neoconservatism is what you saw with George Bush: tax cuts for the rich, outrageous military spending, and backward social values. Bringing the lowest paid out of income tax, cutting government spending and influence (including military) and letting people run their own lives instead of having bureaucrats do it for them is neoliberalism. And it's the fairest politics of all.

 

If the very rich paid a little more we could all benefit. If we had a government that really wanted to solve the crisis in a way that was "fair", it could start by increasing taxes on the enormous wealth of the rich, big business and the banks. I'm not talking about bankrupting the banks and others, just asking them to pay their way for the sake of what is "fair" and to help the country out. They caused this - not the students or the unemployed - so let them be the solution.

 

But why should they and why SHOULD we all benefit? How do you define "benefit"?

 

If you increase taxes on the rich, they move or they avoid tax by legitimate means. When Britain had an 83% top rate of tax, the top 1% of earners paid 11% of income tax revenue, top 5% paid 25% and the top 10% paid 35% and the bottom 50% paid 20%. Compare and contrast with the figures I gave you above before the 50% rate came in. "Progressive" taxation yields regressive results.

 

The reality is that they DO pay their way. Higher taxes yield lower tax revenue. Opening that can of worms is completely counter-productive.

 

What's fair about ensuring that kids from financially disadvantaged backgrounds are denied the possibility of fulfilling their potential? In future years this will ultimately hit the exchequer as these very kids won't be able to fill the jobs that would mean they are contributing more to the economy in tax etc. At risk of upsetting those on this DG of the Empire Loyalist tendency, we could also achieve quick wins by scrapping Trident and slashing military spending. there is really no need to attack education or to slash essential public services.

 

Why won't they be able to fulfil their potential? As even the loony left IFS say, the bottom 23% of graduate earners will pay LESS under the Coalition Government's tuition fees reform than the current system. It is more progressive than the Labour sanctioned Browne Review AND the current system, and graduate contributions are linked ABSOLUTELY in line with the graduate's ability to pay.

 

It is NOT a debt for anything other than paper purposes. It is a graduate tax with a contributions limit. The rise in fees is meaningless to the student unless they become filthy rich and are in a position to pay their contribution in its entirety. The 30 year moratorium means that ACTUALLY the government will continue to underwrite substantial swathes of the cost of people's degrees.

 

The argument is really a simple one and comes down to what you think is important: profits and the wealth of the rich, or the services and jobs the rest of us need. The main issue though is that those in charge want to look after their own kind i.e. those who are doing quite well as the rest of us struggle. This is a government of the rich, for the rich and I shudder to think where we'll be in five years time.

 

Wrong. The argument comes down to "what is the role of government" and "what is the role of University".

 

The role of University is to enable those with the most advanced skill potential to make the most of it. The person who benefits is the individual. Any other group or person who benefits does so incidentally.

 

The role of Government is to protect life, liberty and property. None of which necessitates stealing money from all parts of society to fund vanity projects, establishing a state monopoly on the provision of services to the detriment of competitors who would otherwise improve the quality of service.

[alx]

Jings this is a bit of a wayward thread. Here's my ten pence worth on a few points:

 

University Education Mission - part 1 - to increase the knowledge and culture of a nation. This also helps the individuals being taught;

 

University Education Mission - part 2 - the universities train the professions. ALL professions are taught by the universities. This is a fact in any society, whether fascist, communist fascist, capitalist communist fascist (ie China), liberal capitalist, or dodgy neo-con capitalist (USA). This serves society;

 

With a left wing hat: university education should be free for the elite on grounds of intelligence not money;

 

With both a left wing hat and a right wing hat: this means having many fewer youngsters doing fewer types of degree;

 

The dumbing down of society does no one any favours, whether you're right wing or left wing;

 

I personally (with a left wing hat on) want more social mobility for bright working class youngsters. And both the Labour scum and tory scum don't want that. In conclusion: free education on full grants for the bright poor kids, and no free junkets for idiot middle class kids who can't tie their own laces.

[Woodstock Jag]

Jings this is a bit of a wayward thread. Here's my ten pence worth on a few points:

 

University Education Mission - part 1 - to increase the knowledge and culture of a nation. This also helps the individuals being taught;

 

University Education Mission - part 2 - the universities train the professions. ALL professions are taught by the universities. This is a fact in any society, whether fascist, communist fascist, capitalist communist fascist (ie China), liberal capitalist, or dodgy neo-con capitalist (USA). This serves society;

 

I would argue that Mission part 1 should not be framed that way. It is "to satisfy an individual's desire for knowledge and wider understanding of the world around them. This is of incidental benefit to society where the best brains coalesce to produce innovation"

 

With a left wing hat: university education should be free for the elite on grounds of intelligence not money;

 

With both a left wing hat and a right wing hat: this means having many fewer youngsters doing fewer types of degree;

 

The dumbing down of society does no one any favours, whether you're right wing or left wing;

 

To be honest I think you've hit the crux of the problem. We wouldn't have to ask "who pays for it" if we didn't offer so much crap and the quality of education wasn't declining so substantially and have this obsession with sending everyone to University. It would be a drop in the ocean for Government resources to educate the top 10-20% of school-leavers and to provide a progressive means of access for those least well off. As soon as you try to funnel 50% of school-leavers into Uni when the declining quality of schooling means the quality of intake is poorer anyway just dilutes the value of a University education and drives up the cost exponentially.

 

I personally (with a left wing hat on) want more social mobility for bright working class youngsters. And both the Labour scum and tory scum don't want that. In conclusion: free education on full grants for the bright poor kids, and no free junkets for idiot middle class kids who can't tie their own laces.

 

Which is effectively how the tuition fees reform is structured! I can't believe people don't understand this! Look at the detail!

[alx]

Which is effectively how the tuition fees reform is structured! I can't believe people don't understand this! Look at the detail!

 

I don't know this! Do they still have full grants for the poorer youngsters? I could be wrong, but I thought grants were history.

[Woodstock Jag]

I don't know this! Do they still have full grants for the poorer youngsters? I could be wrong, but I thought grants were history.

 

There continue to be maintenance grants for the poorest of students. In fact, they're actually more generous down south than they are up here.

[Meister Jag]

 

Wrong. The argument comes down to "what is the role of government" and "what is the role of University".

 

The role of University is to enable those with the most advanced skill potential to make the most of it. The person who benefits is the individual. Any other group or person who benefits does so incidentally.

 

The role of Government is to protect life, liberty and property. None of which necessitates stealing money from all parts of society to fund vanity projects, establishing a state monopoly on the provision of services to the detriment of competitors who would otherwise improve the quality of service.

 

Woodstock Jag, we could bombard each other with statistics and get nowhere, but the fact is that it is generally believed today that the very democracy that you appear to champion - "government of the people by the people and for the people" - is the best and only fully justifiable political system. As you'll perhaps agree, the distinct features of democracy are freedom and equality. Democracy can be described as the rule of the free people who govern themselves, either directly or though their representatives, in their own interest. What you are suggesting suggests that government really have no role in enriching the lives of those who they've been elected to serve. Therefore, when the democratic contract is broken the people have every right to rise up and take action; ergo, the mad mental students of Parliament Square.

 

I personally believe that all of this is avoidable and that what has caused this is the fault of the very people you choose to protect. If they gave a little, society could benefit a lot. The other alternative is for the State to rip back the fortunes that it has allowed the select few to amass. If for the good of the people then why not?

 

What we have just now is the ruling class feeling that it has to revert to a form of authoritarian rule in order to break the will of the people and force its agenda through. The ruling class in Britain has threatened this on many occasions and what is happening just now is yet another ideologically driven example of this knee-jerk behaviour. Indeed one of your lot, the former Tory MP, Ian Gilmour (who I seem to recall served under Thatcher and was elevated to the Lords) gave a revealing insight in his book, Inside Right, when he stated: "Conservatives do not worship democracy... For Conservatives... democracy is a means to an end and not an end in itself. And if it is leading to an end that is undesirable or is inconsistent with itself, then there is a theoretical case for ending it." A true democrat and man of the people.

 

As Marx said:"The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class". Our so-called government is failing the people badly and is using the "deficit" as a convenient excuse. This ideology is not for the good of the ordinary people and must be challenged. Change is required.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

Woodstock Jag, we could bombard each other with statistics and get nowhere, but the fact is that it is generally believed today that the very democracy that you appear to champion - "government of the people by the people and for the people" - is the best and only fully justifiable political system. As you'll perhaps agree, the distinct features of democracy are freedom and equality.

 

Democracy can be described as the rule of the free people who govern themselves, either directly or though their representatives, in their own interest. What you are suggesting suggests that government really have no role in enriching the lives of those who they've been elected to serve. Therefore, when the democratic contract is broken the people have every right to rise up and take action; ergo, the mad mental students of Parliament Square.

 

I am a democratic sceptic. I find so much of democracy to be contrary to liberty. I think it is arbitrary, unfair, and allows tyranny of the majority. I am first and foremost an autarchist. I believe in absolute self-rule and ownership. I believe that freedom is innate to existence and that no matter how it is dressed up, the imposition of any will upon the individual, which itself has a will, is both coercive and morally bankrupt.

 

I also believe that equality is contrary to liberty especially when brought about by nefarious and illegitimate states, which all nation states are. Government should only exist to the extent that it can overcome the inconveniences of the liberty enjoyed by mere existence. It should not really have a role in redistribution. It should not really have a role in welfare and it should not really have a role in anything except that which protects the negative freedoms of man and his property.

 

I also do not believe that violence is rational or moral. It is contrary to virtue and is to be rejected as coercive and contrary to liberty of person. Protests against political elites are perfectly valid, but anarchists violently protesting for higher taxes to fund a bigger state are not anarchists.

 

I personally believe that all of this is avoidable and that what has caused this is the fault of the very people you choose to protect. If they gave a little society could benefit a lot. The other alternative is for the State to rip back the fortunes that it has allowed the select few to amass. if for the good of the people then why not?

 

I do not choose to "protect" anyone. I would not have bailed out the banks. I believe in absolute individual responsibility and that the presence of government dilutes this so that people start to expect other people to do things for them. That is wrong.

 

The rich already give a lot to society, which is the point. No one has entitlement to another man's wealth. At all. It is not for other people to tell a man what his wealth must be used for. If he considers it virtuous to help others, he will do so. If he does not, that is his prerogative, and since he exists to maximise the enjoyment of his liberty he should do everything in his power to prevent others from destroying it by creating this thing called a "state" and sanctioning theft to give to others. In short there is no common good or people. There are individuals. Their interests occasionally coalesce. Their wills may be mutual but they are not common.

 

What we have just now is the ruling class feeling that it has to revert to a form of authoritarian rule in order to break the will of the people and force its agenda through. The ruling class in Britain has threatened this on many occasions and what is happening just now is yet another ideologically driven example of this knee-jerk behaviour.

 

I deride any rule. Because there is no such thing as the will of the people, but the aggregate will of individuals. And because I reject the legitimacy of the aggregate will, I reject the nation state, and anything that it does unless it is the product of a unanimous desire of those whose liberty it invades.

 

Indeed one of your lot, the former Tory MP, Ian Gilmour (who I seem to recall served under Thatcher and was elevated to the Lords) gave a revealing insight in his book, Inside Right, stated: "Conservatives do not worship democracy... For Conservatives... democracy is a means to an end and not an end in itself. And if it is leading to an end that is undesirable or is inconsistent with itself, then there is a theoretical case for ending it." A true democrat and man of the people.

 

Again, I am not a Tory. Why do people always assume this?

 

I voted Lib Dem in the last election, but in truth none of the political parties even come close to representing my views. They are all statist, tax and spend, authoritarian and anti-liberty; just some less than others (Labour are the worst).

 

As before, democracy is neither a means nor an ends for me. It is just blatantly contrary to liberty.

 

As Marx said:"The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class". Our so-called government is failing the people badly and is using the "deficit" as a convenient excuse. This ideology is not for the good of the ordinary people and must be challenged. Change is required.

 

The government does not exist for the people. It exists for individuals and to protect the freedoms that exist because they exist and are individuals.

 

That is why I reject the rubbish that Marx spouts every bit as much as the authoritarian capitalist spouts. Classes are arbitrary divisions that people invent to try to destroy individuality and clump individuals into groups. It is a form of profiling. It creates and justifies power structures.

 

A true libertarian, autarchist, or market anarchist rejects all of these. All power is contrary to liberty.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[Meister Jag]

Woodstock Jag, I'm trying to understand your logic, why you voted Lib Dem (your business I know) and why you think self-rule by the people is the only way forward. I'm also at a loss as to why you would seek to defend the super-rich and why you don't think it reasonable for them to pay a little more.

 

IMO Marx gives us a valuable insight into all forms of conflict in in a capitalist system, he thought that this conflict was central to the social structure of capitalism and could not be abolished without replacing the system itself. He argued that conditions under the capitalist system would likely develop in a way that encouraged a proletariat to become organised collectively for its own goals to develop. The student demo's are probably evidence of this in action. Overt class conflict is then inevitable and the system must then take action to avoid the type of extreme polarisation of the classes that could ultimately destroy the system. watch this space... if the students don't go away, concessions will be won.

 

You have given us your world view, but no solutions. Do you have any or is it simply the case that the citizen should respect government and get on with it? The suggestion that the tax-avoiding super-rich should be allowed to sit back and pay nothing, frankly, mystifies me. Let them keep their vast wealth (for just now but in time of need make them show a bit of altruism by paying a little more. I mean, they'll still remain very very wealthy.

 

I'll leave it at that until later this evening. The factory hooter will be going off in a few hours and I'll need to be up to walk my whippets.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

Woodstock Jag, I'm trying to understand your logic, why you voted Lib Dem (your business I know) and why you think self-rule by the people is the only way forward. I'm also at a loss as to why you would seek to defend the super-rich and why you don't think it reasonable for them to pay a little more.

 

I voted Lib Dem partly tactically but also because they are the least authoritarian of the main parties. Their leadership were also on record since 2004 with the Orange Book as keen to reduce the role of the state in the lives of individuals, arguing for marketisation and localised solutions to problems.

 

Self rule is the purest of all rule and the only irrefutably legitimate one. I believe that humans are inherently self-interested but good: capable of reason and its application. It is this illusion of power and the arbitrary and quite deliberate creation of utterly meaningless classes that attack individual capacity for good.

 

How many times do I have to say this: I am not "defending" the super-rich. I defend no one but myself and those I value. I am challenging this assumed notion that property is a relative concept; it is not. It is absolute, and can only be tempered by the express consent of the proprietor. Fairness is not about equality. It is about the liberty of man to choose or to reject equality, and to define the terms upon which he believes equality to have been established.

 

IMO Marx gives us a valuable insight into all forms of conflict in in a capitalist system, he thought that this conflict was central to the social structure of capitalism and could not be abolished without replacing the system itself.

 

And I don't. I think they are completely arbitrary distinctions that are used to engineer conflict and to destroy innate individualism. We do not, and have never, lived in anything remotely resembling a truly free market society. The free market derides monopoly of all kinds, and is all about the dissemination and separation of political and economic power. Marx is fundamentally disingenuous to suggest that their correlation implies causation.

 

He argued that conditions under the capitalist system would likely develop in a way that encouraged a proletariat to become organised collectively for its own goals to develop. The student demo's are probably evidence of this in action. Overt class conflict is then inevitable and the system must then take action to avoid the type of extreme polarisation of the classes that could ultimately destroy the system. watch this space... if the students don't go away, concessions will be won.

 

As above, we don't have a capitalist system. A capitalist system does not have sectional interest. The capitalist system sees coalescing interests as incidental to and not a necessary consequence of inequality. That is where Marx is wrong: it is only by the spread of lies and the desire to usurp the elites by the internal elites of the so-called proletariat that the masses are duped into violence.

 

The reality is that class distinctions are arbitrary, dangerous and ought to be meaningless. They are simply similar people. They are only a community to the extent that their immediate interests are mutual (not common).

 

You have given us your world view, but no solutions. Do you have any or is it simply the case that the citizen should respect government and get on with it? The suggestion that the tax-avoiding super-rich should be allowed to sit back and pay nothing, frankly, mystifies me. Let them keep their vast wealth (for just now but in time of need make them show a bit of altruism by paying a little more. I mean, they'll still remain very very wealthy.

 

My solution is to have no government or at least have it so small that it doesn't matter who is running it, from where, or on behalf of whom. Absolute individual responsibility.

 

You betray very authoritarian instincts. Liberty is absolute. It is the right to do as one pleases without expressly invading the liberty of another. There is no inherent responsibility on the "super-rich" to do anything for the poor, except that which they impose upon themselves. To suggest otherwise is to allow tyranny of the majority, which is fundamentally wrong and anti-liberty.

 

"Make them show a bit of altruism" - that's contradictory. Altruism is by definition the interest in the welfare of others. Taxing people (i.e. stealing their money) does not change the way they THINK. Forced altruism is not altruism.

 

I'll leave it at that until later this evening. The factory hooter will be going off in a few hours and I'll need to be up to walk my whippets.

 

Mind you don't go on strike

[alx]

Why don't youse start a new thread called 'undergraduate utopian nonsense politics' and have a proper 'debate' that I can avoid?????

[B.C.G. JAG]

WJ, your fantasies have long since depressed me. Your posts genuinely make me miserable. When you have to reem off paragraph after paragraph about the individual's responsibility to only themselves, then you have already lost the argument by failing the basic test of humanity. We are social creatures, we have not needed there to be a transaction or coercion since we were neandrathal. Altruism is not the cynical illusion you describe. Meanwhile, you claim not to have any truck with Toryism yet you go to enormous lengths to defend the absolute authority of the individual's property, or as some might call it, the means of production. There is nothing Neo about this, it's just plain old fashioned nasty conservatism.

 

When folk used to tut and mutter about the youth of today, it really did mean something else. At the time of writing, according to the interweb, there are there are 7068908547 people on this planet. What a horrible, cynical, mistrusting and anti social opinion you have of all those humans. Be an 'autarchist' all you want, but you'll find that you're all alone. Please go and get laid as soon as possible and start reconnecting with humans rather than daydreaming the fantasies of the GU Politics Club.

[Woodstock Jag]

WJ, your fantasies have long since depressed me. Your posts genuinely make me miserable. When you have to reem off paragraph after paragraph about the individual's responsibility to only themselves, then you have already lost the argument by failing the basic test of humanity. We are social creatures, we have not needed there to be a transaction or coercion since we were neandrathal.

 

The problem here is that you're setting up a straw man. I do not deny that we are social creatures. I merely disagree as to what makes us social creatures. We are social because it satisfies the human mind. It satisfies an individual hunger for interaction.

 

You also misrepresent transaction. It does not necessitate reciprocity: indeed transaction is merely the transfer of anything from one person to another. That could be of information, of a gesture, of property, of compassion, of anything. Transaction is the base of social interaction.

 

Altruism is not the cynical illusion you describe.

 

Altruism necessarily grows out of a desire to help others. That's what it is. Forcibly depriving an individual of their property to use it for the benefit of another is not altruism. Indeed it is contrary to altruism. If there is any cynicism it is in the erroneous belief that such twisting of coercion and will is valid.

 

Meanwhile, you claim not to have any truck with Toryism yet you go to enormous lengths to defend the absolute authority of the individual's property, or as some might call it, the means of production. There is nothing Neo about this, it's just plain old fashioned nasty conservatism.

 

That means you obviously don't understand what "Toryism" is. Conservatism is about preservation of power structures. Power structures are the political, the legal and the nepotist. They are the arbitrary, the coercive and the illiberal.

 

I hold that property is not itself a power structure. Indeed it is nation states that falsely affiliate property to power, and the forge-masters of artificial notions of class. Property is not itself the means of production. Indeed it is the object and subject of production. The means is labour, and man owns his own labour completely, and grants it by license for value through express consent to those with the subjects of production to bring about an object.

 

When folk used to tut and mutter about the youth of today, it really did mean something else. At the time of writing, according to the interweb, there are there are 7068908547 people on this planet. What a horrible, cynical, mistrusting and anti social opinion you have of all those humans. Be an 'autarchist' all you want, but you'll find that you're all alone. Please go and get laid as soon as possible and start reconnecting with humans rather than daydreaming the fantasies of the GU Politics Club.

 

Again, you equate exclusively socialist outlook with social interaction. This is an incredible straw man. Society is a product of mutual, not common, interests, and the greater the mutuality, the more productive the outcome. Mutuality cannot be coerced, however, and any attempts to coerce it will be counter-productive.

[KAWB]

I can't believe I got through 5 pages of this p@sh.

[B.C.G. JAG]

I can't believe I got through 5 pages of this p@sh.

I don't know. It's been a useful exercise in some ways. Previously I'd been a strong advocate of education, however thanks to WJ, we can all see how useless a politics degree from Glasgow University actually is. And I thought mine was a mickey mouse degree!

[GrantB]

I don't know. It's been a useful exercise in some ways. Previously I'd been a strong advocate of education, however thanks to WJ, we can all see how useless a politics degree from Glasgow University actually is.

 

Indeed.

[KAWB]

I don't know. It's been a useful exercise in some ways. Previously I'd been a strong advocate of education, however thanks to WJ, we can all see how useless a politics degree from Glasgow University actually is. And I thought mine was a mickey mouse degree!

 

Don't knock it, a politics degree is a guaranteed job in a call centre these days

[Uncle Psychosis]

Again, I am not a Tory. Why do people always assume this?

 

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck...

 

People can argue about it all they like. The sad fact of the matter is that British politicians (of all flavours) seems to think that fighting unwinnable "wars" in the Middle East is more important than educating the people of Britain. How depressing is that?

 

Personally I'd rather put someone through a philosophy degree than drop a "smart" bomb on some civilians in Afghanistan. Your milage may vary.