This Should Be Good...

[totah]

"FREE MARKET

That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.


THE STATE

That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).


TAX

That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.


PRIVILEGE

From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.


USURY

That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.


LANDLORDISM

That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.


TARIFF

That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.


POLITICAL CAPITALISM

That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.


CONSERVATISM

That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.


LIBERALISM

That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden."


SOCIALISM

The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.


ANARCHISM

That organization of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege.

RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate.

LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete."

Git 'er done.

[SugarCoatedSour]

I commend you. People need to know what words mean rather than take someone else's word for it. This definately reveals the cross-implications that authorities hide in their words.

[Iskandar]

Haha, where did you get this, Eran?

[sr800bkBassist]

the definitions of liberal and conservative seem a little biased.

[totah]

Haha, where did you get this, Eran?

I'll tell you off-forum, I don't want everybody else going, "Nah that source's not valid."

Oh yeah, it's not indymedia.

the definitions of liberal and conservative seem a little biased.

I dunno, they both seem equally against, don't they? Liberalism is just conservatism with an extra layer added on, so it took another line to explain, is all.



Oh yeah, here's something else. If we consider that each person owns her own body and can acquire ownership of other things by creating them, or by having ownership transferred to her by another owner, it becomes at least formally possible to define "being left alone" and its opposite, "being coerced". Someone who forcibly prevents me from using my property as I want, when I am not using it to violate her right to use her property, is coercing me. A man who prevents me from taking heroin coerces me; a man who prevents me from shooting him does not.

So taking this into account and also regarding the original definitions, freedom is defined by property. That's not to say that the more property you have the freer you are (actually in my experience the opposite is true).

These also bring up the question, if I have more property than someone else who is starving for lack of said property (for example, grain), does my refusal to trade with her (assuming I refuse, though in reality I won't) constitute coercion, since if I had traded with her she would not be dying from starvation?

[Smokey D]

Erm, just reading it you can tell it's not balanced.


These also bring up the question, if I have more property than someone else who is starving for lack of said property (for example, grain), does my refusal to trade with her (assuming I refuse, though in reality I won't) constitute coercion, since if I had traded with her she would not be dying from starvation?

Yeah, that's why we have state taxes and welfare programmes.

[totah]

Erm, just reading it you can tell it's not balanced.

Nothing is unbiased my dear. Can you extract knowledge from it nonetheless?

Yeah, that's why we have state taxes and welfare programmes.

And military spending, and narcotics cops, and huge subsidies, etc etc etc, for the price of freedom. Now I'd be happy to pay taxes into a local fund that I can be in shared control of for welfare programs, if we need them. But I don't like being forced to pay taxes into something I have no control over and where most of my money gets spent on weapons and freedom-curbing authorities.

[Smokey D]

Nothing is unbiased my dear. Can you extract knowledge from it nonetheless?

Yes, but I was saying you should tell us the source.

And also, somethings are more biased than others. This information, while superficially correct, ignores a good portion of the real story.

And military spending, and narcotics cops, and huge subsidies, etc etc etc, for the price of freedom. Now I'd be happy to pay taxes into a local fund that I can be in shared control of for welfare programs, if we need them. But I don't like being forced to pay taxes into something I have no control over and where most of my money gets spent on weapons and freedom-curbing authorities.

All taxes are coercive, unless they're volontary, but the history of charity doesn't do that much good.

But at the same time, not all taxes (or states) spend money on militaries andn narcotics. Or subsidies, for that matter.

[totah]

Yes, but I was saying you should tell us the source.

Will it be any more balanced once you know the source, or will you just attach more credit to it without properly considering the analyses?

And also, somethings are more biased than others. This information, while superficially correct, ignores a good portion of the real story.

Add more then. What's this other part of the story then?

All taxes are coercive, unless they're volontary, but the history of charity doesn't do that much good.

The history of charity that we know of is only the history of charity under the state and taxation.

Did you know that up until recently it's been a long-standing Jewish tradition to leave, anonymously, a basket full of food and other essentials on the doorstep of families who one knew were going through a bad patch?

But at the same time, not all taxes (or states) spend money on militaries and narcotics. Or subsidies, for that matter.

Most do. In fact all of the ones I can think of have military spending, police spending, and industrial subsidies.

[Smokey D]

Will it be any more balanced once you know the source, or will you just attach more credit to it without properly considering the analyses?

I just want to know who to avoid, to be honest.

Add more then. What's this other part of the story then?

I don't have time to right a discourse on liberalism at the moment. Check out John Rawls Theory of Justice to get the ball rolling, and get back to me.

The history of charity that we know of is only the history of charity under the state and taxation.

Not really. Charity existed before nation states (admittedly, there was some taxation but it was limited and not directed towards welfare).

Did you know that up until recently it's been a long-standing Jewish tradition to leave, anonymously, a basket full of food and other essentials on the doorstep of families who one knew were going through a bad patch?

Alright. Do that for Africa.

Most do. In fact all of the ones I can think of have military spending, police spending, and industrial subsidies.

Well, police spending is different to narcotic spending, and I think military spending can serve a purpose as well.

But I know for a fact NZ abolished all subsidies in the 1980s.

[griftadan]

the definitions of liberal and conservative seem a little biased.

it's the american model, given that this forum is somewhat international there may be confusion.

[totah]

I don't have time to right a discourse on liberalism at the moment. Check out John Rawls Theory of Justice to get the ball rolling, and get back to me.

Let's skip this point then, whatever it is.

Not really. Charity existed before nation states (admittedly, there was some taxation but it was limited and not directed towards welfare).

Nation-states and statist organisations are not the same. The first war-lords and land-barons, using the original definitions, were the first states. The state is an institution in these definitions, not a solid border and government.

Alright. Do that for Africa.

I will as soon as the State stops taxing the **** out of them and doing other coercive-y things.

Well, police spending is different to narcotic spending, and I think military spending can serve a purpose as well.

The police is there to impose the will of the state. I can imagine scenarios where a police-like organisation would be necessary outside of state capitalism, but then again I can imagine a lot of things.

But I know for a fact NZ abolished all subsidies in the 1980s.

Touche.

[Smokey D]

Nation-states and statist organisations are not the same. The first war-lords and land-barons, using the original definitions, were the first states. The state is an institution in these definitions, not a solid border and government.


Yes, but those guys never taxed for welfare.

I will as soon as the State stops taxing the **** out of them and doing other coercive-y things.

Why can't there be both?

The police is there to impose the will of the state. I can imagine scenarios where a police-like organisation would be necessary outside of state capitalism, but then again I can imagine a lot of things.

Well then, you see the problem we have.

[Danish]

I'll tell you off-forum, I don't want everybody else going, "Nah that source's not valid."

Well, in that case you have to tell us.

[BridgeToSolace]

http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/celine/ appears to be the source.

[Smokey D]

Also the Illumunati Trilogy.

[BridgeToSolace]

Also the Illumunati Trilogy.

The Illuminatus.

One is an secret organization, the other one molests children.

[Dave de Sylvia]

More proof anarcho-capitalism and Marxism are equally demented.

[Mr. Ron]

More proof anarcho-capitalism and Marxism are equally demented.

I really wouldn't call Marxism "demented".

[Dave de Sylvia]

I would, I used to be one.

[totah]

Yes, but those guys never taxed for welfare.

You don't know that. Besides, it probably wasn't in their interests to tax for welfare. Power always does what's in its interest to survive, and perhaps the pro-welfare movement back then was smaller and so less threatening. I think you misunderstand the position I'm coming from as anti-authoritarian. I'm not anti-authoritarian because authority won't give us enough nice things, I'm anti-authoritarian because authority is self-serving and will only give us nice things when we threaten its existence, and even then only after it tried killing us. How many people died or were imprisoned, harassed by cops, threatened, libeled, so that we could have welfare in the UK now?

Well then, you see the problem we have.

What, that the cops do bad things AND good things? But if the state didn't exist then cops would only do good things. Also if state capitalism didn't exist cops would have a lot less work to do, as well as be answerable to their communities directly.

http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/celine/ appears to be the source.

Damn you google!

More proof anarcho-capitalism and Marxism are equally demented.

It's not anarcho-capitalism. It's anarchism but with different terminology. Instead of "liberty" we have "free market". Instead of "autonomy" we have "property", but in practice they actually mean the same thing, as long as you view your body as your property.

I would, I used to be one.

Lol, you musta been crazy back then. Marxism's just a silly and undeveloped theory that doesn't relate back to human behaviour and human needs. But then again that's just politicians for you.

[Danish]

Lol, you musta been crazy back then. Marxism's just a silly and undeveloped theory that doesn't relate back to human behaviour and human needs. But then again that's just politicians for you.

Silly and underdeveloped? Unlike the "definitions" you posted, right?

I challenge you to a duel! Debate thread on Marxism.

[Smokey D]

What, that the cops do bad things AND good things? But if the state didn't exist then cops would only do good things. Also if state capitalism didn't exist cops would have a lot less work to do, as well as be answerable to their communities directly.


Woah... there's no reason to think that cops would be nice if there wasn't a state.

Or that communities wouldn't want their cops to enforce crazy rules.


You don't know that.

Yes I do. It's my major, dammit.

Besides, it probably wasn't in their interests to tax for welfare.

Nah, probably not. But it wouldn't have occured to them to do it even if it was. The whole state (and social) structure was different.

Power always does what's in its interest to survive, and perhaps the pro-welfare movement back then was smaller and so less threatening. I think you misunderstand the position I'm coming from as anti-authoritarian. I'm not anti-authoritarian because authority won't give us enough nice things, I'm anti-authoritarian because authority is self-serving and will only give us nice things when we threaten its existence, and even then only after it tried killing us. How many people died or were imprisoned, harassed by cops, threatened, libeled, so that we could have welfare in the UK now?

Don't abstract 'power' and 'authority'. It is never separate from the people who hold those positions, and they aren't automatically evil because they hold positions of power.

And you haven't told me why there wouldn't be similar problems in 'non-authoritarian' societies (what a laughable concept that is).

[Danish]

You don't know that. Besides, it probably wasn't in their interests to tax for welfare. Power always does what's in its interest to survive, and perhaps the pro-welfare movement back then was smaller and so less threatening. I think you misunderstand the position I'm coming from as anti-authoritarian. I'm not anti-authoritarian because authority won't give us enough nice things, I'm anti-authoritarian because authority is self-serving and will only give us nice things when we threaten its existence, and even then only after it tried killing us. How many people died or were imprisoned, harassed by cops, threatened, libeled, so that we could have welfare in the UK now?

I can't believe you'd say what you said about Marx, and then turn around and hold up those workers who fought for workers' rights in Britain. Workers' struggles are the struggles you're championing here. It was workers that won the welfare state, the right to join a union, the right to old-age pension and healthcare. The authoritarianism you speak of existed then and exists now.

[MAthiAS]

I challenge you to a duel! Debate thread on Marxism.
I'd like to see that.

[Mr. Ron]

Wait, totah is cohen?

[Iskandar]

I would, I used to be one.That explains a lot, actually.

[totah]

Woah... there's no reason to think that cops would be nice if there wasn't a state.

Well, perhaps cops wouldn't because cops come with many statist and violent connotations. But a designated person (designated by the community) or group to help mediate problems, break up the odd fight (fights happen, even with anarchists, but this social system still works since people aren't in fighting mood 24/7), etc. Sometimes these people are called ombudsmen.

Since these people wouldn't have any power beyond reason and pacific intervention, there's not really much to abuse, while cops have all sorts of violent and oppressive powers. Their very presence is oppressive to most people.

Or that communities wouldn't want their cops to enforce crazy rules.

But if the decisions were reached by the community in an equal democratic meeting then everyone agrees to it, or if a minority opposition exists then there were precautions decided upon in the meeting to make sure that the minority will not be hurt by the majority decision (I think a stage in the democratic process that's as important as all other stages is to, before the vote is taken, talk about and decide what happens in case of a majority-minority separation). Beyond that, "crazy" is simply relative to your Christian liberal morality.

Yes I do. It's my major, dammit.

History is only what's written and since the land-baron and feudal warlord examples go back to 1000 years ago and more, much more (since the beginning of civilisation), then there's a lot that's undocumented. A lot a lot.

Nah, probably not. But it wouldn't have occured to them to do it even if it was. The whole state (and social) structure was different.

"It wouldn't have occured to them..."? That's silliness. I daresay some Russian land-baron taking a ride through his estate would have realised that the situation his poverty-stricken peasants (note the "his") are in is bad for them, and so it would obviously occur that what they need is more money. The social and state structures were different, but not so radically different that the rich didn't know the concept of poverty.

Don't abstract 'power' and 'authority'. It is never separate from the people who hold those positions, and they aren't automatically evil because they hold positions of power.

I wasn't, when I say "power" I don't mean the Force, I mean the (for example) government, or cops, or warlord, depending on context.

No, they may not be evil in the conventional sense (a good example is the German engineer who pulled the lever to release the gas into the gas chambers, and then oversaw the burning of the bodies, but at the end of the day went back to his home to kiss his wife and play with his children and eat with the whole family), but the systems which allow these positions of power to exist and flourish should be dismantled.

And you haven't told me why there wouldn't be similar problems in 'non-authoritarian' societies.

What similar problems? I know it's been like a week and I haven't reread the thread, but haven't we been talking about the problems of authoritarian society in the last half a page or so?

I can't believe you'd say what you said about Marx, and then turn around and hold up those workers who fought for workers' rights in Britain. Workers' struggles are the struggles you're championing here. It was workers that won the welfare state, the right to join a union, the right to old-age pension and healthcare. The authoritarianism you speak of existed then and exists now.

Lol, for two reasons.

1) I was semi-kidding about Lord Marx, and
2) State communism is not the logical or preferable final product of a successful class struggle revolution, because instead of putting the means of producing capital in the hands of the workers themselves, it puts them in the hands of the state apparatus and its bureacracy, which turns government and civil servants, as well as those in their loops, into a de facto upper class who still profit materially from the capital produced by the workers (who are now slaves to the state instead of to private bosses) more than the workers themselves. And Marx hasn't thought this problem out.

Wait, totah is cohen?

Your servant, sir.

[Iskandar]

State communism is not the logical or preferable final product of a successful class struggle revolution, because instead of putting the means of producing capital in the hands of the workers themselves, it puts them in the hands of the state apparatus and its bureacracy, which turns government and civil servants, as well as those in their loops, into a de facto upper class who still profit materially from the capital produced by the workers (who are now slaves to the state instead of to private bosses) more than the workers themselves. And Marx hasn't thought this problem out.He expected the state would be under the control of the working class as well ... proletarianism democracy, as opposed to bourgeois democracy.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Marixism would be great if there were no humans involved.

[Iskandar]

Marixism would be great if there were no humans involved.Are you one of those "human nature" people? Please tell me you're not.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Yeah. Because I know if I was given a chance like that I'd so take advantage of it and become a ruthless dictator.

[Iskandar]

Yeah. Because I know if I was given a chance like that I'd so take advantage of it and become a ruthless dictator.You're talking about Communism, not Marxism.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I know, but it's not a far stretch to say that marixism will lead to communism.

[Smokey D]

Well, perhaps cops wouldn't because cops come with many statist and violent connotations. But a designated person (designated by the community) or group to help mediate problems, break up the odd fight (fights happen, even with anarchists, but this social system still works since people aren't in fighting mood 24/7), etc.

Okay. Why wouldn't these people be spatulas?

Sometimes these people are called ombudsmen.

Just pointing out that this is hilarious because ombudsmen were historically agents of the state.



Since these people wouldn't have any power beyond reason and pacific intervention, there's not really much to abuse, while cops have all sorts of violent and oppressive powers. Their very presence is oppressive to most people.

Pardon the cliche, but who watches the watchmen?

But if the decisions were reached by the community in an equal democratic meeting then everyone agrees to it, or if a minority opposition exists then there were precautions decided upon in the meeting to make sure that the minority will not be hurt by the majority decision (I think a stage in the democratic process that's as important as all other stages is to, before the vote is taken, talk about and decide what happens in case of a majority-minority separation). Beyond that, "crazy" is simply relative to your Christian liberal morality.

What sort of rules would be in place to ensure no one was hurt? How would you enforce it? etc etc.

And 'crazy laws' aren't part of my 'Christian liberal morality'. I'm talking about any law you or I might find objectionable (say, the enslavement of all children born on Tuesday),or for you, a ban on drugs due to a community's historical relationship with religion and intoxicants, perhaps.


History is only what's written and since the land-baron and feudal warlord examples go back to 1000 years ago and more, much more (since the beginning of civilisation), then there's a lot that's und0cumented. A lot a lot.

First of all, history is NOT only what is written.

Secondly, tax flows are probably the most recorded things in history because every tyrant and landlord wants to know who owes what. Bear in mind this comment is referring to whether taxes were used historically for welfare.

"It wouldn't have occured to them..."? That's silliness. I daresay some Russian land-baron taking a ride through his estate would have realised that the situation his poverty-stricken peasants (note the "his") are in is bad for them, and so it would obviously occur that what they need is more money. The social and state structures were different, but not so radically different that the rich didn't know the concept of poverty.

He might have gone into the countryside and said 'oh look at this suffering. The Church has failed these poor peasants.' If he were particularly progressive, he might even have said 'oh look at the suffering. I should stop charging such high rents'. Most likely he would have said 'oh look at the suffering. I wonder if there will be caviar at the party tonight. I hope these poor folk don't spoil the atmosphere'.

He almost certainly would not have said 'oh look at the suffering. I should charge higher rents and spend it on building roads and providing job security'.

The whole thing about the old regime is that inequality was believed to be ordained by God, and the natural, appropriate way society was divided.


I wasn't, when I say "power" I don't mean the Force, I mean the (for example) government, or cops, or warlord, depending on context.

I know that. But what I mean is don't forget that people in power are people first, power holders second.


No, they may not be evil in the conventional sense (a good example is the German engineer who pulled the lever to release the gas into the gas chambers, and then oversaw the burning of the bodies, but at the end of the day went back to his home to kiss his wife and play with his children and eat with the whole family), but the systems which allow these positions of power to exist and flourish should be dismantled.

Power is a natural condition. By dismantling the systems of power that do exist, you merely transfer power to another group. I'd much rather have a system where the power (in the form of the state) is directed against itself so as to limit its potential for abuse.

What similar problems? I know it's been like a week and I haven't reread the thread, but haven't we been talking about the problems of authoritarian society in the last half a page or so?

I assume I was referring to the general weakness of anarchism.

[lfantwister]

He might have gone into the countryside and said 'oh look at this suffering. The Church has failed these poor peasants.' You could argue that internal charity could take care of it without an overlord (sorry f this isnt what youre talking about havent been reading the thread). Charity is a pretty significatn amount of money.

[Smokey D]

Charity very rarely met the needs of the poor, especially in the countryside. For the most part, people were too poor to worry about their neighbours.

[pedro durruti]

Dude the state is worse than capitalism

[PerpetualBurn]

But if the decisions were reached by the community in an equal democratic meeting then everyone agrees to it, or if a minority opposition exists then there were precautions decided upon in the meeting to make sure that the minority will not be hurt by the majority decision (I think a stage in the democratic process that's as important as all other stages is to, before the vote is taken, talk about and decide what happens in case of a majority-minority separation). Beyond that, "crazy" is simply relative to your Christian liberal morality.

It's interesting that as an "anti-authoritarian" that it doesn't bother you that this system has absolutely no limit to the power of decision the majority can make.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

What a lame load of definitions, if you can call them that. Stereotypes, perhaps; to me they sound like propaganda. ARe you by any change heavily pro-market? Also, I do not think your descriptions of conservatism, for example (I would take issue with most if not all of them), is accurate. It is more of a seemingly "insightful" description of some governments that call themselves conservative. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure usury is not the best word for what you have described, but I know what you mean, I think. You are referring to the US banking system in which banks can create money, or something along those lines?

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Dude the state is worse than capitalism

How so? A democratic state, with a constitution, has obligations to the people, whereas 'capitalists' have no obligation to anyone other than that which is created by the state, and will, apparently, only go for personal profit, often at the expense of others. So how is the state worse than capitalism, dude?

[Danish]

Yeah. Because I know if I was given a chance like that I'd so take advantage of it and become a ruthless dictator.

That because you were raised in a capitalist society that has impressed that upon you since birth.

[Danish]

Dude the state is worse than capitalism

Is it?

[Danish]

Lol, for two reasons.

1) I was semi-kidding about Lord Marx, and
2) State communism is not the logical or preferable final product of a successful class struggle revolution, because instead of putting the means of producing capital in the hands of the workers themselves, it puts them in the hands of the state apparatus and its bureacracy, which turns government and civil servants, as well as those in their loops, into a de facto upper class who still profit materially from the capital produced by the workers (who are now slaves to the state instead of to private bosses) more than the workers themselves. And Marx hasn't thought this problem out.

lol I didn't know who I was talking to!

No one wants state communism. But I think it's evident that we need some significant legislative change to help unions organize more workers. Social democracy isn't inherently bad; the process toward revolution will be all about organizing and building a movement. But we need governments to broaden the public sphere and improve labour relations legislation in order achieve this.

I'm more inclined toward anarcho-syndicalism than Marxism for a desirable model for social organization, don't get me wrong. But when you can get through high school without learning anything about the labour movement, there's a problem in the society. We need to counter neoliberalism; it's the greatest challenge facing activists today.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Power is a natural condition. By dismantling the systems of power that do exist, you merely transfer power to another group. I'd much rather have a system where the power (in the form of the state) is directed against itself so as to limit its potential for abuse.

This. Also, in stateless societies, such as tribal areas, there are still some tribes who are more powerful than others, and individuals within each tribe who are more powerful than others. Power is not a characteristic unique to the state.

I am loathe to use such a cliche, but look at Iraq: the power of the government was largely taken away, and the situation is no better than it was as other groups have taken control, and also with no regulation of power (as Saddam also did not have).

Social democracy isn't inherently bad; the process toward revolution will be all about organizing and building a movement.

Social democracy, as I understand it, is not about moving towards revolution, but more to do with having welfare systems and a degree of socialism within a capitalist society, i.e. mixed economy. I would say a lot of "centre-left" politicians in the west today are social democrats - the former SDP members of the UK LibDems, along with some ex-Liberal Party members, some of New Labour, and many Democrats in the USA.

But when you can get through high school without learning anything about the labour movement, there's a problem in the society. We need to counter neoliberalism; it's the greatest challenge facing activists today.

The right-wing (often through their media control) is the first to cry out about "liberal" or "left" bias by public institutions and organisations, but I honestly think that pandering to these complaints from the right itself constitutes right-wing bias, but it is always left uncommented on. THe UK example I can think of is the BBC - accused by the (largely right wing) press of being liberal or left-wing, usually with no evidence or the "cherry picking" method of selecting a few pieces from the whole schedule. For example, the BBC cancelled a load of programmes about Climate Change as it was accused of being left-wing, which is frankly absurd as climate change is a matter of science, not politics, but has political implications, but it is much me refuted by the right wing than the left, perhaps as the right traditionally dislikes all or most state interference, which many feel addressing climate change implies. Anyway, I digress, but disregarding a neutral or factual programme based on the opinions of those on the right constitutes a right-wing bias. THis same bias has penetrated many areas of life, including the orthodoxy that continues in the US about socialism being about restricting freedom and a behemothian state, with anything left of centre being labelled socialism, and right wing politics and economics being factually more efficient. SO yes, i agree.

[WhoDidTheElf]

That because you were raised in a capitalist society that has impressed that upon you since birth.

Then it all boils down to education, correct?

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Then it all boils down to education, correct?

I vote for not having the whole nature vs. nurture debate here and now, but I think it is fair to say that there is substantial evidence pointing towards the fact the one's upbringing has an effect on your characteristics later in life.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Yeah and there is potential for abuse in the education system, that's all my point was.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Absolutely. Teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory, for example.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well not silly thing's like that, but things like having one person gain control of the education system and start manipulating the system to his or her will.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Well not silly thing's like that, but things like having one person gain control of the education system and start manipulating the system to his or her will.

I'd say having creationism taught in schools is the result of manipulating the system to someone's will. In fact, any syllabus is an expression of what the powers-that-be feel should be taught to children in schools, but I do get what you mean.

[Reaganista]

Well not silly thing's like that, but things like having one person gain control of the education system and start manipulating the system to his or her will.
yeah like teaching creationism as a valid idea, for example

[WhoDidTheElf]

I'd say having creationism taught in schools is the result of manipulating the system to someone's will. In fact, any syllabus is an expression of what the powers-that-be feel should be taught to children in schools, but I do get what you mean.

Yeah, more macro than micro.

[Reaganista]

the state is worse than capitalism is a nonsensical concept since you cant have capitalism without the state

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

the state is worse than capitalism is a nonsensical concept since you cant have capitalism without the state

You sort of can, but it would probably not be quite in the form that we recognise.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

You sort of can
how?

[Danish]

the state is worse than capitalism is a nonsensical concept since you cant have capitalism without the state

Totally agree.

[pedro durruti]

Without any elaboration that refutation doesn't make sense because you are claiming that “saying the state is worse than capitalism makes no sense because capitalism is dependent on the state.” That is, without the state, you have neither the state nor capitalism, and without capitalism you are still most likely left with a state. Also, they are two distinguishable entities even if they aren't entirely independent of one another. The two are very interchangable and a single thing some times, but they can be compared as better or worse than one another.

So what is worse? The monster or the master that sanctions it? The master has through time adapted to the creation or has been subdued to the monster's constituents (the bourgeoisie) by revolutionary action. States have also been subordinated by other imperialist states already following the capitalist method, whereby populations underwent the rigors of both state and capitalism. It has always been a question of harnessing state power, or receiving its consent.

It depends where you live though. Because sometimes you live under an oppressive regime getting shot at for peaceful congregation and sometimes you're in a NAFTA labor camp drinking dysentary out of a barrel. But I think we have to look at it theoretically and whether the state is fundamentally worse than capitalism fundamentally is. Of course something dependent on something else, something that can't exist “without the state,” can be worse than what allows it to live, but “the state” will lie at the root of the problem.

How so? A democratic state, with a constitution, has obligations to the people, whereas 'capitalists' have no obligation to anyone other than that which is created by the state, and will, apparently, only go for personal profit, often at the expense of others. So how is the state worse than capitalism, dude?
If the democratic state, with all its obligations to people [except the deviant], allows capitalism to flourish, which it constrains, contains and limits, then which is worse, ultimately?

[Smokey D]

Capitalism ain't no where near as bad as you're making it out.

Especially capitalism that's very much constrained by the powers of the state.

[pedro durruti]

I'm not trying to make it out as a complete and utter monster, but given my opinion on it I just decided to call it that. And I'm trying to make capitalism look good! He-he

[Smokey D]

Yeah, but your argument for the state being evil largely depends on your argument for capitalism being the same. And your ridiculous false dilemma that ' sometimes you live under an oppressive regime getting shot at for peaceful congregation and sometimes you're in a NAFTA labor camp drinking dysentary out of a barrel.'

But I think we have to look at it theoretically and whether the state is fundamentally worse than capitalism fundamentally is. Of course something dependent on something else, something that can't exist “without the state,” can be worse than what allows it to live, but “the state” will lie at the root of the problem.

Theoretically, this doesn't make much sense since you already argued that despite interdependency, the state and capitalism can and should be assessed differently.

You need to take this one step further, and realise that different sorts of states (and different sorts of capitalisms, for that matter) should be assessed differently as well. There is absolutely no point in comparing Pinochet's regime to Australia's, for example.

[totah]

Okay. Why wouldn't these people be spatulas?

Because the community would have delegated them and rational people sitting together and trying to determine which team of people is going to help mediate personal problems in their community is not going to choose kitchen utensils to do it. And if they do, then they asked for it and they can change their minds when they realise their mistake.

Just pointing out that this is hilarious because ombudsmen were historically agents of the state.

What you're seeing is the old anarchist irony. It's this same wit that decided to name the concept "anarchy" and make revolutionaries' jobs that much harder.

Pardon the cliche, but who watches the watchmen?

The community who chose her. In an anarchist society this question applies less 'cos of "people power".

I gotta run now but I was gonna answer more. Not the economics bit, that's boring.

[Danish]

Without any elaboration that refutation doesn't make sense because you are claiming that “saying the state is worse than capitalism makes no sense because capitalism is dependent on the state.” That is, without the state, you have neither the state nor capitalism, and without capitalism you are still most likely left with a state. Also, they are two distinguishable entities even if they aren't entirely independent of one another. The two are very interchangable and a single thing some times, but they can be compared as better or worse than one another.

So what is worse? The monster or the master that sanctions it? The master has through time adapted to the creation or has been subdued to the monster's constituents (the bourgeoisie) by revolutionary action. States have also been subordinated by other imperialist states already following the capitalist method, whereby populations underwent the rigors of both state and capitalism. It has always been a question of harnessing state power, or receiving its consent.

It depends where you live though. Because sometimes you live under an oppressive regime getting shot at for peaceful congregation and sometimes you're in a NAFTA labor camp drinking dysentary out of a barrel. But I think we have to look at it theoretically and whether the state is fundamentally worse than capitalism fundamentally is. Of course something dependent on something else, something that can't exist “without the state,” can be worse than what allows it to live, but “the state” will lie at the root of the problem.


If the democratic state, with all its obligations to people [except the deviant], allows capitalism to flourish, which it constrains, contains and limits, then which is worse, ultimately?

The problem with your analysis is that it lacks an understanding of the historical development of capitalism. Capital depends on the state to secure their interests and the state was crafted specifically to protect the interests of capital.

In other words, capital and the state aren't separate entities. They are like two heads on a hydra -- kill one and the beast still lives.

[Smokey D]

Because the community would have delegated them and rational people sitting together and trying to determine which team of people is going to help mediate personal problems in their community is not going to choose kitchen utensils to do it. And if they do, then they asked for it and they can change their minds when they realise their mistake.

Okay, how is that different to representative democracy?


What you're seeing is the old anarchist irony. It's this same wit that decided to name the concept "anarchy" and make revolutionaries' jobs that much harder.


Revolutionaries are stoopid.


The community who chose her. In an anarchist society this question applies less 'cos of "people power".

Okay, how is that different to all the mechanisms we have to prevent and invesitgate abuse now?

And why would society be better at checking up on itself under anarchy?


In other words, capital and the state aren't separate entities. They are like two heads on a hydra -- kill one and the beast still lives.

The state props up capitalism, but can exist without it and has in some cases been hostile towards it.

[Iskandar]

The state props up capitalism, but can exist without it and has in some cases been hostile towards it.It's generally accepted, though, that a market economy needs a government to be effective. Y'know, to ensure property rights, reinforce contracts, all that fun stuff.

[Smokey D]

Yeah, that's what I mean when the state props up capitalism.

My point was that the state can (and histocially has) existed without capitalism (though rarely without some form of capital).

[Iskandar]

Yeah, that's what I mean when the state props up capitalism.

My point was that the state can (and histocially has) existed without capitalism (though rarely without some form of capital).And that's very true. I was just sayin' is all.

[totah]

In other words, capital and the state aren't separate entities. They are like two heads on a hydra -- kill one and the beast still lives.

Amen brotha'!

Okay, how is that different to representative democracy?

For what I thought was the obvious reason that no human being can adequately represent a thousand people. You might have an argument for her representing three or four people, if she knew them well enough, but otherwise representative democracy just ends up being a succession of tyrannical teams chosen by everybody, simply because that's the only choice they think they have. It's actually possible to govern ourselves without representatives. Lately anarchists have been using "spokescouncils" for large gatherings (1000+). Basically each group of about 50 people (it varies a lot though) sends a spokesperson from their meeting into a wider general spokesmeeting to bring up whatever was talked about. This meeting is open to everyone and everyone can speak, so there is none of that "political class" privilege happening we saw in the Soviet system.

Revolutionaries are stoopid.

I prefer to call it a cutting ironic wit. But meh, each to her own or something.

Okay, how is that different to all the mechanisms we have to prevent and invesitgate abuse now?

Because people power is illegal under state-capitalism. We're allowed to stand in the street and hold signs, but all other forms of protest are illegal. If a community isn't happy and wants to depose a leadership then they have to deal with the cops and army (For example, Burma right now).

[PerpetualBurn]

Because people power is illegal under state-capitalism.

Well capitalism doesn't mean that anti-protest laws are in place.

Plus we're talking about a representative democracy in which most people don't want to leave the current system. Which is basically the real reason as to why you fail.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Burma being a completely typical example of the capitalist state.

[totah]

Well capitalism doesn't mean that anti-protest laws are in place.

No, and the state doesn't mean that people necessarily have to suffer violent repression for protesting. But in our society under the current conditions, capitalism and the state are conjoined thus that each reaffirms the other's dirty habits and supports its growth/spiral (whichever way you swing baby), much like a couple of grimy old homosexual winos. That last part was Bukowski-influenced, because I'm cool.

Plus we're talking about a representative democracy in which most people don't want to leave the current system. Which is basically the real reason as to why you fail.

We can talk all night and well into the next war between Israel and little brown people (about 6-9 months) about why revolutionaries fail, but lets not.

However, I do remember seeing some statistics (if we must argue using statistics as this forum insists on. Honestly it only takes a GCSE level understanding of statistical data-gathering and analysis to see how flawed a science it is) that showed how just about 50% of the British public is actually registered to vote, which means that half of them don't give a toss (and that the fat old gits are representing about 27% of the population).

[PerpetualBurn]

No, and the state doesn't mean that people necessarily have to suffer violent repression for protesting. But in our society under the current conditions, capitalism and the state are conjoined thus that each reaffirms the other's dirty habits and supports its growth/spiral (whichever way you swing baby), much like a couple of grimy old homosexual winos. That last part was Bukowski-influenced, because I'm cool.

I wish you could stop spouting rhetoric long enough to say something relevant.

You go from "capitalism makes protest illegal" to "everyone's opressing me" without any rationale.


However, I do remember seeing some statistics (if we must argue using statistics as this forum insists on. Honestly it only takes a GCSE level understanding of statistical data-gathering and analysis to see how flawed a science it is) that showed how just about 50% of the British public is actually registered to vote, which means that half of them don't give a toss (and that the fat old gits are representing about 27% of the population).

Yeah, that's what I said.

In spite of all your raving about how our people power is opressed, the real problem is that nobody but you and a few other hippies like the idea of anarchy.

[totah]

Burma being a completely typical example of the capitalist state.

Both Burma and Argentina were star pupils of the IMF-World Bank-WTO neo-liberal ideology, until they collapsed from economic reasons. I can't remember the exact reasons for Argentina, only images of people smashing banks and stock-exchanges. Burma, however, exploded when food, fuel and energy subsidies were slashed and prices rose to astronomical levels. Why the cut in subsidies? Well, the old generals want money, and the IMF gives out loans like mad, under certain conditions. These conditions usually amount to opening the markets to foreign investment, privatising the whole economy, making huge cuts in subsidies and then watching as corporations from all over the world buy food, gas, electricity and fuel from the government at wholesale price and then sell it back to the public (this is, by the way, the definition of the term "monopoly of private ownership") at inflated prices. Laissez faire doesn't work in a globalised economy, it's stuck in the past, in obsolete nation-states.

[totah]

I wish you could stop spouting rhetoric long enough to say something relevant.

I am trying to cut back, but I'm stoned and self-indulgent. Sorry.

You go from "capitalism makes protest illegal" to "everyone's oppressing me" without any rationale.

No I'm not. I'm saying that I'm not arguing against capitalism at large, but against our current state-capital (that word meaning the combination of statism and capitalism that we live in right now) system.

Yeah, that's what I said.

You're also saying that most people don't really give a toss and that our representative democracy is false?

In spite of all your raving about how our people power is opressed, the real problem is that nobody but you and a few other hippies like the idea of anarchy.

Well no **** sherlock. Sorry for the bland sarcasm, but you only realised just now that the real problem is that not enough people believe in anarchism? If everyone believed in anarchism we'd have a lot less problems than we do.

[PerpetualBurn]

No I'm not. I'm saying that I'm not arguing against capitalism at large, but against our current state-capital (that word meaning the combination of statism and capitalism that we live in right now) system.

For shitty reasons.

You're also saying that most people don't really give a toss and that our representative democracy is false?

A degree of political inaction in a populous can be put down to satisfaction. So no, in an affluent society like ours, a lot of people won't give a toss about voting.

How do you mean false?

Well no **** sherlock. Sorry for the bland sarcasm, but you only realised just now that the real problem is that not enough people believe in anarchism? If everyone believed in anarchism we'd have a lot less problems than we do.

It's not a problem that people don't like anarchism. Your ideas for anarchism seem to hinge entirely on having a singular and unified society that never disagrees on anything. And that's pretty far-fetched.

[totah]

For shitty reasons.

Ouch, this kitty has claws. Play nice Andy.:smoke:

A degree of political inaction in a populous can be put down to satisfaction. So no, in an affluent society like ours, a lot of people won't give a toss about voting.

Exactly what degree are you talking about? I may use rhetoric, but you're using vague academia language that only hints at "a degree of truth", not at a reality.

50% is quite a lot. Enough, I'd say, to discredit the idea that 51% of the population is actually "in control", as the politicos like to pretend.

How do you mean false?

Just what it means. False. Untrue. Unreal. An illusion. Shall I pick up the thesaurus?

It's not a problem that people don't like anarchism. Your ideas for anarchism seem to hinge entirely on having a singular and unified society that never disagrees on anything. And that's pretty far-fetched.

We're not getting into another anarchism debate.

[PerpetualBurn]

Exactly what degree are you talking about? I may use rhetoric, but you're using vague academia language that only hints at "a degree of truth", not at a reality.

I hardly think it's fair to call it "vague academia language". It was quite a concise statement.

Affluent countries with high levels of political freedom often see a decline in the political involvment of their citizens.

50% is quite a lot. Enough, I'd say, to discredit the idea that 51% of the population is actually "in control", as the politicos like to pretend.

Can I assume you mean 50% of those elligible to vote rather than the entire population?

Because the fact that that 50% chooses not to act isn't a sign that there is some power in force opressing them. It's a sign that they simply choose not to vote.

Just what it means. False. Untrue. Unreal. An illusion. Shall I pick up the thesaurus?[quote]

"Our representative democracy is false" is a bit of a nonsense statement.

[quote]We're not getting into another anarchism debate.

Well I am referencing a topic that's been mentioned several times on this page alone. I'm not bringing it up from nowhere.

[totah]

Affluent countries with high levels of political freedom often see a decline in the political involvment of their citizens.

The only countries you have to make this observation with is the UK, US and a few European countries, and each of those to varying degrees (both of political freedom and political involvement). And even then, how do you know there's been a decline? Let's take the example of Britain. Are you saying that there was more political involvement from "the masses" (I can't help myself with this stupid irony) before, let's say, Cromwell? What level of political involvement are you actually comparing to? Because basically what it looks like to me is that, with the last fifty years alone, the world has never seen protest movements as big as the ones that have been going on since the civil rights movement. People are participating lots. 2003 saw the largest ever political protest in any city at any time in the history of the human race. People are definitely participating, just not in the way that their leaders want them to participate.

Voting is definitely not the limits of political involvement. I'd say it's the first, most basic, stepping stone towards free political association. But it's definitely not the last, and definitely not the most important (though not the least either).

Can I assume you mean 50% of those elligible to vote rather than the entire population?

If you like, although the fact that there are people affected by an allegedly democratic (if only representative) government without even being allowed to vote is another example of how this democracy is false.

Because the fact that that 50% chooses not to act isn't a sign that there is some power in force oppressing them. It's a sign that they simply choose not to vote.

I didn't say it's a sign that someone's oppressing them. And don't ignore things by simplifying them, that's what people do when they say that poor people are "just lazy". It goes deeper than that, it's complex. People don't vote because they don't see the point, ergo they don't feel that it makes a difference to their life, which means that -- representative democracy being what it is -- their interests are not being properly represented, so in fact they don't vote because it has nothing to do with them. They don't care. Expecting them to vote is like expecting someone who doesn't like football to come to the bookies for the championship.

"Our representative democracy is false" is a bit of a nonsense statement.

No it's not. It means that the representative democracy is neither representative or democratic, like some of the examples I made.

Well I am referencing a topic that's been mentioned several times on this page alone. I'm not bringing it up from nowhere.

Feel free to reference, but it seems to me that every time a thread on this forum goes too deeply into critical discussion of our current world (ie. analysis of the personal) somebody changes the subject to criticise something far away and non-personal, like anarchism or Iran.

[PerpetualBurn]

The only countries you have to make this observation with is the UK, US and a few European countries, and each of those to varying degrees (both of political freedom and political involvement).

Well yeah, the relevant ones.

And even then, how do you know there's been a decline?

Stats.

Let's take the example of Britain. Are you saying that there was more political involvement from "the masses" (I can't help myself with this stupid irony) before, let's say, Cromwell? What level of political involvement are you actually comparing to? Because basically what it looks like to me is that, with the last fifty years alone, the world has never seen protest movements as big as the ones that have been going on since the civil rights movement. People are participating lots. 2003 saw the largest ever political protest in any city at any time in the history of the human race. People are definitely participating, just not in the way that their leaders want them to participate.

People take part in a few issues that matter to them personally. They aren't interested in big changes or any kind of spectrum of affairs.

Voting is definitely not the limits of political involvement. I'd say it's the first, most basic, stepping stone towards free political association. But it's definitely not the last, and definitely not the most important (though not the least either).

Yeah, I know.

If you like, although the fact that there are people affected by an allegedly democratic (if only representative) government without even being allowed to vote is another example of how this democracy is false.

If I like? I asked that question because it massively affects the validity and meaning of the statistics.

I didn't say it's a sign that someone's oppressing them. And don't ignore things by simplifying them, that's what people do when they say that poor people are "just lazy". It goes deeper than that, it's complex. People don't vote because they don't see the point, ergo they don't feel that it makes a difference to their life, which means that -- representative democracy being what it is -- their interests are not being properly represented, so in fact they don't vote because it has nothing to do with them. They don't care. Expecting them to vote is like expecting someone who doesn't like football to come to the bookies for the championship.

A lack of faith in the system is one of a multitude of reasons why people may not choose to vote. As I also said earlier, satisfaction is another. There are others.

"People are not voting - it must be because they don't believe in representative democracy" is quite a leap.

You can't give one single reason like that and then accuse me of oversimplifications.

No it's not. It means that the representative democracy is neither representative or democratic, like some of the examples I made.[quote]

Well it is representative

and it is democratic


[quote]Feel free to reference, but it seems to me that every time a thread on this forum goes too deeply into critical discussion of our current world (ie. analysis of the personal) somebody changes the subject to criticise something far away and non-personal, like anarchism or Iran.

You don't critically discuss. You throw up wild examples like Burma and then spew rhetoric about the man.

[totah]

Well yeah, the relevant ones.

So you're saying that in affluent countries with a high degree of political freedom (ie. the UK, US and parts of Europe, and Israel can be our token ethnicity) there has been a decline in political participation? Because if you are, then that's a bit of a tangent to reality.

Stats.

Where were you when they were teaching about the women's liberation movements, the black liberation movements, gay liberation movement, Vietnam anti-war movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the anti-globalisation movement (which was only six years ago), now the ecological movement. We're living in an age of free information where political participation is so easy, and is happening like never before, and you're telling me statistics say otherwise?

People take part in a few issues that matter to them personally. They aren't interested in big changes or any kind of spectrum of affairs.

Oh totally dude.

If I like? I asked that question because it massively affects the validity and meaning of the statistics.

Lol, "validity...meaning...statistics".

A lack of faith in the system is one of a multitude of reasons why people may not choose to vote. As I also said earlier, satisfaction is another. There are others.

Like I said, I don't think it often even comes down to, "Should I vote this year or not?" It really isn't relevant at all to life. Whether it's because someone's not "politically aware", or they're "too busy", or "different politicians same bullshit", whatever the reason, reflects on the political system's irrelevancy to those people who don't vote.

You can't give one single reason like that and then accuse me of oversimplifications.

Actually your simplified what I said. The fact is, and we agree here, that for whatever reason out of the numerous sensible reasons someone can choose from when deciding whether they should vote, just the existence of so many reasons reflects on the current representative democracy, and it doesn't reflect well.

Well it is representative

and it is democratic

But it's not, because the politicians and the majority party don't actually represent a majority of the population. They represent the 27% or so of the whole population, they represent just over half of a larger half of the population that voted for them, or just over a quarter of the population, if you like. Since the government is ruling on a minority vote it is not democratic, since democracy is essentially a rule of the majority. For representative democracy to be democratic the prerequisite is that people are properly represented.

[Smokey D]

Burma being a completely typical example of the capitalist state.

Burma in fact being state socialist approximating something like pre-1978 China, I'd say it's not capitalist at all. It is certainly not one of the best students of neo-liberalism (in all honesty, New Zealand is probably the best candidate for that title, or maybe Dubai or somewhere).


But it's not, because the politicians and the majority party don't actually represent a majority of the population. They represent the 27% or so of the whole population, they represent just over half of a larger half of the population that voted for them, or just over a quarter of the population, if you like. Since the government is ruling on a minority vote it is not democratic, since democracy is essentially a rule of the majority. For representative democracy to be democratic the prerequisite is that people are properly represented.

Okay. So what happens when voter registration and public participation is high in liberal democracies?

And also, I should point out that by not voting you abdicate your right to bitch about the system.

[PerpetualBurn]

So you're saying that in affluent countries with a high degree of political freedom (ie. the UK, US and parts of Europe, and Israel can be our token ethnicity) there has been a decline in political participation? Because if you are, then that's a bit of a tangent to reality.

I said what I said.

The point being, there's often little reason to become a political activist (even through normal measures like voting, civil protest etc.) in a country where the only thing that pisses you off is fox-hunting.

Fox-hunting has seen some massive protests. But it's hardly a big issue in the scheme of running a country. To draw and equivalence to revolutionary activism would be a massive misnomer.

Where were you when they were teaching about the women's liberation movements, the black liberation movements, gay liberation movement, Vietnam anti-war movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the anti-globalisation movement (which was only six years ago), now the ecological movement. We're living in an age of free information where political participation is so easy, and is happening like never before, and you're telling me statistics say otherwise?

I dunno. Probably trying to get some black woman to fry me some chicken.

I'm telling you that a decline in voting numbers often occurs in affluent countries.


Lol, "validity...meaning...statistics".

Then don't quote statistics if you aren't going to give context to the numbers. Stats can be useful, but you must be critical with them.

Like I said, I don't think it often even comes down to, "Should I vote this year or not?" It really isn't relevant at all to life. Whether it's because someone's not "politically aware", or they're "too busy", or "different politicians same bullpoop", whatever the reason, reflects on the political system's irrelevancy to those people who don't vote.

Exactly. But I think a degree of this lack of action is down to the fact that really, people have a decent life and they don't see much to complain about. Otherwise they would be taking action through the democratic avenues which allow it.

Actually your simplified what I said. The fact is, and we agree here, that for whatever reason out of the numerous sensible reasons someone can choose from when deciding whether they should vote, just the existence of so many reasons reflects on the current representative democracy, and it doesn't reflect well.

I think it does reflect well on our system. It means people are content.

But it's not, because the politicians and the majority party don't actually represent a majority of the population. They represent the 27% or so of the whole population, they represent just over half of a larger half of the population that voted for them, or just over a quarter of the population, if you like. Since the government is ruling on a minority vote it is not democratic, since democracy is essentially a rule of the majority. For representative democracy to be democratic the prerequisite is that people are properly represented.

That's representative of those that chose to vote. It's not like the other 50% didn't get the chance. They made their choice.

And I really don't want to have to explain to you how the FPTP system works compared to proportional representation.

And also, I should point out that by not voting you abdicate your right to bitch about the system.

It's not often I disagree with you on this type of thing, but I strongly believe that abstaining to vote is in itself a legitimate piece of political action.

[Reaganista]

And also, I should point out that by not voting you abdicate your right to bitch about the system.
except not at all
not even a little bit
i dont see how you could even manage to think this

[totah]

Okay. So what happens when voter registration and public participation is high in liberal democracies?

I don't know, I've never been alive to witness something like that.

And also, I should point out that by not voting you abdicate your right to bitch about the system.

No I don't. That's silly. Free speech isn't something that's granted to me by an enlightened government, it's something I'm born with. I can bitch about anyone I want to any time of the day or night and I have the right to do that, voting or no voting, democracy or no democracy.

The point being, there's often little reason to become a political activist (even through normal measures like voting, civil protest etc.) in a country where the only thing that pisses you off is fox-hunting.

I think that most people in this country aren't rich white tories, and don't really care about foxes. But I'm sure more people are pissed off by things like the NHS, being filmed by cops on camera when going for a night out, the prices of food, gas and fuel, and rising gun crime. Or something.

I'm telling you that a decline in voting numbers often occurs in affluent countries.

Exactly. But I think a degree of this lack of action is down to the fact that really, people have a decent life and they don't see much to complain about. Otherwise they would be taking action through the democratic avenues which allow it.

So that unregistered but eligible mass of people living on council estates struggling to scrape enough money together for next week's food supply is, in the majority of cases, not voting because they're content with the current government and system? Because to me it looks like, often as not, they just don't give a ****. Not giving a **** has nothing to do with political awareness and activism, it's a natural reaction to things that don't affect your life.

That's representative of those that chose to vote. It's not like the other 50% didn't get the chance. They made their choice.

I'm gonna send you a form to fill in, then I want you to send it back. Then I want you to vote on your favourite barbie-doll accessory. Doing this will make a big difference to your life.

Would you do it? I wouldn't ****in' waste my time with pointless elections like that.

It's not often I disagree with you on this type of thing, but I strongly believe that abstaining to vote is in itself a legitimate piece of political action.

I agree. In a system like ours, you can't show your opposition to the voting system by any other way except not voting.

[Smokey D]

It's not often I disagree with you on this type of thing, but I strongly believe that abstaining to vote is in itself a legitimate piece of political action.

By which I mean, you've made your choice and you should wait four more years or whatever til you make another.

Unless some major game changing crisis comes up.

[Reaganista]

no matter who, if anyone, you vote for and no matter the outcome everyone has the right to bitch about the government whenever they feel like it

[Smokey D]

Your primary method of resolving issues with the state should be through the ballot, and the narrow interests of one group should be strictly controlled so as not to impinge on the wider desires of the electorate.

[PerpetualBurn]

Just because I voted for a party doesn't mean I lose my right to bitch when they don't do their job properly.

That idea is absolutely absurd.

[Smokey D]

You have a right to bitch, but you don't have the right to sabotage the system that the vast majority of people prefer because it isn't meeting your interests. Loyal opposition and whatnot.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well I never said anything about trying to "sabotage the system".

But there are far more ways to be politically active through normal avenues than simply filling out a ballot paper. And not filling out a ballot paper because you think none of the candidates are worthy is a completely acceptable action to take.

[totah]

Your primary method of resolving issues with the state should be through the ballot, and the narrow interests of one group should be strictly controlled so as not to impinge on the wider desires of the electorate.

The minority has a duty to itself and to society as a whole to always, always, question the majority's authority. Every system becomes repressive of its society otherwise. In every democratic decision-making process one of the fundamental stages is always to hear the opposition. And obviously this applies to a discussion/decision that regards decision-making process itself.

One of the benefits of this is that it allows us to refine and build and improve our decision-making processes. That's, incidentally, one of the reasons why 50% of the British public doesn't vote, because the system is one that was invented under very different circumstances and for a much less educated population.

You have a right to bitch, but you don't have the right to sabotage the system that the vast majority of people prefer because it isn't meeting your interests. Loyal opposition and whatnot.

That's b/s dude. Should the Jews (and others) in Nazi Germany (and elsewhere) have shut their mouths and stopped bitching or sabotaging the system (ie. partisans and camp rebellions) just because the majority of Germany voted the Nazi Party in? Of course not!

[Dave de Sylvia]

The majority of Germans didn't vote the Nazi Party in.

[totah]

The majority of Germans didn't vote the Nazi Party in.

I'm pretty sure they voted Hitler in as Chancellor, and then a few years later he passed that law that made him dictator or something.

Besides which, it's not really that relevant in the long-run because, just like the majority of British people didn't vote Blair in (not to mention Brown), the majority of people both in Nazi Germany and present-day Britain stood aside and let things happen, which is the same. There's this quote, is it Jesus? I'm not sure: "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that the good do nothing."

[Dave de Sylvia]

Nope, he was appointed Chancellor, then the government set about quickly destroying all democratic institutions. Either way, there's no parallel between Nazi Germany and any modern western state.

[totah]

Except that most everyone stood aside and let it happen, which is effectively the same as complicity.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Sorry, what exactly have British people stood aside and let happen?

[totah]

Read the rest of the page dude. We're talking in the context of the democratic process and minority opposition.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I've been reading the page, I'm just not sure what the "it" you're referring to is :confused:

[totah]

It doesn't really matter. I was talking in the hypothetical. If you like you can pretend I'm talking about the Iraq War.

[Dave de Sylvia]

But it's a faulty hypothetical. He was obviously referring to a democratic, rights-protected system, if the state was engaging in something that obviously violated the most basic rights of some of its population (even with mass support), the "no right to sabotage the system" principle would obviously not apply.

[totah]

Why wouldn't it?

And for your information, the British state regularly violates the rights of its citizenry. And I'm not just talking about arresting peaceful protestors. There's political prisoners in British prisons, there's migrant detention centres in which detainees have no rights and no idea how long they are there for (because they are incarcerated without having committed a crime, so there's no limit on the incarceration), there's the whole minority mandate thing with New Labour seeing as most people didn't vote for them, there's corruption all through the Cabinet and House of Lords (probably the Commons too, but I haven't heard anything much about the backbenchers), there's gentrification and dislocation of whole communities, I could go on and on but really there's nothing that you don't see anywhere else.

[Smokey D]

But there are far more ways to be politically active through normal avenues than simply filling out a ballot paper. And not filling out a ballot paper because you think none of the candidates are worthy is a completely acceptable action to take.


True, but you should also realise that the most effective way of incorporating at least some of your interests into the political system is by organising you and yours into voting blocs and doing stuff. If you don't vote, you ensure your interests are left silent in the most important political institution in the country. Consequently, you are a political non-entity until the next election. It behooves you to vote.

The minority has a duty to itself and to society as a whole to always, always, question the majority's authority. Every system becomes repressive of its society otherwise. In every democratic decision-making process one of the fundamental stages is always to hear the opposition. And obviously this applies to a discussion/decision that regards decision-making process itself.

One of the benefits of this is that it allows us to refine and build and improve our decision-making processes. That's, incidentally, one of the reasons why 50% of the British public doesn't vote, because the system is one that was invented under very different circumstances and for a much less educated population.

Adopt MMP or something, I dunno. New Zealand has a similar political system and the highest political participation in the western world or something.

On the other hand, the direct democracy of places like Switzerland yields voter turn out of like 30% even in the big elections, so I don't know what's better.


That's b/s dude. Should the Jews (and others) in Nazi Germany (and elsewhere) have shut their mouths and stopped bitching or sabotaging the system (ie. partisans and camp rebellions) just because the majority of Germany voted the Nazi Party in? Of course not!

The Nazi party was an anti-system party itself.

That's a lesson for democracy -- don't vote in the crazies who promise to destroy democracy. You usually end up with a problem.

Except that most everyone stood aside and let it happen, which is effectively the same as complicity.

I wanna point out that there is a major conceptual gap between actively supporting a dictatorship and not doing anything because you're scared of getting Gestapo'd. If you can find out, a good book is Nancy Bermeo's Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: the Citizenry in the Breakdown of Democracy.

Also, no one in 1932 except maybe the highest figures in the Nazi party itself knew what the NSDAP was going to do once it got into power.

Why wouldn't it?

I'll grant that if the UK government started liquidising Muslims or something there'd be an obligation to resist.

But you can't bring down a generally accepted and largely benign form of government because it doesn't fit your world view. That's at least as dictatorial as letting things be.


And for your information, the British state regularly violates the rights of its citizenry. And I'm not just talking about arresting peaceful protestors. There's political prisoners in British prisons, there's migrant detention centres in which detainees have no rights and no idea how long they are there for (because they are incarcerated without having committed a crime, so there's no limit on the incarceration), there's the whole minority mandate thing with New Labour seeing as most people didn't vote for them, there's corruption all through the Cabinet and House of Lords (probably the Commons too, but I haven't heard anything much about the backbenchers), there's gentrification and dislocation of whole communities, I could go on and on but really there's nothing that you don't see anywhere else.

Minor quibble, but migrants aren't actually British citizens.

Minority mandates aren't a violation of rights. If the government prevented people from exercising their right to vote and then had a minority mandate, it'd be a problem. Gentrification isn't a violation of rights. Social dislocation is pretty bad, but I'm not sure it's the government's fault.


I don't know, I've never been alive to witness something like that.

You don't do nearly enough research.

[quote]

[lfantwister]

True, but you should also realise that the most effective way of incorporating at least some of your interests into the political system is by organising you and yours into voting blocs and doing stuff.
That's a lesson for democracy -- don't vote in the crazies who promise to destroy democracy. You usually end up with a problem.

the moral of the story is: ?

[Smokey D]

The moral is don't vote for crazies, but for people who actually listen and respond to your interests. If your interests include the destruction of democracy, your probably not meant to be in charge of a country anyway.

[Mr. Ron]

Those people hardly ever get elected though because they do not have the resources that the rich ones do.

[Smokey D]

Well, the Nazis did get elected, and Communist parties are usually popularly supported. So I'm not sure that's always the case. Obviously, extenuating circumstances applied, but that's not really relevant.

The problem with anti-system parties is that they tend to discount the concept of loyal opposition, which has the consequence of transforming anyone who opposes the regime (or non-regime) into an irreconcilable enemy of the people, justifying murder and political violence. Of course, this happens in democracies as well, but to a far smaller extent.