Manx Members Of The Bnp

[Port Erin]

It's a shame the BNP only have 16 members here. We're overrun by immigrants from far flung corners of the world and it's about time they went back to the slums where they belong.

 

The BNP would get my vote, and at least they speak out and are prepared to do what we only wish our elected jokers would do on our behalf.

 

You never see these immigrants support the local economy. They just breed like rabbits, milk the welfare system, speak in their own language only, spend bugger all in the shops, don't integrate and look after their own. It's about time we did the same and sent them packing.

[manshimajin]

You never see these immigrants support the local economy. They just breed like rabbits, milk the welfare system, speak in their own language only, spend bugger all in the shops, don't integrate and look after their own. It's about time we did the same and sent them packing.

I love irony...well done PE.

 

IMPO there are a lot more important things to worry about than who is a member of the BNP, Trotskyites, Communists, National Front and any other weird and wonderful minority extremist crack-pot parties.

[Chinahand]

I find LDV a most thought provoking poster. But like many others I find his philosophy strange to the point of wierdness.

 

He goes on about how the world would be better if we we lived under an anarchy, but never attempts to explain how this system would work. I've read quite a bit on Marx and have no idea how socialism or communism come to reality. As far as I'm aware neither have any practitioner of political power who has followed these ideas - simply creating a distortion of the systems at work under capitalism, but more wastefully destroying wealth and ultimately leading to their system's collapse.

 

LDV dislikes the fact that when someone creates a story or a novel that millions of people want to read they are rewarded for this effort. How is this effort an exploitation of others? FFS Rowling wrote the 1st Harry Potter book on the dole.

 

Other people are quite welcome to try and emulate her, all it takes is imagination and hard work getting the publisher to accept the manuscript.

 

He believes a shop or whatever steals the labour power of the workers.

 

He seems not to understand the concept of reciprocal trading and how having a uniform means of exchange ie money helps this occur.

 

He complains that workers have no choice - well sorry that is bull they have more choice than ever before. When they lived in hovels and toiled in fields and things went wrong they died, but by being able to exchange some of their labour power to provide goods and services they are able to improve their lot and hence no longer live in hovels and by continuing to do this we have a modern capitalist state.

 

He seems to complain that when a person refuses to be involved in cooperation or exchange they end up in a Hobbesian world: nasty, brutish and short. But no they are not - they are support by the work of others.

 

A farmer decides to open a farm shop, he goes and at their own risk spends his time growing various crops which he believes people will want to buy and brings them to a convenient location where others can easily find them. Anyone else can also go and do this, but people have other things to do, they are happy to come to this convenient location and purchase the items the farmer has grown. The farmer charges enough money to pay for his needs and to cover the uncertainties of life. He finds if he charges more than this, other farmers set up in competition with him, but at these prices the competitors are few enough for him to make a success and survive.

 

Another farmer decides not to farm, but buys the food from the first farmer, he spends his time thinking up a way to make farming more efficient. The first farmer agrees to give him some food on credit, he eats some and sells the rest allowing him to ask a third farmer to leave the fields and come and help him. He agrees and the two of them make a new plough. Other farmers pay to buy the new plough.

 

Now of course this is all very simplistic, but sorry LDV - where is all this exploitation? You complain that the "Good Life" isn't a nice life so you're forced to work - well sorry but what else do you expect. Seriously.

 

The only point I'll give you is over meritocracy - this is the one issue concerning capitalism which I think is really worth discussing with you. What are the just deserts for an entreupreneur, an actor, a middle manager, or a factory worker.

 

You believe that a factor worker is being stolen from when someone else has an idea, someone else works out how to realize that idea, someone else puts up the money to build the factory, someone else builds the factory and then the worker is employed to come and create the final product.

 

Well, how should the wealth created be shared between all these people - the idea that it is all down to the worker is bull - its a partnership where the worker is only one part. Remove the others and the worker stays at home unemployed.

 

I believe that unique contributions can command a higher proportion of the wealth involved. If anyone can do it, then the rewards are lower.

 

LDV seems to think this is unfair, but cannot say how the wealth should be shared. And lets not pretend that making it equal is some ideal. Do that and you'll get people cutting others' throats as the lazy exploit the hard work of others. So much for an anarchist idyll.

 

Equality of opportunity does not equate to equality of outcome.

 

I feel that is fair - the ideal I strive for is a society where everyone has the opportunity to excel at what they are best at and the only thing holding them back is their ability.

 

But that will create inequalities of outcomes as those with abilities gain more from those skills.

 

The state, the community does have a role in ensuring people have a safety net and to ensure education etc allows all to achieve their potential. And to ensure that the envy produced by those who cannot reach as far as others does not result in social break down. And to ensure the arrogance of the successful does not become exploitative.

 

Those are hard words "envy" and "arrogance", but in a simplistic way sum up the divide LDV exposes.

 

I'm too knackered to try and dress it up in a nicer way, but to me that is pretty much the nub of the issue. That's how Nietzsche saw it, and he's a fair counterfoil to Marx.

 

How to share the rewards of our labours to stop envy and arrogance ripping society apart. LDV, I really don't believe anarchy will get you close - a far more dog eat dog solution than liberal democratic capitalism - people get their rewards and have a stimulus to try out their good ideas, but are constrained by a democratic state from being TOO exploitative when these ideas become popular.

 

This system has transformed the world, it aint perfect (most especially it has got the price of environmental sustainability wrong), but, LDV, I really question if you've got a better system - if you do, why doesn't it exist?

 

Edited: Oh shit another overlong post by Chinahand, bet Jimbms and Sebrof will complain.

 

2nd edit: italics added/altered to make what I posted last night slightly more balanced.

[Freggyragh]

It's a shame the BNP only have 16 members here. We're overrun by immigrants from far flung corners of the world and it's about time they went back to the slums where they belong.

 

The BNP would get my vote, and at least they speak out and are prepared to do what we only wish our elected jokers would do on our behalf.

 

You never see these immigrants support the local economy. They just breed like rabbits, milk the welfare system, speak in their own language only, spend bugger all in the shops, don't integrate and look after their own. It's about time we did the same and sent them packing.

 

T'ou lane ass dty cheeall ghooinney - cha nel ooilley ny joarree myr shen er cor erbee. She goaldagh yn bnp ansherbee, my t'ou smooinaghtyn myr shen cre'n fa nagh vel oo cur partee noa er bun? Nee shen er y fa dy vel oo toiggal ayns dty chree dy vel oo loayrt ass dty howl thoanney? As, red elley, cre'n fa t'ou noi sleih loayrt ass çhengaghyn elley? Vel oo boirit dy vel ad ooilley loayrt mychione oo hene? Shen cowrey jeh keoieys.

[Skeddan]

Edited: Oh shit another overlong post by Chinahand, bet Jimbms and Sebrof will complain.

The worry is Sebrof will quote the whole thing in his post complaining it is overlong.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I find LDV a most thought provoking poster. But like many others I find his philosophy strange to the point of wierdness.

 

He goes on about how the world would be better if we we lived under an anarchy, but never attempts to explain how this system would work. I've read quite a bit on Marx and have no idea how socialism or communism come to reality. As far as I'm aware neither have any practitioner of political power who has followed these ideas - simply creating a distortion of the systems at work under capitalism, but more wastefully destroying wealth and ultimately leading to their system's collapse.

 

I would advise reading into anarcho-communism or anarchic communism.

 

LDV dislikes the fact that when someone creates a story or a novel that millions of people want to read they are rewarded for this effort. How is this effort an exploitation of others? FFS Rowling wrote the 1st Harry Potter book on the dole.

 

My issue is that they are rewarded with money and wealth. Not simply the satisfaction that they can have from bringing such happiness and pleasure to people whilst enjoying the life they already have. There would be no impoverishment or dole in an anarchic society.

 

He believes a shop or whatever steals the labour power of the workers.

 

He seems not to understand the concept of reciprocal trading and how having a uniform means of exchange ie money helps this occur.

 

Looking at things in terms of reciprocal trading is very narrow. It ignores the necessity of the worker in trying to purchase such thing that are necessary. Moreover, it ignores the fact that the workers need to offer something of more value in our society than the good which they want to purchase, because the seller wants to make a purchase. The worker is always the loser in such a reciprocal trading agreement.

 

He complains that workers have no choice - well sorry that is bull they have more choice than ever before. When they lived in hovels and toiled in fields and things went wrong they died, but by being able to exchange some of their labour power to provide goods and services they are able to improve their lot and hence no longer live in hovels and by continuing to do this we have a modern capitalist state.

 

We have more choice than ever before in the types of work in which we can participate but the coerciveness involved in working has remained the samed. This is the lack of choice because the worker has no choice other than to be under the authority of someone for most of their day, and has no choice about having to receive a wage, and has no choice about the fact that they can only survive by spending their well earned money.

 

He seems to complain that when a person refuses to be involved in cooperation or exchange they end up in a Hobbesian world: nasty, brutish and short. But no they are not - they are support by the work of others.

 

Are you talking about those who are called 'scoungers'? If you truly believe that we live in a society where our work supports others and that we work for the betterment of society then I think you should look at who OWNS what service you offer or what goods you produce. Maybe I am misunderstand you, please explain more.

 

A farmer decides to open a farm shop, he goes and at their own risk spends his time growing various crops which he believes people will want to buy and brings them to a convenient location where others can easily find them. Anyone else can also go and do this, but people have other things to do, they are happy to come to this convenient location and purchase the items the farmer has grown. The farmer charges enough money to pay for his needs and to cover the uncertainties of life. He finds if he charges more than this, other farmers set up in competition with him, but at these prices the competitors are few enough for him to make a success and survive.

 

Another farmer decides not to farm, but buys the food from the first farmer, he spends his time thinking up a way to make farming more efficient. The first farmer agrees to give him some food on credit, he eats some and sells the rest allowing him to ask a third farmer to leave the fields and come and help him. He agrees and the two of them make a new plough. Other farmers pay to buy the new plough.

 

The only exploitation lies in the transaction using money, because in our modern society the motivation for production is driven by the need to make profit. This is the issue.

This scenario you give can easily exist without the need of money as a motivation or reward, or even as the basis for a transaction.

 

The only point I'll give you is over meritocracy - this is the one issue concerning capitalism which I think is really worth discussing with you. What are the just deserts for an entreupreneur, an actor, a middle manager, or a factory worker.

 

You believe that a factor worker is being stolen from when someone else has an idea, someone else works out how to realize that idea, someone else puts up the money to build the factory, someone else builds the factory and then the worker is employed to come and create the final product.

 

You misunderstand, the employer steals from the worker when a system exists that means a person MUST work for an employer to survive. When a system exists that means that a person cannot live without working the worker has to enter into a bargain with an employer who can call the shots. The employer tells the worker that the contract means that the employer can take the workers produce and give the worker a wage in return. Employers can do this because they control the means of production, i.e. the property and tools. But by giving the worker a wage it is effectively stealing because the worker has to enter into such a contract in order to live and must accept a bad compensation (a wage) in order to survive.

 

Well, how should the wealth created be shared between all these people - the idea that it is all down to the worker is bull - its a partnership where the worker is only one part. Remove the others and the worker stays at home unemployed.

 

Workers are the ones who WORK. Intellect and a savvy business head might be very good, but they don't get the work done, they only envisage what work should be done and how. It is the workers, the vast majority, who make things happen and should be rewarded far more than they are.

 

I believe that unique contributions can command a higher proportion of the wealth involved. If anyone can do it, then the rewards are lower.

 

Explain why!

 

LDV seems to think this is unfair, but cannot say how the wealth should be shared. And lets not pretend that making it equal is some ideal. Do that and you'll get people cutting others' throats as the lazy exploit the hard work of others. So much for an anarchist idyll.

 

Equality is far closer to an ideal than what we have at present. And I am quite prepared to explain how things should be but maybe this forum is not the place. I can private you or start another thread if you like. Or you can read into anarcho communism or anarcho syndicalism (I would advise the former). But in an anarchist society there would be no lazy exploit of others hard work.

 

I feel that is fair - the ideal I strive for is a society where everyone has the opportunity to excel at what they are best at and the only thing holding them back is their ability.

 

It surprises me that you have said this because in a capitalist society peoples potential to fulfill themselves in terms of learning and best showing their talent can never be met.

 

The state, the community does have a role in ensuring people have a safety net and to ensure education etc allows all to achieve their potential. And to ensure that the envy produced by those who cannot reach as far as others does not result in social break down.

 

The education system does not let people fully achieve their potential. You only have look at so many children who come out of school with no qualifications or do really badly.

 

That's a hard word "envy", but quite a few posters on on the forum have used it and similar words in the context of LDV posts.

 

Envy is not a hard word. It is fully understandable. When a small section of the population are given legal sanction to own property, claim so much of what exists as their own propert, control our lives, and tell people what to do it is only understandable that many feel envy at being at being the underdog in this relationship. I do not believe I am envious because if I were to become rich or have so much power I would feel a complete arsehole. I know I would be an arsehole because I am wrongfully saying that I own things that should not be fine to have alone.

 

This system has transformed the world, it aint perfect (most especially it has got the price of environmental sustainability wrong), but, LDV, I really question if you've got a better system - if you do, why doesn't it exist?

 

It doesn't exist Chinahand because people are constantly lied to and told that the way the world is is the way it should be. We all constantly reproduce and reinforce ideas within a conventional mindset without really taking a look at what should be right for us as human beings. Capitalism induces the belief that it is each for their own so ideas of community and working together become less important. Moreover, to overcome the current system means taking a completely different perspective on life and then working to radically alter society.

[homarus]

Conclusion!

 

Lives in a tree ,eats grass and completley bonkers !

[The Old Git]

But like many others I find his philosophy strange to the point of wierdness.

 

You may find it easier to understand if whenever you see the words "anarchic society" or similar you mentally substitute "fairy land" for them.

 

I found that worked for a while, then I just gave up reading the drivel

 

It's a pity it derails interesting threads.

[jimbms]

Edited: Oh shit another overlong post by Chinahand, bet Jimbms and Sebrof will complain.

No point in complaining anymore, you can persuade a monkey to dress in a tux but at the end of the day it will still scratch its arse and sniff it

[Sebrof]

I find LDV a most thought provoking poster. But like many others I find his philosophy strange to the point of wierdness.

 

He goes on about how the world would be better if we we lived under an anarchy, but never attempts to explain how this system would work. I've read quite a bit on Marx and have no idea how socialism or communism come to reality. As far as I'm aware neither have any practitioner of political power who has followed these ideas - simply creating a distortion of the systems at work under capitalism, but more wastefully destroying wealth and ultimately leading to their system's collapse.

 

I would advise reading into anarcho-communism or anarchic communism.

 

LDV dislikes the fact that when someone creates a story or a novel that millions of people want to read they are rewarded for this effort. How is this effort an exploitation of others? FFS Rowling wrote the 1st Harry Potter book on the dole.

 

My issue is that they are rewarded with money and wealth. Not simply the satisfaction that they can have from bringing such happiness and pleasure to people whilst enjoying the life they already have. There would be no impoverishment or dole in an anarchic society.

 

He believes a shop or whatever steals the labour power of the workers.

 

He seems not to understand the concept of reciprocal trading and how having a uniform means of exchange ie money helps this occur.

 

Looking at things in terms of reciprocal trading is very narrow. It ignores the necessity of the worker in trying to purchase such thing that are necessary. Moreover, it ignores the fact that the workers need to offer something of more value in our society than the good which they want to purchase, because the seller wants to make a purchase. The worker is always the loser in such a reciprocal trading agreement.

 

He complains that workers have no choice - well sorry that is bull they have more choice than ever before. When they lived in hovels and toiled in fields and things went wrong they died, but by being able to exchange some of their labour power to provide goods and services they are able to improve their lot and hence no longer live in hovels and by continuing to do this we have a modern capitalist state.

 

We have more choice than ever before in the types of work in which we can participate but the coerciveness involved in working has remained the samed. This is the lack of choice because the worker has no choice other than to be under the authority of someone for most of their day, and has no choice about having to receive a wage, and has no choice about the fact that they can only survive by spending their well earned money.

 

He seems to complain that when a person refuses to be involved in cooperation or exchange they end up in a Hobbesian world: nasty, brutish and short. But no they are not - they are support by the work of others.

 

Are you talking about those who are called 'scoungers'? If you truly believe that we live in a society where our work supports others and that we work for the betterment of society then I think you should look at who OWNS what service you offer or what goods you produce. Maybe I am misunderstand you, please explain more.

 

A farmer decides to open a farm shop, he goes and at their own risk spends his time growing various crops which he believes people will want to buy and brings them to a convenient location where others can easily find them. Anyone else can also go and do this, but people have other things to do, they are happy to come to this convenient location and purchase the items the farmer has grown. The farmer charges enough money to pay for his needs and to cover the uncertainties of life. He finds if he charges more than this, other farmers set up in competition with him, but at these prices the competitors are few enough for him to make a success and survive.

 

Another farmer decides not to farm, but buys the food from the first farmer, he spends his time thinking up a way to make farming more efficient. The first farmer agrees to give him some food on credit, he eats some and sells the rest allowing him to ask a third farmer to leave the fields and come and help him. He agrees and the two of them make a new plough. Other farmers pay to buy the new plough.

 

The only exploitation lies in the transaction using money, because in our modern society the motivation for production is driven by the need to make profit. This is the issue.

This scenario you give can easily exist without the need of money as a motivation or reward, or even as the basis for a transaction.

 

The only point I'll give you is over meritocracy - this is the one issue concerning capitalism which I think is really worth discussing with you. What are the just deserts for an entreupreneur, an actor, a middle manager, or a factory worker.

 

You believe that a factor worker is being stolen from when someone else has an idea, someone else works out how to realize that idea, someone else puts up the money to build the factory, someone else builds the factory and then the worker is employed to come and create the final product.

 

You misunderstand, the employer steals from the worker when a system exists that means a person MUST work for an employer to survive. When a system exists that means that a person cannot live without working the worker has to enter into a bargain with an employer who can call the shots. The employer tells the worker that the contract means that the employer can take the workers produce and give the worker a wage in return. Employers can do this because they control the means of production, i.e. the property and tools. But by giving the worker a wage it is effectively stealing because the worker has to enter into such a contract in order to live and must accept a bad compensation (a wage) in order to survive.

 

Well, how should the wealth created be shared between all these people - the idea that it is all down to the worker is bull - its a partnership where the worker is only one part. Remove the others and the worker stays at home unemployed.

 

Workers are the ones who WORK. Intellect and a savvy business head might be very good, but they don't get the work done, they only envisage what work should be done and how. It is the workers, the vast majority, who make things happen and should be rewarded far more than they are.

 

I believe that unique contributions can command a higher proportion of the wealth involved. If anyone can do it, then the rewards are lower.

 

Explain why!

 

LDV seems to think this is unfair, but cannot say how the wealth should be shared. And lets not pretend that making it equal is some ideal. Do that and you'll get people cutting others' throats as the lazy exploit the hard work of others. So much for an anarchist idyll.

 

Equality is far closer to an ideal than what we have at present. And I am quite prepared to explain how things should be but maybe this forum is not the place. I can private you or start another thread if you like. Or you can read into anarcho communism or anarcho syndicalism (I would advise the former). But in an anarchist society there would be no lazy exploit of others hard work.

 

I feel that is fair - the ideal I strive for is a society where everyone has the opportunity to excel at what they are best at and the only thing holding them back is their ability.

 

It surprises me that you have said this because in a capitalist society peoples potential to fulfill themselves in terms of learning and best showing their talent can never be met.

 

The state, the community does have a role in ensuring people have a safety net and to ensure education etc allows all to achieve their potential. And to ensure that the envy produced by those who cannot reach as far as others does not result in social break down.

 

The education system does not let people fully achieve their potential. You only have look at so many children who come out of school with no qualifications or do really badly.

 

That's a hard word "envy", but quite a few posters on on the forum have used it and similar words in the context of LDV posts.

 

Envy is not a hard word. It is fully understandable. When a small section of the population are given legal sanction to own property, claim so much of what exists as their own propert, control our lives, and tell people what to do it is only understandable that many feel envy at being at being the underdog in this relationship. I do not believe I am envious because if I were to become rich or have so much power I would feel a complete arsehole. I know I would be an arsehole because I am wrongfully saying that I own things that should not be fine to have alone.

 

This system has transformed the world, it aint perfect (most especially it has got the price of environmental sustainability wrong), but, LDV, I really question if you've got a better system - if you do, why doesn't it exist?

 

It doesn't exist Chinahand because people are constantly lied to and told that the way the world is is the way it should be. We all constantly reproduce and reinforce ideas within a conventional mindset without really taking a look at what should be right for us as human beings. Capitalism induces the belief that it is each for their own so ideas of community and working together become less important. Moreover, to overcome the current system means taking a completely different perspective on life and then working to radically alter society.

 

This is overlong.

 

S

 

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

[Skeddan]

Edited: Oh shit another overlong post by Chinahand, bet Jimbms and Sebrof will complain.

The worry is Sebrof will quote the whole thing in his post complaining it is overlong.

[Guest chunkylover]

Just been listening to the Radio 4 news.

 

"The list has now been removed from the internet"

oh no it hasn't! (sorry, it's nearly christmas) i found it quite quickly!

[doofus]

Just been listening to the Radio 4 news.

 

"The list has now been removed from the internet"

oh no it hasn't! (sorry, it's nearly christmas) i found it quite quickly!

 

 

i found the version that lists all the members nearest your postcode

[jagman]

Most ironic names on the list - Mr and Mrs Blackman.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Conclusion!

 

Lives in a tree ,eats grass and completley bonkers !

 

Well you can be a hippy but I wouldn't want to be!