Cambridge University Student Shows Some Intelligence

[Pragmatopian]

When you assess British foreign policy, you cannot criticise the Chinese in Tibet and let British government off the hook.

 

I'm not letting them off the hook - some dreadful foreign policy decisions have been made in recent years and have rightly been roundly criticised and the point is that we can and do criticise them and those policies can thereby be changed. Criticism of the Chinese approach to Tibet is not tolerated within China and external criticism falls on deaf ears.

 

 

The view that we're all controlled by a generic ruling elite acting in furtherance of their own goals against the wishes of the many is just plain wrong. As Churchill said:

 

Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

[Chinahand]

Fully agree with you Pragmatopian. Heck I believe in pluralism - you do need the placard wavers and demonstrators they are an important part of the spectrum. But you also need engagement and discussion.

 

Letting people organize and communicate freely is important, but so is stopping migrant labourers becoming destitute because their factory has closed down. Twenty million migrant workers have lost their jobs in the last few months - understanding what China's economic policies are going to be over the next period is vital.

 

Wen was standing up in Cambridge (and Davos etc) and publicly debating his policies - those will effect you in a minor way and Chinese rural workers directly. That debate is a good thing. And not something that would have ever happened earlier in China's history.

[MilitantDogOwner]

You'd think after the failed shoe throwing incident with Bush, this guy might have put some practice so he would not have made himself look a limp wristed wally who can't throw to save his life.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I admit that redirecting something as large as China is no easy task, but I don't think that's any reason to give up unrelenting pressure on them to clean up their act in terms of rights - it is by no means certain that it will follow as a consequence of market liberalisation. We sometimes forget how fortunate we are to live in a society where basic human rights were embedded into our culture long before the population took off and industrialisation arrived on the scene. It is our duty to the Chinese people to help them in obtaining the same freedoms.

 

I think it is important to make a distinction between rights and freedoms. The former is something given to you.

 

We are better off living in a state (Isle of Man and the UK) where we have more freedoms than most other countries. But we are certainly not free people. Not when we are ruled, not when there is so much slavery in society, and not when our freedoms have been granted and enshrined in law rather than just taken for granted. All I mean to say is that we have nothing to be proud or happy about in terms of the freedoms we do have.

 

If it is possible to help the Chinese then we should, but it would be just as important to focus upon our society as well.

[Whimsy]

II want to see Tony Blair hit with a clog.

 

 

I want to see Hugo Chavez's mum hit with a lightly strapped flip flop

I want to see Felicity Kendal hit with large wet salmon. Across the arse.

 

 

I want to see Diana Rigg hit across the arse by the late Patrick McGoohan as she runs away from a very large white balloon.

 

I want it to be in trendy sixties black and white - but in colour for the American market.

[Pragmatopian]

We are better off living in a state (Isle of Man and the UK) where we have more freedoms than most other countries. But we are certainly not free people. Not when we are ruled, not when there is so much slavery in society, and not when our freedoms have been granted and enshrined in law rather than just taken for granted. All I mean to say is that we have nothing to be proud or happy about in terms of the freedoms we do have.

 

I think that is overstating the case. As I understand it, you are essentially arguing for anarchy, which as a system has been shown to work out pretty poorly for most people. The sovereign occupies a ceremonial function, so to all intents and purposes the UK and IOM are parliamentary democracies (although I would grant that the constitutional position of the IOM is a little more complicated than that).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think that is overstating the case. As I understand it, you are essentially arguing for anarchy, which as a system has been shown to work out pretty poorly for most people. The sovereign occupies a ceremonial function, so to all intents and purposes the UK and IOM are parliamentary democracies (although I would grant that the constitutional position of the IOM is a little more complicated than that).

 

Not sure if you misunderstood what I meant. I never mentioned anything about the sovereign. When I refer to ruling classes I refer to the politicians, not to monarchs. And in referring to slavery I refer to close parallels between chattel slavery and the renting of labour that is undertaken in 'real-life' capitalism in the UK and Isle of Man.

 

An anarchist society would be a vast improvement on what the Chinese have now and what the Isle of Man has. What is certain is that liberal democracy is not a something that works for most people, only a few. And I don't think from the very few examples that anarchism worked out badly for people. It was a rather brief affair but it worked in Catalonia very well.

 

But my point was more about stating how liberal democracy is no system to be proud about and not one that would be blessing or final goal for China, as bad as things are.

[Alias]

There is no such thing as mass anarchy..

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm not letting them off the hook - some dreadful foreign policy decisions have been made in recent years and have rightly been roundly criticised and the point is that we can and do criticise them and those policies can thereby be changed. Criticism of the Chinese approach to Tibet is not tolerated within China and external criticism falls on deaf ears.

 

Who will change the policies? The people? I don't think so, I don't you realise just how little control the people have in policymaking, certainly in respect of foreign policy. That is a domain that rarely features in manifestos or public campaigning. It is the preserve of the elite.

 

You say that criticism of China is not tolerated and this is quite true. But on our side, we can criticise but rarely do. That is because the general public are brainwashed into believing so much bullshit. One example is the moral mission of the UK and USA. In terms of forieng policy, people in Britain, and the West are terrible at judging their country by the standards that are used to judge others.

 

The view that we're all controlled by a generic ruling elite acting in furtherance of their own goals against the wishes of the many is just plain wrong. As Churchill said:

 

Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

 

Yes it is very wrong. But it is very true. You are ruled and those that rule further their own goals, certainly not ours.

 

Democracy can be the best form of government, if it is meaningful. However, the forms of democracy that exist in the UK and the Isle of Man are a farce. It isn't really democracy at all. You level of input is negligible in such a system. Churchill was right, but the fact is that other systems need to be tried because the current system is a unjust and unfair.

 

There is no such thing as mass anarchy..

 

Don't know what you mean by that Alias.

[Alias]

There will always be leaders. Take a simple anarchaic system, with a few people in. One of them is disabled, can't work as the rest can. There's a power imbalance already, and with no central agreements/power-sharing then it becomes survival of the fittest; which is fine for most of us

 

Or take Sudan, when there was no power-sharing do you really think people run about blissfully? In this case it's who has the arms, but there will always be imbalances in populations, its a principle of evolution and a cause of our existence

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There will always be leaders. Take a simple anarchaic system, with a few people in. One of them is disabled, can't work as the rest can. There's a power imbalance already, and with no central agreements/power-sharing then it becomes survival of the fittest; which is fine for most of us

 

Or take Sudan, when there was no power-sharing do you really think people run about blissfully? In this case it's who has the arms, but there will always be imbalances in populations, its a principle of evolution and a cause of our existence

 

But there won't be leaders in an anarchist system, that is the point. Simply because the systems that exist today and most that have come and gone involved leaders do not mean they are an inevitability. There have been quasi anarchist societies in the past and a few proper anarchist systems, but there weren't leaders in those.

 

I don't quite see what you mean about a disabled person created power imbalance, not sure why you think it has relevance. The mission of work in an anarchist society is 'each according their needs'. And no matter who you are you should be able do creative work. There is no sidelining or rejection of people.

 

I think you believe that anarchism is simply removal of the government. If this were the case then you are bang on. But that is what is known as anarcho-capitalism, it is what a lot of Americans think is desirable. However, you would have power imbalances and fight for leadership. To be honest it would anarchy and would lead to bloodshed as different power structures constantly struggle.

 

Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists are the types that most people understand anarchists to be. But the whole purpose is to remove capitalism so you don't get the problems that you talk about.

 

What did you mean about Sudan? I have to say I completely disagree about your understanding of evolution and reasons for existence. Economic systems and the social structures and values that have developed are not reflected of evolution at all. That is really stretching the limited meaning of survival of the fittest. In most relations human beings are actually cooperative, not competitive.

[Chinahand]

I am sure this is pointless but I can't help myself. LDV what planet do you live on.

 

How do you bring about a society where everyone recieves according to their needs. What do you even mean by needs in this statement - I need a ferrari and a mansion.

 

You are like some 8 year old - you have this phrase "I am an anarchist" and you pretend it means something - when there is a true anarchy everyone will be happy, everyone will have their needs fulfilled. Pure and simple, horseshit. Stop just mouthing meaningless phrases.

 

Also I personally find it offensive that you go on about slavery. To compare the working conditions of the typical "worker" in a western democracy with slavery is total and utter rot and shows a total ignorance of what slavery was like for the millions of people who had to endure it.

 

I realize you are young and idealistic, but for goodness sake open your eyes and stop living in cloud cuckoo land.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am sure this is pointless but I can't help myself. LDV what planet do you live on.

 

How do you bring about a society where everyone recieves according to their needs. What do you even mean by needs in this statement - I need a ferrari and a mansion.

 

You are like some 8 year old - you have this phrase "I am an anarchist" and you pretend it means something - when there is a true anarchy everyone will be happy, everyone will have their needs fulfilled. Pure and simple, horseshit. Stop just mouthing meaningless phrases.

 

Also I personally find it offensive that you go on about slavery. To compare the working conditions of the typical "worker" in a western democracy with slavery is total and utter rot and shows a total ignorance of what slavery was like for the millions of people who had to endure it.

 

I realize you are young and idealistic, but for goodness sake open your eyes and stop living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

Well yes, how do you bring about such a society where people do work that most meets their abilities and makes the most of their creativity? That is what liberatarians (and a lot of Marxists) have been trying to map out because in the capitalist world it doesn't happen.

 

I am not so much interested in bleating on that "I am an anarchist". But my perspectives are anarchist and libertarian. I didn't actually bring up anarchism in this thread

 

I am sorry you find it offensive. But there are striking similarities to the purchase and use of slaves (such as black slave in the US. pre 1860s) and the renting of labour in the capitalist society. If you can't see that you are possibly overlooking the similarities or denying them. But they are very real. If it sounds offensive, it is because it is. And I am sure nobody wants to think of themselves as being slaves, but the parallels are there. And many may think that the working world is fine and that they are free agents but they are deluding themselves if they depend upon a wage and are working for someone.

 

1. Black slave in the U.S.: Purchased once by the slaveholder and for ever

1. Modern Employer worker: Is purchased every day (wages), bit by bit whilst the employer needs the worker.

2. Black slave in the U.S.: loses self control over their life under the control of the slaveholder who has complete authority over them.

2. Modern Employed worker: loses self control over their life under the control of their employer/manager who has complete authority over them.

3. Black slave in the U.S.: Very difficult to escape from this authority, maybe run away or compensate the slaveholder.

3. Modern Employer worker: Very difficult to escape from this authority, unless some few can become self employed

 

The circumstances are factual, but to call it slavery seems to me to represent more accurately what the situation is for people in today's working world. People today are little or no more free than such slaves.

[Pragmatopian]

Please change the record, LDV: there's no point in bleating on about how unfair it is that you have to do things that other people want/need in order to get what you want/need unless you can come up with a workable alternative. Maybe I'm being shortsighted, but I can't see an alternative that's substantially different from what we have now.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Please change the record, LDV: there's no point in bleating on about how unfair it is that you have to do things that other people want/need in order to get what you want/need unless you can come up with a workable alternative. Maybe I'm being shortsighted, but I can't see an alternative that's substantially different from what we have now.

 

Like I was saying, I was originally pointing out the unjust nature of the liberal democratic system to explain how we should not be proud of it and how it doesn't allow freedoms.

 

A beginning would be for workers to take control of the workplaces themselves. Wages should be abolished. Government as it is today should be abolished with their replacement possibily by workers councils.

 

I think there is much point about bleating on about how unfair the system is as the more people who recognise and understand how it is the more people can respond to it with resistance and use their own minds to come brainstorm alternatives.