Blair's Book

[mæŋksmən]

Even if your right about jim, i dont think you are mind.

But even if you were, what could jim have learnt that he could of changed the world with, what do you have ?, how are you going to change the world.

 

Talking shite to people who discussed the same philosophical shite when they were your age, and now know better, will only get you ridicule.

 

All this tosh is because being gay in an intolerant world has radicalised you alittle.

Have another tug on the peace-pipe and mull it over awhile, ffs its pay day tommorrow, you wouldnt be getting that in your second world.

[spook]

Theres a story coming out that Blair has made up a good part of his book, especially some of the bits involving Her Mage. Saw it on Drudge yesterday.

 

He really is one greasy sod.

 

Added http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/world/europe/09blair.html

[Terse]

Theres a story coming out that Blair has made up a good part of his book, especially some of the bits involving Her Mage. Saw it on Drudge yesterday.

 

He really is one greasy sod.

 

Added http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/world/europe/09blair.html

You've only just realised that? He is the self-proclaimed 'Socialist' who is really the unacceptable face of capitalism.

[jimbms]

As opposed to getting old and having a dried out brain.

I was half-expecting a witty response from you. I really should have known better.

Why would a witty/jocular response be better. I am explaining it as I see it. Jimbms and others think they are profound and accurate when they repeat oft-repeated phrases that only explain that as you get older you stop giving a toss about the way the world is. And that ideas like mine are the preserve of the naive. Yet judging from Jimbms's replied, I doubt he has ever had a political understanding broader than what it given in the daily newspapers. Sorry Jimbms.

it's ok no need to apologise for your ill founded ignorance, most people here are already aware of it.

[P.K.]

Well, to date I've found "A Journey" to be a very interesting read indeed.

 

So jimbms, LDV, spook, Chinahand, Lonan3, Terse, thesultanofsheight, macmannin, manshimajin, Albert Tatlock, Addie, TING, censorship, slinkydevil, ballaughbiker, pongo, Blitzbrione, Mr Sausages, mæŋksmən, the mo beats experience, MDO, Amadeus, Alias, gingerbiscuit, oldmanxfella, credente, Evil Goblin and Pierrot Lunaire has the book given you any insights into Blair himself? There's a lot in there I hadn't even considered before. Fascinating stuff. What's your opinion on what you have read in "A Journey" to date?

[spook]

Well, to date I've found "A Journey" to be a very interesting read indeed.

 

So jimbms, LDV, spook, Chinahand, Lonan3, Terse, thesultanofsheight, macmannin, manshimajin, Albert Tatlock, Addie, TING, censorship, slinkydevil, ballaughbiker, pongo, Blitzbrione, Mr Sausages, mæŋksmən, the mo beats experience, MDO, Amadeus, Alias, gingerbiscuit, oldmanxfella, credente, Evil Goblin and Pierrot Lunaire has the book given you any insights into Blair himself? There's a lot in there I hadn't even considered before. Fascinating stuff. What's your opinion on what you have read in "A Journey" to date?

 

I wonder who wrote it for him.

 

The man was, is, and will remain a slug. The worst prime minister of the worst government that the UK has ever and probably ever will have.

[P.K.]

The man was, is, and will remain a slug. The worst prime minister of the worst government that the UK has ever and probably ever will have.

 

Opinions are like arseholes...

 

On a brighter note have you had Thatcher's baby yet?

[mæŋksmən]

The man was, is, and will remain a slug. The worst prime minister of the worst government that the UK has ever and probably ever will have.

 

Opinions come from arseholes...

 

On a lighter note have you spent Thatcher's money yet?

 

 

fixed.

[P.K.]

I wonder who wrote it for him?

 

Pages ix & x.

 

Happy To Help!

[jimbms]

Well, to date I've found "A Journey" to be a very interesting read indeed.

 

So jimbms, LDV, spook, Chinahand, Lonan3, Terse, thesultanofsheight, macmannin, manshimajin, Albert Tatlock, Addie, TING, censorship, slinkydevil, ballaughbiker, pongo, Blitzbrione, Mr Sausages, mæŋksmən, the mo beats experience, MDO, Amadeus, Alias, gingerbiscuit, oldmanxfella, credente, Evil Goblin and Pierrot Lunaire has the book given you any insights into Blair himself? There's a lot in there I hadn't even considered before. Fascinating stuff. What's your opinion on what you have read in "A Journey" to date?

I can honestly say I have yet to read any of it, there are several books I wish to read before that but I am pleased there is an electronic and an audio version out as I do not buy paper books anymore, save a tree and all that. So I will comment when I eventually try it.

[mæŋksmən]

I have great news for you jimbo, you can start getting copies as of next week from charity shops, no green guilt.

 

You will find them next to the liverpools greatest momments videos and abbas greatest hits.

[Terse]

The worst prime minister of the worst government that the UK has ever and probably ever will have.

But only after he morphed into Thatcher.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It will always require a cohersive system as it doesn't value people's ability and it has no system to deal with limited availability.

Limited availability for what though? Forms of work and job roles?

 

You are an idealist who assumes there will always be enough for everyone and no one will have to rank their needs and compromise on not having B because they prefer A more.

The inchoate ideas that have come out of anarchist thinking and other radical thinking proposes the idea of rotating roles in a workplace and creating a vested interest of all in the industry they work in by developing democracy.

Obviously not everyone can be a doctor or everyone a farmer, etc. People would be led to consider other roles if there was no need for what they produced, i.e. if it was recognised as having little value to their community.

I would say, however, that there would be a complete re-appraisal of the appeal of different jobs in a non-capitalist sytem where people are not compensated through wages.

 

Your anarchism doesn't recognise this - you see everything as a zero-sum game and hence profit has to be taken from someone and given to someone else: that's simplistic and only values a part of the equation.

If you mean by predilection towards anarcho-communism then that come in the form of a bartering of goods or services, with the possibility of surplus good and services being freely available at designated locations. That would be one idea.

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to need" cannot distinguish the zero-sum from the non-zero-sum - needs are not defined and so have to be defined outside of the system - either by the government or some anarchist social pressure to conform for the good of society (whatever that means).

One anarchist strain is to agree that particular social NEEDS have to be democratically established from workers councils or local councils.

 

The result is that as the least able will get things no matter what, the more able have to supply those no matter what.

This presupposed a large discrepancy between those who are able and unable, those who wish to and those who do not. I don't understand why you think this would be the case.

 

Ability has worth and that is simply not recognized in your philosophy.

I recognise it has worth. But such worth is inappropriately recognised by capitalism or rather the existing system.

 

You've said a few times that you don't recognise the value of working - and your political philosophy thinks people should provide value to others with out the effort of that being recognized. The result is that either people won't work, or they will have to be coerced into doing it. Your system will result in either destitution or coercion.

I recognise a value to working, but only particular forms of work and dependent on the quality of that work.

I don't feel value in standing in a shop to sell a T-Shirt for the purposes of producing profit for my employer, especially when this is coupled with being coerced to try and make even greater profits. I don't have a vested interest in my service (or production). I only carry out a specific role necessary to survive.

 

You feel, in the current system, that the efforts of the workers aren't being recognized - but they don't have to work - they can go and do the Good Life thing and provide for themselves - on state benefits too!

 

But that is a limited life - if they want more then they have to value their time - is it worth it to sacrficing a day to get paid to be able to buy something. Those decisions creates the non-zero-sum cycle.

They could do that. But as you say, there would be so little they could do. It would be so limiting, precisely because they would exist as islands within the existing system.

They would have to subsist on an extremely small area of land and could barely bring in any extra cash from the selling of their surplus food.

 

You say that's not fair and that people shouldn't have to work; they should have their needs provided for them, but purely and simply we live in a world of limited resources and that is just not possible.

Not that they SHOULD have their needs provided for them. But that it would be possible to provide for society's needs through the produce of the vast majority who do work.

I would assume that people would go out to work. They would no longer be coerced into working through the need to acquire a wage but will be motivated to do so by the fact that they will have a vested interest in their work through democratic restructing and a direct relation to the social good they produce.

 

With limited resources people will value their needs differentially and that creates the essence we call money. Anarchism cannot get rid of that without enforcing common standards and that will mean coercing people to provide those standards even when they do not believe it is worth their effort to do so.

Again, I don't quite see why you believe there would be any great differentiation between individuals in consideration of what their needs are and the problem of this in something like a gift economy.

 

Look at the history of social engineering LDV - you do not base your beliefs on evidence or reality, you don't even have a theoretical underpinning to your ideology which can be modelled and compared with reality. Its a cloud cuckoo land theology which you hold for just as irrational reasons as any zealot.

How does your system work? What would your revolution attempt to do? What will you reform society into. You cannot answer any of these questions.

You say your ideology is not coercive - well explain how it would work then?

We have examples of anarchism existing during the Spanish Civil War and in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. That to me opens up the possibility that something can exist outside of capitalism . The early Soviet Union operated under state socialist processes for years. It is not irrational to belief that a system can exist that is not capitalist. More work needs to be done with anarchism on a large scale because there is a greater requirement for agreement on the democratic structures and decisionmaking that would be required in any system.

It would be impossible to determine what such a society would look like, in the sense of prescribing what it would be. That would be antithesis of anarchism, as there would be nobody to coerce and take power other than the will of the people themselves.

 

In the meantime, anarchists concentrate in aiming to educate on the flaws of capitalism and the freedom it denies to people. But you do not even appear to recognise that capitalism is a problem.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well, to date I've found "A Journey" to be a very interesting read indeed.

 

So jimbms, LDV, spook, Chinahand, Lonan3, Terse, thesultanofsheight, macmannin, manshimajin, Albert Tatlock, Addie, TING, censorship, slinkydevil, ballaughbiker, pongo, Blitzbrione, Mr Sausages, mæŋksmən, the mo beats experience, MDO, Amadeus, Alias, gingerbiscuit, oldmanxfella, credente, Evil Goblin and Pierrot Lunaire has the book given you any insights into Blair himself? There's a lot in there I hadn't even considered before. Fascinating stuff. What's your opinion on what you have read in "A Journey" to date?

I very much doubt I will ever read it. I really don't like the idea of reading autobiographies. Not my sort of read.

 

I am still unsure if it will have any value to given consideration to whether Blair was right to go to war. I think is extremely unlikely.

[P.K.]

I very much doubt I will ever read it. I really don't like the idea of reading autobiographies. Not my sort of read.

 

I am still unsure if it will have any value to given consideration to whether Blair was right to go to war. I think is extremely unlikely.

 

I haven't reached that bit yet! I'm reading it as carefully as I can.

 

However I can tell you that in my world some people have to make impossibly difficult decisions and then others have to get hard, ugly things done.

 

Not because they want to. But because they have to.