politics and issues

[beamends]

You're not looking hard enough. Don't expect the mainstream media to point it out for you, thier interests lie only in the status quo. Try this.

And then try this.

Then there's this.

The Zeitgeist Movement.

[Mardy]

From today's paper, 'cos a few of you seem depressed at the thought of current political apathy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/ma...mmit-protesters

'Police are facing two days of unprecedented protest by a collaboration of "innovative and clever" direct action groups during the G20 summit in London, a senior officer said yesterday.'

'Unprecedented protest' sounds pretty f****** positive to me, it ain't all doom and gloom, eh?

[lesando]

I meant a fully joined up alternative, policies on the NHS, education, military, local authorities, festivals!! etc etc. For example, we have UKIP who seem to still think the UK is a major player in the world (you could well think some of their supporters think we still have an empire) and could survive on our own despite having almost no manufacturing capability and the most soundly smashed banking system outside the US. An amazing number of their supporters support the country they profess to "love" by flying the cross of St. George in the front garden while buying German or Japanese cars with no UK content - i.e. they are in it for themselves and have nothing to offer the unemployed/low wage earners for a future.

Then we have the LibDems who, joking aside, can say what they like since they have no chance of being elected, or gaining sufficient seats to have any real influence on policy.

Single-issue/single philosophy "parties" have nothing to offer that I can see as they often ignore the majority as somehow irrelevant (because people don't agree with them), and the two major parties are so close together that they are reduced to squabbling about who had such and such an idea first.

I have no idea what the solution is, but until I hear senior politicians say "Well that idea didn't work, let's try something else" without the opposition trying to make political mileage out of it I fear change may come from the streets, which could be messy.

Just my 2p.

[beergut100]

Either way its trivial, in fact the enitial comment about it being meaningless was a bit harsh. We all knew what you meant

[beamends]

If you agree that the current system doesn't serve mankind in it's best interests then I urge you to watch the videos and start thinking about politics differently. The Zeitgeist Movement is a framework for the future development of the human race and the planet, in tandem. Some of the ideas seem a bit 'new agey' but capitalism is destroying the planet and new solutions are needed urgently. The status quo will only result in our complete annihilation. The current system with its heavy corporate and banking bias serves none but the greedy. Please, watch the videos before you call it 'single issue' politics. It isn't at all. It's about whole world politics and encompasses everything. Does it have the answers? I don't know, but what I do know is that the current system is taking us all towards a world of debt enslavement, and that we have to discuss alternative ideas if what we have isn't working.

[lesando]

Unfortunately any reformed/new system has to understand some basics of human nature that are probably cast in stone. For example, lets say (somehow!) you could give 100 families exactly the same house, exactly the same gardens/land, exactly the same income, exactly the same education etc etc but would they all live the same lives? The answer is no. At least one family would, say, decide to grow veg, and they might have some left over. Even if the rules say they can't sell it, another family might be good at carpentry, so they make a table and swap it for some veg. Someone else makes good home-brew and wants a table, so they swap for some beer. I'm sure you see the idea. Eventually our veg grower needs a hand so they get one of the others, who is willing to work but has neither acumen or interest in producing something themselves, to help in exchange for whatever has come on from the veg "sales" - and hey presto, we're in business. It's what we all do every day, only we use vouchers to represent the goods until we need them - money! An then there are those who don't want to work, but think they know best. They start telling the others how "things should be done" (despite not having a clue ;-) ) and somehow persuade the others that they need their brains - so we now have politicians. Back to our veg grower - they have now have used all their available growing space, so they get an agreement to use next doors rose bed and we now have a corporation. Lets say the original helper thinks I can do that, demand is outstripping supply, so he starts up - a small business. Of course there's always one who can't be bothered, but still wants the rewards the others are generating for each other. So he nicks what he wants, and then someone has to keep an eye on them, because the others don't think it's fair he should just be able help himself - now we have policing, and inevitabley some sort of judicial system.

The above is the big hole in the true (there never has been a true socialist government anywhere) socialist/idealist ideal - some people just make things happen, sone don't. You can give that a label such as capitalism, you can call our successful veg grower a corporation, but, as proved in the ex-Eastern Block, the only way to stop people trying to get a better life is to stick them in prison or similar. Certainly a small group, what we'd call a commune I suppose, may have some success - but I wonder how many of the communes formed in the 60's are still going, and how many have all their original members. Not a lot, if any.

Any system that assumes it's population are all equal is doomed - people are all different (thank god), and it has taken a long time to establish the rules that attempt to keep the lid on. I do agree though that there is a big issue over excesses, and as a society we have been lax on imposing morals on those who don't have any - but enforcing equality is never going to work. People want the goods I sell, but to be able to do it I have every penny I have invested - I feel that I am not being unreasonable in getting (one day!) a reward for my taking the risk and making effort, not least as I could easily lose everything tomorrow. I also understand that there are people who live in, say, London who have no idea what life in a small rural village is like (except from the sterotypical media perception), and indeed (though I did work there for 9 months) vice versa, who may bang on about using public transport without realising that there is, and never can be, effective public transport here - the point being that we all have often wildly differing needs and a blanket ban (or enforcement) of this or that is never going to work. Any political ideal that does not take into account the above is heading for failure, however nice it may seem in theory.

[gizmoman]

I'm sorry, what does any of this have to do with my previous post? This is just a nonsensical ramble about your own conditioning. Did you watch the videos?

[lesando]

I think the point being made is that the videos present a idealistic solution that relies on humans having a generally logical and kindly disposition. The problem with theories like these is they rely on people being as the authors WOULD LIKE people to be not how they actually are.

The videos make a good case for the fact that the 9/11 'terror' attacks were staged and provide compelling evidence that the buildings were systematically demolished, but most people will not believe the government were involved because they don't want to. They will disregard any and all scientific data that doesn't fit with what they want to believe. The O J Simpson murder trial showed this clearly, the prosecution proved scientifically he was involved but the jury didn't want to believe it and so rejected the science and aquitted him. The 'venus project' described in the videos is basically a new version of communism and assumes everyone wants the same thing, even in the utopian world described there would have to be limits on population, for example, as the earth cannot support an unlimited number of people, it would be decided by computer how many children you could have, but what if you wanted more? Suppose you had one more than you were allowed? Would that be a criminal act? Individual human desires will always come before the needs of society, you cannot run such an 'ideal' world unless you deprive humans of their uniqueness. Having said all that, the videos do a great job of describing where we are now and of understanding the religious, political, financial system and so are well worth a view by anyone.

[grumpyhack]

I get really hacked off at trite attacks on the 'youth of today.' There are tremendously committed, well informed young people and there are also ignorant, selfish slobs. But that's equally true of previous generations.

My daughter aged 25, completed a degree in Politics at Bristol and is currently doing a Masters in International Relations at Aberystwyth. I went up to see her at the weekend and met a lot of her friends who were well informed, interested and interesting.

My trip to Aber followed a week when I was on a Trade Union Tutors training course. Quite a few of the participants were in their twenties and committed trade union activists.

As oldies we carry a responsibility for raising awareness of issues and a passion for politics in the generations that follow on. Sadly, doing away with things like the Left Field doesn't help.

[alframsey]

I recently joined the Labour party, but must stress have distanced myself from the New Labour line that's damaging the party at the moment. As a result I am a member of the LRC, as led by the MP John McDonell. In the old days of the big Labour division, i'd have been considered to be a Bennite, but like you, I am young and am open to developing my views

[alframsey]

I meant a fully joined up alternative, policies on the NHS, education, military, local authorities, festivals!! etc etc. For example, we have UKIP who seem to still think the UK is a major player in the world (you could well think some of their supporters think we still have an empire) and could survive on our own despite having almost no manufacturing capability and the most soundly smashed banking system outside the US. An amazing number of their supporters support the country they profess to "love" by flying the cross of St. George in the front garden while buying German or Japanese cars with no UK content - i.e. they are in it for themselves and have nothing to offer the unemployed/low wage earners for a future.

Then we have the LibDems who, joking aside, can say what they like since they have no chance of being elected, or gaining sufficient seats to have any real influence on policy.

Single-issue/single philosophy "parties" have nothing to offer that I can see as they often ignore the majority as somehow irrelevant (because people don't agree with them), and the two major parties are so close together that they are reduced to squabbling about who had such and such an idea first.

I have no idea what the solution is, but until I hear senior politicians say "Well that idea didn't work, let's try something else" without the opposition trying to make political mileage out of it I fear change may come from the streets, which could be messy.

Just my 2p.

[alframsey]

Harsh but true! The rationale for alframsey's repugnant "socially" right wing views on immigration, eroding of welfare state, etc is entirely economic; it is impossible to divide the two.

[alframsey]

I get really hacked off at trite attacks on the 'youth of today.' There are tremendously committed, well informed young people and there are also ignorant, selfish slobs. But that's equally true of previous generations.

My daughter aged 25, completed a degree in Politics at Bristol and is currently doing a Masters in International Relations at Aberystwyth. I went up to see her at the weekend and met a lot of her friends who were well informed, interested and interesting.

My trip to Aber followed a week when I was on a Trade Union Tutors training course. Quite a few of the participants were in their twenties and committed trade union activists.

As oldies we carry a responsibility for raising awareness of issues and a passion for politics in the generations that follow on. Sadly, doing away with things like the Left Field doesn't help.

[beergut100]

It is not impossible to divide the two, yes it may be difficult to, but not impossible. And I don't want to 'erode the welfare state', I think its a briliant creation, just not giving benefits to those who CHOOSE not to work. Why should we?

Edited March 23, 2009 by stevedevine

[alframsey]

Sorry, I admit I was in a bad mood when I wrote that! The problem is, benefits have to be there as a safety net and some people will always exploit that. If we start means testing, then we stigmatise people unfairly. I was on the dole for years thanks to Thatcher though, and it's no picnic!

What I suppose I mean by being impossible to divide the two, is that I see the basis of any political philosophy as being economic; for example Marxism is about one's relation to the economic system in terms of the means of production. In Capitalism, the workers only "own" their own labour power while the Capitalists own the means of production. I believe that this definition still works (I am not a Marxist, by the way).

When you bring it down to modern party politics level though, I concede that the economics become more muddied, so I suppose you can separate the social and the economic.

[beergut100]

I see. And I accept that it would be difficult to sperate those that want work but cant get it, and those that don't.

[russycarps]

Get a room you two

[beergut100]

Get a room you two