Taking to the streets on March 26th - Cuts protest

[TalkShow Bob]

What you see as progressive I see as a slightly different shade of reactionary. They'll all pursue an essentially capitalist agenda with only insignificantly important minor tweaks. I mean, look at this weeks hot topic of internships and social mobility. Where has the progressive outcry been that internships have absolutely f*ck all to do with social mobility? It's a distraction, an insignificant minor point. But all we've heard is nonsense about Clegg's hypocrisy or tory auctions. My dad got me a saturday job on the newspaper he worked on when I was a teen. Parents get jobs for kids. But we just get wrapped up in bollox that doesn't make any difference. And I keep getting this 'progressive' left telling me how much they've done for the working man at the bottom of the pile by introducing the NMW. Progressive? From October 2011, the NMW for adults will be £6.09 per hour. If that's the best the progressive left can achieve for social mobility, Id rather it f*cked off right now. Id actually rather have a tory government properly f*ck people over and face the direct action consequences of that than have the left keep telling me how well they're doing by sweeping some crumbs off the table that Im supposed to be grateful for. The left are as guilty of hampering social mobility as the right. There is no progressive left, just a left that likes to think it is.

[llcoolphil]

If you think the diffrence between the ideology of big government and small government is insignificant then I thnk you have miss understood exactly what it means.

[jump]

Tell that to the students and people in Iraq...

[TalkShow Bob]

Tell that to the students and people in Iraq...

[TalkShow Bob]

Big capitalist government or small capitalist government. Ive understood EXACTLY what it means. After 18 years of tory government followed by 13 years of labour government and a year of coalition, working people can be grateful for an annual salary of £12k. Forgive me for thinking it might just be the system at fault. Tinkering achieves nothing. Knock it down and start again.

[TalkShow Bob]

What a statement just brimming with rubbish.

[Paul ™]

Oaf being a prick as usual.. no idea why you even bothered coming back here tbh

[jump]

As for trolling The age old way of keeping your head up your arse is to label anyone with a different point of view a troll.

Its one more small reason why you remain insignificant in the world

[TalkShow Bob]

Oaf being a prick as usual.. no idea why you even bothered coming back here tbh

[TalkShow Bob]

Like Egypt and Libya and a couple of middle class greens saving a forest

Well done... Well done

[llcoolphil]

No small capitalist government or big liberal democratic government. Very diffrent systems, very diffrent outcomes. Just because for the last 35 years we have been following neo liberal policies dosen't mean its what the people support. Its what the city of london (but not all Londoners as seen by the amount of times they ellect Ken) supports and a few loud people in the south east but once you get out of that area you realise the majority of the rest of the country dosen't.

[TalkShow Bob]

So what are the essentials of big liberal democratic government that are going to see a fundamental redistribution of resources on both a national and international level?

[eFestivals]

I dont think its as clear cut as that. The ideology of the majority of the electorate is not the ideology that is being persued now. The majority of voters voted agasint tory policy.

I'm well aware of that.

But all the same, if the election had ended with what would have been viewed as chaos by a significant number of the electorate, because a govt with the authority to push thru policy hadn't come of it (I'm meaning a minority govt), then those who viewed it as chaos would have voted differently in a subsequent election, to avoid that chaos.

Every indicator in the period between the election and the Tories and LibDims forming their coalition indicated that if they hadn't have formed that coalition and they'd have been another election, then the tories would have been the beneficiaries of that.

Remember, our electoral system means that majority opinion is nothing to do with the result that comes from any election. The system has always been designed to benefit the tories and it still does - which is precisely why the tories would never have agreed to a referendum on PR as they have for AV. And they've only agreed to a referendum on AV because they know it's unlikely that AV will win, because the people want PR and not the "grubby little compromise" of AV.

[lost]

massive comedy gaff on the front of todays Daily mail

[worm]

It wouldn't - that position wouldnt move. Social Democracy is a model of government. The parties might move around it so be on the left or right of it and move more towards or against it in eather direction but it as a theory cant move around the specturm.

The partys have been moving around the specturm too so the libdems moved more to the left, and have moved more back to the right. The Labour moved more to the right and hopefully [imo] are moving more back toward the left.

[llcoolphil]

More likely than small liberal democratic government but im arguing for big social democratic government and big liberal democratic government is a step on the way...

[worm]

Still just tinkering within capitalism

[eFestivals]

Still just tinkering within capitalism

which, like it or not, is all we're going to have until such time as there's even what can rightly be called a very small minority against it, rather than the minute minority that there is currently.

Simple fact is that whatever you or I might feel about it, the vast majority welcome it, or at the very least are too scared of the alternatives to want a change.

[eFestivals]

If we're not going to conceed to Marx et al in that capitalism cannot be stopped by man, only by its own failing

he said no such thing. Wing-nut.

[worm]

he said no such thing. Wing-nut.

[lost]

Aren't all systems capitalist? they just vary between the amount of free market capitalism and state capitalism that exists.. hmm maybe Cambodia 1975 -78 wasn't but systems like that don't tend to last too long. Your never going to get 100% state capitalism as black markets will always spring up and equally your never going to get 100% free market, Hong Kong is probably the closest we've seen.

I'm also struggling with some of the terms being thrown around, liberal traditionally means small government but the American term refers to the left. Equally I'm struggling with Anarchists arguing for a bigger state...

[worm]

Aren't all systems capitalist?

[eFestivals]

The revolution was not a choice of man, but an inevitable change that would come about when the material reality of man's condition could no longer keep the ideology of capitalism in unison.

which is of course capitalism being stopped by man, and not the failing of capitalism itself. As I said. Wing nut.

But Marx got it wrong. Capitalism encapsulates its own demise by its own nature. In a finite world there is a finite limit to the expansion of production, while capitalism absolutely requires that expansion.

[eFestivals]

Aren't all systems capitalist? they just vary between the amount of free market capitalism and state capitalism that exists.. hmm maybe Cambodia 1975 -78 wasn't but systems like that don't tend to last too long. Your never going to get 100% state capitalism as black markets will always spring up and equally your never going to get 100% free market, Hong Kong is probably the closest we've seen.

If all systems are capitalist then humanity is indisputably f**ked. Even capitalism itself says that could be the only outcome if all systems are capitalist.

And your analysis suffers from you only being able to see things in today's terms. Black markets are only able to exist when there is a surplus that exists to trade with. In a finite world there cannot always be that surplus.

When there is no surplus, then the values of everything have to be reassessed, and ultimately come to have the same value to everyone - at which point it becomes impossible for a capitalist system to operate.

Of course, whether things ever actually get that far is another thing. I think the more likely outcome is the destruction of mankind brought about by the non-acceptance of the rich in their ultimate downfall.

[worm]

which is of course capitalism being stopped by man, and not the failing of capitalism itself.