<!--quoteo(post=3909035:date=Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM:name=Qtis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Qtis @ Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3909035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know about political laziness and whatnot, but compare this to what I've wrote: I pay about 50% of my income in taxes to the government in one form or another while I earn less than 20000$ per year (roughly 15% income tax, roughly 23% VAT, production taxes, etc). People can actually live on government money and quite well (although they don't get 2000$ per month, but still). Also I'm a student so my income isn't as high as it could be if I worked 40 hours a week. So my political stance is quite far from what happened in the UK and what has happened in the US since our political structures are different by a long scale (free healthcare, free education till you graduate from the University and so forth). Also earning more means more taxes since at roughly 7000$ you'd be paying nearly 50% of your paycheck to the government in just income taxes + of course the VAT and such.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Economically, I do not know much about where you live, so I'm not going to make a fool out of myself by doing some last-minute reading. What I will say is that even though your situation is different from Britain and the US does not give you the right to condescend to the oppressed when they rebel against their miserable conditions by means of violence. I am telling this to you now, because this is the attitude that you use later on when you speak of the Tottenham riots.
<b>Indeed it was my mistake to come out in a way that sounds like I don't understand the reasons for the riots or account for what they were caused by. It is not the people's fault but indeed the government has gone bad in many ways. It is indeed realistic to want equal rights and that is something that I'd like to see everywhere regardless of financial or social status, be it bourgeoisie or a common thief (if that is indeed a word used for what I'm trying to say)</b>
<!--quoteo(post=3909035:date=Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM:name=Qtis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Qtis @ Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3909035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For at least some kind of overview of what I'm talking about: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state" target="_blank">Welfare state</a> and especially <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model" target="_blank">Nordic Model</a>. I think that'll tell a bit more of what I'm trying to go at. The Nordic model works quite well so far, although the cost is pretty high (still for example the US pay a lot more for healthcare even though a lot of the people don't have any kind of health insurance (which isn't needed in the Nordic countries for healthcare)).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know of the so-called "Nordic" system, which you speak of as being an alternative to the plight of Western Europe and the US. It is certainly true that the Nordic system allows a "friendlier" capitalism. But if you have been studying these countries for the last several years, you will see that the Nordic system is ultimately unsustainable in a world that is dominated by international finance capital. The system is quite expensive to maintain and what social benefits are available are also being cut, though they are being cut at a slightly slower rate than the US or Britain; the Nordic countries are slowly being dominated by politics of the bourgeoisie, particularly the right wing. Unemployment has shot up in Sweden and Denmark. A year ago, the European Union has warned Finland to slash social services to cover their budget deficit. Iceland's economy collapsed in 2008, largely due to their capitulation to bank deregulation. Norway has not been unaffected by the recession, either. The freedom they have given the right wing has recently culminated in the terrorist attacks on government offices by the fascist Anders Breivik. The Norwegian state, true to their nature, obfuscated Breivik's relationship to the international right wing to protect their financial backers from any responsibility.
<b>What are necessities meant to be supplied by the government? This is indeed something that differs ALOT in terms of comparison when looking at the Nordic countries and quite simply, the rest of the world. The main problem in the Nordic countries isn't the global position of the countries (although all of them are heavily dependent on global trade, since the inner markets are far too small), but the amount of workforce compared to retired people. If that could be changed into a better scale, a lot of the problems regarding finance is solved without going into socialism, capitalism or anything else. For example when Finland's retirement age was set, the average age of a person was around 60 something, now it's going past 80 and the retirement age hasn't been change much during that time in comparison. Still all forms of medical services et al are being taken care of.</b>
In all cases, when the recession hit, the population's social services were the first thing to go, despite their pretensions of "socialism" and "friendlier" capitalism. All of the above countries are now turning increasingly to privatization by selling off state shares in industry to bourgeois interests, further opening the door for further unemployment and the slashing of social spending. Although not a Nordic country, Poland can be seen as a model for such behavior. In other words: The Nordic countries are not immune to the global depression, and cannot be held up as a shining example of capitalism when the preservation of their government power rests entirely on the bourgeoisie.
<b>Yes and no. It all depends on a lot of factors, but counting the bourgeoisie as a negative as a whole still has some problematic things in it. Who would take over the part of them if they would be eliminated from the equation? The government could be indeed an option, which you also thought could be solution. But in the end, doesn't this turn the government into the bourgeoisie? They'd end up with the power to change everything and although being a democracy, the people couldn't take part in all decisions regardless since either the knowledge to know what is going on isn't possible for everyone to know. One of the reasons why a lot of bad laws (and also good ones) have been passed since MPs have been "manipulated" by either side to a certain conclusion.</b>
<!--quoteo(post=3909035:date=Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM:name=Qtis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Qtis @ Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3909035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I could add a lot here to the fact that paying employees the same in China as they pay in the States would lead to large problems and sudden (and uncontrolled) changes in the social system that no one could expect. I don't say it'd be wrong to pay more, but it just can't be done that way in one single transition.. Also slavery is something that is not and should not be tolerated in any way (be it old plantation owners or modern corporations). If someone works for a company, he or she should be payed enough to earn a living in their respective countries and if they happened to move to another country, still receive roughly the same level of income regardless. Being able to live with a job is something to start with, but for example in the States I don't understand how people can have minimum wage jobs that pay less than 2$ per hour (actually I don't even understand how that kind of a level has been made a "minimum wage" that should at least be payed). Where I live, the minimum is around 7$ and add to that the amount that a company wants to pay for someone actually interested in working and such.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, the actual minimum wage in the US is quite horrifying. It also falls disproportionately upon immigrants and the poor. I never tried to say that equal pay could be done immediately. My point was that the ruling class tries to increase economic austerity, and render such amenities impossible by placing the financial burden on the working class. I also never implied that you supported slavery. But your condescending attitude toward those who fight back mirrors my previous scenario quite nicely; I will get to this soon.
As for provoking "sudden and uncontrolled changes" with higher pay, not to be rude, but that's kind of the point.
<b>What would happen to the value of currency if everyone had 10x more to spend? Wouldn't it wreck the whole system and cause prices to rise regardless of it being on the street markets or black markets in the shadows? This is something I've been trying to find an answer to and unfortunately no one has been able to tell me an answer that doesn't rely on people's own will to keep the prices as is and the idea that no one would want a nice cut for themselves if it was possible. </b>
<!--quoteo(post=3909035:date=Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM:name=Qtis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Qtis @ Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3909035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Regarding the riots in London (not going into the reasons, but into what happened): Why did innocent people have to be killed while trying to protect their neighborhood from the looters? Is it acceptable to kill innocent people just because you want change? Things can be done one way or the other, but violence in the matter at what has happened is not really acceptable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This remark is, in my opinion, the crux of your ignorance in social matters. First off, do not separate the causes of the riots from the actions that resulted from it. Otherwise, the issue of properly discussing the riots becomes one-sided, not to mention politically stunted. I am not without sympathy for the five people that died in the Tottenham riots. But the blame does not solely rest upon the rioters for their death. The main blame lies on the British state, for continuously succumbing to the will of the wealthy by destroying the means for students and youth to survive in a society that does refuses to suffer the poor gladly. Tottenham has long been a poor and violent area of London, besieged by police brutality and economic austerity. One could say that the plight of the students became profoundly Dickensian. They could not turn to the state, as the state was their enemy. They certainly could not turn to the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie dominates the state. The so-called socialist parties literally sit on their hands and integrate themselves with the status quo, leaving those affected swimming without a rudder. Any peaceful protests are broken up by rampant police brutality (which was the catalyst for riots, in fact); the Occupy Wall Street movement is in the same boat. They had no other choice. This is why I unconditionally defend the Tottenham rioters. That you sneer upon the violent acts without appreciating their social roots is, to be blunt, beneath you. The rioters <i>were</i> the victims, as were the people that were killed.
<b>What I didn't meant to do is exactly as your last to sentences described. What I asked is why does rioting always have to include a) destroying property b) pillaging/looting c) blunt killing? Especially the young/students shouldn't be the ones bearing the main impact of the whole situation, but just as an interesting question, does the government support students in any way? I know that studying is absurdly expensive in some parts (not to mention US Ivy League and such), but does the areas have any student housing and such?</b>
In my opinion, you have been taken in by bourgeois morality. High morals cannot survive without God. Furthermore, enforcing high and lofty morals upon a mass of poor people only makes sense if they are politically and socially equal with the masters of their society. Needless to say, this was not the case in the Tottenham riots. Morals are a product of the class struggle, and to justify their rule, as well as the worst betrayals of humanity, the bourgeoisie can twist them however they like. Rather than see this farce for what it is, you entirely accept it. By opposing the oppressed, you are actually in the camp of the oppressors. As Leon Trotsky once said in an essay on morals: "A slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains – let not the contemptible eunuchs tell us that they are equals before a court of morality!" While I would not call you a "contemptible eunuch," this is indeed the position that you are taking. Your denouncement of the rioters is logically groundless, and factually threadbare. You simply denounce the violence, and do not wish to dwell on "why".
<b>Denouncing violence is part of something that everyone should do regardless. Violence shouldn't be the only way to make a change in the world, otherwise it could just be said that everything is for nothing. Killing the opposition is always the easiest way to go since the one doing the killing is the "winner" by default since the opposition has disappeared (sounds very blunt, but it was meant to). As said before, you could say that I have taken in the bourgeois moral, but indeed not completely. I don't see what a single person would do with all the money after buying a house, possibly a car and something to sustain their life. What is indeed necessary and what is nice to have, but in the end not needed? If indeed the situation is as grim as portrayed that there indeed was no future, the question goes forward to why this has happened. The so called upper class do indeed have wealth, but they (so far at least) can't decide who ends up in the parliament and such. At least something can be done without violence, but as mentioned before, there are occasions when someone can be abused easily without anyone knowing. On the other hand it is possible for the quite opposite to happen. It is a person's own view of how to use the money/power/whatever. There are countless examples from Oskar Schindler to many others and during their life time, they were actually charged for things they didn't really deserve.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hated the brutality, the sadism, and the insanity of Nazism. I just couldn't stand by and see people destroyed. I did what I could, what I had to do, what my conscience told me I must do. That's all there is to it. Really, nothing more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But as mentioned before I live in quite a different society and it is indeed wrong for me to judge the doings of others in other places when the world revolves around different matters and is plainly different altogether.</b>
<!--quoteo(post=3909035:date=Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM:name=)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( @ Sep 29 2011, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3909035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reason why I don't see another option for global capitalism at the moment is that there isn't a better alternative at the moment considering the Nordic model is quite efficient and works to secure the living of the most poor part of the people and leads to a better life for everyone. In regards I'd say it's a mix of Socialism, Communism and Capitalism (and actually quite a few other -isms). But if I tried to say that the States should try to adopt something like this, it'd just end up with me being branded a communist, socialist or whatnot (like Obama has been branded after trying to achieve even a part of what we have regarding healthcare). The government should indeed take some part in the everyday lives of people, but making the change is indeed quite hard as you mentioned. A lot of money is given the MPs and senators for the sake of keeping the company interests high. Also IIRC the UK has permanent MPs or something like that dating centuries backwards when the class society was even wider than now. How is that still possible in the modern world of representative democracy? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="
" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />
-Qtis
ps. It's always nice to actually talk with someone who has an opposing view in the world politics albeit some thoughts are quite close to mine, but I can't seem to be able to portray them properly. Also quite educative so I have to say thanks <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="
" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
EDIT: The baker example can be related to any form of work as a whole. It's just easy to make it with something that can easily be divided into equal shares (hence the pie diagram used in many situations). Paying for the amount of work done seems to be a lot better than just paying everyone the same amount regardless of their input.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Nordic model is, as I have already said, ultimately unsustainable under capitalism, and cannot be viewed in any other context apart from the fact that it rests on capitalism. True, it is socially more advanced that the US and less draconian than Britain. But as long as it rests upon the exploitation of labor-power and the theft of surplus value, it is still capitalism, prone to all the same illnesses as their governmental brothers and sisters. The only solution is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and implement a social system run by the proletariat, based on human need. In capitalism, following the dictates of profits will eventually only profit the few that own the means of production.
<b>As mentioned before, someone (including the proletariats) has to be in charge of the operation, otherwise no one would do even the slightest "dirty work" including gathering trash or something else that could be thought of as "lower class work". If indeed someone was to be in charge, eventually it would lead to the person(s) (or someone close to them) wanting to receive a bit more than others. Kinda what happened and happens in a lot of countries that have every one equal. Some are just a bit more equal than others. This could lead to dictatorship and other forms, which could be profitable for the people if the leader had only the people's best interest in mind. This is unfortunately not the case as seen countless times.
Indeed pure capitalism will profit the people who invest in something in hoping that it some day will become grand and profitable. Something tells me the only way to release this problematic situation is to abolish the currency system and turn to something else. Something else that I can not give an example of at the moment since the currency system as itself is already very complex (and thus exploitable?). </b>
If you are denounced for advocating more humane policies, it says far more about your critics than you. And your baker example is still convoluted in my eyes. So if one baker ended up baking less than the others, you would advocate that he would receive less aid than the other bakers? What would you dock? His pay? Place a limit on how often he can brush his teeth? Or if he goes to the doctor, should he bake more pie in order to be eligible for a CAT scan? While these questions may sound ludicrous, I believe that I'm only taking them to their logical conclusion. It is a caricature of the argument that the right wing use to demonize the poor; those in power are said to work harder than the poor who "leech" off of the "welfare state".
<b>Easily changed into this: baker A makes 10 hours worth of pies, baker B makes 7.5 hours and baker C makes 2.5 hours. What I don't want to be asking is everyone entitled to healthcare and such (I already stated that they all should receive the same treatment regardless), but how much extra should a person be given. If you want to buy a new car, should everyone be entitled to a new car regardless of what they have been doing the whole time. Doing something productive is far better than leeching of society, be it rich or poor. Doing work as an idea is already the following: Give your free time to someone else to receive something in return. In most cases it is time = money, but it could be other things too including time = a better feeling (charity work), time = food (farming), and such. Going a bit from the economics side of this discussion, calling a person on sick leave a "leech" is quite like saying that black people shouldn't have been allowed to receive equal rights. It can be regarded as the racial battle which raged in a lot of countries (and unfortunately, in some cases still rages). </b>
Obama has not tried any kind of socialist policy. On the contrary, he has followed largely in the same steps as Bush. His recent inveighing against the wealthy and his recent "Buffett tax" is a fraud, as he knows that it will never pass the so-called "Bipartisan Committee". His healthcare bill is also a fraud, as it is founded on the notion that whatever is left of the state-funded options must be cut to the bone and whored out to private insurance companies. He bailed out the very social class that is partly responsible for the depression. He is a bourgeois politician and a scoundrel.
<b>Make the social healthcare system a part of the government or at least government regulated. That'd help the whole situation (which I thought was remotely going to happen, but I stand corrected). But at least someone has tried to make some kind of change (and believe it or not, the change has to be made sooner than later).</b>
I agree that it has been nice talking with you. A final word on our politics: While there may be similarities in our politics, I deny any connection to them whatsoever. On the contrary, we could not be more different. You simply wish to reform capitalism, and I wish to overthrow it. You see no future beyond the discredited "Nordic system," while the history of the class struggle serves me with countless examples of social systems that have been forsaken in place of others in humanity's advancement. You think social struggle should be reduced to table manners, and I think it should strike at the jugular. I already understand that as I write this, I have no hope of convincing you of my position. That is very well, because while we speak in this internet forum, the flow of history does not wait for either of us. It first cuffs us from the left, now from the right. The revolution in Egypt was only the beginning, the mass protests in Israel the final sentence of the first paragraph. The class struggle has erupted once again in full force, and it will not wait for pacifism or the Nordic system to catch up.
<b>As mentioned, Egypt was a beginning of something, but the country was a dictatorship which didn't have the possibility of change by the civilians. The revolution was tended to be non-violent (which it was mostly, but still there were casualties), and people have been trying to acquire change fast. This just hasn't happened so far and thus the situation has not come even close to an end. Change itself is good and wanted, but do it too fast and everyone ends in a situation that may lead to more bad than good. Also regarding reforming or overthrowing capitalism, it won't happen without looking back at what have been made. Things will be changed from the basics of capitalism just as things have been implemented from communism to many others. There are good parts in capitalism and there are bad parts. Taking the good parts (of capitalism and anything else for that matter) and trying to ditch the bad ones are the basics of what should be done.</b>
I leave you with a final quote from Leon Trotsky, taken from the same essay mentioned before: <a href="http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm" target="_blank">http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the formula, “lying and worse”, “worse” evidently signifies violence, murder, and so on, since under equal conditions violence is worse than lying; and murder – the most extreme form of violence. We thus come to the conclusion that lying, violence, murder are incompatible with a “healthy socialist movement”. What, however, is our relation to revolution? Civil war is the most severe of all forms of war. It is unthinkable not only without violence against tertiary figures but, under contemporary technique, without murdering old men, old women and children. Must one be reminded of Spain? The only possible answer of the “friends” of republican Spain sounds like this: civil war is better than fascist slavery. But this completely correct answer merely signifies that the end (democracy or socialism) justifies, under certain conditions, such means as violence and murder. Not to speak about lies! Without lies war would be as unimaginable as a machine without oil. In order to safeguard even the session of the Cortes (February 1, 1938) from Fascist bombs the Barcelona government several times deliberately deceived journalists and their own population. Could it have acted in any other way? Whoever accepts the end: victory over Franco, must accept the means: civil war with its wake of horrors and crimes.
Nevertheless, lying and violence “in themselves” warrant condemnation? Of course, even as does the class society which generates them. A society without social contradictions will naturally be a society without lies and violence. However there is no way of building a bridge to that society save by revolutionary, that is, violent means. The revolution itself is a product of class society and of necessity bears its traits. From the point of view of “eternal truths’ revolution is of course “anti-moral”. But this merely means that idealist morality is counter-revolutionary, that is, in the service of the exploiters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Thinking a violent revolution is the only way to go is.. Well to be honest, I don't see why things could only be done only in a violent way. Trotsky, like many others lived almost a century ago and the world was very different then. This does not mean that they are wrong or outdated, but you have to look at everything in perspective compared to the time they were made. A lot of philosophy is unfortunately very idealistic and features parts of something that "humans should do, but in the end don't do". </b>
