Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

No wonder kids are shooting up schools.
The solution: Take the guns from the poor people.
Can't risk them shooting rich kids.

Like seriously: Does anyone truly think any gun regulation is going to stop rich people from arming themselves and the people that provide their security?

Nope, the rich always get their security via the police and their own private security. When pedophile oligarchs like Weinstein and Epstein can hire ex-mossad agents whilst the police only seem to take action when they can brutalise unarmed protesters, it's a damn shame on this world. In many ways I am disappointed that the left has stopped trying to appeal to working class peoples and instead is much happier fighting to have a more inclusive array of oligarchs 
Occupy wallstreet got the shit beat out of them, and the bit suits and high heels just laughed and videoed the hoi polloi getting gassed, maced and batted. But no one talked about the smaller protest where a bunch of guys with guns just stood outside their offices in silence. Police didn't start violently beating the shit out of them, because no shit, they were armed and were just standing around doing nothing untoward. The police instead politely asked them what they were doing. The suits and heels didn't want to laugh and film them, because no shit, they were standing around whilst armed. Conversely, unarmed progressive protesters will typically get the shit beaten out of them, and then they will be portrayed as violent looters afterwards anyways. Just look at the recent honk honk trucker convoy protests. That absolute clusterfuck was one of the most impressive displays of civil disobedience and protest since the Catalonians managed to trap Barcelonan police vehicles in with a tractor blockade. It wasn't violent, it was hilarious, it could not be ignored and it actually pissed politicians off in a way which threatened their careers. What was their objective?
When I learned the whole thing was over wearing face masks at border checkpoints my disappointment was immeasurable and my day was ruined. Just imagine if those truckers had been fighting for prosperous wages, or some actual regulation on the greedy cats who keep bricking the economy. I m a g i n e

What I am so desperately trying to explain is that the United States of America was Founded by Rich Assholes. Everyone is complaining about Rich Assholes like these are the first ones to ever do this shit.  They're absolutely not.

Anyone ever heard of Robber Barons? A handful of them tried to manipulate the Gold Market so Only They had any money whatsoever.

Shit dude you're one step away from complaining about the noted communist bandit Robin Hood

[feelotraveller]

I am disappointed that the left has stopped trying to appeal to working class peoples and instead is much happier fighting to have a more inclusive array of oligarchs 

As far as I make it that is 'left wing' authoritarianism, i.e., a subspecies of right wing ideology which tries to appeal to the benevolent dictator trope.  Better than an evil dictactor, sure, addressing the fundamental problem, entirely not. 

We tried to have this conversation but it didn't work.  In events since think about the demonisation of antifa (in america) - the((ir) real threat was not being against facism - lots of nice solid folks share that bit - but rather in being anti-authoritarian, no leader, no headquarters, etc.  To say it another way they lack many of the common elements of the state-form that make them amenable to capture by the military-industrial complex.


I m a g i n e (link added)

[Loud Whispers]

idk man in the UK we had that convo and got free healthcare

then we stopped that convo and they started privatising everything under the sun

[feelotraveller]

The convo did not stop, moments like occupy show that it is still bubbling away.  Rather it diminished as many once young people got bought off with mortgages, 2.2 kids and dreams of a shiny automobile.  And global capital ratcheted up its take of the home/internal market as the exploitation of the third world neared its limit.  (And to be honest the UK has always had a tradition of relatively free healthcare, at least post WWII.)

Instead we have heroin dreams of Corbyn the great reformer - yeah I'm picking on your idol precisely because he's pretty much the best option amongst your current crop of twats.  My guess is that if he had the chance it would turn out the same - 'safe in our hands' Thatcher actually being about the 'internal market' and 'fund holders'; 'integrated care' Blair actually being about 'surgicentres' and modernising (stengthening) the internal market;  'extend patient choice' Cameron actually bringing pay restraint and yet more privatisation.  (As a distant outsider I'm probably missing some of the intricacies, and yeah it has gone further downhill since.)

Feel free to fill me in on that latest stated aspirations for the NHS and I'll take a stab at spelling out what in reality that probably means. 

As much as it's cool and good and popular to talk about workers and exploitation it all seems in vain if there is silence about the crucial third element - how the fuck to bring about change while the oligarchs keep pulling the puppet strings.

[McTraveller]

You don't have to change the minds of oligarchs to effect revolution.

You have to change the minds of the people who enforce the powers' that be policies.  The single ruler can't do anything without a force multiplier; it is, in fact, the people who physically enforce the policies that actually have all the power.

[KittyTac]

What's between social democracy and democratic socialism? That's what I self-identify as, politically.

[Loud Whispers]

The convo did not stop, moments like occupy show that it is still bubbling away.  Rather it diminished as many once young people got bought off with mortgages, 2.2 kids and dreams of a shiny automobile.

Young people? With mortgages, kids or cars? This is possible?

And global capital ratcheted up its take of the home/internal market as the exploitation of the third world neared its limit.  (And to be honest the UK has always had a tradition of relatively free healthcare, at least post WWII.)

Courtesy of the labour movement; the tradition didn't come from nowhere

Instead we have heroin dreams of Corbyn the great reformer - yeah I'm picking on your idol precisely because he's pretty much the best option amongst your current crop of twats.  My guess is that if he had the chance it would turn out the same - 'safe in our hands' Thatcher actually being about the 'internal market' and 'fund holders'; 'integrated care' Blair actually being about 'surgicentres' and modernising (stengthening) the internal market;  'extend patient choice' Cameron actually bringing pay restraint and yet more privatisation.  (As a distant outsider I'm probably missing some of the intricacies, and yeah it has gone further downhill since.)

I don't keep political idols, even if I did enjoy shitposting about Cleggwave or Moggwave or other politicians with two g's. Corbyn's a nice chap but I liked him most because I thought he'd be useful for the country. He certainly had some weaknesses but no one's perfect. The main trouble is that he was picked, he was popular, and the party decided to brick his career from inside out because they'd rather languish in mediocrity under Keir than succeed under Corbyn and end up losing the labour party to the labour movement. It's like daft punk without daftness or punk
Even if I hated elements of his policy, the mere existence of Corbyn was useful, as it meant that Boris actually had to put in a bare minimum effort of human decency in order to remain electable. But Boris has continued despite his total lack of public appeal because he lives in a political vacuum where he has no opponents and wins by default

Feel free to fill me in on that latest stated aspirations for the NHS and I'll take a stab at spelling out what in reality that probably means. 

The latest aspiration; survive. The NHS is getting gutted piecemeal and privatised by stealth, with sneaky breaky stuff like NHS services being awarded to private contractors, or NHS funds being looted to reward friends of Hancock and Cameron

As much as it's cool and good and popular to talk about workers and exploitation it all seems in vain if there is silence about the crucial third element - how the fuck to bring about change while the oligarchs keep pulling the puppet strings.

That is a considerably more difficult question to answer. The only thing I can think of is hot control over local candidate selections, so the political parties get stacked with people who believe in things and aren't in it for money

[EuchreJack]

When you need $50,000 to run for public office, it's the Millionaire's club.
You're never gonna get the Oligarchs out of Politics until you fix that fundamental flaw.
Now, I'm a Social Libertarian (I took the quiz), so I don't necessarily seek to fix that, but maybe those with more of a socialist or anti-capitalist mindset should be considering it...

[Loud Whispers]

tbf the compass quiz seems to place everyone as social libertarian

we should revive that thread

[EuchreJack]

tbf the compass quiz seems to place everyone as social libertarian

we should revive that thread

Well, it's the default when it can't put your views in a tiny box with clear labels.

[feelotraveller]

Young people? With mortgages, kids or cars? This is possible?

They can still have kids these days.*

*Terms and conditions apply.  Offer subject to change at short notice.

Courtesy of the labour movement; the tradition didn't come from nowhere

Neither did Blair

The latest aspiration; survive. The NHS is getting gutted piecemeal and privatised by stealth, with sneaky breaky stuff like NHS services being awarded to private contractors, or NHS funds being looted to reward friends of Hancock and Cameron

If survive is the codeword that means they're busy flogging it off to the highest bidder.

That is a considerably more difficult question to answer. The only thing I can think of is hot control over local candidate selections, so the political parties get stacked with people who believe in things and aren't in it for money

Or go the Australian way and tell the party structure to gtfo.

[EuchreJack]

That is a considerably more difficult question to answer. The only thing I can think of is hot control over local candidate selections, so the political parties get stacked with people who believe in things and aren't in it for money

Or go the Australian way and tell the party structure to gtfo.

I would hardly call that anything new, or even desirable.
A rich group funded candidates based upon a very small number of issues, and those candidates won with the extra funding, that they matched through their own fundraising.

It's just trading marginally better oligarchs for the traditionalist oligarchs.  Or maybe not even better: It's possible the oligarch that funded these candidates was just pissed he/she/they were not invited to join the official parties, so they're proving they can influence elections to get the invite next time.

[feelotraveller]

I would hardly call that anything new, or even desirable.

Right it's nothing new that 12 independent candidates got elected (smashing the previous record of 5). /s
Perhaps you can say why having independent members not beholden to party orders is not desirable because from where I am sitting it seems like a very good thing^TM.

A rich group funded candidates based upon a very small number of issues, and those candidates won with the extra funding, that they matched through their own fundraising.

Way to malign a grassroots funding effort!  You are forgetting the substantive issues - primarily climate change but also corruption in politics (including the shenanigans around political funding) that successive governments have refused to deal with, not surprising since they are fossil fueled. 

Riddle me this: why did climate 200 succeed in changing the face of the election when the mining magnate Clive Palmer spent over 3 times the amount (in the last 6 weeks prior to the election alone...) and managed to get exactly no-one elected?

It's just trading marginally better oligarchs for the traditionalist oligarchs.  Or maybe not even better: It's possible the oligarch that funded these candidates was just pissed he/she/they were not invited to join the official parties, so they're proving they can influence elections to get the invite next time.

We could go into detail about the purported 'oligarch' who was a driving force behind the fundraising campaign but really that is just the mud slung by the murdoch press.  Suffice to say that in the 2019 election he donated $25,000 to the group out its spend of $305,000.  I can't imagine he donated much more this time around.  And the funding came with no strings attached - its not coming from a corporation who will later lobby the government on its own behalf.  And sure the guy was pissed with the australian government's inaction over climate change but who isn't.

In terms of the wider issues/conversation I was not pointing to the land of milk and honey but rather at a small immediate step which could be taken.  Yes it won't dismantle the plutocracy - although even a minor improvement to the rampant political corruption won't hurt - but having a more diverse set of voices amongst elected representatives is a good thing.  Remember these people are not bound to toe the party line and that does take away from the power ot the party-duopoly that dominates politics in the anglo-saxon world (and consistently refuses any advance in the objectives of the labour movement despite sometimes their professed leanings - which returns us to the conversation my comment was a response to.)

For sure we need a much more thorough-going and radical change (but meanwhile I'll pick a benevolent dictator over a tyrannical one any day) and to my mind this needs to take some form of direct and grassroots democracy.  You know like really a democracy.  (An old joke comes to mind - How do you eat an elephant?... One bite at a time.)