British Imperialism And Proletarian Internationalism

[jaggybunnet]

I'd be happy to be on "15-18K a year while busting a gut", but, hey, I ain't becuase of the wonderful people in charge, but, let's not talk about that just the lies Labour spun us all.

 

 

things are tough now because of all the Labour lies

[Woodstock Jag]

Used a games console for what exactly - are they not sizable big boys? Are you suggesting that lube is best? Out of interest and for future reference, you say that you are a Liberal Dem' libertarian or similar; but what is the difference between you and a young Tory? To my mind you are one and the same person. The only difference - and I hate to say this - is that YT's are programmed from birth to think that they are the masters of the universe. From what I've read, you at least are willing to stand your ground in debate.

 

Also, why the hatred of the unemployed? Do you have a (final) solution or did one of their ranks do you a bad deed once?

 

Why do you tease me so? I was going to leave you all alone too

 

The difference between me and a "Young Tory" (whatever 'they' are) is that, among other things, I believe in: the non-renewal of trident; the abolition of control orders; the legalisation of most currently illicit substances; the abolition of the House of Lords; Proportional Representation and retention of the Human Rights Act. How anyone could call me a Tory when I believe in all of these things is a mystery to me.

 

I also don't hate the unemployed. I just don't believe that hard-working taxpayers should subsidise it as a lifestyle choice. 1.6 million people in the UK of working age not in full-time education or training have never done a day's work in their entire lives. That's a complete shambles. And the reason: the dole pays better than an honest day's work.

 

I don't "hate" these people for choosing that life. If the government are stupid enough to pay them to do nothing then more power to them to take advantage of it while it's going a begging. The point is the government shouldn't be taking taxes from people under the median national wage to provide the equivalent of the same take-home pay to someone who isn't working and has no intention of working.

 

Take the housing benefit example: some families get over £500 a week. That's the equivalent of the take-home pay of someone earning about £30kpa gross. How is it fair that people earning as little as £7kpa are currently paying tax to subsidise a lifestyle of someone effectively earning 4 times their income for doing nothing?

Edited December 30, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[Dragon]

things are tough now because of all the Labour lies

 

And, ConDem lies!

[Meister Jag]

Why do you tease me so? I was going to leave you all alone too

 

The difference between me and a "Young Tory" (whatever 'they' are) is that, among other things, I believe in: the non-renewal of trident; the abolition of control orders; the legalisation of most currently illicit substances; the abolition of the House of Lords; Proportional Representation and retention of the Human Rights Act. How anyone could call me a Tory when I believe in all of these things is a mystery to me. Accepted

 

I also don't hate the unemployed. I just don't believe that hard-working taxpayers should subsidise it as a lifestyle choice. 1.6 million people in the UK of working age not in full-time education or training have never done a day's work in their entire lives. That's a complete shambles. And the reason: the dole pays better than an honest day's work. Accepted

 

I don't "hate" these people for choosing that life. If the government are stupid enough to pay them to do nothing then more power to them to take advantage of it while it's going a begging. The point is the government shouldn't be taking taxes from people under the median national wage to provide the equivalent of the same take-home pay to someone who isn't working and has no intention of working. Glad to hear it mate and all points accepted.

 

Take the housing benefit example: some families get over £500 a week. That's the equivalent of the take-home pay of someone earning about £30kpa gross. How is it fair that people earning as little as £7kpa are currently paying tax to subsidise a lifestyle of someone effectively earning 4 times their income for doing nothing? Housing benefit example is a bad example as is related to the market rate set by landlords who are ripping the pi** out of local rates e.g. central London. I would seriously doubt if there are many / any folk in Scotland being paid that per week in HB. Unaware of bedsits etc in Morningside, Heriot Row or Dowanhill being up for grabs.

 

Away and enjoy your game and I promise to give you peace. In truth, some of your politicial ideas aren't all bad; some I even agree with e.g. HRA. Pity that your side decided to team up the evil sons of Thatcher! But at the end of the day, all a matter of personal opinion and yours is respected. Comrade Jaggy on the other hand remains a lost soul who will be saved!

[jaggybunnet]

And, ConDem lies!

 

 

why, because instead of making up jobs that cant be paid for in the public sector and creating a group of people (in some cases) are happy to live off the state they have to sort this mess out.

[Dragon]

why, because instead of making up jobs that cant be paid for in the public sector and creating a group of people (in some cases) are happy to live off the state they have to sort this mess out.

 

I worked in the private sector.

 

Edit: and so did the 15,000+ others that went.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Dragon

[Woodstock Jag]

Housing benefit example is a bad example as is related to the market rate set by landlords who are ripping the pi** out of local rates e.g. central London. I would seriously doubt if there are many / any folk in Scotland being paid that per week in HB. Unaware of bedsits etc in Morningside, Heriot Row or Dowanhill being up for grabs.

 

Well yes and no. Arguably the abundance of housing benefit support is penalising people in a job earning £30kpa as government subsidies end up inflating the market rate in more desirable areas, making it harder for young families to get into these new homes and leaves them less disposable income to build-up for a deposit to get onto the property market in the first place. It is working families not receiving housing benefit that suffer from increased demand.

 

Worth remembering as well that those receiving housing benefit typically also receive other forms of support e.g. JSA, Council Tax support, Child Benefit, Income Support Allowance etc etc. It all adds up and it's easy to forget that the median wage in this country is about £400 per week gross (less than £350 a week NET once the government have stolen income tax and compulsory NIC from you). £350 a week once rent, leccy/gas, Council Tax, water levy, landline, internet, TV licence, groceries are taken into account really starts to burden doing an honest day's work c.f. all the support with these things given to those on the dole.

 

Now I'm not suggesting doing away completely with benefits (at least not while it's in the mess we've currently got and certainly not for those who are incapacitated) but it really is absolutely criminal to be supporting anyone at all with the equivalent of a £30kpa salary to do absolutely nothing whatsoever.

 

Away and enjoy your game and I promise to give you peace. In truth, some of your politicial ideas aren't all bad; some I even agree with e.g. HRA. Pity that your side decided to team up the evil sons of Thatcher! But at the end of the day, all a matter of personal opinion and yours is respected. Comrade Jaggy on the other hand remains a lost soul who will be saved!

 

[jaggybunnet]

I worked in the private sector.

 

Edit: and so did the 15,000+ others that went.

 

 

was that not goverment paid though?

[Dragon]

was that not goverment paid though?

 

No.

[Meister Jag]

you only pay for water rates part of it and (having been to the houseing office with my nephew) that can be waved as well. with all the benifits (rent, CT and the likes) they are on they can be getting (in some cases) around 24K in some areas, no they dont get all of that in there hand but it is still paid for them while some poor sod is trying to live on 15-18K a year while busting a gut.

 

 

just incase you are unsure or the babysham is starting to kick in i am talking about those that dont look for a job not pensioners (surely they are all secure after 13 years of the workers party ) , those that activly try to find jobs

 

yeah i seem to remember that as well late 2008 when i was looking for a job...now who was in power then

 

Jaggy, do you seriously belive that the current government is any better than the last? Had Labour got back into power - with or without the help of Woodstock's mates - I'd still be suggesting that they'd not done enough and there was work still to do. The following is an extract of an article that was written by Bob Russell MP - 8th June 2010:

 

Britain, despite the current economic uncertainty, remains one of the wealthiest nations on Earth.

 

It is to the lasting shame of successive governments that our country has one of the worst levels of child poverty in the developed world. And one of the worst in Europe, with poverty rates lower even than the former Communist countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - a point which I have already made to prime minister David Cameron on the floor of the Commons.

 

My debate in Westminster Hall will combine strong criticism primarily of the last Labour government, but also reminding the Conservative Party that the situation has not arisen in the last 13 years but was one inherited from when it was last in office. Successive governments should hang their heads in shame, generations of young people have been let down.

 

I will be urging the new Coalition government, of which nominally I am a member, that they simply have got to do better. Whatever the economic issues facing the country, it plainly cannot be right in a so-called civilised society to have children living in conditions which are deemed to be below the official poverty line.

 

I recognise that this is all relative. What is described as poverty in the UK is not the poverty which can be found in third world countries. Nor in the slums of some overseas cities, where obscene wealth and grinding poverty are physically close to one another but are worlds apart in the quality of life and life expectancy.

 

I shall point out that much was expected of "new" Labour in tackling child poverty. I don't doubt for a minute that they had sincere intentions - but the stark reality is that they failed - and failed big time.

 

To me, I look at life as if it is a jigsaw - lots of pieces which need to come together to complete the picture. It is not enough to talk about education, of health, of employment, and so on. You have to look at the whole picture and if any of the pieces are missing, which tragically is the case for children living in poverty. Then that young individual will struggle throughout his or her life with the guarantee that their chances will be considerably less than for a child from a household which is not lacking in the necessities of life, and with a shorter life expectancy as well.

 

So Comrade Jagster, let's get real and agree that all politicians are failing those they are meant serve. Now MP's expenses and looking after number one... don't get me started. New Labour were admittedly bad, but history has shown that we can expect much worse from the Tories and their little helpers. The following is a quote from of all things, a Scouse Tory:

 

“The state has bailed out the banking system but has proved incapable of saving its own citizens from debt and servitude...” “Moreover the state has arrested social mobility and destroyed the structures of working class advancement."

 

“And in the absence of a common British narrative that unites all peoples and classes; proper respect for other cultures and traditions has collapsed into a state sanctioned multiculturalism that has produced antagonistic communities and licensed the return of extremism and racism.”

 

Those are the words of Phillip Blond, the 43-year-old Liverpudlian philosopher nicknamed “the Red Tory” for his socially conservative, anti-Thatcherite views. Like I say, when analysed, really not that much to differentiate either side.

[jaggybunnet]

Jaggy, do you seriously belive that the current government is any better than the last? Had Labour got back into power - with or without the help of Woodstock's mates - I'd still be suggesting that they'd not done enough and there was work still to do. The following is an extract of an article that was written by Bob Russell MP - 8th June 2010:

 

Britain, despite the current economic uncertainty, remains one of the wealthiest nations on Earth.

 

It is to the lasting shame of successive governments that our country has one of the worst levels of child poverty in the developed world. And one of the worst in Europe, with poverty rates lower even than the former Communist countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - a point which I have already made to prime minister David Cameron on the floor of the Commons.

 

My debate in Westminster Hall will combine strong criticism primarily of the last Labour government, but also reminding the Conservative Party that the situation has not arisen in the last 13 years but was one inherited from when it was last in office. Successive governments should hang their heads in shame, generations of young people have been let down.

 

I will be urging the new Coalition government, of which nominally I am a member, that they simply have got to do better. Whatever the economic issues facing the country, it plainly cannot be right in a so-called civilised society to have children living in conditions which are deemed to be below the official poverty line.

 

I recognise that this is all relative. What is described as poverty in the UK is not the poverty which can be found in third world countries. Nor in the slums of some overseas cities, where obscene wealth and grinding poverty are physically close to one another but are worlds apart in the quality of life and life expectancy.

 

I shall point out that much was expected of "new" Labour in tackling child poverty. I don't doubt for a minute that they had sincere intentions - but the stark reality is that they failed - and failed big time.

 

To me, I look at life as if it is a jigsaw - lots of pieces which need to come together to complete the picture. It is not enough to talk about education, of health, of employment, and so on. You have to look at the whole picture and if any of the pieces are missing, which tragically is the case for children living in poverty. Then that young individual will struggle throughout his or her life with the guarantee that their chances will be considerably less than for a child from a household which is not lacking in the necessities of life, and with a shorter life expectancy as well.

 

So Comrade Jagster, let's get real and agree that all politicians are failing those they are meant serve. Now MP's expenses and looking after number one... don't get me started. New Labour were admittedly bad, but history has shown that we can expect much worse from the Tories and their little helpers. The following is a quote from of all things, a Scouse Tory:

 

“The state has bailed out the banking system but has proved incapable of saving its own citizens from debt and servitude...” “Moreover the state has arrested social mobility and destroyed the structures of working class advancement."

 

“And in the absence of a common British narrative that unites all peoples and classes; proper respect for other cultures and traditions has collapsed into a state sanctioned multiculturalism that has produced antagonistic communities and licensed the return of extremism and racism.”

 

Those are the words of Phillip Blond, the 43-year-old Liverpudlian philosopher nicknamed “the Red Tory” for his socially conservative, anti-Thatcherite views. Like I say, when analysed, really not that much to differentiate either side.

 

 

yes i do, they are at least trying to bring down the debt and no its not going to be easy but what is.

[jaggybunnet]

No.

 

 

so it was the fault of the company for not looking after its finances then?

[Dragon]

so it was the fault of the company for not looking after its finances then?

 

No. The fault was with the ConDems, but, seems some people will just not accept this.

[Woodstock Jag]

No. The fault was with the ConDems, but, seems some people will just not accept this.

 

What did the Coalition do that made them to blame for said redundancies?

[jaggybunnet]

No. The fault was with the ConDems, but, seems some people will just not accept this.

 

 

why?

[Meister Jag]

yes i do, they are at least trying to bring down the debt and no its not going to be easy but what is.

 

Cheers Jaggy, wise words... that was worth waiting for. All the compassion of a stepmother's kiss - you could go a long way in government. Why not take a wee donner down to the Tory recruiting office and see if there's a vacancy for a DWP fraud special agent or even a ministerial-type job as a missionary in the Tory-free zone that is central Scotland. Your talents are wasted on this DG. IMO of course

[jaggybunnet]

Cheers Jaggy, wise words... that was worth waiting for. All the compassion of a stepmother's kiss - you could go a long way in government. Why not take a wee donner down to the Tory recruiting office and see if there's a vacancy for a DWP fraud special agent or even a ministerial-type job as a missionary in the Tory-free zone that is central Scotland. Your talents are wasted on this DG. IMO of course

 

 

sorry but your compassion means nothing if we dont sort the problems now as the country will be bankrupt.

 

and before you come out with the same old he he stopped that and she didnt do that we would be fine, sorry thats rubbish the things that you are so happy to cut are what is keeping the public sector going and keeping people in jobs such as the aircraft carriers.

 

at least the tories are looking at a replacement/other option for trident and are trying to sell one of the aircraft carriers.

 

but hey ho i finish my 24 hr duty at 0900hrs tomorrow and will be having a small wild turky and a large beer to take in the new year so, you watch yourself on the babysham and have a good one

[gianlucatoni]

What did the Coalition do that made them to blame for said redundancies?

 

 

ffs WJ ... i thought you were off topic earlier to save the virgins from planet flub-a-lub on your eggs box £3.60 ... or is the urge to take up the cudgel with jaggybunnet too strong (stronger than the force on yoda jag's 6 film george lucas money making scheme?)

Edited December 30, 2010 by gianlucatoni

[Woodstock Jag]

ffs WJ ... i thought you were off topic earlier to save the virgins from planet flub-a-lub on your eggs box £3.60 ... or is the urge to take up the cudgel with jaggybunnet too strong (stronger than the force on yoda jag's 6 film george lucas money making scheme?)

 

I genuinely cannot make any sense of this post at all. Kudos.

[Meister Jag]

sorry but your compassion means nothing if we dont sort the problems now as the country will be bankrupt.

 

and before you come out with the same old he he stopped that and she didnt do that we would be fine, sorry thats rubbish the things that you are so happy to cut are what is keeping the public sector going and keeping people in jobs such as the aircraft carriers.

 

at least the tories are looking at a replacement/other option for trident and are trying to sell one of the aircraft carriers.

 

but hey ho i finish my 24 hr duty at 0900hrs tomorrow and will be having a small wild turky and a large beer to take in the new year so, you watch yourself on the babysham and have a good one

 

But Jaggy, you know I'm right no same old just good old socialist moral righteousness.

 

But more seriously, take care, have a good one and look after Mini Me (Woodstock Jag). I'm tee total btw, hung up my hauf glass a while back. You can only be a champagne socialist for soooo long - this morning's paracatamol was for my aching limbs afte a night's dancing. As Gorgeous George said: "Why should the Tories enjoy all the good Bollinger!" Think he actually said it about suits but why spoil a good line.

[Blackpool Jags]

That's not class differential. That's wealth differential. Not the same thing.

 

 

Not so at all; the wealth differential in the earlier examples denotes an entirely different quality of life in totality. A wee tip: check out 'dialectical materialism' for a grasp on the immutable concept of quantity into quality: "n.The Marxian interpretation of reality that views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements."

 

In every day terms, the life expectancy of the working class Joe Bloggs who works for the minimum wage is approximately 15-20 years lower than that of his middle class comparator who owns a string of franchises and lives in luxuriant suburbia. The irony here of course is that the latter can only sustain his quality of life by the efforts of the former whom he employs to work in his business. Current orthodoxy holds, perversely in my view, that the former should be thankful to the latter for employing him.

 

The further, and more profound, irony is that in order to maintain the staus quo, our middle class specimen will vote to elect a government that will purport to roll back the state and allow him to pocket more of 'his' hard earned by way of reduced taxation, but a government who, in truth, will be far bigger and more interventionist in the real sense by legislating against all and any attempts by the organised working class to improve their lot by way of exercising collective pressure.

 

The alternative, 'Libertarian', concept was quite popular in Europe for a few thousand years - practised by eg the Romans - until the advent of Feudalism, but that's maybe for another day.

[Woodstock Jag]

Not so at all; the wealth differential in the earlier examples denotes an entirely different quality of life in totality. A wee tip: check out 'dialectical materialism' for a grasp on the immutable concept of quantity into quality: "n.The Marxian interpretation of reality that views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements."

 

In every day terms, the life expectancy of the working class Joe Bloggs who works for the minimum wage is approximately 15-20 years lower than that of his middle class comparator who owns a string of franchises and lives in luxuriant suburbia. The irony here of course is that the latter can only sustain his quality of life by the efforts of the former whom he employs to work in his business. Current orthodoxy holds, perversely in my view, that the former should be thankful to the latter for employing him.

 

The further, and more profound, irony is that in order to maintain the staus quo, our middle class specimen will vote to elect a government that will purport to roll back the state and allow him to pocket more of 'his' hard earned by way of reduced taxation, but a government who, in truth, will be far bigger and more interventionist in the real sense by legislating against all and any attempts by the organised working class to improve their lot by way of exercising collective pressure.

 

The alternative, 'Libertarian', concept was quite popular in Europe for a few thousand years - practised by eg the Romans - until the advent of Feudalism, but that's maybe for another day.

 

Except your concept of the middle classes is stereotypical and hugely misleading. You are using the extremes to make a point, which is completely invalid.

 

The wealth gap is NOT the same as the fictitious class gap, or even close to it.

 

Oh, and again you are caricaturing my position to the effect of "if you aren't in favour of the working class taking over the asylum you are in favour of big mean bad business raping and pillaging the world so 3 fat cats and a dog can piss all over everyone." Libertarians deride monopoly and big business using the power structures of government to manipulate the system in their favour. The rationale is that if you remove the coercive, conservative and sectionally interested state from every-day affairs, you get a genuinely free market, the like of which we have never come close to seeing with protectionist façades like the US and EU.

 

It is completely irrational for people to think in terms of class conflict. It implies a degree of social solidarity, but it then immediately splits the human race into factions so you can have this pathetic "class conflict". If people stopped trying to split into camps of "us and them" the so-called "working class" would actually benefit substantially from marketising their own labour.

 

This idea of an "organised working class" just smacks of conservative, sectional stupidity. It preserves the wealth inequality it purports to fight.

 

There was nothing libertarian about the coercive, violent and slave based Roman Empire. Nothing at all.

 

Oh, and just a final point on basing your entire post on Marx's dialectic materialism: it's a load of steaming pish and should have been consigned to the dustbin as soon as it was conceptualised.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[Blackpool Jags]

 

Libertarians deride monopoly and big business using the power structures of government to manipulate the system in their favour. The rationale is that if you remove the coercive, conservative and sectionally interested state from every-day affairs, you get a genuinely free market, the like of which we have never come close to seeing with protectionist façades like the US and EU.

 

This idea of an "organised working class" just smacks of conservative, sectional stupidity. It preserves the wealth inequality it purports to fight.

 

Oh, and just a final point on basing your entire post on Marx's dialectic materialism: it's a load of steaming pish and should have been consigned to the dustbin as soon as it was conceptualised.

 

Oh dear, so much to address in there... I'll have a stab with some of these points made above:

 

In our idealist, Libertarian state, nation, society or whatever it might be called, what powers would the prevailing Libertarian legislature exercise - assuming it had bitten the bullet and used democratic means to attain 'power' - to prevent the development of big business monopolies? Would it intervene, or would it already have legislated against this eventuality? Contradictions abound, it would seem.

 

Ok, the stupidity of the organised working class: I'm sorry but this is true guff you talk here, mate; since the industrial revolution, all societal progression - eg the NHS, free education system (uh oh, here we go again), retirement pensions and the exponential rise in life expectancy - has been delivered precisely as direct result of the interventions of the organised working class, via the formation of Trades Unions and the creation of a Party of Labour. Not to see this is wilful blindness.

 

To refuse to recognise the factuality of Marx and Engels' Dialectics work simply requires you to spend some time reading up on it. I took two or three weeks to get my head round it, so I'm sure a bright young academic like yourself will crack it in a day or two. The only thing missing, though, is the will to do so and the abandonment of any fears that you might've been wrong hitherto.

[Vladimir Putin]

You are using the extremes to make a point, which is completely invalid.

 

Absolutely - because the Daily Mail and those on the right never do this with regards to people on benefits.

[sigesige00]

My doctoral research theme will be: "Japanese imperialism: decaying and parasitic capitalism".