Benefits cut for 3 years....

Alex Jones is completely "out there" when it comes to his combative presentation style. But his message, however histrionic, is correct. The 2nd amendment wasn't put there for duck shooting, it is there to protect the people from tyrannical Government. All the dictators and despots throughout history have disarmed the people to prevent them from fighting back and then went on to murder and pillage. British history is littered with violent protest against unfair regulation and taxation. The American nation was founded on violent protest against British rule. Unfortunately we have now allowed the socialist agenda to go so far that the society we live in is dependent on Government for handouts and non-jobs. All the Gov't employees lovingly nod their heads to the socialist beat because they fear for their livelihoods if they don't. So they will carry on robbing money from people to line their pockets and vote accordingly. Sooner or later the people will wake up and take a stand against Government theft. The Unions and public sector will have to decide which side they are on.

Anyway, make your own mind up.

www.infowars.com

Is it satire?

Get out more? I've won stolen wages back, reinstated a coworker and defended attacks on my terms and conditions by acting collectively. I've seen the scum you seek to protect try to use their advantage, and organised effectively to counter that.

Rather than sitting on an island in Thailand browsing websites and YouTube videos made for loonies, I actually practicewhat I preach.

You don't even know what "Marxism" is.

You're right, I don't know what Marx thought. I do know what he wrote however. As I've told you before, I am not a Marxist. I think Marx's critique of capitalism contains many insights, but it doesn't follow from that that I accept either his blueprint for a future society (about which he said very little) or that set out by those claiming to act in his name.

As someone who rejects all forms of hierarchical power (capital, state or bureaucratic), what makes you think I would support a coup d'état? The idea that a select band of knowledgable types could seize state power and run it in the interests of all is so ridiculous that even someone as foolish as you can see where it leads. That's not a conclusion reached in hindsight btw, but one that was realised by workers in the internationalist labour movement in the middle of the 19th century, long before the events of the Russian Revolution. Read a book about Spain in the period between 1890 and 1939 if you want see what a libertarian form of socialism looks like. You mentioned Orwell elsewhere, well Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is a good place to start.

You laud what you believe to be capitalism because it provides freedom. But freedom for who? People who profit from those who are "helped through the buying process" maybe, but what about the labourer who produces what's being sold?

In Victorian England, sweatshops in Manchester, Lancashire and Yorkshire provided the cheap, expendable labour that capital requires. Now it's workers in the sprawling cities of China. Conveniently for capital, workers in countries such as China are denied the same rights that workers in Victorian England were denied. But were there not a pool of compliant, 'flexible' labourers from which surplus value could be extracted, then how do you suppose that capital accumulation would be possible?

Well they say a week is a long time in politics. I miss one day of the great TFF Benefits debate and I've been left behind. It seems to be going from strength to strength, plus it's my guess that new member 'nelson' is far more likely to find himself put behind a password protected zone than our stimulating debates are.

Dave is clearly in awe at the depth and breadth of Lambeth's reading and that's understandable. But he shouldn't feel too disheartened. Firstly Lambeth has the advantage of the British winter. It's dark here by 3.30pm and perishingly cold as well. Ideal reading conditions ! A quick look at the London crime figures, and who wouldn't prefer to stay in and curl up with the 'The Wealth of Nations' rather than wander out onto the mean streets of the nations capital city ? When life is just one pleasurable round of sun,sea and sand it's surely going to be much harder to make yourself get down to some serious reading.

I'll probably never catch up, but for today I'll just make some observations concerning the astute points Lambeth made yesterday:

Lambethgull

1. Yes he can be pretty funny. As regards the rebellions and revolts, Tom should know about them.He holds a BA from Harvard University and a Ph.D. from Columbia University, both in History, so I think he's drawn different conclusions from these events rather than denying they happened.

2. Pah, does this guy Smith know what he's talking about ? 'The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily' The workers are all on the shop floor together, spend their coffee breaks and lunch hours together, infact they all used to head off to Blackpool together for their Summer hols. The bosses meanwhile would bump into each other for an hour a month at the Chamber of Trade meeting.

Any decent capitalist should be planning how he is going to benefit from the labour disputes of his rivals rather than giving the chap a hand.

Let's say the Exeter FC workers decide to go on strike for a pay rise. I would imagine the Plainmoor bosses would be only too pleased by the dispute. For a start you attempt to pick up as many of your competitors customers as possible. You tell Manse and the lads that they get a bonus in their pay packets for each additional 100 over and above our average Plainmoor gate. Then in the happy event that the dispute closes down Exeter FC for good, we tell our workers there will be pay rises all round to celebrate all the additional income we now get from Exeter football followers having to bring their cash to us, as we benefit from being the nearest football provider.

3.'I have no sympathy at all for social democrats and liberals'. Unanimous agreement between us all on that point.

4.'That's why publicly funded institutions like universities and state subsidies for R&D exist' Publically funded universities have caused the massive cost increase in further education as well as churning out students with a great understanding of sociology or liberal arts subjects but not the skills and abilities which will help them or the nation thrive in the 21st century. Going back to wildebeeste, the man to whom we are grateful for kicking of this great thread, does anyone doubt that his lad isn't an intelligent and well educated guy ? It's a scandal that we've currently got a society that not only under utilises many young people of ability but often has no role for them at all.

Feel free to ignore youtube videos (I often do ) but Mr.Schiff explains why Government intervention causes the high costs of further education, and gives a graphic example of the US Government colleges charging students huge sums to teach them stuff that is no use to them.





State subsidies for R&D ? Well it's the old argument of whether the State can pick winners better than the free market. You get state funding if you're willing to peddle the state's line. A University who's science department comes up with research casting doubt on 'global warming' soon gets it's grant slashed for future years.

Follow the favoured view of Big Government, as David Attenborough does, and the work will flood in and the State broadcaster will give you a series on their main channel to spout the official doctrine.

Come up with the 'wrong' results from research and they'll effectively close you down and get you gagged from the media, as David Bellamy explained this weekend

"All of the work dried up after that. I was due to start another series with the BBC but that didn't go anywhere, and the other side [ITV] didn't want to know. I was shunned. They didn't want to hear the other side."

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-bellamy-i-was-shunned-they-didnt-want-to-hear-8449307.html?origin=internalSearch

The BBC obviously, and any regional ITV company is dependent on Governmental bodies if it wants it's franchise renewed. What quicker way to jeopardize that than by letting a global warming denier get airtime ?

5.'If you want to see how efficiently capitalism allocates resources take a trip to your local landfill site, or consider how much of the contents of the average supermarket trolley ends up in the bin'

Hey isn't that the great Keynesian plan ? To employ and pay people to dig holes and fill them in again....even if the 'filling in' bit is done with rubbish ;D


I remember hearing many decades ago that the Americans had far fewer cuts of meat than us. Fillet steak, and maybe a couple of other prime cuts, but capitalism had made them so wealthy that they could afford to throw away the majority of the dead cow completely unused. Whereas at home in Cornwall we'd use all the meat, boil up the hooves for broth, and make a coat and boots out of the skin ( that's a slight exaggeration actually )

But it's a system of poverty that needs to be introduced if you want to see every drop drained out of every resource. For the American , his resources of time and energy were better used in running his business in Silicon valley than boiling cow's hooves and worrying about cheap cuts of meat. Capitalism had caused abundance and alleviated the worry of scarce resources. The British consumer has been made so affluent that they prefer to pay more and get the same product packaged with ribbons and bows, than to get it in a brown paper bag at Aldi for half the price. The landfill, which more often than not is a decision of a monopoly local authority deciding what is the best use for the land, is a tribute to this age where certain scarcities are no more.

Mind you, if resources are scarce and have to be allocated most efficiently in a less prosperous society, capitalism would always provide the means to do so. Capitalism provided the enterprising 'Rag and Bone' man and would soon provide him again if resources have to be used differently and aren't so abundant they can just be thrown away.

Capitalism provided eBay so that the less prosperous do not have to throw out their unwanted items and see them end up at the Government Refuse site. Instead those that can make further or better use of those resources can now acquire them. eBay has probably done more to encourage the re-use of resources and to stop things being thrown out as rubbish than any ideas a Government bureaucrat has come up with.

Ah, good, so you'll agree with me then that the state is a very bad thing

Let's examine how the capitalist state comes into being then. First you enclose land (read: seize land), then you produce a factory system based on wage labour. Except that doesn't happen spontaneously. There is no 'invisible' hand. For such a system to work you require property rights enforced by the state. You require laws to prevent workers 'combining' to receive the fruits of their labour. You require laws to forbid 'vagrancy'. you need to make it illegal or at least provide disincentives not to work. (That's what Smith was getting at when he said it was easier for masters to combine btw, Joe).

The enclosure of land in England occurred mainly between 17th and 19th century. It was a systematic process (rubber stamped by Parliament), and opposition to it often resulted in forced expulsion from that land and, occasionally, execution. Dave mentions the Luddites, which is rather timely, given that this year is the bicentennial anniversary year of the Luddite rebellions of 1811-1813. The Luddites were not opposed to technology. They were opposed to the use of technology to destroy their livelihoods. The Luddites used direct action to destroy the machines that threatened their livelihoods. The state responded by using troops against those involved and executing who it considered to be the ring-leaders. So far, so 'libertarian'.

But the state's involvement doesn't stop there. A workhouse system, a prison system, a system of courts and bailiffs to enforce the court's laws, a military (including mandatory conscription), a school system with a prescribed curriculum, all these things require the state (with 'the invisible hand' remaining conspicuous by its absence).

But perhaps you are talking about America, Dave, since I know you are a lover of the US. At what point does the Golden Era of American capitalism begin and end? With the near-extermination of its indigenous population? With slavery? When the National Guard was brought in to murder striking workers? With FDR? With Obama?

Now you might believe that the state's seizure of land, the execution of opponents, the forcing of labour is a price worth paying for the system you advocate. That's fine. But you can't support that AND be against state, against hierarchy or a libertarian.