Greece crisis: Europe on edge over snap election

[Hastings gull]

It shouldn't surprise me that you only think things are unacceptable once there are riots and social unrest, but if we continue as we are that is an inevitability anyway, so it would be wise to change the system before we get to that point.

The reality of politics in the West is that people generally don't really have the time to read about it, or perhaps they just find it boring, beyond what they read in the mainstream media. I would be confident that the average person in the street wouldn't know what social anarchism is, let alone have an opinion on it. This is all fine, the world would be a boring place if everyone was a politician, however this is also why there is not more widespread activism.

I appreciate you have only just learned what social anarchism is yourself, by browsing the front page of wikipedia - but notice the distinction between "private" and "personal" property. A home would be considered personal property, so typically social anarchists would not expect ones home to become property of the public.

I was rather hoping you were going to provide me with a poll about a broken system -you intimated that there were lots, but when it comes to nitty gritty, you tend to ignore such inconvenient questions. I won't dignify the nonsense of your first para with a response to it. In fact, I did know what social anarchism is - I read about this a year ago, after a garden project wall here locally was grafitted by some prat advocating this! I included this for the reader's benefit, and also to give context to the points that I made. Yes, I did see that distinction and pondered this myself. Private property is what you own, and personal property is surely that -personal. Would you ever see a sign saying" Personal Property" in front of someone's house? Even if this remains unclear, if it is private, it is not for the state to collectivise. I notice that you do not reply to the idiocy of social equality, as we have agreed that this is ludicrous, given human nature.

 

[beorhthelm]

I appreciate you have only just learned what social anarchism is yourself, by browsing the front page of wikipedia - but notice the distinction between "private" and "personal" property. A home would be considered personal property, so typically social anarchists would not expect ones home to become property of the public.

this is a nonsence. private and personal property is the same thing, you cannot have personl property while calling for there to be no private property. your social anarchy system calls for the commons to own all property and people take what they want. you may claim some flavours of the system observe personal property, but how on earth can you expect to differentiate between personal and private property? i've just built my personal workshop, shouldnt that be available to the commons to use? i've expanded it into a factory, again should this be available for all? of course not, this is the means of production that must be communally owned. this is why no one wants you "solution" because it doesnt make sence and doesnt work unless you want to return to agarian lifestyle. that there are many, many countries that havent bothered to try all these alternative you think exist, proves no one has the conviction to implement them. a few tried communism and most revert back to capitalism. to borrow a quote, capitalism is the worst form of economy except all those others that have been tried from time to time.

 

[Hastings gull]

In political theory, private property and personal property are not the same thing - their exact definitions are debatable, but generally personal property is items intended for personal use - such as homes, clothes, vehicles and sometimes money. Private property is a social relationship between an owner and persons deprived eg. factories, mines, natural vegetation, etc.

So you don't need to worry about losing your personal workshop - and of course if you begin employing people at your workshop to make you wealthier, the people you employ should get a fair piece of the pie.

Perhaps the vital expression here is "political theory" . . . . I was rather taken aback with your definition including people who have been deprived. Who has? Also, I would hope that the post does not dignify your condescending last sentence with a response.

 

[Triggaaar]

Mustafa - can you answer the questions I asked you in posts 65, 112 and 114:

which societies would you like to use to demonstrate how people aren't naturally greedy?

Can you tell us how you think we can take the resources and wealth off of the world's richest people, and distribute it fairly to everyone?

I disagree. Could you give one example of wealth being equally distributed around the world?

Not just law and legislation, but also the policing of that law and legislation. I'm sure many of us can accept the idea of it, but it's the policing of it that's impractical. Do you accept that?

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm not sure what you want me to say, your posts seem to have descended into pedantic ramblings.

Look at what you wrote -" Private property is a social relationship between an owner and persons deprived eg. factories, mines, natural vegetation, etc." so the question is, again, -who has been deprived? YOU wrote it, YOU defend it -what is pedantic about that?

 

[Hastings gull]

Mustafa - can you answer the questions I asked you in posts 65, 112 and 114:

And, Mustafa, could you provide us with the polls which refer to widespread support that the system is broken, -third time of asking.

 

[Hastings gull]

deprive
dɪˈprʌɪv
verb
prevent (a person or place) from having or using something.

The question of course was WHO was being deprived -not the definition of the verb, as you well know. (to deprive is a weak, transitive verb) So, I am still waiting -this would seem to be the usual pattern when a certain Mustafa is asked to really get down to the nitty gritty and away from fancy slogans.

 

[Hastings gull]

I think [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] was making some good points earlier where he was saying that we are products of our environment. We are raised to be greedy within our current culture and economic system and so greed appears to be a natural trait. It would be difficult to give you a modern example in a world ruled by capitalism, however there are many examples of tribes who are/were societies of equals, as well as various ancient civilisations I'm sure. I think when we are discussing greed we should look at it from a neurological or psychological perspective - there's a good article here: http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/08/is-human-nature-fundamentally-selfish-or-altruistic/

To answer your other question about achieving equality. Remember, I'm just a bloke on a football forum, and I only have ideas, not all encompassing solutions. I would introduce laws which prevent excessive "greedy" behaviour or wealth - and I would return their empires of properties, resources and corporations to the people.

I see you have now gone for the "I am just a poor bloke" line to deflect some criticism -in total contrast to so many other posts when you arrogantly ask us all to consider this etc etc. The post was basically asking how you would distribute wealth and you say that you would introduce laws that prevent "greedy " behaviour. You don't seriously expect anyone to be taken in by such a vague response, do you? And you would return their assets to the people - have they ever been owned by the people, and who would get them? Who would get most? less? and what mindset would that be creating when all of a sudden through the post comes a few bob, that you have not earned? Actually, I quite fancy that . . .
This is just so typical - No one disputes your good intentions, but when you are really tied down and actually have to spell out the practicalities of what you preach, you become ever more unconvincing, as it is abundantly clear you have little idea as to how the practicality of what you preach can be applied.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think @Machiavelli was making some good points earlier where he was saying that we are products of our environment. We are raised to be greedy within our current culture and economic system and so greed appears to be a natural trait.

I disagree with that view, and so I was asking if you or anyone had examples of a society to show it.

It would be difficult to give you a modern example in a world ruled by capitalism

In the last thousand years there have been many societies that are not ruled by capitalism, and I don't think any back up your point. There's also no ancient civilisations that shows a land of equals. A small tribe isn't enough to show how the entire world could live, but please share the details of any you know about.

there's a good article here: http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/08/is-human-nature-fundamentally-selfish-or-altruistic/

Ok, read that, and don't see it to show we're naturally selfless. It's quite long, I'll only go through individual points if you want.

To answer your other question about achieving equality. Remember, I'm just a bloke on a football forum, and I only have ideas, not all encompassing solutions.

I've got no problem with that, and would argue with you a lot less if that's what you generally said - for example, if you said 'the world would be a better place if we shared the world's resources equally', I'd have to agree with you. The reason I argue with your points is that you seem adamant that it's achievable, and we're too stupid to realise it. That's where I disagree - I think it would be wonderful if the people of the world lived as one, but I don't think it can be achieved.

I would introduce laws which prevent excessive "greedy" behaviour or wealth - and I would return their empires of properties, resources and corporations to the people.

As I said, I don't think the laws are the problem, it's the policing of it we couldn't do. There are already some good laws in the world about human rights, but many (perhaps all to some extent) governments ignore them, and we can't do much about it. When we see atrocities happening in other countries, and we want our government and armed forces to do something about it, to help the people being persecuted, you are normally at the head of those saying we shouldn't intervene.

 

[Hastings gull]

Anyone who doesn't own the privately owned entity.

Thanks for replying. So by your definition above, if you don't own something, you are deprived, yet the dictionary definition, which you wanted to quote, says "prevent (a person or place) from having or using something". That is rather different to what you have just quoted. I think you talked about factories, mines etc - I don't own anything like that, so I must have been prevented from so doing.

 

[Hastings gull]

Are you hoping for me to write a manifesto on NSC? This inquisition is bizarre, but entertaining.

Yes, once upon a time all things belonged to all people and I have confidence that in the future they will once again, afterall we share a planet and take nothing with us when we die.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to their need" The idea is to produce enough of everything for everyone, which can easily be achieved. While those who work the hardest, get rewarded the most.

Back to up in the air, again, when the going gets tough. More slogans/nice quotes etc. No one is asking you to write a manifesto, for goodness sake, just asking you to come down to earth and explain exactly how your theories would work - that is all. Your sentence beginning with "once upon a time" whilst in itself highly dubious, is though rather apt . . . Still waiting for the poll results telling us of the broken society . .

 

[pastafarian]

I see you have now gone for the "I am just a poor bloke" line to deflect some criticism -in total contrast to so many other posts when you arrogantly ask us all to consider this etc etc. The post was basically asking how you would distribute wealth and you say that you would introduce laws that prevent "greedy " behaviour. You don't seriously expect anyone to be taken in by such a vague response, do you? And you would return their assets to the people - have they ever been owned by the people, and who would get them? Who would get most? less? and what mindset would that be creating when all of a sudden through the post comes a few bob, that you have not earned? Actually, I quite fancy that . . .
This is just so typical - No one disputes your good intentions, but when you are really tied down and actually have to spell out the practicalities of what you preach, you become ever more unconvincing, as it is abundantly clear you have little idea as to how the practicality of what you preach can be applied.

i am coming round to Mustafas idea

basically us "the people" rob all the rich of their expensive shit and distribute it amongst ourselves. Sounds like a plan.

I call dibs on Mohamed Al Fayeds Surrey mansion and Paul Daniels Rolls Royce

 

[Hastings gull]

i am coming round to Mustafas idea

basically us "the people" rob all the rich of their expensive shit and distribute it amongst ourselves. Sounds like a plan.

I call dibs on Mohamed Al Fayeds Surrey mansion and Paul Daniels Rolls Royce

Apparently there is a chap called Bloom in the Brighton area -I fancy his stadium. Wonder if there is a list somewhere of what is to be re-distributed -who gets first choice?

 

[Triggaaar]

Apparently there is a chap called Bloom in the Brighton area -I fancy his stadium. Wonder if there is a list somewhere of what is to be re-distributed -who gets first choice?

From your other posts, I wouldn't think you'd want this topic to get so sidetracked.

 

[Triggaaar]

The top 1% of people in the G20 increased their wealth by $6.2 trillion last year. That's more than the GDP of Germany and the UK combined.

So yes, of course this wealth should be distributed fairly.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Not that I disagree with your opinion. But you seem to be accepting (inside, even if you won't admit it) that it can't be done. Not without killing most of the people in the world.

 

[Hastings gull]

From your other posts, I wouldn't think you'd want this topic to get so sidetracked.

Fair point. I was just trying to inject some humour, that's all.

 

[Hastings gull]

The top 1% of people in the G20 increased their wealth by $6.2 trillion last year. That's more than the GDP of Germany and the UK combined.

So yes, of course this wealth should be distributed fairly.

But when are you going to tell us HOW and what constitutes FAIR.

 

[Triggaaar]

Bloody hell! "Killing most of the world" - this is something that we should definitely NOT be doing, I'm sorry if I somehow gave the impression I supported genocide.

No, you didn't I'm adding that, as it's the only way the world's resources could be shared. It's not something I'd advocate.

I am fully confident that it is possible to bring every person on the planet out of poverty

It depends what you define as poverty. Whether it's a relative term or not. It's certainly a different aim than having all resources shared.

For the latter, you need to accept that we can't make laws for other countries - eg, we can't get the millionaires of Kuwait to share their oil without threatening them, which is obviously not what you want.

Obviously some of these ideas are radical and we're not going to end global inequality in our lifetime - however there is a lot that we can be doing to head towards that goal. Whether it's the UK, Europe or the entire Western world - we need to change capitalism before it self implodes

The problem with just changing the UK, is that the richest would simply leave, people wouldn't work as hard, and we'd just get left behind by the rest of the world, and we'd be adding to the problem (of world poverty) rather than helping solve it.

we need to end the oligarchy of the rich ruling classes by returning their wealth to our economy and our people.

But we can't do that. Why would the give up their wealth? You'd say 'with law and legislation', but we can't impose laws on other countries.

 

[pastafarian]

The top 1% of people in the G20 increased their wealth by $6.2 trillion last year. That's more than the GDP of Germany and the UK combined.

So yes, of course this wealth should be distributed fairly.

Its a bit of headline grabbing nonsense though isnt it

The G20 incorporates 2/3rds of the worlds population and 80% of world trade

1% of the G20 population and $6 trillion isnt such an enormous amount when you do the maths, a comfortable amount indeed and not to be sniffed at,but after converting into £ you would struggle to get a nice size family home with that money in central London.

 

[pastafarian]

It's an obscene amount,

when you average it out amongst the 1% of people in the G20 i dont think its that obscene an amount