London's burning

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
INDY500 said:
:rolleyes: How do get there from here?
Click to expand...
No, not from your quote, which I hadn't cited. From Hastings' haphazard rant pegging everything from feral children urinating outside pubs to mothers pressuring their daughters into prostitution on the existence of a welfare state. Which doesn't exactly invite a searching, thoughtful critique. Although to be fair to him, he only uses the phrase once ("those at the bottom of society behave no better than their forebears, but the welfare state has relieved them from hunger and real want") and I don't think it's necessarily clear that he intended welfare checks to be the focus of his scorn, as opposed to more recent debates about the scope of parental responsibility and classroom discipline. Like I said in my response to oscar, welfare reform is a whole different debate from the accusation that the welfare state 'created' the underclass.

The conditions of poorhouses are appalling and inhumane to present sensibilities, but the institution can't just be waved away as the stupid and cruel excesses of a less enlightened time--much of modern thought on how economic inequality develops and might be countered in industrialized societies emerged from centuries of legislative debate over their aims, funding and structure. Obviously, I was joking about bringing them back, but the point certainly wasn't that that's what Hastings/you/oscar secretly want to do.
Earnie Shavers said:
Somehow, that American "one day I'll be that guy" Dream seems to keep that all in check. The belief in that, the aspiration, seems to somehow manage that situation. The good 'underclass' of the US haven't figured out that it's bullshit. You'll never be that guy, you don't stand a fucking chance, the system is absolutely built against you. The 'underclass' in the UK have no such illusions.
Click to expand...
Eh...I dunno about that. I'm not in a position to generalize about the outlook of the urban 'underclass' (and granted, 'underclass' is an imprecisely defined term), however the corner of the South I grew up in is often dubbed 'America's largest rural ghetto' by sociologists, and I'd feel fairly comfortable characterizing the outlook of its longterm-poor/un(der)employed population as resigned, defeatist, and insular. Most seldom vote or otherwise participate in civic engagement. Obviously, different from inner-city poverty in all kinds of ways--not as much violent crime (though it's far from bucolic), less anonymity (so, I guess, less 'alienation'...though the redneck contingent in particular always seemed pretty damn alienated to me), etc.--but I really doubt level of investment in the American Dream is one of them.

Maybe the difference between the US and UK is less one of degree of 'isolation' than that race divides still overshadow class divides in the American mind.
 
Last edited:
Good article. And they've just given a kid six months for £3.50 worth of stolen water. That's just silly.

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom – Telegraph Blogs

And heads up to purpleoscar and Indy - this is from a decent conservative columnist in a decent conservative leaning paper. Go to the Telegraph (unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall) for smart/sensible conservative views on all this, not the Daily Mail.
 
And Russell Brand runs on a similar theme (last couple of paragraphs are a bit crap though): UK riots: Big Brother isn't watching you | UK news | The Guardian

I like this linking of the crimes of the bottom end with the crimes of the top end, and I think there are far more interesting questions or realisations or events coming in that regard, not just here, but everywhere. I do think there is something far larger that links everything from the Arab Spring to the Tea Party to WikiLeaks and Anonymous type stuff to the Murdoch take down to the banker anger to the wonky 'hung' elections in both the UK and Australia (and the very strong 'change' election in the US, with, no doubt, the most heated and fractious election season in a generation about to kick off) and general, complete loss of faith in politics through to the growing realisation in some cases that political systems are perhaps irreparably broken in more ways than one, to anti-corporate anger, to a rising anti-commercial/commodity feeling, to street riots of varying degree and varying legitimacy all over the place. For another thread or whatever, but I think what we were calling an Information Revolution at the turn of this century is actually only just beginning to live up to it's name.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Good article. And they've just given a kid six months for £3.50 worth of stolen water. That's just silly.

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom – Telegraph Blogs

And heads up to purpleoscar and Indy - this is from a decent conservative columnist in a decent conservative leaning paper. Go to the Telegraph (unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall) for smart/sensible conservative views on all this, not the Daily Mail.
Click to expand...

that is a great article Earnie! cheers! :up:
 
Earnie Shavers said:
And Russell Brand runs on a similar theme (last couple of paragraphs are a bit crap though): UK riots: Big Brother isn't watching you | UK news | The Guardian

I like this linking of the crimes of the bottom end with the crimes of the top end, and I think there are far more interesting questions or realisations or events coming in that regard, not just here, but everywhere. I do think there is something far larger that links everything from the Arab Spring to the Tea Party to WikiLeaks and Anonymous type stuff to the Murdoch take down to the banker anger to the wonky 'hung' elections in both the UK and Australia (and the very strong 'change' election in the US, with, no doubt, the most heated and fractious election season in a generation about to kick off) and general, complete loss of faith in politics through to the growing realisation in some cases that political systems are perhaps irreparably broken in more ways than one, to anti-corporate anger, to a rising anti-commercial/commodity feeling, to street riots of varying degree and varying legitimacy all over the place. For another thread or whatever, but I think what we were calling an Information Revolution at the turn of this century is actually only just beginning to live up to it's name.
Click to expand...

oh yeah i saw this one when it was posted on the Guardian late last night... have to say i really liked what he wrote, but felt he got a bit bunny hugging at the end though... although i guess practical solutions/suggestions are hard to come by right now... (eta: oops just realised you said in your post the last paragraphs were crap lol!! yeah i think apart from that he made some really good points)...

yep i definitely believe it is all interconnected as well... Information Revolution, yeah... people seem to be waking up all over and smelling the coffee...
 
Earnie Shavers said:
And heads up to purpleoscar and Indy - this is from a decent conservative columnist in a decent conservative leaning paper. Go to the Telegraph (unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall) for smart/sensible conservative views on all this, not the Daily Mail.
Click to expand...

It's a good article (I don't like tax dodgers either) but I definitely don't get much of a solution to the problem in this. What I feel is the problem is that people are trying to say that two wrongs make a right. If rioters loot then it's okay since there are rich tax dodgers. If the taxes weren't so high there would be less tax dodging and maybe if we punished criminals (including white collar criminals) there would be more morality displayed. Yet to do that we would have to go more conservative than David Cameron by a mile.

Don't forget that these riots were started because of austerity measures to control the deficit, not becuase rich guys like tax cheating. It sounds too much like a scapegoat distraction to cover up the cause and effect of what happened. If David Cameron wants to control the deficit then he's already better than the Labour party.
 
yolland said:
No, not from your quote, which I hadn't cited. From Hastings' haphazard rant pegging everything from feral children urinating outside pubs to mothers pressuring their daughters into prostitution on the existence of a welfare state. Which doesn't exactly invite a searching, thoughtful critique. Although to be fair to him, he only uses the phrase once ("those at the bottom of society behave no better than their forebears, but the welfare state has relieved them from hunger and real want") and I don't think it's necessarily clear that he intended welfare checks to be the focus of his scorn, as opposed to more recent debates about the scope of parental responsibility and classroom discipline. Like I said in my response to oscar, welfare reform is a whole different debate from the accusation that the welfare state 'created' the underclass.

The conditions of poorhouses are appalling and inhumane to present sensibilities, but the institution can't just be waved away as the stupid and cruel excesses of a less enlightened time--much of modern thought on how economic inequality develops and might be countered in industrialized societies emerged from centuries of legislative debate over their aims, funding and structure. Obviously, I was joking about bringing them back, but the point certainly wasn't that that's what Hastings/you/oscar secretly want to do.
Click to expand...

Secret agenda :giggle:. The article is clear that welfare compounded with political correctness in dealing with bad behaviour equals what we got today. Nothing secret. Punish more and make welfare temporary. We don't have to go back to Dickens. BTW the 1800s was actually when the industrial revolution was going at full tilt. There are other points of view of that time which include many getting out of poverty and a rising middleclass. It wasn't all bad during that time. We don't have to ignore some of the social changes that occurred to make it better, but we shouldn't be afraid to scale back what doesn't work. If there are social programs that dovetail each other they should be amalgamated, and if there are excessive benefits for government workers that the private sector (which doesn't have those benefits) has to pay then they should be curtailed. I also include politicians in this as well. If doing these sensible things is extreme right wing then we are in a paralysis which will lead to bankruptcy.
 
purpleoscar said:
It's a good article (I don't like tax dodgers either) but I definitely don't get much of a solution to the problem in this. What I feel is the problem is that people are trying to say that two wrongs make a right. If rioters loot then it's okay since there are rich tax dodgers. If the taxes weren't so high there would be less tax dodging and maybe if we punished criminals (including white collar criminals) there would be more morality displayed. Yet to do that we would have to go more conservative than David Cameron by a mile.

Don't forget that these riots were started because of austerity measures to control the deficit, not becuase rich guys like tax cheating. It sounds too much like a scapegoat distraction to cover up the cause and effect of what happened. If David Cameron wants to control the deficit then he's already better than the Labour party.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's really trying to find solutions to the problem, it's merely talking to more macro level questions about morality, society, priorities etc. That an element of what is rotten at the core of our 'society' is certainly not limited to that demographic, signs of that rot are found all up and down. And it's certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right or anything. And the tax debate... is going on elsewhere.

I'm kinda surprised you buy the 'because of austerity measures' line, which is only being pushed by a few political point scorers on the left. It's really mostly irrelevant. A debate about whether certain services should be or should have been cut or financially strangled is relevant in light of all of this, but it's certainly not *because* of austerity measures, ie *about* austerity measures. The cuts are only really directly relevant in regards to how they're already biting at the police, so in relation to their ineffective initial response to all of this. The kids, really, had no politics in mind, were raging against no specific policy or issue, and were simply just fuckwits who saw an opportunity for a bit of 'fun' smashing and grabbing. The article is questioning why that attitude exists, and it's suggesting that morality free 'looting' of a community, due to a disconnect from the community, isn't limited to this bunch.
 
That's great.

Very strong show of force in my 'hood this evening. Just walked past this scene down the road - very fancy bar/restaurant with an outside drinking/dining area next to a pretty park, lots of 'suits' sipping on cocktails and pints, and next to them... two parked good-to-handle-petrol-bombs riot vans and about 15-20 fully geared up riot police milling around. Looks weird, to say the least.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Good article. And they've just given a kid six months for £3.50 worth of stolen water. That's just silly.

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom – Telegraph Blogs

And heads up to purpleoscar and Indy - this is from a decent conservative columnist in a decent conservative leaning paper. Go to the Telegraph (unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall) for smart/sensible conservative views on all this, not the Daily Mail.
Click to expand...

This is indeed a great article.
 
purpleoscar said:
It's a good article (I don't like tax dodgers either) but I definitely don't get much of a solution to the problem in this. What I feel is the problem is that people are trying to say that two wrongs make a right. If rioters loot then it's okay since there are rich tax dodgers. If the taxes weren't so high there would be less tax dodging and maybe if we punished criminals (including white collar criminals) there would be more morality displayed. Yet to do that we would have to go more conservative than David Cameron by a mile.

Don't forget that these riots were started because of austerity measures to control the deficit, not becuase rich guys like tax cheating. It sounds too much like a scapegoat distraction to cover up the cause and effect of what happened. If David Cameron wants to control the deficit then he's already better than the Labour party.
Click to expand...

The right wing government responses to the rioters are already, morally worse, than anything the rioters actually did. They are arresting teenagers because of posts they made on Twitter, for christ's sakes.

The whole thing is silly and is being blown out of proportion - in terms of rioting, worse, much worse, happened in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Here is a suggested alternative to right wing solutions, a different way to organise society:

Boff Whalley: 'In defence of anarchy'

It's the catch-all term that's being used to describe this week's riots. But is this really anarchy? Not even close, says Chumbawumba's Boff Whalley, a self-professed anarchist

ANARCHY SPREADS!" So ran the front-page headlines of The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail this week. Add in the Daily Star's "ANARCHY IN THE UK" and The Sun's "ANARCHY" and you have the print media's current (and ongoing) favourite catch-all word: anarchy. Just the ticket for a spot of lazy demonising.


I became an anarchist, gradually, after seeing the Sex Pistols on our black-and-white TV in Burnley in 1976. Thirty-five years later, I still label myself an anarchist, albeit with various philosophical explanations and political definitions. For most of those 35 years I've played in a band – Chumbawamba – whose crowning moment (according to the demonising press) was chucking a bucket of water over the deputy prime minister John Prescott at an awards ceremony.

Chumbawamba began life in 1982 as an anarchist collective; it remains so to this day. Our working principle, inspired less by theoretical posturing than by the practicalities of working together as a group, was (and is) "equal pay, equal say".

Unlike most pop groups – which appear to wallow in the bad-vibes hierarchy of songwriter-as-boss, drummer-as-slave – we choose to put equal value on our separate roles in the band. And not just in the band – lead singers have to wash the dishes and drive the van, too.

Anarchy – or, to be more precise, anarchism – gives me, and gives the band, a framework for working respectfully and equally with each other. We manage ourselves, we don't vote on decisions (in an eight-piece group, that might mean three disgruntled people bent to the will of the other five). Instead, we discuss, compromise and eventually reach an agreement we're all relatively happy with. Yes, it sometimes takes a long time.

Anarchy. It comes from the Greek anarchos: "an" meaning without, "archos" meaning leaders or rulers. Without leaders. It could be that simple; instead, this is where it gets complicated.

The political and philosophical idea that is "anarchism" has become, headline by headline, dislocated from the current use of the word "anarchy". Anarchy used to mean the state to which anarchism aspires. Now, of course, it has come to mean disorder – the kind of disorder that comes with photographs of boys throwing bricks at riot police and kicking their way into electrical-goods shops. Anarchy is modern shorthand for the law of the jungle. How did this change come about? Where was the semantic leap from "without rulers" to "disorder"? That change came from above. There are several ways that words can change their meaning over time; popular culture especially loves to shake up the Scrabble letters and create new meanings from old words. But there's also a tradition of words being redefined to suit the needs of those in power: from "Luddite" to "friendly fire" to "hoodie".

The latter is now used to denote those opportunist consumers who are, according to The Sun, "anarchists", despite not having the slightest idea of who Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was. He was the first self-declared anarchist, who in 1840, in What Is Property, defined anarchy as "the absence of a master, of a sovereign". Later, in The General Idea Of The Revolution (1851), he urged a "society without authority". See, no mention of disorder or chaos. Whatever we might think of our latter-day looters, they're not anarchists. But this current crop of masked lads is not the one bandying the word "anarchy" around, after all. All they want is to do some free shopping and have a laugh. Perhaps it would be a good thing if these disenfranchised, disengaged kids did learn a bit about the brush they're being tarred with – anarchist? Wot, me? Then again, they're growing up under a government that seems to actively dissuade poor families from pursuing higher education.

The headlines following the rioting that broke out at the London anti-cuts demonstration in March and at last November's student protest noticeably avoided the word "anarchy". Student hooligans, thuggish, disgraceful – but not quite anarchy. The inference is that those riots weren't the dreaded hoodies, and that and smashing Topshop and McDonald's has a political explanation. The current rioting does bring to mind a very specific form of anarchist politics, that of Situationism. Guy Debord, Parisian anarchist and Situationist philosopher, first described the so-called Society of the Spectacle in 1964. This classic anarchist text described a world where consumerism would run rampant and the acquisition of "things" would become the dominant force in society. The representation of that world – as a spectacle – would supersede reality. Debord knew about reality TV and the Nintendo Wii decades before they were invented.

Again, reading Debord, there's no mention of disorder, of mob rule, or of victimisation, bullying or mugging. But his critique of the alienating effects of capitalism – and the spiritual vacuum of modern life – chimes with this week's TV images of youths roaming the city. When I first discovered anarchism as a teenager, I was relieved to discover a political idea that looked like fun – unlike the earnest, po-faced championing of wage-slavery or the careerist élitism of the major political parties. Anarchism seemed relevant and contemporary. It changed according to the way the world was changing – unlike the old dogmatic socialist stuff, it was able to accommodate new ideas like feminism and environmentalism. There wasn't a party line but yes, there were parameters, albeit loose ones. These encompassed respect, equality and mutual aid and were never broad enough to allow whatever definition The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail or The Sun have put on the word this past week.

Proudhon, in his essay "What Is Property?" (1840), explicitly rejected the conjoining of anarchism with destruction and disorder: "I am not an agent of discord. Man's government of his fellow man, no matter the name under which it lurks, is oppression: society's highest perfection lies in the marriage of order and anarchy." Similarly, Mikhail Bakunin answered the criticism that getting rid of leaders would result in the law of the jungle: "Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power."

As a teenager I turned from the gang mentality of hanging out on street corners into an idealistic and hopeful anarchist, more concerned with scrawling peace signs on my schoolbooks than setting fire to things. There was still cynicism; but there was also hope. Noam Chomsky depicts anarchism as "based on the hope that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy and concern for others". To me, it's still that way.

Some self-proclaimed anarchists you may have heard of: George Melly, John Cage, Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Germaine Greer, Henry Miller, Joseph Proudhon, Malcolm McLaren, Mike Harding. If you can picture any of them amongst the mugshots on the front of this week's Sun you could grab yourself a reward. Do you think any of the people I've mentioned would use the description "anarchist" as meaning "one who loves disorder"?

When the Spanish anarchists in 1936 declared war against General Franco's fascist coup, thousands of British people (including George Orwell) went to help them. The British government stood by and watched as the fascist Italian and German forces came to Franco's aid and installed a Nationalist government. Three years later, strengthened by the victory in Spain, Nazi Germany and its Italian allies declared war on the rest of Europe. I like to think that this was a time (during and after the Spanish Revolution) when all right-thinking people reflected on an opportunity lost. A three-year span when, along with fighting a war on several fronts, the Spanish anarchists were collectivising land and property and organising according to libertarian principles.

Over the years, as a musician and as a writer, I've watched how traditional hierarchies in the workplace create divisions and arguments. I don't think I'm alone in not wanting to have a boss tell me what to do. I refuse to have a boss tell me what to do. The bargaining tool that's unspoken in that statement is that I will happily relinquish the power to tell other people what to do. That, for me, is anarchism. I won't order you about, if you don't order me about. And together we'll make it work.

It sounds so naïve. But I'd rather have that sense of possibilities, of something better, than the all-too-obvious battle being waged between dislocated youth and millionaire politicians. As the Prime Minister ups the rhetoric – egging on the police to stick the boot in harder – it's easy to see the similarities between the two scrapping factions.

I have sympathies with the hooded kids on the streets of our cities, if only because they're among the most neglected, ridiculed and dismissed people in Britain. I don't sympathise when they're breaking into my house. I don't sympathise when they're setting fire to local shops, when they're mugging and intimidating.

But when I see the TV shots of them in Manchester city centre, breaking into the Arndale Centre – a truly Debordian Palace of Consumerism – stealing shoes and tracksuits, I find it hard to be overly critical. These are kids brought up in an age of buy and sell. Labels, logos, status, advertising. This is the world we've given them; a world they're throwing back at us.

Andrew Maxwell, an Irish comedian, put it best: "Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper."

Anarchy is not disorder. Anarchy is a state that is arrived at through the philosophy of anarchism. Mutual aid. Without rulers. Living together. Working things out together. David Cameron returned from his holiday in Italy this week and stood outside Downing Street, declaring to the media that the rioting was "criminality, pure and simple". More lazy semantics, more meaningless shorthand. "Criminal" isn't an explanation, it's a word that begs an explanation. Yes, they committed a crime. What was the crime? What was the reason for the crime?

These kids who are being labelled with pure and simple definitions are becoming little more than cartoon baddies playing out roles for the front pages. Why ask questions (Where are they from? How did they get to this point? What can they learn? Can they begin to understand what they're doing?) when you can just call it anarchy? And anarchy, unlike questions, sells.

The politicians and the press are able to bandy words around without depth or explanation because they last for one day. Instant hit. Tomorrow, there will be a whole new set of semantics to frown about, to criticise. But by the time you've written a 2,000-word diatribe, it's time for the next day's edition.

I love words. I always loved words. When we started Chumbawamba in 1982 we decided that our raison d'etre would be topicality. Change. Keep up! Over the past 29 years we've tried to keep faith with that simple ethos and along the way we've realised that words are flexible, adaptable, up for grabs. That's a lovely challenge for any writer, songwriter or poet. Some words you want to let go of, get rid of, kick out. Some words you want to keep close and protect. Right now, subsequent to the newspaper headlines, I'm almost prepared to let the word "anarchy" (as opposed to "anarchism") go. But you know what, I can't do it, not to The Sun and the Daily Mail. It's like letting the burglar look after your house.

Anarchism, anarchy, they're only words; but they're my words, they're our words. No manner of headlines will take them away from us. As Johnny Rotten once said: "I am an anarchist."
Click to expand...
Chumbawamba | Music | guardian.co.uk
 
Andrew Maxwell, an Irish comedian, put it best: "Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper."
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding!
 
financeguy said:
The right wing government responses to the rioters are already, morally worse, than anything the rioters actually did. They are arresting teenagers because of posts they made on Twitter, for christ's sakes.

The whole thing is silly and is being blown out of proportion - in terms of rioting, worse, much worse, happened in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Here is a suggested alternative to right wing solutions, a different way to organise society:

Chumbawamba | Music | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? Anarchists are hypocritical socialists. There's ALWAYS A LEADER. Every collective ever invented has a leader.

You must be bored! Chumbawumba? We need punishment for criminality and no veneer of "anarchism" will cover up the stink of narcissist behaviour. People just have bad habits nowadays and they don't want to do anything about it. Yes schools suck and TV advertising is mostly bullshit and rich can be spoiled brats, but seriously, what would a better world look like? If the world is better wouldn't more people have to be moral, and harder working? How are you going to get that naturally without leadership, law and order? If it's so natural and without a "system" wouldn't it have shown up already? This is intellectual laziness to bring up a useless political philosophy full of contradictions to replace the current system as imperfect as it is.

My belief is that most people (including in this forum) if they had to look at themselves and try to change their habits would find it daunting but that's the only way to improve society. Having as many individuals wanting to do this will make the society much better. Any political movement has to remove punishments for savers (who are getting more independent and free) and punish criminals. Most criminality involves some kind of robbery (life, property). Our school systems have to teach the public how to win and especially how to lose. People who learn from their mistakes as opposed to wallowing in their "loserness" eventually get their share of winning with persistence. People seem to understand this in sports but not anywhere else. In order to cure diseases, defeat enemies, get and keep jobs requires consistent effort and a high-frustration tolerance. This is obviously not being championed by too many people and most people figure it out when they get older and are tired of waiting for a perfect "system" or "philosophy" to take over. You're going to wait a fucking long time. :lol: If you want to test anarchism then join anarchists and try out their methods and see where that gets you.

I can already predict: NOWHERE

Proudhon didn't believe in rent, royalties, and interest because he thought (similar to Marx) it was an abuse of others because it was earned without work. This is STUPID. In order to have a retirement I need to save. In order to make downpayments I need to save. Saving allows me to move money through time periods in order use it more efficiently. I have to sacrifice consumption in order to save. That sacrifice should not be eaten by inflation so I demand interest for the use of my sacrifice. Property is NOT THEFT. That is retarded. We know that humans care for their property better than anything that's collectively owned. Just look at your CD collection and count the scratches on it compared with a library CD. Either there are lots of people with Parkinson's handling library CDs and DVDs or they don't give a fuck about stuff that is not their own. You learn human behaviour by observing it and not going into a dreamy landscape of abstract philosophies, or worse, philosophies that have been defeated long ago. The Reagan and Thatcher revolutions got a lot right but they got abandoned for the same old same old as soon as it could be politically done. Everybody (including the corporate welfare rich) want to pass the hot potato instead of dealing with it. There is no free meal. It can't be short-term gratification that guides our society and rioting and destroying other people's property is obviously short-term gratification.

Andrew Maxwell, an Irish comedian, put it best: "Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper."
Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting that GDP% in the hands of government has increased in the past century and it still doesn't satisfy?

Of course I would like to hear his solutions. :giggle: Of course they will probably disappoint because he's a comedian. Keeping up with the Joneses is something I agree is a problem but it's a personal problem and has always existed. Advertisers don't know who can or can't afford anything. They have to rely on the public to decide that for themselves. Can the public do this anymore? I'm tired of the blame and scapegoating for what individuals should do themselves. Corporations can't force you to buy. If people actually focused on their own weaknesses and problems themselves and taught themselves more discipline they would find more jobs and more success than waiting for some movement to do it for them. I always got more success in school by doing more studying and actually testing to see how far I can go. If the books pushed by professors sucked I went and read better ones. I did it myself. A system that rewards this behaviour will be the one that succeeds, because if more people do more effort and focus on long-term goals it would obviously be better than waiting for a system change. A system that rewards whining and complaining will get more of it. Also any political movement will improve if the members practice what they preach.

Proudhon. :giggle:

Anyways I'm done with this intellectual dead-end.
 
I agree
human beings want more than they have
even when they already have quite a bit
that's why we need leaders, elect leaders and get the leaders we desserve

the "moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom" article also didn't do much for me
it's not as if the top behaved morally correct 1 decade, 2 decades or 3 decades ago either + everyone knew this back then too
still, you didn't get 15 year old looting and plundering in groups back then

there is a moral issue and it wouldn't surprise me the decrease in moral coincides with the decline of church attendence (while I freely admit religion has caused more than a fair bit of harm)
 
financeguy said:
Chumbawamba | Music | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...


that chumbawamba guy is an idiot, to try an equate this to how he claims he runs his little band, is less than silly, lead singer washes the dishes, too.
drummer is not a slave


I won't be drawn into a discussion of the false argument that this is a choice between social injustice vs. a rich over class.

I don't think any of these "kids' that looted are really underprivileged.

If one wants political change they should get politically active, have some peaceful demonstrations, and advocate for the changes they want.

I don't believe that some looter could not help himself because of all the advertizing for high end goods

if you can't afford a 60 inch flat screen, you can pick up a 32 inch at any second hand store for $100.
I am still watching a 32 inch, life is hard.
 
Salome said:
I agree
human beings want more than they have
even when they already have quite a bit
that's why we need leaders, elect leaders and get the leaders we desserve

the "moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom" article also didn't do much for me
it's not as if the top behaved morally correct 1 decade, 2 decades or 3 decades ago either + everyone knew this back then too
still, you didn't get 15 year old looting and plundering in groups back then

there is a moral issue and it wouldn't surprise me the decrease in moral coincides with the decline of church attendence (while I freely admit religion has caused more than a fair bit of harm)
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Information Revolution living up to it's name. Not to go all Glenn Beck blackboard on you, but if you can't see what, at a macro level, links (say - you can do this three dozen ways) the Tea Party with the London riots, you're... not paying attention.

I suspect everyone in here can relate to and agree with the Tea Party on one, key, foundation point: It's fucked, proper fucked. Broken. And it certainly doesn't represent me.
 
Information Revolution. Shakedown. Whether you're aware, or an unwitting player. It's going to get rough around the edges. Everyone is some degree of disillusioned. Mostly very. Tie the Murdoch take down to the Arab Spring. Tie the Tea Party in the US to the seething banker anger in the UK. Easy to do. Where are you really at, US? Where are you really at, UK? EU? Anyone else? And the capitalist 'system', or hyper-capitalist, or hyper-consumerist that it's really based on - whether you hate, like or love it - quite clearly, just happens to be on it's knees. Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
U2 books for sale
Replies
1
Views
387
KBRY
K
Z
Rare Official U2 Stuff and Bootlegs for sale
Replies
0
Views
1K
zoomania
Z
M
Hello!
Replies
0
Views
2K
MissCandyGirl
M
A
london
Replies
1
Views
618
alve72
A
M
SWAP - 2x London 23rd Oct for 2x London 24th Oct
Replies
0
Views
459
misterboo
M

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom