How Can People Still Vote Labour?

[Easy 10]

Please tell me how your capitalism world works.

A vast majority of the world lives in poverty, we are talking in excess of 80% of all people on the planet - yet the richest 1% own 40% of all wealth. How can you say capitalism isn't flawed?

One week of a Premiership footballers wage could often employ 10 nurses for a year. Inequality at its most irrational.

Then you have all the extremely powerful corporations competing against each other, creating a fictitious scarcity of resources, and keeping their technologies secret from each other and the people of the world - wouldn't it be better if this corporations were using their skills, technologies and resources in synergy and as a team for the good of humanity?

We're lucky enough to live in a rich and extremely capitalist country. Or are we? So many, if not a majority, of people are in jobs they hate that do no good for the world other than making other people richer. Depression has never been so high. Even our education systems are grooming us to do these utterly pointless jobs that will give us little fulfillment other than paying our taxes and bills - and we will spend our entire lives doing them, like a modern day slavery.

I could bang on all day. I appreciate that capitalism is responsible of many of the marvels of the world today, but it is extremely exploitative and a majority of the world suffers because of it - but technology and information means that it is no longer required, it is just being milked by the rich elite.

Sorry, ranting a bit but to answer your question..

Imagine a world where ALL jobs were for the good of humanity. Banking, business, commerce all this rubbish that thrives by profiting over other people didn't exist. All man hours were spent on medicine, public services, science et al. Resources were spent according to what the earth could afford, as opposed to what is most profitable to the filthy stinking rich. Overpopulation was discouraged as opposed to encouraged, because it is a hinderance to a resource based economy but enriches a capitalist economy.

A common argument from pro-capitalist lot is "but people wouldn't be arsed to work". But does everybody even need to work? We live in a time of mass production, technology can and does do our work for us. In fact governments have a hard time creating new jobs there is so little do (hence consumerism). It just takes one man for 10,000 people to be fed, in the future it will be less than that. People should and could have the freedom to do what they like, and I have faith in humanity for enough people to choose to work and there is no reason that we need capitalism to reward their labour.

I still don't quite grasp how you marry all this up with installing Nick Griffin as Prime Minister though. Is he going to deliver us this Utopian future for which you yearn ?

 

[Gritt23]

In your PC haste to establish your anti-racist credentials you neglected to realise that I was referring to Brown being as deluded as Hitler not that they were the same.

It wasn't a dig at you, it was making the point that should we end up down the Griffin route we will have a man who applauds Hitler and what he was trying to achieve. That is not being as deluded as Hitler, we find ourself with a man who would love to emulate Hitler.

What was it Griffin said of Hitler, "he was doing the right thing but the way he went about it was perhaps wrong."

 

[Robbie G]

Imagine a world where ALL jobs were for the good of humanity. Banking, business, commerce all this rubbish that thrives by profiting over other people didn't exist. All man hours were spent on medicine, public services, science et al. Resources were spent according to what the earth could afford, as opposed to what is most profitable to the filthy stinking rich. Overpopulation was discouraged as opposed to encouraged, because it is a hinderance to a resource based economy but enriches a capitalist economy.

But surely there has to be some control then about where these resources go? Who gets what and when?

This is dictated by the market in a capital economy.

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

No. Just wondering if any of you remember how bad it was under thatcher, thats all. I dont vote so i dont give a f***, they are all a bunch of cheating lying c=nts.

Actually I was living and working up north at the time, so I do remember how many people suffered, communities were destroyed and unemployment went through the roof. I understood that in the south most people actually did very well under the Tories in those Thatcher years. Many of those changes were necessary but could have been cushioned far better. I stood in a dole queue and uprooted myself and my family to go where the work was. For your information I was unemployed, living in a council high rise with a wife and baby daughter. It wasn't the state that helped me it was myself. That's what Thatcher made us all realise.

I do share your scepticism about the whole political process. Why not stand as an Independent? Im thinking about it, we need to kick them all up the ballots!!

 

[Gritt23]

Sorry, ranting a bit but to answer your question..

Imagine a world where ALL jobs were for the good of humanity. Banking, business, commerce all this rubbish that thrives by profiting over other people didn't exist. All man hours were spent on medicine, public services, science et al. Resources were spent according to what the earth could afford, as opposed to what is most profitable to the filthy stinking rich. Overpopulation was discouraged as opposed to encouraged, because it is a hinderance to a resource based economy but enriches a capitalist economy.

A common argument from pro-capitalist lot is "but people wouldn't be arsed to work". But does everybody even need to work? We live in a time of mass production, technology can and does do our work for us. In fact governments have a hard time creating new jobs there is so little do (hence consumerism). It just takes one man for 10,000 people to be fed, in the future it will be less than that. People should and could have the freedom to do what they like, and I have faith in humanity for enough people to choose to work and there is no reason that we need capitalism to reward their labour.

I was beginning to wonder if you were ever going to get to that bit.

So, you honestly believe that everyone would agree to work purely for the common good, and all just do it for the benefit of society? Sorry, I couldn't disagree more, it just wouldn't ever happen outside of a small little commune, like a cross between the Good Life and the second series of Reggie Perrin.

We don't all need to work, so who decides who does and doesn't, and do those who do work get any additional benefit from doing so? If they do, then that is capitalism in a diluted form, and if they don't then why on EARTH do you think people will do it.

I begrudge working bloody hard for benefit spongers now, despite the fact I do have a better quality of life than them. How would you sell to me the idea of working hard while those who don't work live exactly teh same life as me, but with more free time.

The idea just doesn't even begin to work in the real World.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Ah but that was when the UK and the USA were supporting Saddam as a bulwark against Iran!! It's power politics at the end of the day. There are two reasons we went to war with Iraq:-

1. Oil
2. Israel

You may be correct but I answered the question you asked; the retrospective qualification is irrelevant imo.

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

It wasn't a dig at you, it was making the point that should we end up down the Griffin route we will have a man who applauds Hitler and what he was trying to achieve. That is not being as deluded as Hitler, we find ourself with a man who would love to emulate Hitler.

What was it Griffin said of Hitler, "he was doing the right thing but the way he went about it was perhaps wrong."

My fellow Albion fan, there is no possible way that Griffin will become PM or the BNP gain power. The world is too globalized, ineteractive and dependent on trading with each other. We also know far more about other peoples and cultures than our 1930's forbears.

Neither do I believe in stereotyping people. That there exists neo-nazis in this and other countries (as well as commies of course, both as bad as each other) is a fact. But most nationalists are neither neo-nazis or lovers of Hitler.

 

[Easy 10]

Obviously I wouldn't vote for them if I thought they had any chance of getting into power - but they don't. I just want them to have a louder voice.

That just makes no sense to me. You'll only put your vote to them while you think they have NO chance of being elected ? You like flirting with the idea of bringing the BNP to power, but you stop short in case it happens ?

What if a sizable number of voters in the country suddenly happened to think like that on polling day, and he got in ?
I'm sure we'd all pass on our thanks.

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

You may be correct but I answered the question you asked; the retrospect qualification is irrelevant imo.

Saddam was an evil murderous bastard of course and his demise is to be welcomed. But then so is Robert Mugabe, but we didn't take any real action against him and his murderous henchmen. Don't worry I won't post video clips of white farmers hacked to bits with machetes or his fellow blacks murdered because they actually wanted democracy. Then of course they don't have oil.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Saddam was an evil murderous bastard of course and his demise is to be welcomed. But then so is Robert Mugabe, but we didn't take any real action against him and his murderous henchmen. Don't worry I won't post video clips of white farmers hacked to bits with machetes or his fellow blacks murdered because they actually wanted democracy. Then of course they don't have oil.

You're doing it again and it's also irrelevant to the original question.

 

[TonyTownersShorts]

Just remember who was responsible for the poll tax riots, the miners strikes, the pulling apart of society - Mrs Thatcher, do we want to return to government that only cares about there own kind and could not give a hoot about the majority of hard working people in this country who are pretty pissed off with politicians.

 

[withdeanwombat]

People can still vote labour by putting their cross in the appropriate box.

And for those now moaning about Labour,I bet they weren't when buying up in the property market.taking loads of foreign holidays,buying flash cars and all the new gadgets before the GLOBAL banking disaster and following recession caused an abrupt end to the days of wine and roses.Everywhere.

So not just the APPROPRIATE box,but the CORRECT box,too.

Just my opinion ,like.But see below.

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

Just remember who was responsible for the poll tax riots, the miners strikes, the pulling apart of society - Mrs Thatcher, do we want to return to government that only cares about there own kind and could not give a hoot about the majority of hard working people in this country who are pretty pissed off with politicians.

I also remember the massive strikes under Labour in the late 70's where rubbish was uncollected as well as the dead. Inflation went through the roof, millions of hard working people saw their hard earned savings whittle away to nothing and Denis Healey went to the IMF with a begging bowl. Of course unemployment also went through the roof as well.

New Labour also only cares about "their own kind". Their own kind being the effete middle class socialists, usually in the professions or managerial jobs in the public sector, and who alleviate their social consciences by sending credit card donations to charities, having token ethnic pottery and the obligatory biography of Nelson Mandela on show as an important accessory to the champagne lefty lifestyle.

Of course they also know all about the various "isms" and "phobias" but absolutely nothing of the concerns of ordinary people or the everyday worries they have.

Granted the Tories are just as bad and out of touch.

 

[Zesh Rehman]

Because no one likes Cameron?

 

[User removed 4]

Just remember who was responsible for the poll tax riots, the miners strikes,

The rioters, The miners ??

 

[coventrygull]

An alternative to the BNP

English Independence Party

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Halabja?

Bless You.

 

[Gwylan]

I also remember the massive strikes under Labour in the late 70's where rubbish was uncollected as well as the dead. Inflation went through the roof, millions of hard working people saw their hard earned savings whittle away to nothing and Denis Healey went to the IMF with a begging bowl. Of course unemployment also went through the roof as well.

Your memory is very faulty then.

It wasn't the Labour government of the late 70s that had the inflation going through the roof, it was the Heath government before it (mainly due to the oil crisis beyond Heath's control but partly due to the Barber 'boom' budget of 1972). Inflation peaked in 1975 - just after Heath was kicked out and went steadily downwards when the Labour government adopted anti-inflationary policies - partly as a result of the IMF bailout that you mention.

The strikes of the late 1970s were in fact a direct result of these anti-inflationary polices as the government held public sector employees to two years of pay freezes (or low pay settlements), it was when Callaghan tried to do it a third year that the trouble started and the mass strikes started (although the gravedigger dispute was local to Liverpool, rather than nationwide).

In hindsight, it's easy to see that Callaghan made a tactical error in not loosening the purse strings - if he and Healey had been more flexible with pay settlements, mass strikes would have been avoided and they may have won the election in 1979 - Callaghan was ahead in the polls that autumn and nearly called a snap election. One of the first things that Thatcher did when winning the election was settle public sector pay demands, which led to a brief rise in inflation before her anti-inflationary policies started kicking in.

You're rather overstating the case to say that unemployment went through the roof during the Labour government - it did rise steadily but was nothing to what happened a few years later. I can't find the figures but I think it was about 800,000 at its peak under Labour. It seemed shocking at the time but the Tories took it well above 3m.

You are of course quite right with your analysis of New Labour and its appeal to the maangerial class and how Tories can easily capture them back. I have nothing but contempt for both main parties and nothing would compel me to vote for them.

 

[Jim D]

Imagine a world where ALL jobs were for the good of humanity. Banking, business, commerce all this rubbish that thrives by profiting over other people didn't exist. All man hours were spent on medicine, public services, science et al. Resources were spent according to what the earth could afford, as opposed to what is most profitable to the filthy stinking rich. Overpopulation was discouraged as opposed to encouraged, because it is a hinderance to a resource based economy but enriches a capitalist economy..

So, no commerce - I suppose that includes travel? Would we all then just make do with what we had locally? We knock down the cities and return to subsistence farming? That would take an awful lot of persuasion for an awful lot of people - how would we handle that - even Mao and Pol Pot couldn't complete that task and they had total control over their people.

I suppose the best way is to isolate all the 'intellectuals' and others who might spot the way this is going. One way to achieve this is to create an incident where these sorts were involved in a plot to overthrow the new regime. We could then identify them as 'enemies of the New Way' and have them rounded up and sent to detention camps. If we did allow them to exist within the community they may need to wear a 'uniform' so that they could be easily identified - perhaps a yellow star on a white boiler suit?

And then, when supplies get low, we could just march into a neighbouring area and take theirs - after all, we have documents to show that it's their fault that our harvest failed as they poisoned the river upstream from us.

Welcome to Shangri-La.

 

[Dandyman]

Your memory is very faulty then.

It wasn't the Labour government of the late 70s that had the inflation going through the roof, it was the Heath government before it (mainly due to the oil crisis beyond Heath's control but partly due to the Barber 'boom' budget of 1972). Inflation peaked in 1975 - just after Heath was kicked out and went steadily downwards when the Labour government adopted anti-inflationary policies - partly as a result of the IMF bailout that you mention.

The strikes of the late 1970s were in fact a direct result of these anti-inflationary polices as the government held public sector employees to two years of pay freezes (or low pay settlements), it was when Callaghan tried to do it a third year that the trouble started and the mass strikes started (although the gravedigger dispute was local to Liverpool, rather than nationwide).

In hindsight, it's easy to see that Callaghan made a tactical error in not loosening the purse strings - if he and Healey had been more flexible with pay settlements, mass strikes would have been avoided and they may have won the election in 1979 - Callaghan was ahead in the polls that autumn and nearly called a snap election. One of the first things that Thatcher did when winning the election was settle public sector pay demands, which led to a brief rise in inflation before her anti-inflationary policies started kicking in.

You're rather overstating the case to say that unemployment went through the roof during the Labour government - it did rise steadily but was nothing to what happened a few years later. I can't find the figures but I think it was about 800,000 at its peak under Labour. It seemed shocking at the time but the Tories took it well above 3m.

You are of course quite right with your analysis of New Labour and its appeal to the maangerial class and how Tories can easily capture them back. I have nothing but contempt for both main parties and nothing would compel me to vote for them.

Top post.