If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
[This message has been edited by Steelgate (edited 04-09-2001).]
We can argue the toss of this all day really but the question is still the same, should you be brutalised, as numerous other protesters not caught up in that building were, for the actions of a small minority of idiots? (I’m not going to go into the agent provocateur conspiracy theories here – lets just say I find it a little odd that the Black Bloc were targeting small local businesses which goes totally against their manifesto)
And for someone who on other threads is defending the arms trade – surely baton rounds and CS gas are part of this trade <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Im not advocating the beating of peaceful protesters here..It that was what happened they the police involved should be brought up on charges..However, if these people were armed and involved in violent protests then they deserved it.
The problem we have here is that nobody on this board was there so nobody on this board really knows
foreign nationals being given a beating in another sovereign nation is always grounds for an enquiry if enough fuss is made..Its a political gesture, nothing more.
Ive stated this three times now..The answer is NO...The bone of contention here is that you believe they were innocent and I believe they were thugs, neither of us know for sure.
I dont understand the reference to the arms trade. They did use an awful lot of CS gas if I remember rightly. They also used baton rounds or rubber bullets.
If youre referring to the land rover killing? then both of those methods are useless in that situation.
So far all you seem to do is ignore any difficult questions and spout or link to yet another biased site.
peacechild
Any death is regretable.
Steelgate, your bunch must be really pleased that he died .......you've got your propaganda coup and a martyr.
I have no doubt that some peaceful protesters were hurt BUT if the morons hellbent on rioting, looting and violence had stayed away it would have stayed peaceful. All you have achieved is the death of a young lad and the meetings in future will be held in area's away from everything.
well done, morons 1 human race 0
peacechild
But going back the Arm trade thread – are these people not fighting for some kind of justice and freedom themselves? In light of the weapons available to the IRA etc it could be said that the Anti-Capitalists are holding back their arsenal and they would be well within their moral rights to fight fire with fire.
better dead than red
peacechild
Do you think she is "outraged" or "offended" when kids in the west recognise her predicament and take a claw hammer to the glass palaces that retail these fucking things for the equivalent of her annual salary.
Do you think she is 'appalled' when young men and women on the other side of the planet are prepared to physically confront lines of thug-policemen, in a bid to stop the institutions who masterminded the powerless, landless, economo-prison she has no obvious escape from. Do you think she thinks they are morons?
[This message has been edited by Steelgate (edited 04-09-2001).]
The girl making Nikes is actually really pissed off with you do gooders as she now will be out of a job, still you won't mind her becoming a prostitute instead will you ?
peacechild
Yes. And?
Steelgate, will you explain to us how a system entirely devoid of trade can possibly arise? Are you seriously suggesting that one man can produce exactly what he needs all by himself? That he will never be short of anything, nor that he will ever produce more than he has occasion to use on his own?
Are you advocating a dissolution of the division and specialisation of labour? Are you prepared to send humankind back to the hunter-gatherer stage of development?
Do you believe that money is an evil? Would you prefer that media of exchange were left unstandardised?
Are you saying that the only work is physical labour? That service industries are utterly unworthy of any remuneration whatsoever?
No workers don't like getting crap pay but thats the reality all you will do is move the work somewhere else thats cheap, meanwhile those that you have "liberated" can now try and find another source of income, which isn't there because all the large companies will have moved out because of you.
Well done hope you sleep well knowing how you are saving the world.
Start living in the real world.
peacechild
The economic motivation for most crimes would be removed, because you can't steal what you already own. Social exclusion would be eliminated, which gives people an incentive to get involved in projects that benefit themselves and the wider community.
Moreover, since socialism would involve economic planning, and co-ordination of production at a global level, it would become far easier to solve prolems of environmental damage, widespread poverty etc. There would be more incentive to innovate, rather than just seeking the greatest market share, and the fact that green technology is expensoive would cease to matter.
The material conditions for abolishing capitalism certainly exist, now what's needed is the political movement.
[This message has been edited by Steelgate (edited 05-09-2001).]
To be blunt, you're full of shite.
To be less blunt, capitalism has certainly come out on top in terms of political theories in the real world, possibly because it matches human nature so well. How would a transition to socialism work?? Surely advancing technology is gonna change our social structuring anyway??
Lord of Little, under capitalism 80% of the worlds wealth is owned by just 5% of the worlds population. Capitalism has nothing to do with human nature. Capitalism arose because of how society was structured. It doesn't mean that society can not be changed. In France in 1968 for example the country was brought to the brink of a socialist revolution by the actions of students and workers. The events of France in 1968 originally started with protests against the Vietnamn war by students and gradually got bigger to take on other issues.
Another example was the Paris commune of 1871 which lasted several months and was an example by revolutionaries of how an area can be run under socialist lines.
[This message has been edited by Steelgate (edited 05-09-2001).]
Steelgate, I ask you again: have you read Wealth of Nations? If not, you really need to. If you are going to attack this hyper-evil system you would do well to give the seminal work on it at least a cursory glance.
Once you've done that, I think you'll agree with me when I say that you aren't anti-capitalist at all, and nor are the vast majority of so-called "anti-capitalists." You are, in fact, anti-corporatists and opposed to supernormal profits, not against the system of trade itself.
As for the class structure, it is funny that you bring that up because in the US (supposedly the most capitalistic country) capitalism is what has broken down classes. I came from a lower middle class family, but by the age of 25 I'll be making over $400,000 a year. I know this is a far cry from rich, but it's a good start from where I came. You just have to sacrifice and you can make it.
Who is really inslaving us? It's not governments or capitalism, it's the banks and credit card companies. So stop feeding the desire to have the latiest and greatest and in a few years you will have it without selling the rest of you life for it.
Thanatos-jr
reincarnated <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
BTW rant continued later
Communism has failed or is failing everywhere it was interred.
Socialism, a wonderful form of government, "don't worry about nothing, we'll take care of you." free medical, free money for the lame and lazy even free places to live. Isn't this how the UK does it? impose your will on the masses in order to take care of them? What if someone doesn't want to be taken care of? Have job, have money, have home, not sick lame or lazy? I know, pay for all of the other sorry fucks...
I'll take capitalism, not returning to Poland anytime soon.
Ever think that society might be structured the way it is because of human nature? Pull your head out of your arse.
[This message has been edited by Sean_K (edited 06-09-2001).]
For me socialism is a practical alternative to problems of capitalism, much more "human friendly".
Instead of the minority ownership, with its inequalities, classes, production for profit of few, access by payment - common ownership, production for human needs, free access, everybody determining their own needs.
Instead of devision of employers and workers, unemployed, retired - voluntary work, as preferred and needed.
Instead of the markets for goods, services and labour - no more buying and selling, no exchange, only giving and taking.
Instead if the hierarchical organisation, giving and taking orders, division on leaders and followers - cooperation between equals, participation of all.
Instead of the government of people, national states - administration of goods only, global society.
Now. Capitalism is in a state of crisis, because of the constant overproduction of goods, which can't be sold for profit. This is the reason we have "structural unemployement", more and more part-times and seasonal contracts. One of the main criticisms Marx made of capitalism is that it is anarchic in production, and hence wasteful, and that planning would work to eliminate this.
The majority of work done today will be useless in socialism (marketing, banking, insurance, merchandising, military, accounting). Its estimated 90% of work is done now not on useful production, but on wasteful activities, necessary only to support capitalism.
[This message has been edited by Steelgate (edited 06-09-2001).]
Once again you illustrate your pie-in-the-sky mindset. Money arose precisely because not all goods are of equal value and amounts available and required differ.
The real problems in the word ace caused by those who control the money and charge interest on it for the service.
I believe it was Baron Von Rothschield who said; "I care not who rules so long as I control the money system!" (I added 'system' but can't really remember whether it was in the original quote or not.)
Diesel
88888888
Despite what you believe, it IS human nature to want to be on top, to be in charge or too have the most of everything, even devout socialists.
Do you have a job? What is it? Do you go out and purchase consumerist items? No matter how hard you try to believe, deep down you will always desire more. If you see an advert for a new car, you secretly think "i wish i could afford that" or if you see a new type of food, something so amazingly tasty it could have only been made in a capitalist society.
Like in the film 12 monkeys, our cry now is "let's go shopping", we are consumers. So what if people in a third world country are being exploited? As long as the companies keep on producing the goods we desire they will keep on exploiting third world workers.
On the same note, you keep mentioning how they are paid crap wages, ever thought that in relation to this prices are a lot lower as well??? Think about it, in a poor country everything is cheaper, so in effect the third world workers aren't doing as bad as you make out.
I think you need to pay more attention to what you are saying, and how it is easily rubbished by what other people are saying.
Bob the builder:can he fix it?
Bob the builder:it'll cost you
Another reason they are poor is because third world countries owe massive debts to western banks that can never be paid off. These banks should at least write off the interest on these debts. These multi-national companies are also wrecking the environment too.
People would still have the goods they have now under socialism. That is what it means a greater distribution of wealth.
[This message has been edited by Steelgate (edited 07-09-2001).]
Posted by Steelgate:
"Third world workers are treated really badly and it wouldn't make any difference if they were paid a decent wage and had shorter hours. Of course they are as badly off as I say and they often get shot by military regimes if they try to form a trade union. "
Who says they are treated badly? They wanted to live in that region and help the sick and the weak, they should expect to be treated badly. Your comment about military regimes shooting at them is somewhat ridiculous. It infuriates me to read that. Just recently we had the Noble Peace Prize Forum at my college. The main speaker out and out said that the military should have no hand in third world politics. I was sitting in the front row in uniform. He said that the military only made the peace workers a target. BS! Even if the military wasn't there, they would still be a target. We are only there protecting them, defending the God given right to be free and to be free from poverty. It is the oppressor who chooses his target, not the oppressed that makes themselves a target.
"Avauncez! To Defend and Serve!"