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
There was a vote, you lost.
Aladdin is amazingly quick to point this out when it comes to fox hunting, strange how he isn't so quick to point it out when its something he disagrees with.
Privatisation makes nothing inherently more dangerous. The RMT are liars when they say it does, but then the RMT have a long and splendid history of being lying little cunts.
It was wonderful when Jimmy Knapp died :thumb:
Yes, Aladdin, you're quite right, I despise trade unions. They are corrupt organisations which exploit their members as much as anyone else- never a week goes by when we don't get either a begging letter from Unison, or a letter from Unison telling us how we should suck Blair off CAUSE HE'S SO GOOD. They lie and cheat- the RMT are maestros of getting away with blatant lies, and, what's more, they're maestros at getting otherwise intelligent people to swallow the ridiculous and disgusting lies whole.
This country would be a lot better if trade unions didn't exist, and workers actually had some rights, instead of having to go begging to corrupt organisations that pay their fat cat leaders grotesque salaries to get some money from other organisations that pay their fat cat leaders grotesque salaries.
Yeah Kermy :rolleyes:
So if the government makes all strikes illegal then thats OK? What about limiting the right to strike? Is that OK? When does a principle become more important than laws brought in by governments to benefit shareholders? Why is it so evil for workers to realise that they have common interests? Its the basis of politics Kermit, common interest. For all your bluster about profits being theft, you don't really believe it.
What's wrong with that? We have fuck all other power. The only power we do have is at the point of production, to withhold our labour.
You think what we have is democracy?
Well it’s far more democratic than your beloved Cuba or what the Soviet Union was.
We do have a democracy, if the people find the government unpleasant they can replace it at an election – erm as was the case in 1997.
Secret ballot, free and fair elections. I think you’ll find we conform to the definition of democracy.
I am sure if elections produced the kind of result that you desire you wouldn’t whinge about how we don’t have a democracy…But the British people have the sense not to resort to the kind of extremism espoused by the SWP, Socialist Alliance and their comrades. Probably because people realise how much worse off we'd be.
Aaaahhhh, more straw man arguments. Well done.
and the difference between New Labour and the tories is...what exactly?
Aaaahh, more straw men. If you can quote me expressing support for Cuba, the Soviet Union, the SWP or the Socialist Alliance, I'd like to see it. Or alternatively, you could attempt a little honesty in your debating eh?
I don't blame BA at all for getting rid of him/her.
Privatisation = more danger for Underground users. Fact.
But never mind... go ahead and repeat the cries of the Evening Standard even when trade unions are just highlighting safety problems that put the lives of everyone in danger.
That's some bile you got there reserved for unions. Whatever did they ever do to you?
Because all these claims about liars and cheats appear to be nothing more than unfounded smear. For someone who regularly warns others about libel you seem to embark in a lot if yourself.
In fact, I reckon I have a far fairer chance to prove in court that, say, the bosses of Gate Gourmet are subhuman greedy scum than you are of proving the unions are liars and cheats.
You don't seem to get it. Whichever rights workers have, it's because of unions. If unions did not exist workers would be at the entire and undiluted mercy of employers.
If you want to know what life would be like if unions didn't exist, take a look at open pit mines in Central America or sweatshops in Asia and you'll get a pretty good idea.
Then how come Citroen didn't go under? Fiat? Renault? Ford made some pretty awful cars too. And MG/Rover wasn't all bad; they made the MG Midget for instance!! :yes:
Similar companies to Rover making similar quality cars to Rover in other European countries survived. Unions killed Rover, the strikes in the 70s ruined a good company. Although the present govt could have done more too, French/Italian govts wouldn't let what happened to Rover happen to Renault/Fiat.
modern day rover went under because the government went for the best publicity deal, instead of going for the deal would have put people out of work, very regretability, however would of maintained the company as a SPECIALIST manufacturer, not a mass manufacturer, and thats how this country will remain sucessful economically, through specialist industry, specialist R+D and generic services, which for the current government is far too long term ie not headlines :mad:
So in fact it wasn't the unions after all. It was the government. Because of course, other Eurpoean countries aren't really known for having strong unions are they?
Image more than anything (although I don't dispute that Fiat and Citroen are naff). Renaults are pretty good now (my last Megane was).
The old MGs are great, but the latest cars are really quite horrible.
I've not enough knowledge on what the unions and the strikes did in the '70s.
You're pretty thick if you can't recognise the damage strikes in the 1970s caused to British Leyland...
I don't know of strikes at Fiat or Citroen that were as disruptive and destructive as those at British Leyland.
Yes disillusioned. :rolleyes: You're pretty thick if you can't see the damage that capitalism does to people and the environment every day. I guess its a matter of perspective. I give a shit about people. You don't.
They seem to have taken the art of avoiding work to a new level. This is often made worse because bosses fear taking any action because of their perceived power.
Although there are a few good ones, most union reps I've dealt with specialise in avoidance.
Recognising that unions have ruined some companies doesn’t equate to not giving a shit about people. Anyway I can't really be bothered to discuss this with you since you're being so childish.
Recognising that actually your take on history is somewhat skewed by your ideology equates to being aware of historical discourse and context. In other words, your view of history isn't necessarily the correct one. In yet other words - history is written by the winners.
Rough translation - I know I'm onto a loser so I'll resort to ad hominems.
Umm except I'm not 'onto a loser'. I find it sweet that you're blind to the faults of unions and that for you unions can and have done no wrong .(Btw, I know somebody at the TUC - would you like me to arrange a day-trip for you? You can get a TUC badge and a goody-bag
Perhaps you'd like to explain to me then how strikes during the 1970s at British Leyland didn't severely damage the company and subsequently form a major factor in the decline of the firm?
By everyone's account Thatcher put a stop to such strike action when most of us were still learning to walk. The companies have had 30+ years of wildcat strike-free operations and to blame the closure of plants or entire companies today in events that took place so long ago does not make much sense I'm afraid.
Incidentally wildcat strikes still take place in the Continent, France and Spain in particular. The ultimate demise of Rover owes a lot more to bad management and not good enough products than it does to union action. Otherwise the likes of Seat, Citroen, Renault etc wouldn't exist today.
I wouldnt say that capitalism damages people though. Unless you think communism works better. I think that millions of people get on with capitalism each day without dying. And damage to the environment I would say is a side effect of industrialisation and such, rather than an economic system. The former communist countries were (and still are, in some cases) some of the biggest polluters in the world. Theyve also got a less than fantastic record on human rights.
But I assume when you knock capitalism, blagsta, that you dont mean to compare it to communism, perhaps a utopian world?
You clearly haven't been paying attention....... or do you know nothing of the inequality in this world, the 35 000 children per day that die from lack of access to clean water, the countries that are strangled by our demands for raw materials at dirt cheap prices etc etc etc.
Rampant consumerism by some, coupled with grinding and deadly poverty for the masses does damage people - even the so called fortunate ones are riddled with neuroses, depression and a breakdown of the scial fabric.
As for solidarity strikes - they are needed to challenge the solidarity of the super exploiters - and the argument that they drove jobs to poorer countries is bogus - that would have happened anyway - once the trasport and telecommunications systems made it possible.
*sigh*
Oh and I don't think communism is the answer either.
Yes - in your opinion. There are also other views.
So millions starving while others have so much to eat that they are obese isn't damaging? Hundreds of people sleeping on the streets of London while others drive past in cars that cost as much as a house? That's not damaging?
What are you on about?
What I mean, is that I dont think capitalism is the cause of the problem. Inequality would be there under any economic structure, and probably less managable than under capitalism.
Most of the homeless, I would imagine, are there through some misfortune, whether it be family breakup, lack of work or health issues. However, I think there are ways out of the cycle of no work - no motivation - no self esteem - no work and that the hundreds of people who sleep on the streets will not be the same hundreds next year. Its almost a kind of transitional phase. There are many who wont manage to pull themselves up, which is why we have a social welfare system for the homeless. The effectiveness of this does not fall down to capitalism though.
In Africa, there is widespread poverty, both absolute and relative to the rest of the population. Although the 'greed' of the few - politicians in particular - is a contributing factor, I think that there are many other factors as well that have led to the inequalities there. Restructuring being a major one, most of the countries we hear about most often - Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Congo, you name it... have had changes occur in their government and / or their nations build up. Conflict has caused widespread strife, with a lack of general security meaning Africa is a 'russian roullette' investment for the people with the cash. Why build a nice big factory in the middle of Zimbabwe when next year it might get knocked down? Or mobbed?
Other factors include the lack of capital infrastructure, the absence of a social welfare / free health care thingy, so people who trip up have no safety net, and there is no health care for those who get ill, which directly effects that persons family negatively, plunging them all into poverty.
I think its unfair to blame all of Africas problems on capitalism without acknowledging there are other causes. I concede that the EUs CAP means food produced in africa cant compete, but I am dead against the CAP anyway. There are economic barriers (such as tariffs and quotas) that are brought about by the capitalist system and protectionism, but I think these will diminish in the future as the availability of information and freedom of trade increases. The other problems in africa would not vanish, however. I think that although their situation is by no means perfect, working under capitalism means they will be able to work best with other countries around the world in the future, and so is in my opinion the best economic system for Africa to be working under at the present time.
Also: I think capitalism is more a problem in the sense of the attitudes it can instill - greed and gluttony. Since it is based on the transfer of wealth, then to work effectively people have to want more, thus greed, and often get more than they need, thus gluttony. I dont see how either of these can be solved in the short term though, people just need to be taught to change their values.
You are right it isn't.
Those people who are dying every day overseas have been doing so for the whole of history. They haven't improved. We have. Yes they have their stuff taken, yes it's not fair. We improved first, then took their stuff. It always amazes me that the hand wringers always assume that we automatically live in a world of vast plenty when it's so obviously not the case. We are all born paupers.
There's a big problem with that statement. It assumes that you need work to have self esteem, which is (or should be if you have any sense) bollocks. People are an end in themselves, not a tool that is useless when not in operation.
And get less. Theres no incentive to work for a man who is happy in an empty room, is there? It works by creating tension in people between what they have now and what they think they should have now. The smart move is just to not bother, but they invented taxation so you have to play.
I see the problem, but not a solution. Some problems are just there and cant be cured. Take this for an extreme example: people die, every year, of curable disease and illness. We cant cure this though, its impossible. We can work to reduce it, but there will always be a few who are in the middle of the jungle who have no access to a flying doctor or anything like that. People will still catch flu.
Im not saying its ok to have people suffering when others have plenty, but I dont see how you can change that. You either have two groups: haves and have nots, or one, which is just have nots. As far as I see it anyway.
Klintock: when I was talking about the self esteem thing, I was just trying to illustrate the effect of when you are out of work you progressively find it more difficult to get work. Many people hop out of one job and find another next week. Some are unemployed for years, looking at job after job. Things like deskilling occur, and what company wants to train you to do something when they can get the person who already knows how to do it?