It all breaks down to economics-- bin tax

by hhjh - hh Tue Sep 30, 2003 23:43

The fall of feudalism was brought about by the rich recognising the advantage of this new system.

But the fall of capitalism, will only mean loss for the rich.

All we can do is control the market. This can be done through organisation, like the IMF, the world bank etc. But which are not build a upon the lines of world war 2. That have members which are directly electable. That have a medium in which, those who are affected most by the decisions, can be listened to.

And methods must be found, in order to raise taxation, that will not take massive spending power, spending power which creates growth. and which will not totally piss of big business.

by b@j.com Mon Sep 29, 2003 22:39

I agree, the current system is a mess. One cannot do anything, without pissing of someone else. And the end result is that nothing happens and the status quo remains. This ia mess.

So when will the revoultion begin?

by Ois Sun Sep 28, 2003 22:47

First of all I'm not being idealistic, I'm being realistic. The reality of the matter is that capitalism is un-sustainable and will eventually cease to exist and socialism will emerge, just as capitalism emerged when feudalism collapsed. I'd just like for this to happen while I'm still alive.

And on your 'realism'; just how do you propose we control the markets? Wouldn't that just cause an exodus of capital aswell? Yeah I see what you're going to say the we should have/build a global institution to control the market. (Ahem Ahem is that idealism I smell?) But tell me where would this institution come from? Realistically it won't/can't come from anywhere because there is now where for it to come from. (Oh and before you start the IMF, WTO, WB, UN can't/won't be reformed).

However there is one way the reform is possible...Here's a quote from Connoly:

"Yet, although it may seem a paradox to say so, there is no party so incapable of achieving practical results as an orthodox political party; and there is no party so certain of placing moderate reforms to its credit as an extreme – a revolutionary party.

The possessing classes will and do laugh to scorn every scheme for the amelioration of the workers so long as those responsible for the initiation of the scheme admit as justifiable the ‘rights of property’; but when the public attention is directed towards questioning the justifiable nature of those ‘rights’ in themselves, then the master class, alarmed for the safety of their booty, yield reform after reform – in order to prevent revolution.

Moral – Don’t be ‘practical’ in politics. To be practical in that sense means that you have schooled yourself to think along the lines, and in the grooves those who rob you would desire you to think.

In any case it is time we got rid of all the cant about ‘politics’ and ‘constitutional agitation’ in general. For there is really no meaning whatever in those phrases.

Every public question is a political question."


Not much has changed. Apart from party politics being discredited.

So please replace 'party' with 'movement' as I couldn't give a fuck for party politics.

by random input Sat Sep 27, 2003 20:03

and where did all the social democratic 'market controls' from the post war era leave us?

Well, the answer is simple - in the present state of Chaos. About the only decent thing the British LP did was the nationalisations (long live Nye!). But now you say "nationalisation is not the answer"* - let's trust the market and privateers. I suppose you also believe in those other tenets of Neo Labour 'reform' and 'partnership' too?

Were you wanking over Mandy on Dumphy last night?


* I agree nationalisation without workers' control achieves nothing.

by 78 Sat Sep 27, 2003 12:37

I am still waiting. Che thought it was going to happen. It did not.

You are all thinking about another world which does not exist. Everyone wants to be a member of the controlling class. People are naturally greedy.

At the moment, we live in a world controlled by the markets.

And therefore, we must work within those confines. We must find a way to put across our policies in that world.

Stop being idealists and start being realistic.

what we can do is put controls on the market. I am not talking about nationalisation. But a legislation framework within society.

But also create better school, hospitals and universities, which all have access to, in a manner which is fair.

by Ois Sat Sep 27, 2003 02:46

Yeah you're right '78' under capitalism all you achieve by raising corporation tax is 'an exodus of capital'. Why because a small group of people control capital, we'll call them the capitalist class, and they do shit like that when ever ordinary people, we'll call them the working class, try to stop them from stealing from them. No as you can see we are faced with two different classes one that (as it name implies) works and another that steals, invests, employs and for historical reasons controls everything. As you can see this isn't very just.

Luckily for us a politics has developed amongst this 'working class' called 'socialism'. And what this politics holds is that this class system should be destroyed and that capital should be put under popular social control and wrested from the hands of the capitalists.

Now tell me again are you a socialist? Or even better, HA, is Tony Blair?

by 78 Fri Sep 26, 2003 23:38 b at j dot com 089 67899876

But by fucking off big business, all you will achieve, is those businesses leaving the country. And therefore, you will have to deal with all the problems relating to unemployment. Such as an increase in crime and you will have to fund massive social welfare benefits.

And nationalisation will never work. You cannot tell someone to work as a "bin-man", for the rest of your life. People are naturally greedy. They want this and that.

The only way to go, is to take the money from general taxation, in the form of progressive taxation. And try to raise the amount of taxation big business must pay.

And from then, maybe we can create a society, in which when a kid, is born, he will not have to pay massive amounts of money for health care and education. lets say less than 100 euro a year.

And then we can create a transport system, like thos e in france and germany

by socialist Fri Sep 26, 2003 17:39

Yes, money does have to be used to provide services. Where can we get it? Any real socialist would answer: off big business, and through nationalisation.

by har har har de har Fri Sep 26, 2003 17:26

de har harhar harharharhar

by random input Fri Sep 26, 2003 05:15

I think our 'friend' here revealed rather more than he was willing to when he said

a) "Firslty, may I say that I am a socialist."

b) "That is really what Tony Blair is at in the UK. I belive he is a socialist at heart. But he knows that you cannot do anything, without keeping the middle classes onside."

So Tony's is a socialist eh? aside from EVERYTHING he did in britain (and i lived there 98-02) - what kind of socialist goes to war against an entire people in the name of big business? what kind of socialist is a lickspittle to the most powerful 'man of capital' on earth (ie bush).

"The present situation, of the money beig funded in the form of double taxation is wrong."

Sounds like the usual irish labour fudging of the issue. the question for the last three years has been "is the bintax unjust?" - the question NOW is "are the blockades the way to defeat it?". Where were labour for the last three years when the activists were organising for the events of the last two weeks? Engaged in idle press statements? - Where do labour stand now viz. the blockades? they don't support them. they would rather that people rely on them and their positions to make speeches and such than people actually take action themselves! some socialists. funny, as the labour party was initially founded as a result of workers fight against the establishment. the labourites of today would have us belive thet the establishment today has somehow 'got better' (europe). anyway, enough bitching about labour.

"As can be seen in Venuzeala."

and all chavez was doing was implementing *minor* reforms! if there was ever a contemporary case for class war, venezeula is it. it completely shows the fallacy of 'social democracy' - unfortunatley i fear that chavez will face a similar fate to one Allende in chile.

"We should be modeling our society on france."

really??? are you saying you want to model yourself after Chirac? you seriously want a society where someone like Le Pen can command such support? don't you think that the fact that france is in such a state suggests that maybe there is something *seriously* wrong with france???

"But they even have to pay for private medical care"

So basically saying that in certain circumstances you would trust private industry to look after the healthfare of citizens? don't labourites even believe in market state socialism anymore?

by Badman Fri Sep 26, 2003 02:00

Showing such a depth of understanding of economics. Compared to you, my boy, the socialist party are very ignorant indeed.

by swissmiss Thu Sep 25, 2003 22:54

yeah, who needs equality anyway, when one can roll with the punches and take all the shit and let the money fix everything, i've seen apathy, but misguided apathy, sheesh.....