Your Political ideology?

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

Hmm... okay, let's try a new tack, see if you can cop on.

• What I have stated is an opinion.

Yes that is a fact. you stated asn opinion that all politics is economics

[*]Not a theory.

[*]Not an ideology.

[*]Not absolute.

That is the kernel of my arguemtn. First this thread is entitled "your political ideology" Why did you come to post your opinion about economics breing politics to a thread iof that title? Just as a Marxist might come here with an ideology and I would say it isnt absolute I said the samwe of your theory (and it IS a theory) that politics is basically economics.

[*]Not new, nor original, nor even mine.

[*]Perhaps not even right.

[*]Just an opinion I happen to hold.

But you raised it! Whether it is right is for you to support. An if it is supposition then why post it in this thread?

[*]And you disagree with it.

[*]Which is cool.

[*]You have your own opinions.

[*]Which is also cool.

[*]I'm really pleased for you.

[*]I wouldn't want it any other way.

Now watch as I don't throw a prissy little tantrum with you for holding and airing them.

I have no idea what you mean by that last comment. What is the relevance of it?

freddyfreeload

Is there anything I could say that would satisfy you in any way?

democrates

freddyfreeload wrote:

Is there anything I could say that would satisfy you in any way?

Considering:

ISAW wrote:

So I am happy to say that TD and Senators are by and large a decent bunch and am happy to attack the arguments of those who attack them but cant get elected themselves.

Maybe that will avoid unnecessary exasperation resulting from assuming ISAW was posting purely out of objective opposition to the ideas themselves. At the same time so what if there's a partisan motivation, it's only fair for alternatives to be challenged. Convinced to continue therefore...

ISAW wrote:

That is the kernel of my arguemtn. First this thread is entitled "your political ideology" Why did you come to post your opinion about economics breing politics to a thread iof that title? Just as a Marxist might come here with an ideology and I would say it isnt absolute I said the samwe of your theory (and it IS a theory) that politics is basically economics.

I'm up to my neck in it as far as these points go. I find the issue of what is on-topic as a grey area given that the definition of the topic itself is being discussed. The distinction between economics and politics is only one point of definition though, overdone now for my liking.

Can you give any practical reasons why the parecon movement should not forge ahead? Anything that can't work, or is worse than capitalism and representative democracy for example?

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

Is there anything I could say that would satisfy you in any way?

yes there no doubt is. But I come here mainly to attack the points people make and of which they are so sure. Many people get all het up about that. they cant seperate their opinion from themselves. they think that if they advance an opinion and I attack it then it is an attack on them. One moderator even banned me once for saying he had made a silly comment. He interpreted that as me calling him stupid and insulting him.

Anyway I applaud you candor. Some people come here to rant and I usually attack that as soon as I see it. It seems Irish people like to whinge but when pressed on the issues dont really want to do anything about it. Others dont like their fundamentalist positions challenged.

You could say that you are sceptical of fundamentalist claims. That would satisfy me.

freddyfreeload

@Democrates: Ahh...

@ISAW: I am indeed sceptical of fundamentalist claims. But if you look properly, and with an open mind, I think you'll see I haven't made one.

However, it's reassuring to know there's a virtual-vigilante out their patrolling these boards with his cyber-truncheon, waiting round every corner to pounce on those with views contrary to his own and rightly expose them for the fundamentalists they are.

"What's that?" they'll all cry, staring awestruck as the superhero swoops down from the sky.
"Is it an opinion? Is it a cogent argument? No... it's Fundamental Man!"



ff

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

@ISAW: I am indeed sceptical of fundamentalist claims. But if you look properly, and with an open mind, I think you'll see I haven't made one.

I didnt state that you had. In relation to you that I challenge that which to you seems so sure.

However, it's reassuring to know there's a virtual-vigilante out their patrolling these boards with his cyber-truncheon, waiting round every corner to pounce on those with views contrary to his own and rightly expose them for the fundamentalists they are.

LOL Whenever you are dangerously certain of any belief call ISAW (or alternately hop over to the Irish sceptics forum).

Whats this! No no it cant be! No the only substances that when combined in correct proportions can render me powerless! Humour and acceptance. Belidgerence gone *cough cough* argumentative powers waning *cough cough* debating platfrom removed *cough* Must go. Must sleep must......

"What's that?" they'll all cry, staring awestruck as the superhero swoops down from the sky.
"Is it an opinion? Is it a cogent argument? No... it's Fundamental Man!"



ff[/QUOTE]

ISAW

democrates wrote:

Maybe that will avoid unnecessary exasperation resulting from assuming ISAW was posting purely out of objective opposition to the ideas themselves. At the same time so what if there's a partisan motivation, it's only fair for alternatives to be challenged.

this is the second time I think that you have tried this one. To be fair you did append the "what if..."

Look I might be anti abirtion. I might post against arguments made by pro abortion. If they ask me "are you anti abortion" or if I admit to being so without being asked does this detract from my argument. I submit that NO it does not! It is unlikely you will find someone neutral on the abortion issue.

democrates

ISAW wrote:

this is the second time I think that you have tried this one. To be fair you did append the "what if..."

Look I might be anti abirtion. I might post against arguments made by pro abortion. If they ask me "are you anti abortion" or if I admit to being so without being asked does this detract from my argument. I submit that NO it does not! It is unlikely you will find someone neutral on the abortion issue.

No argument there, and you're in good company, I'm a sceptic myself and forgive the repetition but I thoroughly enjoyed "the last days of Socrates" as retold by Plato - in summary, nothing can be proven - the ultimate sceptics position and much to the chagrin of Tony Buzan:p. The rhetoric Socrates employed is outstanding and my summary of the common theme is no replacement, it's a delightful read.

Many say that if Socco was street wise and/or less committed to attacking the psychopathology of certainty, he could have avoided that fatal swig of hemlock. I can't help wondering though, if dramatic martyrdom was an acceptable plan B to avoid his points being forgotten, like Conor Cruise O'Brien who has split the unionist hardliners, I tend to suspect strategy from intellects rather than flippantly accept the prima facia evidence with wide eyes just because someone brings up "occams razor"...

Anyhow, shamelessly plagiarising the silence of the lambs where agent what's her name suggests to Dr. Lechter that he turn his high-powered intellect on himself, I'd suggest everyone apply scepticism in fair measure to all parties including those you like, for you ISAW that is obviously to the ff/pd coalition and their policies.

Maybe you already have, or maybe not as much as I'd like. I once supported capitalism, free markets, and the ff/pd coalition, but over time my scepticism along with further reading and analysis has led me to my current road. But maybe you're farther down that road and in time I'll find it comes back full circle! Predictably I'm sceptical of that having covered so much ground.

It's not a "Jesus, or Barabbas?" election for me btw, FG/Labour are unlikely to deliver us all from every evil any more than the USA's democrats offer an alternative to right-wing authoritariansim, going by esskays political compass. But there will be some difference, it's closer to what I want, but for others, if nothing else, changing the government will avoid one group of ensconced people assuming re-election equals a popular mandate to accelerate their policies when the truth may be that no credible alternative has been presented.

I agree with a lot of Parecons criticisms of the current capitalist and representative systems, it repeats many criticisms already described in the communist manifesto. I object to the lack of individual freedom resulting from the prescriptions of Marx et al, and I find some elements of Parecon suffer a similar fault, albeit of a much lesser level.

I reject revolution given todays interdependant world, shaking market confidence also hurts the pension funds of innocents for starters. Hence I'd prefer to see direct democracy grow from the grassroots so that in time "we, the people" will be well positioned to organise our society, and maybe the full parecon thesis is our destination, or maybe it's a hybrid, but no way should it be the undiluted preference of any few.

While it's plausible to bring in direct democracy for the political machine faster than the centuries it took generations of Swiss, the global competition game remains the same, also Nestles baby milk substitute shenanigans, Nazi (Jewish) Gold, and effective money laundering assistance through bank account secrecy are among the clues that it alone should not be seen as a panacea. The sceptic in me even wonders if the Swiss have become more selfish due to more say in policy, but I can't conclude, and won't obsess about it since they don't have a participatory business sector or complimentary trading allies.

So I'm focussed on piloting and evolving a parecon-style enterprise, and then helping to replicate it, one careful step at a time. It seems to me that when we contol a significant portion of production, we will have the leverage to co-operate on a global plan for socio-economic cohesion that suits the many. Here's hoping.:D

Cronus333

Truely inspiring stuff. I feel like a younger political you, except I nearly burned the manifesto when I finished it. But oh well. On a serious note I would actually agree with on a lot of points.

But what can you do?

Sgt. Sensible

Cronus333 wrote:

Truely inspiring stuff. I feel like a younger political you, except I nearly burned the manifesto when I finished it.

Lame net forum tactic #34: Unable to respond to someone's argument? Patronise your opponent by trying to make out he's just a child but will inevitably adopt your own views when he grows up.

democrates

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Lame net forum tactic #34: Unable to respond to someone's argument? Patronise your opponent by trying to make out he's just a child but will inevitably adopt your own views when he grows up.

Maybe it's age but I didn't take it that way, I took it he was just deducing he's younger and has covered the same idealogical territory, and agrees with a lot of points.

But you've reminded me of the film "The School for Scoundrels" (remade recently) when a student fell in love with a woman and ended up making a genuine appeal from the heart, his teacher became excited at being present for "the birth of a new ploy!". Lol.

freddyfreeload

ISAW wrote:

Quote: freddyfreeload - I am indeed sceptical of fundamentalist claims. But if you look properly, and with an open mind, I think you'll see I haven't made one.

Quote: ISAW - I didnt state that you had.

I beg to differ. See your post 159

Whenever you are dangerously certain of any belief call ISAW

Question: who do you contact to counsel you about your own "dangerous certainties"?

Belidgerence gone *cough cough* argumentative powers waning *cough cough* debating platfrom removed *cough*

Immunity to irony holding strong though

But now... if you accept that I'm not preaching here, but making a proposal, and if you're happy to debate the proposition (not your perception of the proposer's mindset) with an open mind... then we can continue.

ff

freddyfreeload

democrates wrote:

Nestles baby milk substitute shenanigans

Which sadly are still going on now: The World Health Organisation estimates that 1.5 million infants die around the world every year because they are not breastfed. Where water is unsafe a bottle-fed child is up to 25 times more likely to die as a result of diarrhoea than a breastfed child. And Nestle are still breaking the '81 marketing code in promoting baby milk in some developing countries.

They have also been presenting themselves as Fair Trade friendly while actually being anything but.

ff

Cronus333

democrates wrote:

Maybe it's age but I didn't take it that way, I took it he was just deducing he's younger and has covered the same idealogical territory, and agrees with a lot of points.

But you've reminded me of the film "The School for Scoundrels" (remade recently) when a student fell in love with a woman and ended up making a genuine appeal from the heart, his teacher became excited at being present for "the birth of a new ploy!". Lol.

Aye. I didn't mean any offence! Sorry about that. I'll phrase things better next time. C'est la vie.

You were right about what I intended about that post by the way.

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

I beg to differ. See your post 159

In which I staed you reminded me of fundamentalists and it upset me. But fair enough if you thin I claimed you had made fundamentalist claims like "economics is everything" then I accept I did and I withdraw the claim that I didnt.

Question: who do you contact to counsel you about your own "dangerous certainties"?

Douglas richard Hofstadter

Immunity to irony holding strong though

Touché

But now... if you accept that I'm not preaching here, but making a proposal, and if you're happy to debate the proposition (not your perception of the proposer's mindset) with an open mind... then we can continue.

Oh I think we have covered the issue already. I have nothing to add. If you claim that economics is everything and explains everything about society and that all politics is economics I disagree with you and have shown why I do so.

freddyfreeload

Oh I think we have covered the issue already. I have nothing to add. If you claim that economics is everything and explains everything about society and that all politics is economics I disagree with you and have shown why I do so.

:eek:

Blimey, no wonder you think we've covered the issue. Not only are you still l talking about something completely different to me, you're also still putting words in my mouth.

I did not, and never have said: "economics is everything and explains everything about society."

My original comment on the subject was: Boil it right down and the only thing that matters is economics, left, right or centre. Politics is merely the means by which individuals or groups of individuals control economic power.

Since then you've been addressing the manifestations of the process (how individuals feel about specific politcal issues) while I've been talking about the process itself.

ff

But before I go... here's a joke. Part of which might explain where I'm coming from.

***

Little Johnny goes to his dad and asks, "Dad, what is politics?"

Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way. I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me Capitalism. Mum is the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you The People. The nanny, well, consider her The Working Class. Your baby brother, we'll call him The Future. Now go think about this and see if it makes sense."

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying and runs to his room only to find that his nappy is very soiled.

So the little boy goes to his parents' room. Mum is sound asleep on her own. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he looks through the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand what politics is now."

"Good son, tell me in your own words then what politics are."

Jonny replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep Sh*t."

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

:eek:
I did not, and never have said: "economics is everything and explains everything about society."

Fine! I was wrong about that . It was off the top of my head . I withdraw the remark.

My original comment on the subject was: Boil it right down and the only thing that matters is economics, left, right or centre. Politics is merely the means by which individuals or groups of individuals control economic power.

You said the only think that matters in politics is economics. In a way that is worse than the other claim but I already told you why I disagree with that idea. I also explained why politics is not merely a means to controling economic power. Nothing id to be gained from further exchange on that issue.

freddyfreeload

ISAW wrote:

You said the only think that matters in politics is economics.

Actually, ISAW, I didn't say that either. Dear me!

ff