Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Buy Nothing Day
Comments
-
Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
In other words, the TINA argument means absolutely nothing- there is always an alternative, it's just that the intellectual left are too pampered, spoiled and lacking in political will to turn those ideals into reality by legitimate means. Living outside the system in an escapist manner is somehow more appealing, yet taking to the streets, trying to "live the revolution" is a lot less likely to succeed than actually thinking the practicalities through in a sensible manner, and getting across a political paradigm.
All to often, I hear those who want to effect radical change shouting empty cliches like "the system must change". Why?
Exactly what should the system change to??? Have these "new world" proponents actually considered a full change to our way of life, how to implement it, analysed the full viability of such a system given human nature, and looked at a way of how to transition from our current way of life to this new system?
No - I didnt think so.
All the "new world" philosophies, while laudable in many ways, seem to be based on a basic misconception - the evils that need to be fought in this world are derived from our current global system of trade and government.
Sorry - but you have it backwards. The flaws in our current system exist because of human nature exploiting them.
If you wish to create a perfect society by banishing all these bad aspects of our world (consumerism, globalisation, exploitation, etc etc etc) then your best bet is to dust off and nuke the site from orbit, because while human beings exist as a society, there will be those who seek to gain the most from any system. You propose an alternate system, and I'm pretty sure that I can show how to exploit it. If I can do that, I'm positive that there are enough people out there who *will* exploit it.
You want to effect change, then try to improve the system before trying to replace it. I applaud the idea of raising public awareness, but exactly what are you raising awareness of? How much we spend and consume? Why is this a problem? If everyone was able to spend and consume this much, in an environmentally friendly way, there would be no problem.
The problem is not the spending. It is not the consumerism. The problem is the exploitation in the workplace, and the exploitation of the environment. These are the problems to tackle, and to be honest, are they not the problems where the public is far more likely to listen?
And if you follow it up the line, the actual root of all of these problems is corruption in politics. Restrict the ties between government and business and you will do more for all these causes than will ever be achieved seperately. Cut the ties these super-corps have over the elected officials and you put politics back in the hands of the people.
But do you think anyone would seriously take that one on? Not a hope. Its easier to cry for revolution.
jc0 -
Moving out of topic? Why, that's what the boards were created for!
When I go to the bathroom, I am harassed by the fists that cry "One Solution... Revolution!", scrawled across the cubicle wall. I fail to see how this is the case. In fact, it's defeatist.
How can the idea of a revolution appeal to people? Do they realise that they are saying that their cause cannot be achieved by democratic means? And if they do realise this, why do they support it?
I think it's a cop-out. I believe that to for a person to support this viewpoint is for them to ignore their own social responsibilities.0 -
I've never seen so much crock on this board in quite a while.
First of all, Gargoyle, could you cite that article you pasted? It's entirely one-sided and, even though it makes some well argued points, it's completely myopic and blinkered. For example: "... most of the world lacks the ability to make such a choice. Rather than promoting guilt for being wealthy and healthy, we ought to empower the less-fortunate members of our world to become as wealthy as we are" - agreed but what many people, including myself, is that this simply is not happening. Merely assuming that's the desired objective, the question must arise: what is stopping this from happening? Wow, then this person goes on to paraphrase Marx, "they have nothing to lose but their poverty" - what an insultuing statement. It assumes that these people have ltitle desire to escape the poverty trap, well, I'm sure most people in Africa desire a commodious life but it's not they who keep themselves in poverty, it's their leaders and Western organisations such as the WTO.if people leave themselves open to exploitation, if they in fact, invite such exploitation, then they're reaping what they sow. And I still stand by the argument that the western world has done a lot more on its part in waiving 3rd word debt, increasing untied aid, encouraging development programmes, than the 3rd world has done on its part to encourage sensible trade
I don't know where you're living. That's the idea, in principle, and is Christian and noble and lovely and nice - but that's not what happens. You mention Africa so I'll tell you the conversation I had recently with the governor general of the Central Bank of Eritrea. He was talking about the WTO, IMF and World Bank. He was saying that these groups force countries into adopting alien forms of governments and incompatible economic systems, forces them into more debt than they need or want and sucks money out of the areas by not encouraging indigenous industry and business. These countries are forced into incompatible arrangements to please the big guys, not the better interests of those which these organisations appear to be helping. This is coming from a person who deals with these organisations personally, except the Eritreans have made great efforts to tell the WTO etc. to go stuff themselves unless they agree to his terms.
The intuitive assumption everyone makes that anyone who criticises the current systems of exchange and economy are in complete opposition to it, and therefore wish to replace it with another model, are incorrect for the most part. Most sensible people know that capitalism is ingrained in the international psyche by now and it's stupid to go down a regressive line of thinking, as if it's possible to get back to any kind of original position. However, the truth of the matter is that capitalism is out of control. Yes it's efficient, yes it's potentially the most liberating and compatible model of exchange but it has to change for the benifit of mankind.
A system can be said to be successful if it's achievements are equal to their aims. The current structures simply are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. When they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, they need reform. Liberalism and capitalism has potential but more work has to be done.0 -
How about a Short Acceptable Post day?
Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/
0 -
You mention Africa so I'll tell you the conversation I had recently with the governor general of the Central Bank of Eritrea. He was talking about the WTO, IMF and World Bank. He was saying that these groups force countries into adopting alien forms of governments and incompatible economic systems, forces them into more debt than they need or want and sucks money out of the areas by not encouraging indigenous industry and business.
Dada, would you honestly expect him to say anything else? That the governer general of the national bank of Eritrea would say something along those lines suprises me not one bit. The IMF and World Bank, particularly the IMF, force nations to make tough, long-term reforms in exchange for aid- the idea is to ensure capital system reform, instead of just giving poor nations handouts. Needless to say, these tough decisions are extremely unpopular. While several governments in Africa hardly have to worry about a legitimate plebiscite, they can't risk angering their populations in the short term with reforms that could very well render impotent several of the most powerful and corrupt officials, politicians, warlords and existing government ministers. Any outside action to weaken their positions will naturally be condemned from within. This isn't just true of Eritrea- Indonesia, Guyana, Nigeria and Namibia have all delivered exactly the same response- that the IMF simply "doesn't understand our way of doing things". What a crock, as you so eloquently put it- they're simply frightened to death of unpopular, but necessary reforms. As far as them being forced into this position, erm...are you sure you realize what you're saying? The WTO is a pretty elite club of free-trade nations, governments want to be in the WTO, they aren't press-ganged into it. I concede that the WTO has as its goal the removal of trade barriers, a dangerous move for a nation trying to develop its own indigenous industries, but who's forcing them to join? It would be in their best interests to develop their financial and capital systems to the stage at which they may apply for entry. The IMF and World bank provide the impetus for reform sorely needed by several of these nations to provide transparency for their financial systems, and to root out the corruption almost enshrined in their industrial economy. The IMF is interested in long-term and sensible monetary reform- and it doesn't force anyone to do anything- unless you want its aid. The World Bank provides hard loans for essential purchases only, nations need to encourage investment and formulate ownership of investment and trusts on their own.
I think it's an amazing idea to be honest, rather than abuse-ridden welfare aid, we have aid tied to sensible and long-term reforms- helping nations to help themselves through difficult but necessary long-term reforms. That they cause strife amongst a few fat, greedy, corrupt (and in many cases overfed) politicians is a source of joy to me, not worry. I return to my original statement- these strife-ridden nations have only themselves to blame for the lack of improvement in their predicament- if IMF-led reforms are causing strife, consent had to be given to them first- if a nation is suffering without aid, again, the choice was theirs. No matter which way you look at it, responsibility rests firmly with the shambolic organs of government that embezzle, cheat, steal, abuse, spike, and otherwise exploit their own financial systems for personal gain. It sickens and disgusts me that these same people (and their cronies) continue to espouse the evils of organizations whose involvement they gave acqueisance to, thinking it would be another fat gravy train.
Agree to the IMF's involvement or don't agree- but one thing is fairly certain- the long-term involvement of the IMF has almost always yielded results- the cases of Mexico, Brazil and Pakistan all show that long-term reform of financial systems can yield prosperity. Very few politicians are willing to consider long-term measures, they only care in truth, about the next election and the next campaign-fund donation. The financial security of their nation needs to be maintained in the short term, after that, the opposition can always be blamed. Long-term reform is the only way transparency and international credibility can be established in the financial institutions of these nations- to agree to a plan of reform and then criticize it for its failings? That's hypocrisy for you- read the menu, confirm the price, start the meal, and walk off without paying the check? Come on...
Occy0 -
Advertisement
-
People do stuff. Stuff costs money. People spend money to do stuff. People work to earn money to buy and do stuff. QED.
Next week:
NO BREATHING DAY!
Yes, we are gathering together to protest against the quality of air in Ireland by not breathing for an entire DAY! So mark the 28th November 2001 as No Breathing Day! Main rally point is Ayre Square, Galway.0 -
Aw Jesus, I couldn't even be bothered responding to that. Get a clue will you?0
-
Well said amp.
"Anyone here willing to take part on the 24th November?"
In a word? No. I buy things because I either need (clothes, food, bus tickets) or want (DVDs, computer parts, yay!) them.
If I don't them them on November 24th, I'll get them the day after. Same difference.
Oh yeah let's all stop people from buying things, trash the economy, maybe live in caves the rest of our lives killing animals for food. But wait, no that's bad too isn't it. I'd be a crap hippy really.
A lot of people take part in protests cos they think it's what's good for everyone, without knowing all the details. I did a hunger strike for a day when I was 11. Wouldn't do it again cos it's totally pointless.
Having said that, anyone that wants to take part in this BND-malarky, go for it. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.0 -
Originally posted by Von
Faster television, faster computers, faster food. MTV, Microsoft, McDonalds.
You're right obviously. These things all suck I'm *not* to going to upgrade my PC on Saturday to help the protest. My new XP Athlon arrives on Monday.
Also, I too disapprove of MTV, Micrsoft and McDonalds. I'm so leftwing now that I watch VH1 Classic Rock, use Linux and eat at Burger King!
ARGH I'M A ****ING COMMUNIST!
There's nothing really wrong with wanting more. What is the alternative - to go back to each person growing their own crops, etc., ? That was what so funny about the credit-card-debt thing of Fight Club (and the Genoa riots too, I am a big miffed that the recent Canada meeting didn't get covered as the riots are the most entertaining TV I've ever seen - thank you all you anti-capitalists, it's makes for great entertainment).0 -
Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
blah blah blah
I said globalization (plain old imperialism or colonialism it was called then) played a part in starting WW1. I know illiteracy is rife in America (According to a recent US government report, The State of Literacy in America, over 90 million US adults, nearly one out of two, are functionally illiterate or near illiterate) but try to read before replying or else don’t bother. Imperialism was about acquiring cheap sources of raw materials and labour as well as new markets for finished products. Corporate led globalization is about acquiring cheap sources of raw materials and labour as well as new markets for finished products. The problem is in trying to ensure economic globalization is “ethical” as the Belgian PM put it.
Unless you’ve been living in a 1950’s sit com for the last few years you’d realise that more and more people are not bothering to vote anymore. Why’s that then? What percentage of the electorate voted in the US presidential election? 50%? Even allowing for the level of illiteracy, why’s that then? Where’s the cynicism, disenfranchisement and apathy comng from? A while ago, I was talking to a conservative journalist who writes for business magazines who said Blair’s election victory was good news because it meant socialism was finally dead. There’s Thatcher’s TINA principle in operation.
Albert Einstein wrote an essay which might explain why many people are not bothering to vote and at the same time many others are organizing mass demonstrations, working at local level and attempting to draw attention to corporate abuses at home and abroad.
“Man’s position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, television). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.“
Einstein may have come out with some gibberish like the theory of relativity but he's spot on here.
I fail to see the point of quoting Wilde out of context. I assume you’re aware that he actually classed himself as an anarchist.
On the subject of BND, the real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects.
How are the products and resources we consume actually produced?
What are the impacts of that process of production on the environment, society, on individuals?
What are the impacts of certain forms of consumption on the environment, on society, on individuals?
Which factors influence our choices of consumption?
Which factors influence how and why things are produced or not?
What is a necessity and what is a luxury?
How do demands on items affect the requirements placed upon the environment?
How do consumption habits change as societies change?
Businesses and advertising are major engines in promoting the consumption of products so that they may survive. How much of what we consume is influenced by their needs versus our needs?
Also influential is the very culture of today in many countries, as well as the media and the political institutions themselves.
What is the impact on poorer nations and people on the demands of the wealthier nations and people that are able to afford to consume more?
How do material values influence our relationships with other people? What impact does that have on our personal values?
And blah blah blah.0 -
Advertisement
-
why does everyone has to oppose an idea whenever they hear it? it doesnt bite and it surely wont take your job away. it might seem a bit of a blunt idea - "buy nothing day", its impossible! i'll buy a newspaper today, maybe some take away and definitely a bunch of pints tonight. i can not 'not buy' anything today as its been etched into my head already.
when i think of BND, i tell myself it's really called "think before you buy day" cause of the consequences that arise when you buy certain products. as Von just mentioned, they all have effects and patterns that affect the environment, society and individuals.
we dont live in a perfect world and the tv calls us consumers instead of citizens. nobody is telling you not to buy anything today, nobody likes being ordered around, especially by a non profit organisation like adbusters.
so before you buy that jumper from a swanky shop today, look on the label and see where it was made. now take an estimate on how many fingers the children that made the jumper have lost in order for you to wear that jumper.
"I'm just a another consumer, and i like consuming" - flipper02 (a forum statement)
adnans0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
To support Dadakopf (yes I know!)
I'd have to say its an interesting idea.
I think people here are *wilfully* misunderstanding the idea.
The idea is NOT that we would all be happier if we just stopped buying sh|t. That has been impossible since the day the cavemen invented three-way barter with tokens.
But you have to stop and think: Do I *really* need that Ikea lamp, the ying-yang designer table, the cornfed baby veal steak.
How much of the stuff we buy do we REALLY need. And I dont mean need to survive, I mean need in ANY sense, even just for a comfort purchase.
I'll give you an example:
I dont drive. I dont have a car. I get along just fine, though my life is a little tougher when traveling places I wouldnt normally go.
I take mass transport everywhere, and taxis when there isnt a bus/train etc.
I do this for lots of reasons, I dont like stress, I dont see cars as economically worthwhile but also because they are a big reason for the destruction of the planet. How many times has the middle east been a problem or flashpoint because of the petrol supplies alone.
The point is not... yay look at me, I'm brill me the point is that LOTS of you have cars and would say "oh I couldnt live without my little jamjar". The truth is, you could you just cant be arsed.I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
I have a question for you all: How many years until the Earth is uninhabitable. How many years do you give mankind? Maximum...
I'd say no more then 100 max.
DeVore.0 -
"these strife-ridden nations have only themselves to blame for the lack of improvement in their predicament"
I don't know how true that is particularly. But at least lets look at it a level back. All humans are pretty much equal - near equal intelligence, near equal strength, weight height and so on. We're all genetically near enough the same. But economically and society some are disadvantaged and in a bad place - ie we don't all start off equally. If you were born into a "strife-ridden" nation would you consider yourself to blame? Even if we were to agree that outside nations don't take any interest in and don't exploit the resources of an undereducated, low influence, low democracy country; is it at all fair to simply say its their fault - these are the same brains as work as your or mine- just they are reacting differently under different conditions. I feel, if we can, we've got to give these people the same starting step as us - its far to easy to say they are to blame for their own setting. Lets say we have a race to a finish line - if someone is injured, or disadvantaged do you see it as fair to not give them any reward because they're disadvantaged. Some may be holding out the begging bowl, ireland style and taking everything they get - but I do think that the majority have never been given a chance - they're more usefull that way. I dunno, capitalism is great in that though everyone may not start equal, everyone does have a chance of improving their situation - but I do suspect that this really isn't the case when the situation of one can be improved to the detriment of another.0 -
Originally posted by DadaKopf
Aw Jesus, I couldn't even be bothered responding to that. Get a clue will you?
Man, that's not up to your usual high standard Dadakopf.
And so, I respond thusly:
I know you are but what am I!!!0 -
And blah blah blah.
Now now Von, there's no need to get unpleasant...why not simply accept that there's a different way of looking at things hmm?
You choose not to mention corruption in say, former soviet bloc countries
A very deliberate omission- the majority of these nations are working hard to tackle these problems from within- their electorates are far more committed, politically active, and there are organs for affecting change within these nations far more easily. Also, they have great incentives- the common market, and NATO. For a nation to be accepted for membership, it cannot, in all fairness, be riddled with corruption to the extent of which we are discussing. Regional development through the use of such incentives simply isn't taking place in Africa, no nation's really tried to step up to the plate and have a go.
As far as western support for dictatorship goes, that has absolutely nothing to do with our system of government, it was a function of the manner in which the Cold War was fought. We could all be living in libretarian anarchy, and such exploitation would still occur. The Soviet Union was hardly lacking in their support of communist dictators- this is to do with human nature, not our form of government, as bonkey points out. I agree it was despicable on the part of all involved, but I refuse to acknowledge that "corporate culture", "globalization" or our system of government (none of which coincides with OPS support by the Soviet Union) is to blame.
The seemingly unstoppable trend of globalization and cooperation between the US and Europe in the 19th century gave rise to an equally powerful backlash, brought about by the confluence of rising global income inequalities and political instability that played a role in sparking the first world war. Another wave of globalization occurred during the 1920s, only to be brought to an abrupt end by the Depression and more war.
I know illiteracy is rife in America (According to a recent US government report, The State of Literacy in America, over 90 million US adults, nearly one out of two, are functionally illiterate or near illiterate) but try to read before replying or else don’t bother.
Again, there's no need to heckle or hector- it adds zilch to your already shaky argument. You point out that your statement reflects that globalization/income inequality played a role in sparking the first world war. Perhaps you misunderstand me- I don't think it played any role whatsoever. Economies were practically nationalized, the concept of international trade was nowhere near as open as today. Furthermore, I doubt a single (credible) modern european historian would cite "globalization" or "income inequality" as a cause of the First World war. Such arguments were never even mentioned in western governments at the time, the war happened because of a complex intermeshing of political alliances that were compelled to act when regional imperialism in the Balkans became to hot to handle. Not because the rich were getting richer and the poor becoming more destitute. Get your facts straight.
Unless you’ve been living in a 1950’s sit com for the last few years you’d realise that more and more people are not bothering to vote anymore. Why’s that then? What percentage of the electorate voted in the US presidential election? 50%? Even allowing for the level of illiteracy, why’s that then? Where’s the cynicism, disenfranchisement and apathy comng from?
The apathy mainly stems from an amalgamation of views across parties in many nations, especially Britain and the United States. We saw this at the last presidential election- the reason so many stayed at home is that both candidates had little to offer policy-wise that was substantiall different from his opponent. I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I disagree that taking to the streets helps anything. Party reform and internal discussion are the meaningful ways forward, not marching up and down Capitol hill with a banner in both hands.
As I said before- if you feel there's no alternative, get off your ar$e and go and create one. There's no law against starting a party with meaningful policies, nor one to prevent you from petitioning for change within a party. If you want policy change, then campaign for it through legitimate political process. Unless you're lazy/filled with apathy of course. In which case, feel free to continue demonstrating and proclaiming "there is no alternative"I fail to see the point of quoting Wilde out of context. I assume you’re aware that he actually classed himself as an anarchist.
What's your point? He also classed himself as a Whig, a Tory and a liberal at various stages in his life...and his political viewpoint is irrelevant in the context of the quotation. The point he makes very astutely, is that it is very easy to occupy the moral high ground when you aren't in a position to take risks, make tough decisions, make mistakes, and being branded an idiot for making them. Whenever the left has had opportunities in power in the West, they've always squandered them because of a failure to make tough decisions that needed to be made to ensure stability. TINA is simply a form of apathy propagated by the left to make up for their own failings in power, pretty pathetic, really.
As for Einstein's essay, I agree in principle with some of what he says, especially the need to control how private capital affects mainstream political decisions. I reject his message however, that humanity is deteriorating because of the creation of economies of scale. EOS have brought unimaginable standards of prosperity to the western world, and the productivity of such economies would be impossible to sustain in the absence of small business, creative and entrepreneurial thinking, and a stable government system in which these may function. As such, that particular statement by Einstein turns out to be totally false. As for the notion that capital wealth is entirely concentrated in the hands of a few individuals...so what? There lies the function of government- the redistribution of wealth. Those with a greater proportion of wealth are taxed more, and the government redistributes wealth through society as it sees fit. Without the goals of prosperity and affluence, what would drive us to succeed in the modern world? Succor for our fellow man? Please...
Returning to the main topic, BND, I still fail to see how its ideas are either noble or deserving of merit. Evaluating need before greed, and whether or not my quality of life can be improved by a purchase, are considerations I employ every day. I suspect most consumers do the same- I doubt that they need a special day to remind them they should consider the neccessity of their purchases.
I also reject the idea that we consider the base necessity of purchases we make. If that were the case, a roof over our heads, sustenance and social interaction are all that we need. Let's put this in perspective- how many of you who've posted here actually need your computers? It might be central to your work, but is there really any need for it if you don't use it that much in your work? Following the reasoning through, there is no pressing need for us to buy computers, it can be argued that they waste scarce economic resources, hurt the third world and depress employment spending. But if that's your argument, why don't we all just go back to living in trees and flinging our $hit at each other? After all, we don't *need* electricity, running water, production facilities, or even paper to survive do we? The reason we have progressed is our species' inherent ambition and drive to improve the quality of life. Convenience, amenity and consumption all inherently improve the quality of life- all of a sudden this is bad? I wholeheartedly disagree. No one's forcing you to buy that Ikea lamp, the koi pond, or the *shudder* Brittney Spears CD. But that should be your decision, and if you decide to part with your hard-earned money to make that purchase, then it's your decision. I personally would buy none of these things, I see no need for them. As such, BND would have little if no effect on my consumer behavior. And I doubt that people who would make those inane purchases would think twice because it happens to be "Buy Nothing Day".
Which factors influence how and why things are produced or not?
We call it supply and demand- if there is a demand for a good in the economy, then someone will supply it. People want, people have the choice to get. Sounds good to me.
Occy0 -
Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
The apathy mainly stems from an amalgamation of views across parties in many nations, especially Britain and the United States. We saw this at the last presidential election- the reason so many stayed at home is that both candidates had little to offer policy-wise that was substantiall different from his opponent.I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I disagree that taking to the streets helps anything. Party reform and internal discussion are the meaningful ways forward, not marching up and down Capitol hill with a banner in both hands.As I said before- if you feel there's no alternative, get off your ar$e and go and create one. There's no law against starting a party with meaningful policies, nor one to prevent you from petitioning for change within a party. If you want policy change, then campaign for it through legitimate political process. Unless you're lazy/filled with apathy of course. In which case, feel free to continue demonstrating and proclaiming "there is no alternative"What's your point? He also classed himself as a Whig, a Tory and a liberal at various stages in his life...and his political viewpoint is irrelevant in the context of the quotation. The point he makes very astutely, is that it is very easy to occupy the moral high ground when you aren't in a position to take risks, make tough decisions, make mistakes, and being branded an idiot for making them.
“What is said by great employers of labor against agitators is unquestionably true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so abundantly necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilization.” – Oscar WildeWhenever the left has had opportunities in power in the West, they've always squandered them because of a failure to make tough decisions that needed to be made to ensure stability. TINA is simply a form of apathy propagated by the left to make up for their own failings in power, pretty pathetic, really.As for Einstein's essay, I agree in principle with some of what he says, especially the need to control how private capital affects mainstream political decisions. I reject his message however, that humanity is deteriorating because of the creation of economies of scale.As for the notion that capital wealth is entirely concentrated in the hands of a few individuals...so what?We call it supply and demand- if there is a demand for a good in the economy, then someone will supply it. People want, people have the choice to get. Sounds good to me.0 -
Just to clarify:By Occy:
Perhaps you misunderstand me- I don't think it played any role whatsoever. Economies were practically nationalized, the concept of international trade was nowhere near as open as today. Furthermore, I doubt a single (credible) modern european historian would cite "globalization" or "income inequality" as a cause of the First World war
Occy, international trade in the nineteenth and early twentieth century was notoriously free. I remember reading a very informative article in the New York Times which vividly described the emerging global economy in the mid to late nineteenth century. It was exacerbated not just by a large merchant class but of huge business tycoons capable of transporting huge amounts of produce very rapidly. The level of free trade (which I expect was based on progressivist libertarian economics) was much, much freer than the complex systems of tarriffs and protections we have in place today. However, while globalisation has at least veered away from colonialism (or has at least masked its outward connections to it), colonialism itself was intrinsic to the development of the early global economy. It was colonialism which mostly contributed to the conditions of WWI and as such, 'globalisation' in the broadest sense is intimately connected. What we have today is a kind of mutation of this early form of world economy.
I wouldn't consider 'income inequality' as a cause of WWI but certainly it existed at the time and the war certainly plastered over those social cracks which were beginning to show themselves in the 1910s. It's possible to consider, though, that terminology has changed - perhaps 'income inequality' was/is termed as something else.
'Colonialism' is the used term for explaining much of WWI's origins. Isn't that just another word for an earlier form of globalisation?
I know this is directed at Occy and, God help me, I think you should get your fact straight about this. I really think a decent appraisal of the origins of the system we have today are neccessary if any strategy is to be developed. Misinformation like this helps no-one.0
Advertisement