Just because I post a few websites up with ‘rightist’ views that less rightist than what Bush wants to do to the world, doesn’t mean I support the right. I would be in love with the likes of Son of a Bush if I was RW. If I was RW you think I would read chomsky or pilger? I support neither the right or left.
I don’t vote. I will never vote again, it is a fallacy.
Some countries I think, democracy would be a waste of time. With the majority in any country, whoever is in power there will be no change. There will always be poor in China, DC, Paris, Cape Town, etc. Most of the world don’t care who is in power of their country as long as they can get food on their table and live a carefree life.
It is the same with terrorsim, almost all people in Iran for example have no interest in it and want to get food on their tables, look after their children and families.
So-called democracy is a joke. Look at the last US elections it was George Gore or Al Bush. Who decided that they should stand for election, the people didn’t, They were supported by big business to support their needs and not the peoples.
Either way the things big business wants to put through will get through. So it is almost like a dictatorship anyway, except the faces change at least every 8 years (in the US). The public think that they are having a say but really the same people behind the scenes are getting the tax cuts and making a fortune from the likes of enron, oil deals, arms deals etc
I don’t know what an alternative model would be, and there will be no alternative in our lifetime.
But it always makes me laugh when wetsern governments claim to support (some) democracy and are against (some) dictatorships.
Chile is a prime exapmple.
That supports the fallacy of politics. It is all about interests - usually business intersts.
And the fact that Cuba is an evil communist enemy and communist Vietnam are now friends for business. That says it all.
[quote=“cake”]Either way the things big business wants to put through will get through. So it is almost like a dictatorship anyway…That supports the fallacy of politics.[/quote] I (think) I remember you are from the UK. Was Thatcher vs Foot not a real choice? You are cynical for cynicsim’s sake. Too bored. Too nihilistic. You have nothing much to give, do you?
[quote=“cake”]Just because I post a few websites up with ‘rightist’ views doesn’t mean I support the right.[/quote] But you are uncritical of them - what are we to suppose, since you do not have any belief system of your own that you are able to articulate?
[quote=“cake”]That supports the fallacy of politics. It is all about interests - usually business intersts.[/quote] How then, Fruity, do you explain that most government expenditure is devoted to redistributive payments from the young to the old and from the rich to the poor?
So why does the US support Israel now? Anyone who thinks there will be an arab massacre of jews is living in the land of nod. Sharon is one of the most dangerous men in the middle east, he wouldn’t think twice about nuking an arab country if there was a need.
I don’t remember Egypt’s desire to destroy Israel because I wasn’t born then, but I am aware of it.
Well if I am appalled with depleted uranium being dropped on innocent people, the Israeli terrorism from the 1940s, to the present and any other form of murder I would be a hypocrite if I said the actions of some are just and others are not. So you can’t use that one.
But you support the second so called war on some terror which includes in itself murder and I don’t see you condemning the actions of leaders who use violence. Or maybe you think it is one rule for one and one rule for another.
Conspiracy mill BBC, I don’t think so - they are under the guise of whitehall - who are pushing (with the assistance of the BBC) for an invasion of Iraq.
I am talking modern Politics.
The reason why Labour never gained power through the 80s was because their views where dated concerning business for one.
They saw there was a need for change, and they had to become more right wing. So what happens they become almost a clone of what thatcher stood for… Then they gained power, so in the UK there is basically no choice. It is sad. But what is boring is this current state of affairs. Modern politics as a result has become too safe.
nihilistic maybe, but there are alternatives and when I find one that will be beneficial and fair, I will support it. So maybe there is hope for me afterall and for politics?
[quote=“cake”]I don’t vote… it is a fallacy.[/quote] I assume, like your hero, you are an anarchist - how does that work? How does an anarchist community defend itself? How does it resolve social cost (pollution)? How does it prevent capitalism without restraining individual freedoms? How does it restrain individual freedoms without collective force, i.e., an army?
[quote=“cake”]So why does the US support Israel now? Anyone who thinks there will be an arab massacre of jews is living in the land of nod.[/quote] But largely because of US support.
I never said I am an anarchist? There are alternative forms out there and like I said when I find one, I will support it and I have yet to find one.
And I don’t have heroes.
[quote=“cake”]The reason why Labour never gained power through the 80s was because their views where dated concerning business for one.[/quote] Before, you implied that business interests were forced on the electorate by political parties. Now you suggest that business interests were forced on the political parties by the electorate. Which is it?
[quote=“cake”]there are alternatives and when I find one that will be beneficial and fair, I will support it.[/quote] What does “beneficial and fair” mean to you - you don’t know. You have a list of bad things people did to others. You flail for something to believe in, but cannot express yourself.
[quote=“cake”]I don’t see you condemning the actions of leaders who use violence. Or maybe you think it is one rule for one and one rule for another.[/quote] Nor would I condemn them. You seem to think that any violence is wrong. I do not. I think it is the same for all. You, however, have a knee-jerk blame of the West, which is simplistic and unbalanced.
There was a swift change in politics in the UK in the 90s. The system pre 92 was different to what it is now. Pre 92 Labour were a socialist party, now they are virtually a consevative party.
Now if you can get the support of business in London, you are onto a winner. This is probably the case with the media too. Murdoch has supported Labour during the last two elections and the fact that Murdoch virtually has a monolpoly on the press in the UK will undoubtedly help any party that has his support.
Labour always knew they could count on their traditional voters, who find thatcherism abhorrent, but because thatcher changed the boundries with voting, Labour needed the (former) conservative votes to gain power.
Most people in the UK will not vote conservative, even when they get into power. It is due to the boundries and number of voters in that area. For example a traditional labour seat may have 20,000 constituents, a safe conservative seat, maybe 8000 constituents, hence the majority won’t vote conservative. And the only way to gain power was to appeal to the likes of the 8000 constituents who would usually vote conservative.
20 years ago it was different, thatcherism changed everything.
Basically beneficail concerning human rights and a fair system where there is no obscenity.
Tax cuts for the extremely rich is obscene, and the majority poor are stung with stealth taxes to cover for the tax cuts of the rich.
Who do you support by the way?
Usually the west and throughout recent history the west and the east have been behind a majority of grief throughout the world, whether openly supporting or selling arms.
Just think of British Imperialism, spread of communism.
[quote=“cake”]Labour needed the (former) conservative votes to gain power.[/quote] …does not explain why they now have policies that even Thatcher could only dream of. Once in power, why not do what you believe in? Because their BELIEFS changed (and their popularity soared).
[quote=“cake”]Who do you support by the way?[/quote] Broadly, I support free trade, the greatest possible individual freedom, government non-intereference in economics, except for social cost issues and wealth redistribution, but these should be “supervised” by democracy. If you want a label, perhaps: “Manchester Liberalism.”
Tradional labour voters have woken up, many others who sway from party to party are seeing the light. They see the blair and his cronies as a bunch of lairs.
It was clever politics but I never fell for it once.
Popularity - with the last election the turn out was abbismal. This is because the people see no alternative. (just like the US) Maybe an alternative in the UK could come from the Liberal democrats, but they have leadership problems.
If you said to a tradional conservative voter 20 years ago you will one day vote labour he would have looked at you like you were insane and would have died before he would have voted for them.
[quote=“cake”]thatcher changed the boundries with voting, Labour needed the (former) conservative votes to gain power[/quote] Ooouch! Bad facts, Fruitcake. Major had same-ish % (I originally thought higher%) as 1987 Thatcher. But got much fewer seats. Boundary changes favoured labour.
[quote=“cake”]Tradional labour voters have woken up…,They see the blair and his cronies as a bunch of lairs…It was clever politics but I never fell for it once.[/quote] I know who you are, now. Your ideology collapsed with the Berlin wall. Now, you have nothing but bitterness.
Major and thatcher were the same party. If boundry changes favoured labour, why the hell would thatcher want to introduce them? It would be political suicide