Not clear here. Are politicians exempted from this 1%, or part of them. Financially they are part, as with their financial influence as major spenders. If this is the case, we should de-centralise everything down to the local level, if not, we should have our (sometimes- Greece, Italy) elected politicians nationalise whatever they like.

Which is it?

The final report of the Independent Commission on Banking published in September commented:

There are long-standing competition issues in UK retail banking. On the supply side, core markets are concentrated – the largest four banks account for 77% of personal current accounts and 85% of SME current accounts.
http://bankingcommission.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ICB-Final-Report.pdf

The competition policy institutions in Britain have been reporting that for years and precious little has been done about it. The EU Commission has done the most by ordering Lloyds Bank to sell 632 branches and £36bn of deposits after the merger between Lloyds and HBOS, which puts the combined banks into a dominant market position with 30pc of domestic current accounts. Even after divestitures, the combined banks will still have 25pc of domestic current accounts.

Sounds like you’re asking for the Big Society!

“Sounds like you’re asking for the Big Society!”

It’s sad about Fred but no one had volunteered to cover that day.

This is exactly right.

I think rather than dream up a million competing utopias “come the glorious day” etc., people should focus on destroying the evil that does exist.

Remove vested power interests – whether capital, corporations, unions (as currently conceived), professional politicians, armies, the police, the state itself – and then build something else in a spirit of genuine democracy.

“and then build something else in a spirit of genuine democracy.”

The trouble with that is that Berlusconi kept getting elected in a spirit of democracy with disastrous consequences for Italy and no one can deny that Netanyahu has a democratic mandate as PM of Israel.

In pre-war Germany, the Nazis won large majorities in plebiscites in November 1933 and August 1934 which raises fundamental issues about the implications of majority voting to end democracy.

Free-market capitalism is the only game in town, and the only discussion worth having is about how and to what extent we regulate it. Apart from that, there is no alternative.

@6 – you don’t think that Berlusconi’s media interests and several billion dollar personal fortune count as “vested interests” then?

Western democracy as currently realised is a joke; I don’t see any reason why it, along with everything else that’s rotten, shouldn’t be utterly destroyed. I doubt many would miss it!

@8: ‘I doubt many would miss it!’

You’d be the first to whinge if the current order collapsed. Your adolescent nihilism suggests you need psychiatric help.

@7: “Free-market capitalism is the only game in town, and the only discussion worth having is about how and to what extent we regulate it. ”

If we tighten the regulation of markets then, by definition, we won’t have free-market capitalism, will we?

Besides, does anyone seriously suppose that the last government shouldn’t have put taxpayers’ money into bailing out Northern Rock, the RBS and the Lloyds-HBOS banks to prevent those banks from collapsing during the financial crisis?

Most commentators in retrospect applaud the decision of the Heath government to take Rolls Royce into public ownership in 1971 to save that company from collapsing. After being turned around and then privatised in 1988, Rolls Royce Aeroengines is now one of the few leading global producers of jet engines for airliners.

In America, the early techncial and market risks of producing microprocessors were underwritten by DOD spending and spending for the space programme.

Free-market capitalism owes more to mythology than reality – on the evidence from history.

7
We’ve been trying to figure out how to regulate capitalism for decades, it really doesn’t work because the free-market is about the winner taking it all. So far the state has merely disallowed total monopoly and created conditions which are condusive for capitalism to work in the interests of owners,the way it is supposed to do.
The notion that the majority can take control over the few, who own the means of production, is naive to the extreme, those who own the means of survival will always have the power.

I think a lot of people here need to get into their heads that utterly destroying bad things isn’t always the right course of action.

Any scenario in which the current social order is utterly destroyed also involves an increase of millions in the number of people around the world starving to death, at least in the short term.

If you think that these people dying is a good idea then you had better have a good story to tell about why the trade-off is worth it. I haven’t seen one yet.

Alternatively you could stop talking about vague social scientific abstractions and start doing real concrete things to improve other peoples’ lives in the present. For people on this blog I would venture that all of these most likely beat occupontification: give to charity, study until you know how to make drugs that cure the worst diseases, campaign on specific goal-oriented issues like the nhs bill or welfare reform, make friends with people in elites and try to influence their opinions.

@9 – “You’d be the first to whinge if the current order collapsed. Your adolescent nihilism suggests you need psychiatric help.”

In correlating a challenge to the status quo with mental illness and describing free market capitalism as “the only game in town” you appear to be an establishment tool – good for you.

Thankfully there are tens, hundreds of thousands currently involved in various expressions of “resistance” who *can* see a future beyond the continuation of the status quo.

@7 – Just as there were no alternatives to Jim Crow, the Gold Standard, to…

Rubbish. You’re trying to define the debate before it occurs. And of course you’re a vicious troll who as typical for the hard right tells anyone who dare disagree with your highly twisted, 1%er, view of reality is mentally ill. That’s you, right there.

@12 – And the continuation of this system in this country is going to have increasing numbers of people in THIS country starve and freeze over the winters. It’s broken. We need to discuss the transition to a new system.

Bob b @ 10: freedom admits of degree. You can’t have free markets without some regulation

@ 11: more people are more healthy and wealthy than ever before in human history, and more people are being lifted out of poverty faster than ever before – and all because capitalism delivers the goods!

TG @ 12: well said. People who crave the downfall of capitalism are either fools or psychopaths.

@14 I don’t think it’s at all obvious that the best way to stop people freezing and starving in Britain is to discuss alternative systems of government.

@13: challenging the status quo is not a sign of mental illness, but your nihilism is!

@16 – instead you advise those seeking change to “make friends with people in elites and try to influence their opinions”.

I’m sure that will be effective…

15
No-one disagrees about the quality of life brought about by capitalism, Marx also waxed lyrical about it, but, it is starting to fail miserably even with central states doing their utmost to make it work.
The feudal system worked for years and so did the hunter/gatherer societies (we are all decendants of both) but eventually systems become outdated.
Denial of the evidence may not fall into the category of psychopathology, but it is incredibly foolish nonetheless.

@17 – try Foucault’s ‘Madness and Civilization’.

@16 – Right, the mentally ill axe again. Never mind that it’s the people wielding it who need a sanity check, rather than the people they’re defaming.

You’re here simply to disrupt the conversation, not to have one. You’re trolling because you’re afraid of change, the typical Little Englander mindset.

@16 – So what is it then? To continue with a system which is clearly failing? That’s the ConDem answer, perhaps you would like to look up Einstein’s satirical comment on insanity?

I find it challenging to square the charge of “little Englander mindset” with London residents when 40pc were born abroad or with Britain’s pioneering industrial revolution. As Disraeli wrote in 1847: London is the modern Babylon.

Try Nobel laureate Paul Krugman: Peddling Prosperity (Norton, 1994) p.258:

“19th century trade was accompanied by massive international capital movements, which were much larger relative to the size of the world economy than anything seen since WWI: in a typical year in the late 19th century, Britain invested about 40 per cent of its savings overseas.”

As for capitalism and poverty, we have this timely reminder from Hamish McRae writing in the Indy:

Also, attacking the world financial system is to ignore that, for all its imperfections, it lifts huge numbers of people out of poverty every year, particularly in China and India but also in Latin America and Africa. Thanks to this flawed system the past 20 years have seen the greatest burst of prosperity the world has ever known. [26 October 2011]
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-europes-leaders-first-need-to-buy-themselves-time-2375813.html

@7 theophrastus: Free-market capitalism is the only game in town, and the only discussion worth having is about how and to what extent we regulate it.

The fist thing we need to do is reform the banks, and indeed the whole financial services industry, which at present is basically parasitic on the real economy and the 99%.

Because of limited liability, deposit guarantees by the state and bankers’ bonuses, risk has been nationalised but profit privatised. This must end.

But the banks aren’t the only part of the fiinancial services industry that rips people off. Pension funds charge excessive charges, and motor insurance companies charge ever-rising premiums despite motoring being safer than it ever was. These excesses must also be stopped.

@8: Western democracy as currently realised is a joke; I don’t see any reason why it, along with everything else that’s rotten, shouldn’t be utterly destroyed. I doubt many would miss it!

That depends entirely on what it is replaced with.

@23 Bob B: Also, attacking the world financial system is to ignore that, for all its imperfections, it lifts huge numbers of people out of poverty every year, particularly in China and India but also in Latin America and Africa.

No, it’s the real economy — the one that makes things — that has lifted people out of poverty.

While we obviously do need a finanical system, the one we’ve got now creates negative wealth, in the UK at least: outstanding bank bailouts are £456 billion (£7300 per person), and the cumulative loss of production due to the bankers’ recession is about another trillion quid on top of that. Every person in the UK is, on averagte, worse off by over £20,000 due to the greed and incompetence of the bankers.

@25 Phil: “That depends entirely on what it is replaced with.”

A universal Caliphate, anyone, or that inevitable “social revolution” Marx wrote about while living in Soho, London, as an asylum seeker having been hounded out of mainland Europe in 1848? Try that Blue Plaque posted on the Quo Vadis restaurant in Dean St, Soho:
http://www.quovadissoho.co.uk/quo-vadis-club

As the Independent Commission of Banking recommended, the banking system is certainly in need of reform. Even some bankers have come to recognise that.

In the FT recently, Bob Diamond, head of Barclays Bank, was reported as saying in a BBC Today interview on 4 November that the Banks must accept responsibility for what went wrong. In the interview – which I listened to – he repeatedly said that banks must work towards a situation where banks could be allowed to fail without taxpayer support and without causing systemic instability if they did fail:

The system as it stands is built on the assumption that only certain people can understand how it works. So, perhaps a good place to start would be to simplify the system, make it more accessible to the world at large. I mean, do we really need so many different ways of buying and selling products and services? We seemed to be able to buy all the things we needed before the advent of the global market. The only advantage I can see with the current system is that it’s easier and faster to make, distribute and purchase the things we want. The problem with the system seems to be the overwhelming and confusing array of choices, supposedly for our benefit, yet the people who seem to benefit the most from this glut of options, are the people who create them. Charge for this, that and the other, make it appear that you’re giving the punters the best possible deal, but always making sure that the best deals are available to a select few. Simplification, taking the mystery out of how it all works, thereby reducing the power of the supposed experts and giving the majority the opportunity to really have a straight choice when deciding what they want, and what they need, rather than wading through the maze of options or, as is often the case, taking the first option that seems to be what you’re after

“….. give to charity ….. make friends with people in elites and try to influence their opinions”

Lol, give away even more of your hard earned money to the elites who run the charity scams.

And as for making friends with them, yes, I can really imagine me and the people on our estate being welcome in Chipping Norton, Thurlestone, Belgravia and all those other places they spend so heavily to keep us out of.

You really are taking the piss aren’t you.

“And the continuation of this system in this country is going to have increasing numbers of people in THIS country starve and freeze over the winters. It’s broken. We need to discuss the transition to a new system.”

No your broke. When told to think ” out side of the box ” when it comes to addressing your financial situation, you respond along the lines of ” what? out side of the box? you mean force the people who wont pay me, to pay me??”

You are utterly incapable of creative thought never mind the creation of something, you sit with hundreds of millions of consumers at your finger tips, a system of communication and distribution that the largest corporations could have only of dreamed of several decades ago, yet day in day out you waste your time on blogs telling the world how poor you are and how broke it all is …YOU aren’t the person to be telling any one what’s broke and what’s not.

30
So who exactly is the person/people to tell us the system is broke?

“So who exactly is the person/people to tell us the system is broke?”

If the system was broke – A – there would be no time to blog or protest about it, we”d all be a lot more interested in the location of the next meal – B – looking to another for the answers would leave sufficient time for your demise.

The system has done a hell of a lot of good for a lot of people, it has problems that need to be addressed yet even in these times, what we call a “crisis” opportunities to better your self and situation are still left right and center.

Focus there.

@32 – Of course, if something is broken then automatically everyone is plunged into instant poverty.

…

Wait, no, things don’t happen that fast. We can SEE the poverty approaching. If we don’t do something then yes, vast numbers of people are going to plunged into desperate poverty.

And what? You’re saying that anything but self-sufficiency kills you? Er…your focus is denial.

This system has benefited the 1%, sure. There are no jobs, however, THANKS to austerity, and your self-righteous whittering is offensive. Other countries like Germany managed to keep jobs up via government intervention (short-time working, partially government funded), but the UK response is to fire people.

And yes, tell me how I can force companies which have gone bankrupt to pay me as a contractor. Well, waiting. TICK TOCK.

…You’re simply a rude 1%er.

People talk a lot about the challenge of creating alternatives to the current system, but really I think it’s unnecessary. The answers are already there if only people would cast their minds back to the history of the socialist movement. Before the First World War there was a mass movement in Europe calling for the creation of a society based on social ownership, liberty and democracy. We’re often told that a lot has changed since then, but really, nothing’s changed. Without socialism, we’ll never have genuine democracy or freedom, much less put an end to “anarchy in production”. Maybe we’re a bit more aware of the difficulties of socialist construction, but we still live under capitalism and the solutions to the problems that creates are the same as they ever were.

I absolutely understand the flaws in the system you’re trying to draw attention to, and that our current democracy is not perfect.

But: in what sense is a very small handful of people in tents a more “real” democracy? As far as I can see, it’s the very opposite of democracy – a tiny group trying to exert disproportionate influence.

Of course, if something is broken then automatically everyone is plunged into instant poverty.”

Spoiled bratt of the first world, you don’t know the meaning of broken.

“Wait, no, things don’t happen that fast. We can SEE the poverty approaching”

Millions wake up and head off to work every day, hundreds of thousands of business owners open there doors each and every morning, trillions of currency units exchange hands every single day..you did not do well in the best of times, why are you blaming your issues on the coming bad times?

“And what? You’re saying that anything but self-sufficiency kills you? Er…your focus is denial.”

My focus is the day to day health and well being of my loved ones, your focus is why there were poor in the 70s, why there were poor in the 80s, 90s, why you are poor now, why you will be poor in ten years to come..why do you not focus on changing it, for you?

“And yes, tell me how I can force companies which have gone bankrupt to pay me as a contractor. Well, waiting. TICK TOCK.”

Your quick enough to scream that the banks should not be bailed out for there bad investments, yet when you make an investment of time and energy and it turns sour, you use that as an anchor as to why your a failure and demand you be compensated…

“This system has benefited the 1%, sure. There are no jobs…”

Move to Germany?

“…You’re simply a rude 1%er.”

Your definition of a “1%er” is any one doing well enough to not have to worry…

Spoiled brat? No, I’m among the lowest earners in this country, thanks to Corporatist-bought laws.

You’re blaming me for seeing the issues. You’re refusing to admit that real issues exist. That everything will be fine, because YOU’RE fine, and everyone poor is sub-human.

“My focus is the day to day health and well being of my loved ones,”

Absolutely. No empathy on a wider scale, and a complete willingness to behave in a sociopathic fashion.

“yet when you make an investment of time and energy and it turns sour, you use that as an anchor as to why your a failure and demand you be compensated…”

No, I have a contract saying I’ll be paid. In multiple cases, I have not been due to absolutely no fault of my own. You’re arguing that working for anything less than a multinational is irrational. Well done! Much smaller pool of rational jobs then, directly contradicting your other arguments.

“Move to Germany?”

That’s called “immigration”, which the right strongly oppose, if you hadn’t noticed.

And if you’re well off enough not to worry, you’re WELL into the 1% these days.

@35 – So no protest not involving the majority of people in the country is valid? Oh please.

“Spoiled brat? No, I’m among the lowest earners in this country, thanks to Corporatist-bought laws”

“Absolutely. No empathy on a wider scale”

Yea that’s right fuck the third world, the starvation,the preventable diseases, the absence of even running water in the home,the complete lawlessness – screw all that because YOU’RE fine yet want more, and its not being Given to you, that’s all that counts. So don’t be great-full for what you have or winning the birth lottery, instead look to those who have more and HATE them.Your, YOU are a low wage earner! Its someone else’s FAULT.

“No, I have a contract saying I’ll be paid.”

It happens, you cant un-happen it, move on.

“That’s called “immigration”, which the right strongly oppose, if you hadn’t noticed.”

I do not care what its called and who opposes it, if its what will work and make the difference to you, do it!

“And if you’re well off enough not to worry, you’re WELL into the 1% these days.”

I think we are a bit larger than 1% now, the west has quite a few people you know…

Leon; not what I said. It’s perfectly reasonable to protest, I just don’t understand why people are trying to label it “real democracy”.

@39 – When I’m *illegally* screwed of pay, darn straight it’s not my fault. You’re making excuses for Corporatism again.

“It happens, you cant un-happen it, move on.”

How? I need money to live on. It’s expensive to live in this country. I’m supposed to…what….put the basic food (~20p a day) on a credit card? I’d have made MORE sitting around on my ass on benefits.

“I do not care what its called and who opposes it”

That’s called hypocrisy, from the right. Also, in fact Germany isn’t the right destination for my particular skills, Canada is. And I’m trying.

“I think we are a bit larger than 1% now, the west has quite a few people you know…”

There are people in this country starving, it’s overwhelming food banks. Tens of thousands, a trickle before the hundreds of thousands next year, are being forced to move away from their homes and jobs. A vast number more are severely restricting their usage of or “voluntarily” disconnecting unaffordable utilities….water, gas, electric.

The “West” has effectively fallen in this country. We can no longer credibly claim first world status. Things have completely broken down for the poor. And all that happens is we get called benefit scum, even when we’re highly skilled workers illegally unpaid.

On the evidence, holistic – or totalitarian, depending on tastes – solutions such as Socialism have a nasty habit of going seriously wrong.

One simple-minded solution to our recognised problems with the banks is to take them into public ownership. Unfortunately, that tends not to work well because the publicly-owned banks become acutely vulnerable to political pressures to put money into popular but loss-making causes. By the time it was privatised in 1988, governments had poured £3.4bn of taxpayers’ money, at 1970/80s prices, into propping up British-Leyland, renamed the Rover Group.

This is not just a parochial British problem. The truly terrifying insight is that France’s largest AND state owned bank, Crédit Lyonnais, could accumulate losses of FFr 100 billion or $17 billion:

In July 1997 finance minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn said that losses from Crédit Lyonnais would likely total Ffr100 billion, or $17 billion. But with the bill for underwriting the CDR still uncertain, other commentators reckoned that the scandal might eventually cost the French taxpayer anything from $20 to $30 billion.
http://www.riskmania.com/pdsdata/CreditLyonnaisCaseStudy-erisk.pdf

At one stage, Crédit Lyonnais owned the MGM studios in Hollywood – I joke not.

I think what we are seeing is that certain parts of the left are returning to their anti-enlightenment roots. Socialism never was a child of the enlightenment in the first place. Socialism and the left are the inheritors of the Puritans, feudalism and Romanticism traditions. The collectivist utopia is essentially a feudal view of society. The only difference from an elite aristocracy lording over us is an appointed nomenclatura will fulfill the same role as the former feudal aristocracy. The regulatory state is the inevitable result. The left and their obsessive desire to regulate can be best understood in the context that they are continuity feudalism. Invalid power exercised over populations through a feudal Lord, is still invalid when it is exercised through the nomenclatura of the local council. Sticking a democratic label on it changes nothing.

Since socialism comes from feudalism, it is no surprise to see elements of the left being anti-rationalist. The rationalist opposed feudalism and some elements of the left are continuity feudalism. See the idealising of the small, local, pastoral and ‘ natural ‘. Much of the British left are anti-capitalist because they are essentially the new feudal conservatives. See the railing against ‘ excess ‘ and haranguing of the poor for smoking and drinking too much and the general distaste for luxury. Classic puritanism.

When it comes down to it the left are incompatible with liberalism. They just do not like the choices that people make when they are left to their own devices. That is why left wing protest does not have a coherent list of demands. There is no coherent thought process there to begin with. It is a list of imagined grievances against liberalism for losing.

“When I’m *illegally* screwed of pay, darn straight it’s not my fault. You’re making excuses for Corporatism again.”

I don’t need to make excuses – Its a nasty word and things happen how ever we must continue.

“How? I need money to live on. It’s expensive to live in this country. I’m supposed to…what….put the basic food (~20p a day) on a credit card? I’d have made MORE sitting around on my ass on benefits”

Yet your not willing to sit on your ass, you just need some options. If I were you, off the top of my head…time would be my best friend. The work is not paying off and in that position I would be a net drain on the state either way – to go on benefits is to free up time, time I would use to learn a high return skill.

It would have to be a skill I could pick up fast and has low entry barriers, I would choose something like foreign exchange trading and spend 10 or so hours per day for around 6 months studying and trading a demo account until I am consistent in my returns, I would then go live with a small account and build enough equity to fund my trading and continue until I have reached my goal of having enough money to live and pay a nice amount of return to the tax man. Etc…….

“That’s called hypocrisy, from the right”

Is it? I don’t really give a dam about the right or the left, neither am I against immigration, balance works and if we all work on finding our own things level out.

” Canada is. And I’m trying”
(Y)

“There are people in this country starving, it’s overwhelming food banks.”

There have always been people on earth who are starving and for the vast majority of history they all died Leon, groups of people on earth to this day face the raw elements of nature and the battle for survival as does every species of wild animal, a fact that has never changed – hence its good to be thankful for this system of comfort, not throw the baby out with the bath water when times within the system get tough..

” And all that happens is we get called benefit scum, even when we’re highly skilled workers illegally unpaid”

Note that word, workers, workers need someone to work for and that some one is a highly skilled employer, the providers of jobs. In the current climate there has been a tsunami of hate from people like you towards any one whose not currently in the same situation as you, the plot has completely been lost, the spot light directed from a tiny number of those who did wrong to just about any one whose successful or works in certain industry’s, I don’t spite the poor and im not “elite” as you often call me, I spite your attitude and despite the obstacles you face, your attitude is the reason you remain poor.

“And within the resistance are born economies and decision-making systems more democratic than any government could ever be.”

More democratic how, exactly? Democracy is not the same as grassroots, or the same as the impression that decisions are being made by “people like us”. I certainly haven’t been asked to vote on anything.

Bluntly – Bollocks.

It’s the right who are looking to back-peddle. Like the Elves of Lord of the Rings, they seek to return their perfect society, which never existed outside their imagination.

“The collectivist utopia is essentially a feudal view of society.”

What rot. The right-wing class-stratified division is that, rather than a society where willingness to participate, from anyone, brings you into the heart of that society. You want rule by dictat, rather than the rule of law.

You’re an elitist who wants to crush the rights of people based on your self-superiority and a longing for the never-existing time when you were unchallenged at the top of the pile. The Tories are no less in favour of the state than the left, they’re just interested in using it as a weapon (including keeping the poor crushed and compliant) rather than establishing something to serve the people.

Your basic premise is garbage, and your post stinks.

The above post was @43.

@44 – You’re making excuses over and over. You’re saying that it’s acceptable for elites to screw people, because they can.

Going onto benefits to learn a skill? Nope, you can’t do that. Studying takes both cash I don’t have and disqualifies you from benefits. Moreover, it would stop me doing the work which DOES come my way!

I don’t have the MONEY to start gambling with as you’re suggesting. It’s the sort of nonsense suggestion from someone who has capital to invest. That position is also parasitic on actual workers, of course, and it’s illegal to do that kind of thing while remaining on benefits (you’re self-employed, it needs to make an immediate profit!).

And because poor people once died in droves, it’s acceptable for you to think it’s fine we’re returning to that time? Your contempt for anyone who hasn’t been born with a silver spoon in their mouth (UK society is largely ossified…) is stunning. It is, in fact, Social Darwinism.

“your attitude is the reason you remain poor”

No, it’s your hard-right, elitist, deliberate manipulation of the system to favour your elite “job creators”, and to keep everyone else in poverty. Disregarding such petty things as the law. Moreover, the elitist scenario you call for is nonsense…people are quite capable of working collectively without an elite lording it over them in a given job. There are many successful mutuals in this country which make a mockery of your argument.

Social Darwinism is the resort of the 1%. “Here, fight over these scraps, and one of you might make it one day (except I’ll stop you if you try)”. It’s also pretty plain you’re a banker or trader…

@ 46. Leon Wolfson

Thanks, Leon. You really need to stop thinking that disagreeing with Leon equals Toryism. Not much difference between conservatives on the left and conservatives on the right as far as I can see. Both seek to use the state to serve vested interests.

@48 – I think that carbon-copying Tory views equals Toryism, strangely enough.

Some LibDems might feel insulted, but bluntly – at this point – screw them.

And given how hard you argue for vested interests, lol

Leon, in all seriousness, from reading your posts on this website I think you have a persecution complex. You always remind us of your circumstances and accuse anyone who isn’t a socialist of hating you because you are poor. I think I also saw you accuse another of hating you for being jewish. You need to get out of the mentality of victimhood – thankfully we still live in a relatively free society where those with the motivation, skills, imagination, ideas, intelligence and dedication can get somewhere whilst only being slightly clobbered for their success by our overbearing State. But I guess it’s precisely those types you abhore and wish to punish for ‘exploiting’ (read providing desired and competitive goods and services) the ’99%’.

As a side note this ’1%’ business strikes me as a very thinly veiled remarketing of ‘let’s squeeze the rich, why do should they have more than me’.

@50 – *I* have a victimhood mentality?

“whilst only being slightly clobbered for their success by our overbearing State.”

No, THAT’S a victimhood mentality.

As a general point, from anecdotal experience I’ve found middle-class socialist-types tend to fall imto two broad categories.

(1) Those who come from wealthy backgrounds and have never had to seriously consider the issue of creating their own wealth – as a result they spend years at university and beyond indulging whims and ‘protesting’ while being bankrolled by mum and dad. Meanwhile the ambitious young adults who actually have to support hemselves get on and find a job, work damned hard and find their earnings quickly pilfered by HMRC.

(2) Bitter failures, often smart or academically inclined who feel they are owed something by the system, and resent all those who they conisder less intelligent than them getting ahead in life. Thus they call for over higher taxes to punish the successful. fe

As a broad point, the 1% are pretty much identical in how they work, the only things which differ are the precise ways in which they seek to pre-emptively crush the competition, which might threaten them, and the precise conspiracy theory which they hold. (Because they always hold one)

Tax isn’t a “punishment”. The Nordic Countries clearly show how it can benefit anyone in society. The vast, vast majority of rich people in the Nordic Countries are at least tolerant, if not actively in favour of the structure of their tax system – and they ARE paying 50% of their actual income.

This type of fear of government which actually works, which actually delivers for all it’s people rather than the privileged few, is far more common in America than it is within the UK, but as you can see from “Big Brother”, it most certainly also exists here.

They’re defending the current system, as it goes down in flames and directly harms several tens of millions, because it defends their current levels of privilege. Never mind the damage caused to others, they’re categorically unable to empathise with people outside their social circles.

” You’re making excuses over and over. You’re saying that it’s acceptable for elites to screw people, because they can.”

Quote the sentence of me saying that.

“Going onto benefits to learn a skill? Nope, you can’t do that. Studying takes both cash I don’t have and disqualifies you from benefits. Moreover, it would stop me doing the work which DOES come my way!”

Ok, continue to do the work that does come your way, that would be the work that you moan consistently about for not providing enough to turn your heating on and keep your head firmly above water – right there, you have made a choice. The choice to remain as you are, the choice to remain poor. As for studying requiring cash, I know people whose studies were limited to public libraries and the internet and they have created successful enterprises from the ground up with minimal starting capital, so please leave that excuse behind.

“I don’t have the MONEY to start gambling with as you’re suggesting. It’s the sort of nonsense suggestion from someone who has capital to invest”

I did not suggest you gamble, being an intelligent worker I assumed you would apply your intelligence to all that you do and that meant trading to a consistent return before going live, low entry barriers being low entry barriers I gave the suggestion with the lowest. Its not my thing these days but I did teach several people who needed something to fall back on and they consistently made 70-100 pound a day using a 15 pound contract.

“That position is also parasitic on actual workers, of course”

Has zero impact on any worker.

“And it’s illegal to do that kind of thing while remaining on benefits (you’re self-employed, it needs to make an immediate profit!)”

Of course and lets use common sense here, you stop the benefits before you start trading and yes you need to make an immediate profit, yet your an intelligent worker and if given the chance to do things you will, its not that things are hard that’s holding you back its Corporatist-bought laws etc.

“And because poor people once died in droves, it’s acceptable for you to think it’s fine we’re returning to that time? Your contempt for anyone who hasn’t been born with a silver spoon in their mouth (UK society is largely ossified…) is stunning. It is, in fact, Social Darwinism”

People died,there once were no rich or poor people, just people,the concept of rich and poor is a fairly new one in the bigger picture and its the system the rich and poor operate in that’s lifted humanity into the technical age and provided all we have now, if you believe we are returning to that time you have a rosy road ahead because reality will deliver ten times greater than you expect.

As for me and my silver spoon I grew up on a council estate and worked my ass off for all I have.

“No, it’s your hard-right, elitist, deliberate manipulation of the system to favour your elite “job creators”

No its you saying ” I will not do that because… I will continue to work in the job that does not provide enough to cover my needs because..” I suggested one thing randomly off the top of my head,there are thousands of ways to make money if you refuse to contemplate them, that’s you making a firm choice, nothing is being manipulated.

“Moreover, the elitist scenario you call for is nonsense…”

I had to double check you were actually responding to me then, “elitist scenario”..which scenario have I called for exactly, explain that one to me..

“people are quite capable of working collectively without an elite lording it over them in a given job”

By lording over them do you mean “employ them”? If that’s the case your quite right, self employment is common, hey I even suggested a line of self employment for you.

“Social Darwinism is the resort of the 1%. “Here, fight over these scraps, and one of you might make it one day (except I’ll stop you if you try)”.

I agree – what the first world has done to the third in the last century (despite the bright efforts of many) is a disgrace.

“It’s also pretty plain you’re a banker or trader…”

Im a shop owner, or as you would describe it – ” I exploit people who need goods”

“The choice to remain as you are, the choice to remain poor”

Really? The choice to do work which legally pays more than enough for me to live on, but I’ve been illegally and repeatedly screwed out of pay for? You’re defending the people who have deliberately and maliciously screwed me out of my contractual pay.

You’re also still assuming I have the interest and aptitude to be a professional gambler and leech. I don’t. My talents run in entirely different directions.

“the concept of rich and poor is a fairly new one in the bigger picture ”

Ahahaha. Conspiracy Theory again!

“I agree – what the first world has done to the third in the last century (despite the bright efforts of many) is a disgrace.”

Then why are you defending the SAME THING being done to people in this country? And right, your type have done it despite my type.

And I don’t believe you. Your first example, the one to hand, was gambling in the markets. And that’s YOUR description. YOUR conspiracy theory.

“You’re defending the people who have deliberately and maliciously screwed me out of my contractual pay.”

I don’t defend them – I say shit happens – Its cost you enough without months-years of hatred and limiting perceptions on top.

“You’re also still assuming I have the interest and aptitude to be a professional gambler and leech. I don’t. My talents run in entirely different directions.”

I did not suggest you be either – some times we have to put talents, wants and desires to one side and do what needs to be done in the immediate moment to survive, if we do not we face the consequences, as you appear to be.

“Ahahaha. Conspiracy Theory again!”

Ok humans came out of the trees and straight into the yacht….

“Then why are you defending the SAME THING being done to people in this country? And right, your type have done it despite my type.”

Im not defending them, im saying, listen here, listen here closely, no one gives a shit about you, if you don’t take bold action no one is going to do it for you.

“And I don’t believe you. Your first example, the one to hand, was gambling in the markets. And that’s YOUR description. YOUR conspiracy theory”

I cant comprehend this dribble – Your done.

The protests are valid.

All politicians have failed miserably to appreciate the seriousness of the crisis since the oiginal credit crunch three years ago.

Something a bit more muscular is required. For example, shut down the tax havens and replace some of the cash piles with Crisis Bonds.

If they stick to the IMF, EU and financial sector orthodoxy, some more countries are going to fall over and they are going to take some big banks down. One way or another, savings and pensions will get battered. It is just a question of whether it is going to be orderly or disorderly.

The protestors are right. Mass unemployment and reduced living standards for the lower classes simply won’t work.

@56 – So I should suck it up and accept that I won’t ever get paid. Right. Why do you want me to work for your kind, again? I thought the entire point of working was to be paid, myself.

And unless you’re a good gambler, you’re not going to be good at working the markets. It’s a prescription for losing money you can’t afford to lose. To people like you. No wonder you like getting people into that situation.

“Im not defending them,”

And then you go right ahead and do so. You’re a poster child for the 1% spitting in people’s faces and telling them that the system’s rigged against them, and that no matter what they do, they’re fucked. But they should keep paying for the rich’s third cars anyway.

And done? No, barely started talking about how people like you hate this country and it’s people!

Enough of this bickering!

I want to hear more about this alternative system based upon allotments, swap-shops and toy libraries…sounds like a real step forward.

“So I should suck it up and accept that I won’t ever get paid”

Yes – I started out in building and tens of times went without payment, the worst of which was being left in the motorway service stations after working away for several weeks, apparently it was easier to leave us than pay us, if you have explored every legal avenue and there is no way to collect your payment its time to move on.

“And unless you’re a good gambler, you’re not going to be good at working the markets. It’s a prescription for losing money you can’t afford to lose. To people like you. No wonder you like getting people into that situation”

An intelligent worker has the ability to work anything to there favour but im sure you would have funded the elites of this word if you had given it a go, at the suggested 25 to 50 pence a point they would not have known what had hit them, a willing money press…..

“And then you go right ahead and do so. You’re a poster child for the 1% spitting in people’s faces and telling them that the system’s rigged against them, and that no matter what they do, they’re fucked. But they should keep paying for the rich’s third cars anyway.”

“Within 6 months you can be making 500 pounds or so per week but you have to do it for your self and take risks”

“The systems rigged against you leon, pay for someone’s third car”

“And done? No, barely started talking about how people like you hate this country and it’s people!”

I have no doubt you will spend the remainder of your life talking.

19, steveb: Marx’s theories have zero credibility and zero predictive capacity. A capable economic historian, he was a very poor philosopher and poltical theorist. Besides, capitalism is not self-destructing. Ten years from now we will, ceteris paribus, be more prosperous than ever. Capitalism suffers ‘crises’ precisely because it is a dynamic system, and the ‘crises’ are Schumpeter’s ‘creative destruction’…Meanwhile, Marx’s fantasies have led to the deaths of 100′s of millions of people…

20, J:
Foucault? Oh dear, that charlatan: is that the best you can do? What evidence is there for his theory that social institutions are purely power structures, and specifically that madness is something that those in power determine? There is no such evidence. Foucault committed the same error as Rousseau in believing that the individual can somehow exist outside of human institutions. And, returning to my point, anyone who desires the catastrophic downfall of capitalism with all the suffering that would involve is surely either ignorant of the consequences of said downfall or is psychopathic. So which are you? Ignorant or mad?

LW, passim:
It’s all about you, isn’t it? You look at your own predicament, and then decide that the ‘capitalist system’ is to blame for your woes. Such self-referential attitudinising is common on the left, particularly the revolutionary left. Try to be more objective and impartial…After I lost my public sector job, I was unemployed for 10 years before finding a low-paid post with a charity…Life’s like that: you can find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time…

@ 61 Tax obesity

” Such self-referential attitudinising is common on the left”

It’s hardly unheard-of on the right, is it? Whether it’s “I work really hard, why should I share any of my six-figure salary?” or “I’m really British, why should someone I’ve declared to be non-British get the job I want?”

61
Perhaps you then need to read Schumpeter with regard to capitalism in trouble and the shift to socialism, like you, I hold Schumpeter in high regard.
I agree that 18th/19th century theorists such as Marx and Smith are now out of tune with current capitalism although I would argue that Marx has been responsible for the deaths of 100s of millions of people, perhaps you can give me your source.
I also hold your view about Foucalt and Rousseu, funny that the idea that the individual cannot live outside human institutions is central to Marx. Of course Foucalt wasn’t far wrong about power structures determining who is mad – ever heard of the Mental Health Act (1983)
I think your apparent idea of what psychopathology is somewhat off the mark, it seems that it means anyone who doesn’t agree with you, which in itself suggests a degree of sociopathology.

steveb@ 63:

Marxism and conservatism agree that human nature is historically conditioned. Conservatism holds that the conditioning is only partial; Marxism, however, lapses into incoherence by arguing that human nature is wholly conditioned historically (ie human nature is indefinitely plastic and adapatable) and then also argues that alienation thwarts human nature (but if human nature is indefinitely adaptable it can cope with any form of oppression…).

Foucault was widely wrong, and the MHA (1983) does not bear him out at all – unless you think the seriously mentally ill are an oppressed minority who should be allowed to roam free.

@ 62: Self-referential attitudinising on the right is overwhelmingly limited to particular gripes and whinges. On the left, it often leads to an attitude of ‘solo contra mundum’ and even deranged, apocalyptic fantasies of revolutionary societal destruction.

I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I do NOT categorise all people who disagree with me as mad. So why the slur? I do, however, regard people who desire the catastrophic or revolutionary downfall of the capitalist order as either ignorant of the consequences in human suffering or psychopathic. That said, I do not regard anyone who wants to transform our society by peaceful and democratic means as in any way mad. Mistaken, perhaps; but then so might I be…

Sorry, ignore my previous post…

steveb@ 63:

Marxism and conservatism agree that human nature is historically conditioned. Conservatism holds that the conditioning is only partial; Marxism, however, lapses into incoherence by arguing that human nature is wholly conditioned historically (ie human nature is indefinitely plastic and adapatable) and then also argues that alienation thwarts human nature (but if human nature is indefinitely adaptable it can cope with any form of oppression…).

Foucault was widely wrong, and the MHA (1983) does not bear him out at all – unless you think the seriously mentally ill are an oppressed minority who should be allowed to roam free.

I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I do NOT categorise all people who disagree with me as mad. So why the slur? I do, however, regard people who desire the catastrophic or revolutionary downfall of the capitalist order as either ignorant of the consequences in human suffering or psychopathic. That said, I do not regard anyone who wants to transform our society by peaceful and democratic means as in any way mad. Mistaken, perhaps; but then so might I be…

@ 62: Self-referential attitudinising on the right is overwhelmingly limited to particular gripes and whinges. On the left, it often leads to an attitude of ‘solo contra mundum’ and even deranged, apocalyptic fantasies of revolutionary societal destruction.

@60 – Assumptions piled on Assumptions. I’ve not exhausted the legal options in three cases.

“I have no doubt you will spend the remainder of your life talking.”

And I’m sure you’ll push for policies, such as the abolition of the NHS, to shorten that lifespan.

Also, I talk. It’s a skill. Very different from your skill at parasitic gambling.

65
Believe me, the only thing that Marxism says about “human nature” (your quote) is the driving force of survival, consequently, the economy is the single most important thing for the human. The human will adapt to any form of production be it communal, individual or competetive (they will do what is necessary to survive). Alienation arises when work and consumption is separated (as in industrial capitalism) in which the human has no control over their means of production. This is very basic Marxism btw.
You also seem to be confused about the historical aspect of the human, – Marx makes the point that there is not such thing as an individual, individuals only exist within social relationships which are inheritted (historically determined) and beyond their control.
You are also misquoting me with regard to Foucalt, who asserted that it is those in power who determine who is mentally ill hence my quoting the Mental Health Act. Btw, one in four people have a mental illness, are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to “roam free” (you have a rather strange turn of phrase)
I think if you check your comments about those who believe in changing the economic system, you labelled them as ignorant or psychopathic, btw, psychopathy is not madness.
As I am certainly in favour of changing the economic system, which in your view is either ignorant or mad, isn’t that a slur?
I would also suggest that you re-read the theorists that you choose to quote.

@ 65 Tax Obesity

“Self-referential attitudinising on the right is overwhelmingly limited to particular gripes and whinges.”

I’m not sure how that gets chalked up as a win for the right.

“On the left, it often leads to an attitude of ‘solo contra mundum’”

No idea what that means, unless it’s “only I am special” or something like that.

“and even deranged, apocalyptic fantasies of revolutionary societal destruction.”

Again, you get that on the right as well. I’m forever being told that immigration, welfare or in some cases even homosexuality will bring about the destruction of society.

Face it, you’re identifying a wide-ranging problem – that some people are melodramatic and/or paranoid delusional – and trying to pass it off as a symptom of having political views you disapprove of. It’s a generalisation from a few examples, and an ad hom to boot. I’m also not sure what point you’re trying to make.

Oh my ,so many clever people talking about “the system ” can I just point out that a lot of working class people (a group I am proud to be in) don’t need this .For thousands of years ordinary folk have listened to different interest groups discuss what system is best,we have now learnt that once what ever system wins gets into power
those in charge forget that it was all about People not power. The average low wage earner with a family or disabled person unable to work really aren’t that impressed with all you’r jargon and clever quotes,they want fairness honesty and respect. They want to be able to know that when they give their vote to a politician, of what ever party, that it bloody well counts, they would like academics ,political scientist, commentators and politicians to just notice we are here and that we matter. We may not fully understand all the jargon but that is because while you were having this debate you failed to notice that the education system was failing,once you realized it had failed your main concern was where that fitted into your debate, not how the poor bastard who was a victim of it would get a job.
Please remember it is about people i don’t want to make the rich poor i don’t want to be rich ,I want a happy life able to provide for my family.The ruling classes who ever they are ,ignore the simple appeal of working people to provide a fair and just society at their peril. Please if you are going to question my sanity or intelligence please be aware that I don’t give a toss,i just feel better for having written this, so you can go back to your name calling and so called debating and i will not bother you again. AV A GOOD ONE

Well said Dereck.

Perhaps I missed it, but for all Ross and Leon wasted the whole night into the small hours winding each other up, none of them seems to have pointed out the basic fact that not everyone can be exchange traders and intellectuals, even if we were that way inclined. Paper-shuffling and word-spinning doesn’t actually produce the day to day necessities after all.

@70 – Thanks for demonstrating you didn’t read what I said, but instead lumped me into the same category as a right winger. I’ve been pointing out that professional gambling ISN’T a universal…

I don’t think you have been lumped in with right wingers, I am not sure you were alluding to my post but if you were, I meant no personal offence to right or left wing.
Perhaps I did not read and understand all the posts as well as i should.
But perhaps you are missing my points, the first and most important point i tried to make was that all political parties are the same. Now I don’t make that statement because i don’t understand the system, all though I possibly don’t, I make that point because i am of a certain age and i have been screwed by two of them and i am in the process of being screwed by the third one all be it with the help of one of the others.
I admire those of you who have taken the time to investigate your points of view, be they on the right or on the left, but sometimes i just feel the need to point out that although you all put forward excellent ideas ,well thought out arguments and are without doubt passionate about your subject, I will, along with you still be getting screwed tomorrow. BE LUCKY

“@60 – Assumptions piled on Assumptions. I’ve not exhausted the legal options in three cases.”

Great news, you come across with an echo because your speaking from rock bottom, yet you still have options, chin up!

“And I’m sure you’ll push for policies, such as the abolition of the NHS, to shorten that lifespan”

I like the NHS in fact its even saved my life…this is what’s so stupid about left and right, you assume you know all the views of another person just because you have identified a few, your a cock Leon.

“Also, I talk. It’s a skill. Very different from your skill at parasitic gambling.”

“Parasitic gambling” something you have not got the skills to do as you have admitted, or the thousands of other ways to make some funds, and as for talking, does that turn your heating on?

@ 72 dereck

All political parties are the same? And yet one of the two big parties brought in a minimum wage, tried to make the tax system less harsh on low earners, and supports a health system that provides treatment to people regardless of their income, while the other is generally opposed to all these good things. How, exactly, are they the same?

Basically, you’re confusing cynicism with wisdom (simply put, having the most negative opinion doesn’t make you the smartest guy in the room), and you appear to have come on here simply to sneer at everyone else for actually giving a crap about the very things you’re complaining about. Well done you. I’m sure you feel very high and mighty compared to these naive fools who actually try to make a difference.

@70 – Birdie – none of them seems to have pointed out the basic fact that not everyone can be exchange traders and intellectuals,”

Bollocks – not for one moment was I presenting that option as a cure all for mass economic woes- I was presenting it to Leon as an individual claiming to have the game rigged against him, in a position unable to act, well here we go, off the top of my head with minimal funds and time invested you from your own efforts can change your situation, and what do I hear? Foaming at the mouth and a wagon of excuses..

.

@74
Sorry if i have offended, I don’t think i mentioned wisdom that was you. I actually pointed out that i admired the thought and work that went into all your arguments and those of your fellow debaters. I was merely giving my point of view, i was stupidly under the impression that one could still do that, i was wrong and I apologize.
However i stand by what I said , you can point to good things all political parties have introduced over the years but, we still in the shit.! .I have neither the time nor the skills to quote from political histories or quote statistics I can only say how politics impacts on me my family and my friends. I would also like to take issue with you on the sneering jibe i would never sneer at those with an interest in the political future of the world however i do reserve the right to my opinion , So there we are no hard feelings a, could you please write down where the general public debating has ever made a difference.

@73 – That doesn’t excuse the extra-legal actions or the cost of having to pursue them on the company’s behalf. Even if I win, there are no real consequences for the companies. If they benefited financially, they can just go ahead and do it again to someone else.

“you assume you know all the views of another person”

You’ve so far carbon-copied a stereotype. Feel free to explain how you dissent from the right-wing Libertarian…

““Parasitic gambling” something you have not got the skills to do as you have admitted”

No, it’s something I have no interest in, and no money to do. What part of “I haven’t been paid, repeatedly” don’t you get? If it wasn’t for support from my community, I’d of been on the streets. Your perspective is of someone who has monetary reserves.

“Minimal funds and time” when you’re talking hundreds and months. *shakes his head*

You’re the one who has invented a conspiracy theory about how I’m “unable to act”. Bullshit. I am acting, but that doesn’t excuse your kind rigging things against the poor. Moreover, nobody knows in my THIRD career now what’ll happen next year…thanks to the Tories, again.

You don’t get, refuse to get, the meaning of “poor”.

@ 76 dereck

You have the right to an opinion, I have the right to disagree. Me disagreeing does not mean that I’m somehow attacking your right to an opinion.

Sneering jibes? Well, how about where you open your post by saying “Oh my ,so many clever people talking about “the system ” “? Or where you say “The average low wage earner with a family or disabled person unable to work really aren’t that impressed with all you’r jargon and clever quotes,they want fairness honesty and respect”.

What jargon, exactly? How does the use of “clever quotes”, whatever they are, suggest you’re not working for fairness, honesty and respect? Why are you using the word “clever” as an insult? Would you prefer to see lots of stupid opinions?

As for public debate affecting things: it happens all the damn time. Do you think that politicians just decided one day that women should be allowed to vote after all, that you shouldn’t be able to refuse someone a job due to their skin colour, that gay people should have the right to get married as well as straight people? No. They listened to the public mood and took action. THAT’S how things change.

@78 Chaise
” you have the right to an opinion “…….
Can’t argue with that,good point
“sneering Jibes………..
Bugger another good point
What jargon………………..
Once again I hold my hands up,But i would ask you to consider that at times when angry , and i am angry we sometimes lash out. I won’t go into why I am angry with political debate on these pages but perhaps you might understand my cynicism more if i did.
As for public debate affecting things…………..
Well public debate has changed one thing, my attitude to public debate. I still don’t think that there is a great deal of difference in the different political clubs that run the world and I still think they all forget the bottom line which is us. In conclusion you and I, and very likely others on this page will disagree ,But this short exchange has taught me that a lot more thought and research has to be done to put my point across .Thanks it has been interesting and informative for me,it’s probably been a pain in the arse for you, I will go and lick my wounds and come back better prepared. Hope to chat again.

@ 79

No worries. I sympathise with your frustration with public debate. It doesn’t seem to affect things as often or as quickly as it should. I imagine the reason is that, where the politicians should be thinking “what do most people think about this?” or, for more scientific subjects, “what do most experts in the field think about this?”, they’re more likely to calculate whether supporting or opposing an idea will win them votes in specific key marginals.

I stand by the idea that’s it better to voice your opinion than to keep quiet, and that there’s a difference between a Labour-run Britain and a Tory-run Britain.