Captive State

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 12 Aug 2004, 15:04

http://www.panmacmillan.com/Features/Ca ... /email.swf

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Aug 2004, 16:15

I fear I may never be able to take Thom Yorke seriously again. How terribly sad.

Let's see just how many explosions there are? From "The most explosive books on British Politics...." Im guessing none. nada, zippo.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Aug 2004, 16:40

After reading that you fear you can't take Thom Yorke seriously again because he fears he can't take New Labour seriously again, I fear I can't t......BAD JOKE DELETED.....again, again. Etc.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Aug 2004, 17:02

I wasn't joking.

" George Monbiot's Captive State is a well-written, accessible weapon in the battle against neo-liberalism and deserves to be read by every activist who can get their hands on it."

If there are activists that have difficulty visiting a bookshop or buying on the Internet, how good are they are anything else? Way to activate!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Aug 2004, 18:24

Not sure what direction you're coming from, Porty. Is your criticism one of reviewers' rhetoric in general, or the irony of a consumer product being anti-consumer in particular ?

If your attack comes from the angle of a desire for clarity, don't obfuscate.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Aug 2004, 18:54

Dadaist wrote:Not sure what direction you're coming from, Porty. Is your criticism one of reviewers' rhetoric in general.....

I suppose so.

For example there is another claim made about this book, something like: 'exposes that the Labour Party today has almost nothing to do with Socialism. Excuse me, surely that must be why the keep winning General Elections by a landslide? Its hardlly an expose.

Thom Yorke is an outstanding musician from a truly wonderful band,his views on the Labour Party are no more valid than say Jordan's. If Thom Yorke doesn't want to take the most succesful British Government for some considerable time seriously, he should move to somewhere better or come up with an electable alternative.

Could it be he is a friend of Monbiot?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Aug 2004, 19:23

Before I launch into a more fulsome rebuttal - and you'd better believe my quill is being sharpened as we speak, sir - can you clarify the main thrust of your argument as I see it?

As far as I can make out, your criticism is twofold (in the latter part of your comment on Yorke you simply restate your previous paragraph's argument), and that is -

1) You support the New Labour project and view it as making the party electable, and rather than seeing it as a betrayal of principle you see it as an intelligent exercise in realpolitik?

2) You reject the use of a famous person as a marketing tool if that person's fame is not related to the content of that which they are reviewing?

Would I be correct in these statements?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Aug 2004, 20:20

Dadaist wrote:Would I be correct in these statements?

Not exactly.

Dadaist wrote:1) You support the New Labour project and view it as making the party electable, and rather than seeing it as a betrayal of principle you see it as an intelligent exercise in realpolitik?

Its not my view that the Labour Party is elected, they are and they will be re-elected. I don't see any breach in principle. Im not sure what Realpolitik is? If it means politics in the real world then I do see it as an intelligent excercise and a most effective one. If the principle you speak of is Socialism, why should anyone stick to an unworkable principle? It just doesn't work in the real world.

I would not offer unconditional support to the LP, for example I consider Iraq a tragic error of judgement. If one lays the blame completely at the feet of Blair and its difficult to see where else t can go?, then he is still streets ahead of anything else on offer.

Dadaist wrote:2) You reject the use of a famous person as a marketing tool if that person's fame is not related to the content of that which they are reviewing?

I question the validity but recognise the purpose. If the most prominent statement the nay-sayers have to offer is a quotation from a rock star ...need more be said? I suppose its better than using Tommy Sheridan, then again, one could say that about Luke Goss.

Im off to the movies, try not to implode whilst Im gone.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Aug 2004, 20:41

If you're off to see Fahrenheit 911, I'll join you!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Aug 2004, 23:35

admins - my debate with Porty is starting to warm up now but I do not intend any attack to be personal - it's just politics. Believe it or not I do like capitalists - it's just I couldn't eat a whole one - Mat

First off, unless you make a fetish of hypocrisy, we can discount the whole Thom Yorke thing if your only angle is that you're upset because he has endorsed something you hate. I'm sure there were a lot of upset Oasis fans who didn't like seeing Noel sipping the fizz with Tony, or maybe the odd D-Ream or Spice Girls fan who thought they had been hijacked. Sauce for the goose. If not - does this mean I can recycle your comment on us so-called "nay-sayers" when it comes to quotations from rock stars?

By your comments thus far I'm guessing you've only got as far as the cover of Monbiot's book. So I invite you to comment on this :

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/03 ... c-rip-off/

I defend your view that there has been no breach of principle in New Labour's accession to the throne as I'm a sucker for sticking up for the little man - and that really is a minority opinion. Pretty much anyone remotely political who isn't a Blairite recognises what they did to become electable, and the comparison between what was promised and what was delivered. Ethical foreign policy, anyone?

Andrew Marr delivered a blinder straight to camera once when standing outside No. 10. He reported on a debate and how Blair shone and delivered a quality argument - and spoke of the rows and rows of MPs nodding in agreement as if this were their natural leader. "Unfortunately", he said, "they were all on the Tory benches!"

Tony Benn once said that he was glad that New Labour won their victory, and that he was still working to deliver an Old Labour victory! Sounds good to me. At least they might defend those parts of the socialist ethic which are already with us - like free healthcare for all. How it must annoy you that the NHS was delivered by socialists!

So tell me - why do you think Iraq was an error of judgement - because of the poor souls who died or because it made our previously popular government become unpopular?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Aug 2004, 23:54

Dadaist wrote:If you're off to see Fahrenheit 911, I'll join you!

Saw it a couple of weeks ago and thought it was pretty good. Didn't learn anything new really but I do like his style.

Went to the Bourne Supremacy and thought it was worth the ticket price.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 00:09

Im not really to bothered about Thom's endorsement per se, its just that its nonesense. What next? When The Paddling Pool becomes a Community Garden, Elton John declares that he can't take the Garden seriously as a Paddlig Pool anymore? Elton, its not a bloody Paddling Pool that's maybe why?

Iraq was a mistake on all levels. I would go as far as to say it was a Crime and if there were such a thing as real international law, if there was a serious challenger to Labour and Tony, then he would have lost his job, should have lost his job. Iraq made Labour less popular not unpopular and it had more or less the same effect on all parties.

Andrew Marr is right on the money. What he said, reading between the lines, is that the only thing that works is Capitalism and once you have accepted that, as the UK has, its just about marginal arguments.

As for getting personal? This doesn't stop me liking and respecting your on screen persona .BTW how many rock stars so far in this debate?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 00:21

[quote="Dadaist"] How it must annoy you that the NHS was delivered by socialists! [quote]

Whoa now, I missed that first time around, that's fightin talk. Of course it doesnt annoy me. It makes me proud that the UK Socialist heart is still beating and still has a vital roll to play. Its just that you can't run a country let alone a continent on a purely Socialist basis. Any party that tries will fail, no matter how seriously Thom Yorke views them.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Aug 2004, 07:56

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: How it must annoy you that the NHS was delivered by socialists!

Whoa now, I missed that first time around, that's fightin talk. Of course it doesnt annoy me. It makes me proud that the UK Socialist heart is still beating and still has a vital roll to play. Its just that you can't run a country let alone a continent on a purely Socialist basis. Any party that tries will fail, no matter how seriously Thom Yorke views them.

But we can run the world on a purely Greed Profit Making Basis - right!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 13 Aug 2004, 08:21

There must be some purpose behind this thread, though I have yet to discern it. Are we trying to lure Carla back in?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 09:40

Gemini wrote:But we can run the world on a purely Greed Profit Making Basis - right!

I think the US have proved, continue to prove that this is not possible.

The main difference between yourself,Dadaist and myself is perhaps that I believe Socialism and Capitalism can co-exist in a manner that is beneficial to the majority of people. Dadaist makes the valid point that Socialism was responsible for starting the NHS, he failed to point out that its Capitalism that has kept it going.

Post by **wangi** » 13 Aug 2004, 09:50

Porty wrote:The main difference between yourself,Dadaist and myself is perhaps that I believe Socialism and Capitalism can co-exist in a manner that is beneficial to the majority of people. Dadaist makes the valid point that Socialism was responsible for starting the NHS, he failed to point out that its Capitalism that has kept it going.

Now so? It's not capitalism when it's paid for without choice...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 Aug 2004, 10:16

I have as much problem admitting that it has been capitalism that has "funded" the NHS as I do admitting that it's coal-fired power stations that have created the electricity which makes my light bulbs work - inasmuch as in both cases it's clearly evident that the human mind can invent other sources of power.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Aug 2004, 12:08

Porty wrote:
Gemini wrote:But we can run the world on a purely Greed Profit Making Basis - right!
I think the US have proved, continue to prove that this is not possible.

The main difference between yourself,Dadaist and myself is perhaps that I believe Socialism and Capitalism can co-exist in a manner that is beneficial to the majority of people. Dadaist makes the valid point that Socialism was responsible for starting the NHS, he failed to point out that 'its Capitalism that has kept it going.

Socialism and Capitalism 'can co-exist'? so what you are in effect saying is that, at the moment they are not co-existing? Why not?

Where did you get your information regarding Capatilist funding of the NHS?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 14:46

Gemini wrote:Socialism and Capitalism 'can co-exist'? so what you are in effect saying is that, at the moment they are not co-existing? Why not?

Socialism and Capitalism co-exist and thrive in the UK. We are one of the most affluent and free places in the World. Where do you think the funding comes from for the NHS?

Post by **wangi** » 13 Aug 2004, 14:49

Porty wrote:Where do you think the funding comes from for the NHS?

Our wages... Without choice. Explain how that is capitalist?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 Aug 2004, 15:09

Maybe it would help, Porty, if you read the Monbiot article I posted a link to. It goes into great detail over the current "funding" (read - corporate theft) of the NHS by your friends the capitalists.

I think you'd be better informed on this debate if you read up on PFI or PPP, how the scheme grew under the Tories and how it went full pelt into chaos under New Labour.

Alternatively, you could always try reading Monbiot's book. I'm more than happy to buy you a copy myself.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 15:46

wangi wrote:
Porty wrote:Where do you think the funding comes from for the NHS?
Our wages... Without choice. Explain how that is capitalist?

How is the money generated to fund your wages?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 15:53

Dadaist wrote: I think you'd be better informed on this debate if you read up on PFI or PPP, how the scheme grew under the Tories and how it went full pelt into chaos under New Labour.

Im not challenging the content of Monbiot's book, Im challenging the effect that it is predicted to have. Labour have got numerous things wrong but overall they are doing a good job. Thom Yorke, a rock star, says he can't take them seriously anymore. Tell me, do you take the British Government seriously?

You seem to have a problem with what New Labour do or have done to become elected. They have done what the people want. The real problem is that most people want something different from you.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Aug 2004, 16:24

Porty wrote:
Gemini wrote:Socialism and Capitalism 'can co-exist'? so what you are in effect saying is that, at the moment they are not co-existing? Why not?
Socialism and Capitalism co-exist and thrive in the UK. We are one of the most affluent and free places in the World. Where do you think the funding comes from for the NHS?

Still have not told us how Capitilists have funded the NHS (any good examples) - However, if they have - what a bloody hash they have made of it (speaking from experience) - I suppose it is the Capitalists who have ploughed Ã‚Â£7 Billion into the NHS , .. no can't be, they must be the ones that have milked the Ã‚Â£7 Billion out of it! of Tax Payers Money!

I agree that GB is one of the most affluent countries in the Free World - isn't it then a disgrace in this affluent country of ours - Pensioners are means tested/It's a Post code Lottery for Health Care/Senior consultants are resigning due to the hospital corridors being blocked with patients on trolleys? ( I personally waited with my young son for 16hrs for a bed to become free in the old ERI - he needed quite urgent surgery)-the reason I was given by Mr. Christie ,Orthopaedic consultant was because of some poor elderly citizen having no one to look after them upon their release from hospital coupled with the fact that there is a distinct shortage of care/nursing homes for the elderly, Social Services funding for the most vulnerable people in our society has been slashed to the bone.
I agree that the UK needs a sound economic policies - but at what cost and whose expense?

The aforementioned just touches on the problems with Capitilism.

Apologies for my long posting - and perhaps a tad of emotion thrown in.

Perhaps Porty should take up the generous offer by Dadaist and read the book, If need be I can let you borrow my copy.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 Aug 2004, 16:42

Please define "overall they are doing a good job".

How are we supposed to discuss this with you if you refuse to go into any detail?

I am happy to define exactly what my problem with New Labour is - and I'll quite happily go back as far as Bertrand Russell's resignation from the Party over the Vietnam war to prove it.

As a capitalist, you must understand the principle of marketing. New Labour marketed itself in a certain way and sold us a big lie - that their foreign policy was ethical and that the NHS was safe in their hands. Instead they delivered 2 wars and sold the NHS down the swanny in a way that makes the Tories look almost pink. That's what Andrew Marr was talking about.

Saying that a socialist hates New Labour because they are successful is exactly the same kind of rhetoric being used in the US at the moment against the likes of Michael Moore when people say he "hates America."

Thankfully there have been investigative journalists, from "straight" ones like Woodward & Bernstein to leftists like Moore and Monbiot and the late Paul Foot to point out exactly what big business is doing with the cash that our labour earned them.

This scandalous stuff is happening *now* and right under your nose. How can you say that New Labour are a success when kids in East Lothian didn't even have school books during the recent exams because the PPP contractor had gone bust?

I want the exact same as anyone else - unless what you want is to put a pricetag on everything and bomb your way to peace. And whatever the political currents and electoral fortunes or misfortunes of the day I'll remain committed to peace and social justice. And if the SSP sell out, then I'll leave them just like we all left the Labour Party.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 16:47

Gemini wrote:Perhaps Porty should take up the generous offer by Dadaist and read the book, If need be I can let you borrow my copy.

Perhaps. Sorry to hear about the trauma with your son it must have been terrible.

As I said previously, I have no issue with the books contents, its the claims made about it. I suspect the book is going to make no difference whatsoever.

NHS is funded by taxation ,which in turn is deriven from revenue, which in turn is deriven from commerce which was initiated by entrepreneurism. which had the specific purpose of profit. Wangi is wrong when he says that he doesn't have a choice. he doesn't have to work, he doesn't have to earn, he still gets the NHS. Lots of 'Socialists' have cottoned on to this already of course.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 16:55

Dadaist wrote:
Saying that a socialist hates New Labour because they are successful is exactly the same kind of rhetoric being used in the US at the moment against the likes of Michael Moore when people say he "hates America."

Porty: I am aware of this, which is why I never said socialists hate new labour.

Dadaist wrote:This And if the SSP sell out, then I'll leave them just like we all left the Labour Party.

Porty: you need not fear, the SSP have nothing to sell and no-one's buying. Surely you must have noticed?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 Aug 2004, 17:01

How on earth did we end up with all those MSPs ?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 Aug 2004, 17:04

Porty wrote:you need not fear, the SSP have nothing to sell and no-one's buying. Surely you must have noticed?

Obviously you missed our merchandise page :

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/p ... pprod.html

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 17:07

Dadaist wrote:How on earth did we end up with all those MSPs ?

Sheer ignorance.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 17:13

Dadaist wrote: Obviously you missed our merchandise page :

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/p ... pprod.html

You have been warned about your links to offensive sites.

Its a click too far for me.

Post by **wangi** » 13 Aug 2004, 17:40

Porty wrote:NHS is funded by taxation ,which in turn is deriven from revenue, which in turn is deriven from commerce which was initiated by entrepreneurism. which had the specific purpose of profit. Wangi is wrong when he says that he doesn't have a choice. he doesn't have to work, he doesn't have to earn, he still gets the NHS.

Nah, it doesn't work like that... And the fact that dossers get it anyway is a big flashing red sign shouting out socialism.

Being a good capialist I've got to work - so I earn money to spend on flashy consumer goods...

A capitalist NHS would charge on use (more than likely avoided by medical insurance schemes), and the patient would be free to choose their hospital of choice. Of course, I can make these choices anyway - but a chunk of my income still gets sliced off to pay for the NHS I do not use - for sure not capitalist.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 Aug 2004, 17:55

Um, I never figured wangi being to the right of Porty but jeez man - are you honestly saying you'd rather you got to keep your NI payments to spend on trinkets, and the leukaemia research, or multiple sclerosis treatments can go hang? Do you want us to have the "system" the US has?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2004, 18:05

Dadaist wrote:Um, I never figured wangi being to the right of Porty ................Do you want us to have the "system" the US has?

lets face it your figuring can be skewiff. (Sp)

For the record I embrace Socialism, I believe its one of the few things left that differentiate the UK from the US. One could never get away with being an open Socialist in 'The Free Capital of the World'. My dad was a Communist Union Leader in the T&GWU. I would say that politically i'm a bit to the right of him. I believe in Economics not Capitalism it just so happens that Socialist Economics dont work.

I love the NHS, I have reason to, so does Gemini maybe she just doesn't appreciate what the alternatives are?