How have your politics changed?

[Red]

There’s a number of possible reasons for reliance on food banks, some more sympathetic than others. At the more sympathetic end of the scale there are cases where some kind of administrative or IT cock-up had led to delayed payment of welfare. At the less sympathetic end there are cases of people having no money for food because of welfare sanctions or because they’re hopeless at budgeting. And of course there’s a load of other scenarios/causes somewhere between those extremes.

There’s definitely a need for them. Even in the worst imaginable cases of self-inflicted food poverty (e.g. someone having no money for food because they spent all their welfare on scratch cards or magic beans) there's still the basic problem that someone can't afford to eat, which is especially hard to ignore when blameless children are involved. I certainly don't think less of a social worker or health visitor for writing a food bank referral in those cases. The more contentious point, I think, is whether their increased usage is (as often claimed) a reliable indicator of increased poverty, insufficient welfare provision, etc.

Do you have any first hand experience of food banks? You do seem to have more of an insight than Alty and his theoretical bullshit that's for sure. Having worked on the frontline with unemployed people for 10 years my experience is that a small minority of them are taking the piss. Having been in this work for so long I can spot a glassback from a mile off and I will honestly say that while I have been doing outreach at a foodbank only a tiny percentage of the small minority of the glassbacks attend. Many of them are people with mental health problems who are struggling with stuff like finding it hard to manage the transition from a fortnightly payment of JSA to a monthly payment of Universal Creit. My role there is to try and register them on our project where we upskill them, compile a CV with them and teach them where and how to apply for jobs and believe it or not I get a lot of referrals from the foodbank.

I'm not saying that only people who use or or work at foodbanks can really understand the societal and political causes that give rise to them, however, it really pisses me off when people like your protege Alty whose understanding of all this is a million miles away from reality pontificate about it.

 

[Red]

Side note, but I've noticed like three people in the last week use the expression "magic bullet" when surely the expression is "silver bullet"??? Let's kick "magic bullet" out of discourse.

Move on Smat, the grown ups are talking about politics, fish for likes somewhere else.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Do you have any first hand experience of food banks?.

Yes, but I left social services circa 2010, meaning my experience is now 7-8 years out of date . It certainly pre-dates the IDS reforms. If people want to discount it on that basis, fair enough.

I never worked at a food bank but I was involved in various referrals. I never produced the referral because back then it needed to be done by a qualified social worker, which I wasn’t. I recommended it several times (including in cases where I knew the parents were taking the piss), but generally my role was more about working with the families after the fact, trying to avoid recurrence.

FWIW, I would agree that the morally bankrupt chancers represent a minority, at least in a strictly statistical sense. What I mean by that caveat is that I’d estimate it at about 20-30%, which is probably not what most people envision when they hear “minority”, even though such figures, strictly speaking, fit the term. I think most people would think 1-5%. That’s not my experience.

It would be remiss of me not to mention, though, that I spent the last two years toiling away in child protection. This meant that pretty much every family I worked with had a chunky social work file and at least one child on the Child Protection Register. To put this as politely as I can, the folk I supported probably didn’t comprise the most representative sample, morally speaking.

 

[Alty]

Sorry for the late reply, everyone. Not that I'm under any illusions you were all waiting with bated breath for my response.

Ian_Wrexham - I never denied some employers abuse zero hours contracts and I've already expressed sympathy for those seeking guaranteed hours. My point really was that just banning them would be unfair on those who do find them useful and, perhaps more importantly, would not automatically lead to those previously picking up 20-30 hours depending on the week suddenly getting their guaranteed 40. Some would, others would likely be laid off altogether.

Read up on Vince Cable's take on this issue. Hardly a Thatcherite true believer, he went into the Business Secretary post of a mind to scrap zero hours contracts, then upon examining the evidence realised it would be counter-productive.

Re cock-ups/admin errors - I think I alluded to this earlier, but yeah, I completely accept that some of the people needing to use foodbanks are the victims of these. But as Scumbag confirms, this certainly doesn't account for everyone and the feeble logic used by those on the far-left, i.e. if 5 million people use foodbanks that's because 5 million good honest people are being driven to near-starvation by the Government, is well wide of the mark.

Techno Natch - You flippantly inform us that, "If people truly wanted zero hour contracts then they would simply go on bank or work for an agency". But I'm afraid that's completely wrong and there are countless examples of people for whom this wouldn't be suitable.

I've already said those taking the piss are the minority so I don't know why you and others have felt the need to make that point repeatedly. I never claimed to be speaking of the monolithic entity that is the benefit claimants.

Knowing people who've worked in, and in one case managed, a job centre is apparently of no relevance to this discussion. Despite the fact my colleagues encountered the whole range of people who come into contact with DWP. Whereas your story of the unfortunate chap who declared his intention to live in a cave is supposed to be instructive. Are we being serious here or not?

FWIW my colleagues have told stories ranging from truly deserving people who got themselves back into work, and the buzz it gave them seeing someone get their life back on track. To pieces of shit who would do absolutely anything to avoid working. This is the reality and I don't think it's unreasonable to take the position that what some of these people need is not ever more support, it's to be given the tougher life lesson that you can't collect something for nothing at everyone else's expense for the remainder of your life.

Maybe this is evidence of my slow drift to conservatism coming out, but in response to your question about how people can be judgemental of others...you kind of have to in these circumstances, don't you? Obviously if you grow up in a wealthy, comfortable and emotionally stable househeld and attend a good school you'll be in a better position to embark upon a career and remain employed thereafter. Nobody is denying that and I'm certainly in favour of greater redistribution of wealth more generally to make things fairer. But ultimately you do have to take responsibility for yourself. If someone didn't do well at school, perhaps even got into trouble, and is now struggling for work then okay. That's the position they've got themselves into. It's right and proper that the state assists, both in terms of giving them enough money to get by and wherever possible providing them with training and educational opportunities too. But all this has to be on the proviso they're making a genuine effort to seek work and they're not pissing away their money on magic beans and/or xboxes. I don't actually think it's unreasonable to ask someone to take that level of responsibility for their own actions.

Red - You made an awful lot of assumptions in your post. First off, and without wanting to do a pathetic 'Four Yorkshiremen' type skit, I know exactly how it feels to be broke. As a child and an adult. So the stuff about not understanding or being able to empathise with people is completely wrong.

I've already addressed the zero hours contract stuff above so no need to go over all that again.

And I never denied there were admin cock-ups or some misuse of sanctions. But the misapplication of a sanction does not mean the concept of sanctioning is in itself wrong, surely? What is your response to people (again, just to clarify for everyone, I accept it's a minority) who simply don't want to work? Is it unreasonable to sanction them and tell them that they'll have to go to a foodbank? Or is the very existence of foodbanks morally reprehensible?

 

[Abertawe]

The very existence of food banks is morally reprehensible.

 

[johnnytodd]

The very existence of food banks is morally reprehensible.

As is this thread zzzzz

 

[Red]

I wouldn't know whether the concept of sanctions is in itself wrong without mis application because we've never had a system whereby it hasn't been mis applied Alty, (love the sanitised terminology there btw, I think the word abused is more apt) by DWP staff. Please allow me to cite the example of a lady who came to see me this morning for help with a job search.

A few weeks ago this lady, who is 62 yrs old was made redundant, she's worked all her life and was looking forward to retirement until the government raised the retirement age (again). To cheer her up her son paid for her to go on holiday to Egypt, however, during the time period she was due to be on holiday she had a JCP appointment. She informed her adviser of this, who with typical DWP intransigence and arrogance, told her the appointment was mandatory and would not be re-arranged. As the holiday was booked she did the right thing in my view and traveled. When she returned her adviser asked her if she'd been actively seeking work whilst she was in Egypt The lady explained that the only access she had to the internet was through the hotel's internet which was not free and expensive. The response from her adviser was during the week the lady was on holiday she was required to be actively seeking for 35 hours of her holiday. The outcome? The adviser referred her case to a decision maker who decided a that the lady's money should be removed so that she learns not to have holidays unless it suits the Job Centre and when she does have holidays that she should spend the vast majority of them looking at Universal Jobmatch - applying for jobs with tin pot employers and agencies offering zero hours contracts. Maybe you agree with the DWP that this lady should have cancelled her holiday so that she could have attended the appointment and that she should have spent 35 hours of that holiday job searching. I don't, in fact it's pretty disgusting that anyone should be being hectored into looking for work when they're taking a little time out to relax with friends or family.

This is not an isolated incident Alty. I can assure you that your pals at the DWP are doing this sort of thing to people everywhere and every day, irrespective of their work ethic.

The tabloids and garbage programmes on C4 constantly portray unemployed people in a distorted manner - as being feckless, but the reality is, and you know this too, that most unemployed people are not like that, but are trying to find work in an increasingly poor quality job market. If you honestly believe that the only people getting sanctioned are those that deserved to be then the reality is anything but that.

In my view the small minority of glassbacks does not warrant a system of sanctions, even one that is not abused by DWP staff. In the absence of sanctions these people should be put on long-term educational courses that help with their functional skills and elements that instill a sense of civic duty and responsibility.

 

[Red]

As is this thread zzzzz

It's too complex for you that's why. Here, let me make it all better for you
Steven Gerrard is a tosspot.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Could she have signed off jobseekers and signed on again and had the appointment upon her return? Doesn't seem a huge surprise that wanting to claim whilst on a paid for holiday to Egypt didn't go down overly well.

The example given does strike a cord because my own mum is 62 and has was made redundant at xmas after a lifetime in work. Thankfully she's got a part time job to keep herself ticking over for a few years. But if she hadn't and if I was in a position to send her off on a lovely holiday, I certainly wouldn't expect her to jet off whilst claiming benefit.

I find your comparison of C4 to a far right tabloid slightly bizarre, It prides itself on being nothing if not inclusive tolerant and liberal, and that feels obvious just watching it for any length of time. The whole point of it's programs on the long term unemployed is to demonstrate the complexities involved in their circumstances.

What makes you think that those in the minority of 'glassbacks' would actually get out down to college and attend a "long term educational course"? If it's not voluntary and is mandated in some way, isn't that just another sanction?

 

[Red]

Could she have signed off jobseekers and signed on again and had the appointment upon her return? Doesn't seem a huge surprise that claiming whilst on a paid for holiday to Egypt didn't go down overly well.

I find your comparison of C4 to a far right tabloid slightly bizarre, It prides itself on being nothing if not inclusive tolerant and liberal, and that feels obvious just watching it for any length of time. The whole point of it's programs on the long term unemployed is to demonstrate the complexities involved in their circumstances.

What makes you think that those in the minority of 'glassbacks' would actually get out down to college and attend a "long term educational course"? If it's not voluntary and is mandated in some way, isn't that just another sanction?

She could have signed off JSA, but that would have meant waiting 3-4 weeks for a new claim to be processed. I wasn't comparing C4 in general to tabloids, just their portrayal of people on benefits. They both use caricatures of unemployed people.

 

[Leo]

It's too complex for you that's why. Here, let me make it all better for you
Steven Gerrard is a tosspot.

 

[Abertawe]

The case for a universal income is surely set in stone?

 

[Techno Natch]

The case for a universal income is surely set in stone?

Will reply to Alty soon.

I agree with this though. The benefit system is all over the place. I thought universal credit was going to simplify things however there are so many different factors in play that it's more complicated than ever. The amount of hours and money wasted must be extortionate.

 

[Alty]

The case for a universal income is surely set in stone?

There's very little political support for this. Mainly on purely philosophical grounds from what I can see. The general consensus seems to be that there's value in work; it makes you feel better about youself and makes you feel like you have a proper stake in society as you contribute something to it on a daily basis. Although I suppose the level of the UBI would be a major factor in whether people continued to seek work.

I'm on the fence, personally. Instinctively I think working probably is good for people but I'm open to persuasion.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Will reply to Alty soon.

I agree with this though. The benefit system is all over the place. I thought universal credit was going to simplify things however there are so many different factors in play that it's more complicated than ever. The amount of hours and money wasted must be extortionate.

UBI is a terrible idea and leftists should resist making the case for it. Firstly, it sort of assumes you can scrap existing, means-tested benefits. But can you? But what of people who have more expensive needs? Healthcare costs, childcare, accessible housing? You'll either have to make it generous enough that anyone can live on it, or introduce some form of means testing.

Who, in our society, is entitled to a basic income? Young people who may have left home? Undocumented people, or people with insecure immigration status? In a nation state, how would a basic income be distributed fairly?

I'd further be worried about its impact on rents. What's to stop the rentier simply absorbing the basic income for themselves through rent-seeking? We've seen how housing benefit impacts rents - UBI would surely be similar.

IMO the only solution to these problems is communisation of the essentials for human life. UBI cannot achieve what it sets out to do within a capitalist society.

 

[Abertawe]

UBI is a terrible idea and leftists should resist making the case for it. Firstly, it sort of assumes you can scrap existing, means-tested benefits. But can you? But what of people who have more expensive needs? Healthcare costs, childcare, accessible housing? You'll either have to make it generous enough that anyone can live on it, or introduce some form of means testing.

Who, in our society, is entitled to a basic income? Young people who may have left home? Undocumented people, or people with insecure immigration status? In a nation state, how would a basic income be distributed fairly?

I'd further be worried about its impact on rents. What's to stop the rentier simply absorbing the basic income for themselves through rent-seeking? We've seen how housing benefit impacts rents - UBI would surely be similar.

IMO the only solution to these problems is communisation of the essentials for human life. UBI cannot achieve what it sets out to do within a capitalist society.

No it isn't. In my utopia everyone with a British passport upon the age of 18 would be entitled to a minimal income and those requiring more, ie disabled, can have their specific requirements met separately.

We're not talking mega bucks, my back of a fag packet math would estimate circa £8,000 would suffice to prevent people living in utter misery. It should be the birthright of any UK citizen to have the needs of living met.

What you speak of in relation to rent would be remedied by rent caps and actually building enough state funded housing to meet demand. Capping or nationalising utilities/transport.

It would end crime overnight thus making huge savings. Student loans wouldn't be required, savings. It would enable people to innovate & achieve things that they're currently unable to. People aren't going to sit at home because they've got 8 grand. It'll just mean employers won't get away with being pricks.

The royal family have guaranteed income as a birthright I don't see why every other citizen shouldn't. You could place restrictions & amendments as necessary to work in the interests of the country.

 

[Jockney]

Your idea of Utopia is a nation-state with immigration controls, and benefits that are about half the UK living wage?

 

[Abertawe]

Dunno why you've mentioned immigration controls but the needs to live a basic life should be covered by the state definitely. Don't you?

 

[Jockney]

Dunno why you've mentioned immigration controls but the needs to live life should be covered by the state definitely. Don't you?

A Utopia is an developmental end-point for humankind. A paradise of sorts. You're talking about UBI of £8K and only British citizens having access to it. There's a British state and border controls implicit in that. That's setting the bar for utopia very low.

I'm ambivalent about UBI for most of the reasons stated by Ian Wrexham, and I think any implementation in the foreseeable future will come with clauses that all-but negate its benefits, possibly even worsen the economic conditions of people who are already reliant on welfare to survive. The issue is a moot point while unions are so weak and labour is in bountiful supply, but even if full or partial automation is realised the economic gap isn't going to be narrowed: the (capitalist) state will only subsidise its new class of unemployed masses to the bare minimum, leaving little to no recourse to improve their position. A creation of a class of people who are almost permanently dependent on the state for subsistence: what happens when that class stops behaving in the way that the state wants them to?

 

[Techno Natch]

UBI is a terrible idea and leftists should resist making the case for it. Firstly, it sort of assumes you can scrap existing, means-tested benefits. But can you? But what of people who have more expensive needs? Healthcare costs, childcare, accessible housing? You'll either have to make it generous enough that anyone can live on it, or introduce some form of means testing.

Who, in our society, is entitled to a basic income? Young people who may have left home? Undocumented people, or people with insecure immigration status? In a nation state, how would a basic income be distributed fairly?

I'd further be worried about its impact on rents. What's to stop the rentier simply absorbing the basic income for themselves through rent-seeking? We've seen how housing benefit impacts rents - UBI would surely be similar.

IMO the only solution to these problems is communisation of the essentials for human life. UBI cannot achieve what it sets out to do within a capitalist society.

Any top ups for disabilities can be implemented. They should earn a rate that allows them to have as normal a life as anyone.

The rent point is a good one that I hadn't consider but could be controlled by rent controls possibly? Hell burn out the leech landlords would be my answer.

Alty I agree that work is a good thing for people that are able to do it. Universal income would have to be set at a level that means people don't have nothing but there is still a drive there to make people want to earn more. It would also mean that people who are earning less could still afford to train or start up their own business etc. Or whatever they choose to do with that money.

It would also enable people who don't work for various reasons to do things such as volunteering or slowly work back into proper hours without having to worry about coming off of benefits completely. I know universal credit is meant to work in a similar way but it seems to have just as many pitfalls.

It'll be interesting to see what the outcome to the trials are.

Haven't got time for a full response yet but I think it's a positive idea.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

No it isn't. In my utopia everyone with a British passport upon the age of 18 would be entitled to a minimal income and those requiring more, ie disabled, can have their specific requirements met separately.

We're not talking mega bucks, my back of a fag packet math would estimate circa £8,000 would suffice to prevent people living in utter misery. It should be the birthright of any UK citizen to have the needs of living met.

What you speak of in relation to rent would be remedied by rent caps and actually building enough state funded housing to meet demand. Capping or nationalising utilities/transport.

It would end crime overnight thus making huge savings. Student loans wouldn't be required, savings. It would enable people to innovate & achieve things that they're currently unable to. People aren't going to sit at home because they've got 8 grand. It'll just mean employers won't get away with being pricks.

The royal family have guaranteed income as a birthright I don't see why every other citizen shouldn't. You could place restrictions & amendments as necessary to work in the interests of the country.

This seems like a yearning for a post-war social democracy that will never return. That social democracy was built on the wealth of colonial exploitation - and it's neither possible nor desirable to rebuild it in a capitalist society. If Jeremy Corbyn got elected and started to build two million homes, the economic consequences would be dire: interest rates would skyrocket, house prices would tumble. banks might go bust, people would lose their savings. I can't imagine any government in a bourgeois democracy surviving that. I genuinely think it's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than a solution to the housing crisis.

Meanwhile the other side have their sights set on UBI too.

They believe that UBI will enable them to privatise public services and charge fees to access those services - with people given the money that would have previously been allocated to the public service as a "universal benefit" to spend how they see fit. Hey presto, freedom of choice for all!

Thing is, they're right. When you're on the same side of the debate a Pinochet-loving, Thatcher-inspiring Friedrich Hayek you need to start worrying. And the more leftists bang the drum for their unobtainable UBI, the more a catastrophic right-wing version looms in the distance.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

A Utopia is an developmental end-point for humankind. A paradise of sorts. You're talking about UBI of £8K and only British citizens having access to it. There's a British state and border controls implicit in that. That's setting the bar for utopia very low.

Utopian ideals are inherently stupid because humankind isn't capable of envisioning a workable paradise much less inhabiting one. We're full of base instincts that naturally set us at odds with one another. That's why capitalism has been such a monumental success in that it takes things like greed and envy and harnesses them for a greater good. It's imperfect of course, but it's far, far superior to what came before and anything else that's been tried since. I don't see it ever going away until technology reaches the point that a mass work force becomes unnecessary.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

The discussion about a universal payment for the time when automation renders a lot of the workforce redundant is an interesting one.

If we imagine a world where almost all production is automated. Be it food, drink, consumables, maybe even homes. Then looking at automation thus far we know that what happens is that the amount of goods produced increases.

So with supply increasing, does the price fall? If the population lives off of a universal payment - is the price of all the goods falling to be within the range of the population living off the payment? Otherwise the customer base for the automation produced goods disappears and there's no point in producing anything.

If the prices of everything falls, are the companies benefiting from the automation going to earn enough to pay the level of taxes required to fund the government's universal payment? Because they'll need to pay a lot more tax than they do currently.

And how do you police that taxation, when everything is automated and human skills/experience is taken out of the equation, companies are run by a small number of humans, won't every company base themselves in a tax haven, even more so than they do already?

We're probably talking a few decades at the moment, as a stab in the dark. It's very hard for us sat here and now using our current grasp of reality to get our heads around this problem. In 1960, nobody would have imagined accurately what the workplace and jobs market would have looked like in 2000. In 1800 people were afraid that mechanism would destroy the factory/textile jobs.

I think there's plenty of momentum and thinkers on left and right discussing a universal payment to make it likely at this stage. But it's far from the silver bullet. And I think/hope there will be jobs of other sorts going, even if it's supplimented by the universal amount.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Utopian ideals are inherently stupid because humankind isn't capable of envisioning a workable paradise much less inhabiting one. We're full of base instincts that naturally set us at odds with one another. That's why capitalism has been such a monumental success in that it takes things like greed and envy and harnesses them for a greater good. It's imperfect of course, but it's far, far superior to what came before and anything else that's been tried since. I don't see it ever going away until technology reaches the point that a mass work force becomes unnecessary.

The greater good being what, "capital accumulation"? Capitalism isn't a natural system, or a superior one - it is a system created, spread and defended through appalling violence. It is a deeply inefficient system (because short-term competition leads to long-run inefficiencies)*, devastating for the environment and can only be sustained through violence means.

The only reason it's kept going as long as it has is that workers themselves have leveraged their power to rein in some of capitalism's worse excesses. That and the relentless expansion of capital's borders allows for moderate redistribution.

Capitalism isn't in human nature - it must be violently forced upon people. When economies cease to function along capitalist lines there is a tendency to move towards gift economies and systems quite akin to anarchist-communism or sometimes mutual economies. You can find examples of these in rural Andalucia, for example - though even in my parent's village, all the institutions of village life - the shop, the pub etc - are run communally because capitalism cannot provide the things that people need.

* a good example of this is in employment rights. Capitalists hate employment rights but job security means they need to train their own workers rather than poaching, so they end up with a higher-quality, and more productive workforce. In this instance, regulation of capitalism allows is to persist.

 

[Red]

I would agree. We are products of our environments and our behavior is shaped accordingly. There is nothing inherent in the human condition that causes people to be capitalistic.

 

[johnnytodd]

These lefties make me sick they whinge and moan about everything. The old bird did deserve a holiday but why should we the tax payer pay for it?

She should have been allowed 2 weeks grace go ride a camel and then come back and sign on without being sanctioned.

Then you got them moaning about shit jobs on offer at the dole office. Well because of your left wing, lazy bastard, everybody is equal views businesses don't want to invest over here. Everyone is selling off what they can in the UK because of your PC moaning types.

'oooh can't build a factory over there because some frog lives under the hedge'

The countries goosed because of hippies like Red.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The greater good being what, "capital accumulation"? [...]

The greater good being far fewer people living in squalor, or starving, or having their life expectancy cut in half.

Capitalism isn't in human nature - it must be violently forced upon people. When economies cease to function along capitalist lines there is a tendency to move towards gift economies and systems quite akin to anarchist-communism or sometimes mutual economies. You can find examples of these in rural Andalucia, for example - though even in my parent's village, all the institutions of village life - the shop, the pub etc - are run communally because capitalism cannot provide the things that people need.

I hear libertarians and anarcho-capitalists using similarly obscure and localized examples to justify their failed ideologies too. It doesn't change the fact that large scale anarchist or communal models depend entirely on humans not acting like humans in order to function. You might convince a local community where everyone knows everyone else to become the ideologues that the system needs, but you'll never convince an entire nation state. That's why every attempt at a communist or socialist state invariably descends into authoritarianism or worse. It's probably not a coincidence that collectivists states violently stamp out capitalism while capitalist states are indifferent to communal living, probably because collectivism is not threat to capitalism, as Andalucia - perhaps the poorest and most hopeless region of Spain - is testament to.

 

[Indian Dan]

The one good thing about being 62 is, generally, you don't really give much of a fuck about anything any more.

I've lived through the 3 day week, Thatcherism, 15% interest rates and been shot at defending my country.

Various so-called fashionable themes have come and gone which right royally pissed me off - the present one is the 'trans gender' bollocks.

I have no problem with a bird wanting bollocks or a bloke wanting tits and a minge - just stop banging on about it, ffs. There's too much of a 'poor little me' attitude about so many things these days. Whatever happened to keeping schtum and getting on with your life? Drama queens the lot of 'em.

Am I allowed to say queens these days?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

The greater good being far fewer people living in squalor, or starving, or having their life expectancy cut in half.

I hear libertarians and anarcho-capitalists using similarly obscure and localized examples to justify their failed ideologies too. It doesn't change the fact that large scale anarchist or communal models depend entirely on humans not acting like humans in order to function. You might convince a local community where everyone knows everyone else to become the ideologues that the system needs, but you'll never convince an entire nation state. That's why every attempt at a communist or socialist state invariably descends into authoritarianism or worse. It's probably not a coincidence that collectivists states violently stamp out capitalism while capitalist states are indifferent to communal living, probably because collectivism is not threat to capitalism, as Andalucia - perhaps the poorest and most hopeless region of Spain - is testament to.

Capitalism has perpetrated countless genocides for its foundational basis. Enclosure in England, the highland clearances in Scotland, the countless imperial wars and genocides of indigenous people that are still ongoing - the foundation of capitalism depended (depends) on the wholesale violent destruction of pre-capitalist society and dispossession of societies who believe in communal land ownership.

Even when Britain became the wealthiest country on earth because of the exploitation of its colonies, people still lived in slums in the big cities. It was only post-war socialism* that improved conditions and provided housing and healthcare for all. Nearly all of that has been rolled back and slum housing is beginning to re-emerge.

I'm not an apologist for state capitalist regimes - but those that have existed have drastically increased living standards for the vast majority. Life expectancy at birth jumped by 20 years in the first two decades of the PRC. India - with its colonial then capitalist administration, saw no equivalent jump in living standards and suffered an equally devastating and preventable famine.

That capitalism has temporarily retreated from parts of Andalucia for example, is not a sign of its benevolence, but its weakness. The people in Marinaleda or where will be ruthlessly crushed if Capitalism requires it. It's a myth that capitalism permits political freedom - as its long, bloody history attests.

* itself dependent on ruthless colonial exploitation, especially in Malaysia.

 

[Techno Natch]

The one good thing about being 62 is, generally, you don't really give much of a fuck about anything any more.

I've lived through the 3 day week, Thatcherism, 15% interest rates and been shot at defending my country.

Various so-called fashionable themes have come and gone which right royally pissed me off - the present one is the 'trans gender' bollocks.

I have no problem with a bird wanting bollocks or a bloke wanting tits and a minge - just stop banging on about it, ffs. There's too much of a 'poor little me' attitude about so many things these days. Whatever happened to keeping schtum and getting on with your life? Drama queens the lot of 'em.

Am I allowed to say queens these days?

The problem is that many do still have a problem that People identify as transsexual and they rightly want equality as they are still discriminated against.