Voting win for Labour grassroots

[borders]

i should say that politically alls "i" want is for people to realise that the real power for change lies with them rather than a few that set themselves up as governors and dictate how we should all live, I do not object to true democracy where WE choose how we should live rather than One or Two political leaders deciding for us, when they are singing from the same hymn sheet anyway. I do not want or wish for revolution in the bloody sense just that people empowered themselves and took control of their own lives as individuals, communities and humans and worked for each other and thus ourselves and each other rather than paying into the belief that we may only choose from the very narrow set of rules "they" choose to give us at the moment. I have said in another post that communication is the key to emancipation for all people and sadly i also said it was decades away and that i still believe is true. I have also said that spoiling a ballot paper is a fantastic first step in doing that. Violence should play NO part in such a revolution because for me that would be self defeating in that you would be forcing your opinions on others and that is not true democracy and i feel that is what we all really want.

very interesting subject Linkinpark, the problem being is how do we deal with the organised violence of the ruling class ? As society goes deeper into crisis, the ruling class has to turn more and more to repressive methods to maintain control. at the moment there is revolutionary conflicts happening in South America and every revolutionary movement in South America has met with police violence. 150 demonstrators lost their lives during the revolutionary process in Bolivia in 2003. the present Venezuelan revolution is under threat from gangs of thugs, systematically organized by the ruling classes. many of our laws today are made to legalise state violence to uphold their rules, for example....If a group of workers occupies a factory to run it democratically on the basis of need, they are committing an illegal, immoral act. If a detachment of men, dressed in blue and called policemen, are sent in to expel the occupiers and re-establish the owners' control over the company, they are carrying out a moral, legal act and their violence is justified. And this violence appears all the more justified if the policemen are acting with a warrant under the laws of a democratically elected parliament.
what we really have is an illusion that parliament creates the impression of a democratic debate between the classes, a place where democratically elected representatives discuss and determine the fate of the country, in reality it is the ruling classes that controls the economy (and with it all the fundamental decisions), the press, television and publishing. anyway how do we change this ? how do we arrest control back from the ruling classes and create a society run for the benefits of everyone. capitalism is a system of exploitation of man by man and maybe as the working class we have a right of self defence ?

[borders]

thanks for your reply, linkinpark.

[andy2007]

Too damn right - I'm on my way - errr - what exactly is Modern Anarchy in a Political Sense - is it a good thing or a bad thing I wonder - anyway it sounds impressive, is Screaming Lord Sutch involved by any chance?

Might have been a good thing, if he had have been. At least that way, the advocates of "Modern Anarchy in a Political Sense"
might have had a chance (however small) of being elected.

Trouble is though, being Anarchists, having been elected would they then have to kill themselves? Or maybe worse, they'd have to accept that they'd compromised their principles by having agreed to the governmental system which had elected them?

Those Modern Anarchists don't have it easy.....

Now why didn't you post this in the first place. Instead of being so dismissive, of others views?
This site is here for people to DEBATE, and pass on information. It's not here for people to dismiss others views and beliefs, without bothering to explain why. However, the post I quoted here, makes a very good point (although it's still a bit sarcastic for my taste). Now perhaps we can debate this porperly.

Personally, I agree, that any form of Anarchy is doomed to failure. Not just for the reason you stated. But also, because any large group of people, needs some sort of organisation. The real problem IMHO, is finding a way to have a group of representatives, who'll actually REPRESENT the views of those who elect them.

Our current Political System, although flawed, is the best one I've come across. But only if it's used properly, by everyone. Specifically: If the majority are successfully convinced that there are only two Parties to choose from (regardless of how many there actually are). Then those two Parties can safely become complaceant, which is exactly what's happened in Britain.

Basically, it comes down to this: If people are scared that if they don't vote for one, then the other is definately going to come in. And the alternative Party is even worse. They'll put up with a considerable amount of sleaze, dishonesty, and betrayal. Just look back at old News stories. It's shocking what they get away with, because there are so many people caught up in a self fullfilling prophacy, created by fear.

Although I agree that Anarchy in any form, would be far worse than our current situation. Linkinpark is spot on, about us needing to start thinking and acting for ourselves, rather than just "towing the line". All I disagree with him about, is the way he suggests doing so. Personally, I'd suggest trying to emulate Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (aka Mahatma Gandhi). Who's dedication to peaceful resistance, was instrumental in achieving independance for India.

I know that once they gained independance, things went badly wrong. But even then. He tried to counter the violence, with peaceful protest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/50664.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
India finally won independence in 1947.

But for Mahatma Gandhi, triumph was tempered with disappointment over the violent partitioning of the country into India and Pakistan.

...

When he saw the extent of the bloodshed, Mahatma Gandhi again turned to non-violent protest. He went on a hunger strike, saying he would not eat until the violence stopped and India gave back the 550 m rupees (about £40m) that it was holding from Pakistan.

I recommend reading the whole article, before dismissing my views Tman. There are a lot of others too, but this one's quite short, so it shouldn't take too long to read it thoroughly.

[Tman]

Now why didn't you post this in the first place. Instead of being so dismissive, of others views?

Why? Maybe because it was a little tongue-in-cheek humour aimed at the very idea that anyone would wish to achieve a state of anarchy, or see that it was desirable in any way? (See? It was dismissive too... )

Anyway, as various political thinkers have said in the past, a state of anarchy cannot exist for anything other than a very short period of time; as has been seen in states world-wide when this situation occurs, a new "power-base" soon appears whether it be the local gang boss or the military. Either way, it rarely if ever means any improvement for the lot of the average worker.

Now, how did a thread about anarchy come to mention Gandhi?

[borders]

as much as Ghandi achieved as a great person , India as a country still suffers from appalling levels of poverty and the gap between the rich and poor is widening. the so called progression happening in this country is one ended from what i can see, here are some examples......"As India “progresses”, more people fall into vicious circle of poverty. 230 million people are undernourished and 40 per cent of children under three years of age are underweight. The slums are increasing at a drastic rate on outskirts of Mumbai, Bangalore and other cities otherwise considered as “modern ". and some more...."India, the world’s largest food grain producer, also has the world’s largest hungry population -- over 200 million. It ranks a poor 66th among 88 developing and transitional countries according to the 2008 Global Hunger Index (GHI-2008) report released by the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute ".
But this only one side of the picture: now a large part of the rich in the world are from India. People like Laxmi Mittal, Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani, etc., are from India. Mukesh Ambai who lost $28.2 billion gambling on the Stock Exchange is still India’s richest person with $20.8 billion. also consider this i read about..." Recently, an airship “Air Force One”, worth Rs 2450 million, was purchased and included in the Indian Air Force. Yes, there is money for such luxuries, bailouts and the buying of weapons, but there is no money for the ordinary public.

For the 2009-10 fiscal budget India's defence expenditure increased by 10 %, which adds up to Rs.1,056 billion ($26.5 billion) for buying military hardware in order to kill people ".

[borders]

i dont think anyone would like to live in a state of Anarchy long term, as only the nastiest, if i can put it like that, would survive, it would be dog eat dog. however , a state of anarchy short term could be the precursor of change for the better ?

[borders]

how about having a look at this,The Labour Representive Committee. here is the website..http://www.l-r-c.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. we only have 2 choices , tories or labour in the next election but we need to change labour into a true working class party and we need to have strong Unions looking after our needs. here is what they stand for...About the LRC
The original Labour Representation Committee was formed in 1900 to fight for political representation for the Labour Movement. In Britain today we face a similar crisis of representation. The LRC has been re-formed to secure a voice for socialists within the Labour Party, the unions, and Parliament.

Never in the history of the Labour Party has the need been so great to make the case for peace and socialism. The advocates of global capitalism and war have taken control of the political agenda. The task for today's LRC, founded in 2004, is to fight for power within the Labour Party and trade unions and to appeal to the tens of thousands who have turned away from Labour in disillusion and despair. Therefore we are calling upon all socialists, Labour Party and trade union members, constituency Labour parties and union branches to join our campaign and join or affiliate to the LRC.

The LRC is a democratic organisation committed to fighting for a socialist future:

We need a foreign policy based upon peace, justice and solidarity
Britain is a more unequal society than at any time since the Second World War. The LRC is fighting for a living wage, a decent state pension, council housing and public services run to meet our needs not sold off for private profit
All people are equal. We believe in fighting all forms of prejudice and discrimination
With global capitalism in control of the political agenda, there is an urgent need for a major shift of wealth and power in favour of ordinary people
The LRC was setup to fight for workers’ rights, civil liberties and political representation
With the planet on the brink of environmental catastrophe New Labour’s answer is more nuclear power and an expansion of aviation. We need a green energy policy based on renewable and the development of public transport
This is an exciting time to join the LRC – we are continuing to grow rapidly as Labour supporters, trade unionists and other socialists look to develop a radical agenda around which the movement can unite in the face of the resurgent Tory threat.

We have local LRC groups right across the country bringing together socialists and trade unionists to fight local campaigns.

Membership is open both the Labour Party and non-Labour Party members. However, you cannot be a member of a party that stands candidates against the Labour Party.

[andy2007]

as much as Ghandi achieved as a great person , India as a country still suffers from appalling levels of poverty and the gap between the rich and poor is widening. the so called progression happening in this country is one ended from what i can see, here are some examples......"As India “progresses”, more people fall into vicious circle of poverty. 230 million people are undernourished and 40 per cent of children under three years of age are underweight. The slums are increasing at a drastic rate on outskirts of Mumbai, Bangalore and other cities otherwise considered as “modern ". and some more...."India, the world’s largest food grain producer, also has the world’s largest hungry population -- over 200 million. It ranks a poor 66th among 88 developing and transitional countries according to the 2008 Global Hunger Index (GHI-2008) report released by the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute ".
But this only one side of the picture: now a large part of the rich in the world are from India. People like Laxmi Mittal, Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani, etc., are from India. Mukesh Ambai who lost $28.2 billion gambling on the Stock Exchange is still India’s richest person with $20.8 billion. also consider this i read about..." Recently, an airship “Air Force One”, worth Rs 2450 million, was purchased and included in the Indian Air Force. Yes, there is money for such luxuries, bailouts and the buying of weapons, but there is no money for the ordinary public.

For the 2009-10 fiscal budget India's defence expenditure increased by 10 %, which adds up to Rs.1,056 billion ($26.5 billion) for buying military hardware in order to kill people ".

The problem was, and still is. That once India gained independance, they dropped Ghandi's ideals, and went for everything they could get. Which is why they quickly descended into violence, despite Ghandi's efforts. If someone was able to replicate his methods, and more importantly. Convince others to continue to stick to those principles, even after the initial victory. Then we might have a chance of sorting so many problems out. The problem, is always greed.

Just look at what happened in the Communist Countries. It all started out well. The Peasants got some land, and respect. The greedy "upper classes", were deposed. But soon after, they ended up with a far worse regeme. With Secret Police, people "dissapearing" if they disagreed with the Government, etc..

At least Ghandi fought just as hard, against the violence, as he did for independance. He was a man of great strength of character, and morals. And IMHO an example to us all. If only there was someone alive today, who could emulate him!

[borders]

dont disagree with that Andy .

[Tman]

The problem was, and still is. That once India gained independance, they dropped Ghandi's ideals, and went for everything they could get. Which is why they quickly descended into violence, despite Ghandi's efforts.

Nothing to do with religious tensions and divisions leading to Partition, then?

Just look at what happened in the Communist Countries. It all started out well. The Peasants got some land, and respect. The greedy "upper classes", were deposed. But soon after, they ended up with a far worse regeme. With Secret Police, people "dissapearing" if they disagreed with the Government, etc..

"Started out well"? I suppose if the immediate appropriation and possible imprisonment of the bourgeoisie mill, factory and farm owners etc (apparently if you employed three or more workers, that was you) leading to mass unemployment, starvation, food riots, strikes and summary street executions was "starting out well", then you're right.
More like "frying pan" and "fire" I'd say, but I never was taken in by Lenin's smoke and mirrors philosophies, and as just about every country that's been allowed to, has ditched these concepts ASAP too then it would seem they're proven to be a failure to most people.
{Unless you can be in the upper echelon, who never seem to either suffer or go short when times are hard, but that's another inherent defect the Hard Left don't like to mention when calling for this political system}

[IWW Fellow Worker]

i dont think anyone would like to live in a state of Anarchy long term, as only the nastiest, if i can put it like that, would survive, it would be dog eat dog.

Unlike the present system where everyone is treated fairly, where everyone is a veritable Good Samaritan, where hunger and want have long since been abolished and everyone lives in harmony regardless of race, nationality, religion or sex, do you mean?

[Tman]

i dont think anyone would like to live in a state of Anarchy long term, as only the nastiest, if i can put it like that, would survive, it would be dog eat dog.

True, but it then it looks like there actually is someone who thinks a state of anarchy would be preferable.

{But then he has spent the last 38 years fighting the Class War from the safety of a cosy little DO somewhere... }

[CourtneyCox]

i dont think anyone would like to live in a state of Anarchy long term, as only the nastiest, if i can put it like that, would survive, it would be dog eat dog.

True, but it then it looks like there actually is someone who thinks a state of anarchy would be preferable.

{But then he has spent the last 38 years fighting the Class War from the safety of a cosy little DO somewhere... }

Amazing - one of the most important days for the Union and Royal Mail in 2 years and TMans first comment is a not very subtle and not even slightly funny dig at someone else's views.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

i dont think anyone would like to live in a state of Anarchy long term, as only the nastiest, if i can put it like that, would survive, it would be dog eat dog.

True, but it then it looks like there actually is someone who thinks a state of anarchy would be preferable.

{But then he has spent the last 38 years fighting the Class War from the safety of a cosy little DO somewhere... }

Amazing - one of the most important days for the Union and Royal Mail in 2 years and TMans first comment is a not very subtle and not even slightly funny dig at someone else's views.

Now now Courtney - Perhaps his priorities lie elsewhere have some sympathy for him. I do agree that his comment was not funny, but it is in his usual style.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Amazing - one of the most important days for the Union and Royal Mail in 2 years and TMans first comment is a not very subtle and not even slightly funny dig at someone else's views.

You have to remember, these screws and their apologists have long since lost the capacity for individual thought. It's unreasonable to expect anything else from T*** man.