Questions for James [Archive]

James

6th July 2004, 23:13

Do you support the implmentation of a socialist state?

Of course - indeed it could be argued that because i "want it to work", i'm against tactics and ideas which i personally think are "counter-productive".
Example:
Me opposing Kez's favoured "should-have-method" in the oldham riots. He was for violence: i was for peacful. For three reasons: i think its more effective (i want it to WORK); it doesn't give "us" a bad name (kamo would prefer an even more hostile media); and finally, i think a non-violent, intelligent culture needs to be fostered - where we rely on strength of argument, logic, and courage (a belief heavily inspired in part by the british C19th reform movements - e.g. Temperance Societies and the Moral Force Chartists), rather than physically hurting those who have a different opinion to us.

Equally i'm cautious on republicanism in britain - it is a fact that the queen is better for the people of britain, than whoever would be elected if we became a republic. As i've given examples of and explained before - the queen is far better than the Thatcher or Blair alternative which we WOULD get. Look at America.

Do you support the abolishon of the monarchy should a socialist state be implimented?

YES!
If, in this hypothetical socialist state also had some form of a head of state (which, by the way, in my opinion should be more of a reduced, clerical role - maybe like what the founding fathers had in mind for the presidency - if there is to be one at all that is), i would fight for it to be an elected role.
The monarchy would have no place or function. Of course she could still call herself queen if she wanted (just as kamo should still be able to call that mysterious mate of his, "the working class"), but she'd have to live in a normal house, go to work, pay bills, participate as a normal citizen.

Do you support the war against Iraq?

Of course not.
I campaigned extensively against it. I lobbied my MP (to a great extent), the home office, the foreign office, the PM and labour party.
I took part in a number of protests - i played an active part in the student strike, encouraging others at my college and school to also particpate (indeed i got in trouble several times for putting posters up - and several teachers were personally critical to an extent). At the strike itself i helped in several parts, and in several ways (all of those who were there know how it lacked direction).
I was one of those who broke the police horse line - i got hit by a horse. I had a personal posession stolen by the police (they "forgot" what they had done with it when i chased it up). I was in the mini riot that followed. I had a detective come around to MY house! I helped the BBC report it. I helped a lawyer take action. I helped spread the word. I engaged many people in argument, in many ways.

Of course i could have done far more - but this is always the case. Alot of people did ALOT less than me.

Confusion may be caused by certain members taking what i have said out of context - i believed after the war, that troops were needed in iraq for security purposes. Of course i understand that several members wished for total withdrawal, some arguing that it would let the people take control in the long term - but in my opinion a withdrawal after the war would have led to a civil war. Alot of people tend to die in civil war. Especially when they are heated up further by religious and cultural differences (as exists in iraq).

This does not however mean i blindly support all "coalition" action.
Ideally, as this is what many members here only seem to talk about (the ideal situation is not always the real situation; neither is the ideal solution always the practical solution), i would have prefered a UN presence after the war over coalition control/presence.

Will you be voting for the Tory party in the next general election?

No.
And again, this is an issue because some members have taken what i said out of context.
I was only considering a tory vote in the EU elections because i'm very sceptical of the EU. There are numerous reasons for such an opinion. I've stated many.
examples;
1. its food and fishery policies are:
- unfair to the "unimportant" workers
- damaging to the environment
- wasteful
- often impractical
- a crime against humanity (why should so much ROT when people are actually STARVING?)

2. mandatory political and economic union, with mandatory centralist legislation is, pointless (horse passports: true, they are needed in france where they EAT them - and thats why the passports were made - but why do working farmers over here have to be snowed under by such paper work? private eye had an article on this shamble), stupid (don't you see one centralist policy isn't going to work for polish farmers, mediteranian vine farmers, and welsh sheep farmers! - equally the poorer states can't afford the more idealist yet expensive polution controls, on the same scales that transnational corporations and succesful british national businesses can) and unfair (states are fined if they fail to enforce EU legislation).

3. its VERY corrupt (but handles vast amounts of capital)

4. its VERY undemocratic (yet compulsory)

blah blah blah
So yes, i did consider voting tory over labour and lib dem, because i'm pratical. I agree with the lib dem and labour ideal, that all of europe working together is nice: but i accept the practical situation that exists!
As it happens though, i voted GREEN.