All Anarchist Theoreticans Turned To Voting?

[eyedrop]

He was a little rigid, truth be known. The greatest of the anarcho-syndicalist theoreticians in this century were Rudolf Rocker, Augustin Souchy, and Diego Abad de Santillan, who were, as Dolgoff happily acknowledged, his own masters--all of whom came out, after the Second World War, for democratic reform. They concluded that libertarian goals could fit within a liberal social democracy. The Guangara Libertaria Miami Cubans and the Freie Arbeirer Stimme circle in New York reached a similar conclusion. But not Dolgoff. Purple haired punkers overran his own organizations and conferences--and even so he clung to the syndicalism of 1910, unbudgeable, except in lesser ways.


Taken from a essay at http://www.iww.org/culture/biography/Dolgoff1.shtml

Them and Noam chomsky has turned to voting now. Who is then left. This essay was written in 1990 and things could have changed a lot since then. Besides it only said that they had started to belive in representative demcrasy right after det war and that could have changed later.

The only other fameous anarchist I then know of then that lives now and doesn't vote is Naomi Klein.


Does anyone know when all this guys died? Did they die before everyones rights started to decline some time after the WW2?


Edit: Whoops misread the text some Now I see that Dolgoff himself never weanted to vote and kept to the 1910 syndicalistic ways

[redstar2000]

This would seem to be a thread more appropriate to the History forum...as I don't think there are many young anarchists now who have such mis-placed "faith" in bourgeois "democracy".

But those are some rather shocking names to find supporting electoral shit-eating.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[PRC-UTE]

I would dispute that assessment strongly.

Augustun Souchy, Rudy Rocker and Noam Chomsky are influential anarchists, no doubt. But the "The greatest of the [anarchist] theoreticians" would have to include Bueneventura Durruti and Nestor Makhno. Both lived and died for the struggle and never sold out to reformism.

[STI]

Naomi Klein is an anarchist? Where'd you find that out?

It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just never heard anything like that before.

[YKTMX]

Well, I know Chomsky put his name to the letter telling voters in swing states to vote Kerry, but I've never been sure what he's "for" anyway. I know he passionately rallies against so-called "authoritarian socialism" but his "anarchism" is always slightly nebulous and vague.

[eyedrop]

If I remember correctly I believe she states it directly herself in this book.

FENCES AND WINDOWS AN ACTIVISTS JOURNAL

But I'm completely sure, I did enjoy reading it though :)



Men jeg er aller mest interessert i et desentralisert system der de det angår, får være med og bestemme mer. I et mer deltakende demokrati.

http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2001/10/12/287383.html

This was from a norwegian news article about her, it basicly asks her if she is against capitalism, she answers that what she is the most interested in is a decentralised system where the ones affected by the decicion gets to decide. Basicly direct democrazy as I understand it. Remember that the interview is made in one of the largest newspaper in the country, and she therefore has to apear not to radical.

The funny thing about her being an anarchist is that she is is talked about as the most influental person in the world under the age of 35.


Dagbladet har møtt Naomi Klein, merkevarenes skarpeste kritiker og omtalt som den mest innflytelsesrike personen i verden under 35 år .

Sorry but I couldn't find a english article about it.




Augustun Souchy, Rudy Rocker and Noam Chomsky are influential anarchists, no doubt. But the "The greatest of the [anarchist] theoreticians" would have to include Bueneventura Durruti and Nestor Makhno. Both lived and died for the struggle and never sold out to reformism.

But where Durruti and Machno as much theoreticans as they were activists? I wouldn't say that they were as big theoreticans because I don't see very much material written by them in librarys and book stores. But it can just be me that has been unlucky. I suppose it would have been much more by them if they had won their wars.

But I acknowledge the part they have mattered for the movement.

[PRC-UTE]

But where Durruti and Machno as much theoreticans as they were activists? I wouldn't say that they were as big theoreticans because I don't see very much material written by them in librarys and book stores. But it can just be me that has been unlucky. I suppose it would have been much more by them if they had won their wars.


They are both the architects of the Libertarian Platformist (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html) school of thought which I happen to prefer. It's really the most advanced school of thinking in anarchism, but is not as well known and even rejected by some anarchists, such as Alexander Berkman (who, whilst being a dedicated comrade was no theoretical heavyweight himself! :lol: )

[eyedrop]

Didn't know that. Have they any books they have written or such?

How many divisions must there be under anarchism :D


Actually I have been on that site before and read, recognised the interface and the preface. But my poor memory failed to remember a shit of it.

[Hate Is Art]

This would seem to be a thread more appropriate to the History forum...as I don't think there are many young anarchists now who have such mis-placed "faith" in bourgeois "democracy".

But those are some rather shocking names to find supporting electoral shit-eating.

That's very, very wrong. Chavez is achieving change through democracy, the labour party in Britian has the potential to make huge Socialist changes.

More often (USA Excluded as I don't know so much about it) the major left wing party of a country holds the trade unions. The trade unions are the workers, so to achieve change we need to embrace the trade unions from the socialist party, and get them to embrace socialism that way, it is only natraul when the time comes we can get into power democratically and make the revolution that way.

We can't splinter, we have split apart so many times in history, it never does us any good. Unity through Democracy.

[apathy maybe]

I support elections it helps slightly, I also support other means. Considering voting takes one day it isn't that hard.

There are a number of things that politicians can do. One of these is access to media. So why not use the opportunity when we have it.

Sure you can argue that it never does anything, but I don’t see you taking up weapons. It is just another tool in the tool kit.

(And what people call representative or parliamentary democracy, isn’t democracy. It is just a pretty name. But it can still do stuff.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 7 2004, 10:07 PM
That's very, very wrong. Chavez is achieving change through democracy, the labour party in Britian has the potential to make huge Socialist changes.
But is it democracy? I wouldn't argue that it was. And the Blair has no ability to make any profound socialist changes, not unless he pisses off the industrialists, and they wouldn't allow that.


Unity through Democracy.

Unity with who and for what?

[Blackberry]

When discussing this topic, the distinction between an anarchist theoretician and an anarchist should be made before continuing.

The most ardent pro-capitalist could easily become an "anarchist theoretician" if they wrote (not a critique) or contributed to anarchist theory in some way.

The question is: does that theoretician actually hold those views that they are writing when writing their papers on anarchism?

However, the dominant anarchist thought is very much against the "bourgeois electoral process". Whether an anarchist or anarchist theoretician decides that voting is "a good thing" does not matter much -- they are not typical of anarchists in general, nor "followed" in the same way that parties and leaders of political movements are, due to the anarchist mentality that is deeply suspicious of following and "leaders showing the way". Plus figureheads for anarchists are rarely found these days, for the same reason. Therefore I do not find discussing the subject fulfilling, nor important or pressing.

*****


Well, I know Chomsky put his name to the letter telling voters in swing states to vote Kerry, but I've never been sure what he's "for" anyway. I know he passionately rallies against so-called "authoritarian socialism" but his "anarchism" is always slightly nebulous and vague.

When it comes to viewing the writings of intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, it is important to note that they will write for the sake of writing and extending discussion and debate. He has done so with anarchism.

Noam Chomsky describes himself as a "libertarian socialist", though exactly what he means by that is not clear. Chomsky's "political label" is, as YouKnowTheyMurderedX said, "nebulous and vague".

The papers I have read on the subject which try and make sense of this term using his books as reference have not satisfactorily explained what he is about. Chomsky simply does not reveal much of his own views.

This is why I made the fleeting observation, with the thought of intellectuals specifically, to discriminate between anarchists and anarchist theoreticians.

However, despite the grey area relating to Noam Chomsky's views, what is clear is that he is now more than ever alienated from anarchists due to his telling American citizens to vote John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election.

[STI]

That's very, very wrong. Chavez is achieving change through democracy, the labour party in Britian has the potential to make huge Socialist changes

That's hopelessly naive. The bourgeoisie will never allow their wealth to be deprived without a life-or-death struggle. Chavez's days are numbered. He won't create socialism, unfortunately.

[bunk]

Yes, but democracy can make things better for people. For instance any labour or new labour government is better for the people than thatcher was or a conservative government.

[redstar2000]

I'm not sure of anything more revealing of political naivety on the "left" than the idiotic notion that capitalist "democracy" is "really" democratic.

It is not. It never was and never will be!

No group that intends a fundamental change in the nature of class society will ever have more than token representation in a capitalist parliament...and usually, not even that.

Parliament (or congress) is made up of political lackeys of capitalism, period.

If you wish to vote for one of those lackeys in the foolish hope that "things will get better" for you or for others, go right ahead.

But when you tell people that one capitalist lackey is "better" than another...then whether you know it or not, you are lying!

In fact, even if you tell people to vote for a "socialist" or a "communist"...it's still a lie! It still feeds into the illusion that capitalist "democracy" is something other than a fraud.

Perhaps this is why every high school has a course called "civics" or "government" -- to make sure that every kid is taught this lie as if it were "truth".

And perhaps this is why the matter comes up over and over again on this board; the first step towards becoming a revolutionary is to purge yourself of belief in capitalist lies.

Capitalist "democracy" is one of their all-time whoppers!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hate Is Art]

But is it democracy? I wouldn't argue that it was. And the Blair has no ability to make any profound socialist changes, not unless he pisses off the industrialists, and they wouldn't allow that.

Who said anything about Blair? And eventually we will have to piss off the industrialists, although when we do it this way it becomes legitimate, not an anarchist preaching revolution in a baraclava.

Unity with who and for what?

Unity for the left for revolution.

That's hopelessly naive. The bourgeoisie will never allow their wealth to be deprived without a life-or-death struggle. Chavez's days are numbered. He won't create socialism, unfortunately.

He will, with our help, the people are behind him, he has one referendum after referendum, survived bosses lock outs and coup d'etats. His days aren't numbered. The bourgeoisie won't accept it but we will force them, but we will be legitimate because we were elected.

I'm not sure of anything more revealing of political naivety on the "left" than the idiotic notion that capitalist "democracy" is "really" democratic.

Who cares if it isn't? We can still use it!!

Parliament (or congress) is made up of political lackeys of capitalism, period.

Like all the Socialists in the Labour party?

[bunk]

Redstar: You can't deny that good changes can be made within capitalist democracy. Although not major changes like a revolution would bring they are changes worth voting for.
Living now is better in England than under poll-tax, that is a fact.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream
Who cares if it isn't? We can still use it!!

Would you attempt to repair your computer with a hammer? You would not; it's the wrong tool for the job.

"Using" capitalist "democracy" to advance the cause of communism is using the wrong tool for the job.

Capitalist "democracy" is an excellent tool when you consider what it was designed to do: give the appearance of popular sovereignty while maintaining real power in the hands of the capitalist class.

It works...for them.

Now you say you want to "use it"...what for?

You cannot win one of their fake "elections"...they will not permit that!

Some say that they will use election campaigns to "educate people"...but what lesson is really being taught? The real message is "capitalist elections are meaningful and real"...something that is a lie.

So all you've accomplished is to waste time and energy and resources...trying to fix your computer with a hammer.

Worse, you've actually been used by the system. Capitalist ideologues will point to the participation of "socialists" or "communists" in electoral charades and say "see how democratic we are; we even allow them (you) to take part and it's not our fault that their (your) support is so pathetic."

You end up enhancing the "legitimacy" of an illegitimate process!

What could be more foolish?


Like all the Socialists in the Labour party?

Yes. Like it or not and consciously or unconsciously, they are all indeed political lackeys of the capitalist class.

They'll never accomplish squat!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hate Is Art]

What do you intend to do then? Sit here and do fuck all? The working classes of Britain support the Labour Party, the trade unions support the Labour Party. We have a chance to achieve change, it may not be revolutionary but it's change.

Once I've fixed my PC with my hammer I can use it to fix some anarchists.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream
What do you intend to do then? Sit here and do fuck all?

Do you understand the idea that it's better to do nothing than it is to do something that's fucked up?

What revolutionaries do (or try to do) is encourage resistance to capitalist despotism. That's very difficult to do in periods of reaction...like this one.

But at least we try to do "the right thing".


The working classes of Britain support the Labour Party, the trade unions support the Labour Party.

The ignorance of others is no excuse for your own.


We have a chance to achieve change, it may not be revolutionary but it's change.

You don't have a snowball's chance in "hell". The so-called "Labour" party is as rotten and corrupt a bourgeois party as any party in your country...yes, including the BNP.

But what do I know? :lol: Go ahead and wallow in the muck for a few years...see for yourself what kind of "change" you get.

Perhaps they'll give you a nice plush job.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hate Is Art]

Do you understand the idea that it's better to do nothing than it is to do something that's fucked up?

What revolutionaries do (or try to do) is encourage resistance to capitalist despotism. That's very difficult to do in periods of reaction...like this one.

But at least we try to do "the right thing".


How is supporting the working class fucked up? Of course I could form a pitiful little splinter anarchist group and go around spray painting and putting up posters with slogans like "petrol bomb: use when oppressed" or "behead the brits in Iraq"

Cos That's cool isn't it.

The ignorance of others is no excuse for your own.

How am I ignorant?

You don't have a snowball's chance in "hell". The so-called "Labour" party is as rotten and corrupt a bourgeois party as any party in your country...yes, including the BNP.

But what do I know? laugh.gif Go ahead and wallow in the muck for a few years...see for yourself what kind of "change" you get.

Perhaps they'll give you a nice plush job.


I'll see what kind of change we get if Howard gets in. Then we can see what change we get with Labour.

EMA, Tax Credits, Support for Single Parents, Making the House of Lords Elected, Minimum Wage, Voting Reform, Allowing Wales and Scotland independant governments.

Change? What Change?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream
How is supporting the working class fucked up?

You're not "supporting" the working class. You're tailing their backwardness. Many workers do regularly vote for the "Labor" party. Other workers vote Tory. And still others vote BNP or UKIP.

So what?

All of them are wasting their time. Your failure to tell them that is fucked up!

If the British working class suddenly became fervently religious, would you join a church to "support them"?

Come to think of it, maybe you would.


Of course I could form a pitiful little splinter anarchist group and go around spray painting and putting up posters with slogans like "petrol bomb: use when oppressed" or "behead the brits in Iraq".

Even that is far superior to what you're doing now...lying to people.


How am I ignorant?

Most British workers are ignorant of the real nature of capitalist "democracy"...that it's fake.

Instead of telling them the truth, you simply echo that ignorance.

That's how you are ignorant.


Then we can see what change we get with Labour.

EMA, Tax Credits, Support for Single Parents, Making the House of Lords Elected, Minimum Wage, Voting Reform, Allowing Wales and Scotland independent governments.

Change? What Change?

I quite agree: no meaningful change there whatsoever.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hate Is Art]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Shut up RS. Those changes are monumental. They might not equal your "fuck everyone else I'm gonna do it my way" philosophy, but if it wasn't for the Labour Party I would probably still be earning like 2.20 an hour.

My friends wouldn't be supported in going onto college through EMA.

Single Parents wouldn't be able to go back to school or work.

This is change. We could go back to the Tories though.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream
We could go back to the Tories though.

You already have...and you don't even know it.

Poor dumb sucker.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hate Is Art]

No we HAVEN'T. If the Tories get back in all our progress dissapears and we take a load of steps backwards. I'm not prepared to do that. Reforming the Labour party to fully reflect the ideals of the working class is what we are aiming for.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 13 2004, 03:04 PM
If the Tories get back in all our progress dissapears
How? They can't lower child benefit anymore than it already is, they're not going to attempt to stop disability living allowance because that was already tried, thy're not going to create TUITION FEE's because that's already been done. They're not going to PRIVATISE the underground, Air Traffic control (Thatcher idea) or the housing benefits office, because that's already happened. They could raise income taxes while giving subsidies to farmers and waging war on third world countries, no wait that's already happened. They could increase the defence budget by 30% while raising council tax, not just for those who can afford it but for those who can't equally, no, wait, that's already happened aswell! They could create family tax credit stigmatising single parents by awarding families (never mind whether both parents are earning or how much they earn) with money, regardless of the fact that many single parent mothers claim benefits which are BELOW the EU poverty rate, but that's already been done too!

The only thing left to do is privatise the health service out right, instead of covertly doing it through foundation hospitals, which when all is said and done, are now owned by banks, because Labour has already done it. Or, wait, they could introduce school vouchers instead of directly giving financial support to private schools who already charge £12,000 a term, while state school roofs are falling in! Not to mention the selected schools which have already been privatised to companies such as McDonalds!!!!!

Please tell me, im intrigued, what progress exactly could the Tory government make disapear?


Reforming the Labour party to fully reflect the ideals of the working class is what we are aiming for.

And you lecture me about idealism.

[DaCuBaN]

And you lecture me about idealism.

As the saying goes: "pwnd"! :lol:

[Hate Is Art]

It's so nice the way you only see the bad stuff the government has done. NO WHERE DID I SAY I SUPPORT BLAIR!!!

So instead of spouting crap go clean you baraclava and get your spray paint ready.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream+Oct 15 2004, 03:57 PM--> (The Arcadian Dream @ Oct 15 2004, 03:57 PM) It's so nice the way you only see the bad stuff the government has done. NO WHERE DID I SAY I SUPPORT BLAIR!!! [/b]
Oh don't be petulant, it's so boring. I get enough of it with my sister acting like she's 10, I don't need it here as well.

I never asid you supported Blair you jumped up little twat. You said...


Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected]
If the Tories get back in all our progress dissapears

To which I responded with an argument to say that Labour was not at all progressive. Where's the progression Howard could undo? I ended by saying...


Me
Please tell me, im intrigued, what progress exactly could the Tory government make disapear?

Tony Blair is the least progressive Labour Prime Minister in the history of Prime Ministers.


So instead of spouting crap go clean you baraclava and get your spray paint ready.

Where did I spout crap? And I don't own a baraclava, what ever that is.

[STI]

It's one of those face-mask things that all anarchists wear all the time to make sure that the man can't find out who you are.

[PRC-UTE]

http://www.trident-uk.com/Catalogue/acatalog/wickes_balacava.JPG

everyone wears em, especially Irish paramilitaries.

[Hate Is Art]

I also said all the progress we have made under Labour - lets go back to oppression for Blacks and Gays under the Tories shall we.

Your a fuck if you think we haven't made any progress.

Tony Blair is the least progressive Labour Prime Minister in the history of Prime Ministers.


Well he comes in about 4th out of 4 then. Which in about 400 years of British democracy isn't so bad. He isn't great but whilst we have power we can try to change the labour party.

We don't need another anarchist splinter group, we need to work with the TU and Working Class.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream+Oct 16 2004, 12:29 AM--> (The Arcadian Dream @ Oct 16 2004, 12:29 AM) I also said all the progress we have made under Labour - lets go back to oppression for Blacks and Gays under the Tories shall we. [/b]
This is from an article I wrote for the Anarchist Youth Network...


In 2003 the Labour government discussed allowing same sex partners to have a civil wedding that would allow us to have the same tax breaks or entitlements that straight married couples enjoy, including access to a partner's pension. It would also mean that gay couples would have the same rights in property and inheritance laws for the first time ever.

This seemed like a huge step, and in many ways it was. It wasn’t until 1994 that homosexuality was “decriminalized” and given the age of consent of 18. Lowered from 21, which had been the age of consent since homosexuality was finally “legalized’ in 1967. It was a step in the right direction, publicly. The Labour government was being seen as a force for social change and Barbara Roche the Minister for Social Exclusion and Equalities said, “Change would send a strong message against homophobia.”

What a load of bullshit! To begin with, the age of consent was not a Labour idea. It was forced on the Labour government by the European commission of human rights who told Tony Blair that the ”discriminatory age of consent” was “unlawful.” When the legislation was passed it had an “abuse of trust” clause in it, which directly linked homosexuality to pedophilia. That’s what they really think.

When it came to giving legal rights to same sex relationships, even though, extremely patronizingly Roche had said “there is a strong case for allowing same-sex couples to register their relationships” Jack Straw, then Home Secretary made it clear what the governments position was when he said, "Marriage is about a union for the procreation of children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple. I see no circumstances in which we will bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages”

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the same Labour government refused to amend the draft Charities Bill to make equal opportunities a condition of charitable status, effectively saying it is ok for charities to discriminate against Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals.

To further their campaign of institutionalized homophobia the Labour government has repeatedly refused to crackdown on homophobic hate crimes, including vetoing an amendment to the Crime & Disorder Bill in 1998.

Labour then exempted religious bodies from the new laws against homophobic discrimination in the workplace. This means that religious-run institutions - such as schools, hospitals, care homes and hospices are free to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers.

In 1998 the government vetoed an amendment to the Human Rights Bill, which sought to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only one Labour MP told the Labour whip to fuck off! And supported the amendment. All the other “left-wing” and even openly gay MPs either abstained or voted against protecting these basic human rights for gay men and women.

In 1997, then again in April and July 1999 Labour blocked legislation to stop discrimination against gays in the workplace by refusing to support the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, and thwarting similar amendments to the Employment Relations Bill. In other words defending the right for bosses to sack gay workers.

Labour made claims leading up to the last election that they were clamping down on homophobic bullying in schools, but the vast majority of schools still have no specific anti-homophobia program. While gay youth are being victimized by their schoolmates, the schools are being allowed to get away with doing nothing!


The Arcadian Dream
Your a fuck if you think we haven't made any progress.

I'm not saying there has been absolutly nothing Blair has done which could be classed as progressive, but you are making out that if the Tories got back in we would suddenly go back to the dark ages. You are claiming they are not the same. I am asking you to be specific about the things you think the Tories could undo. What progression? I listed the unprogressive things Blair has done since being in power, they are all Tory like policies. What progression is it you think the Tories will undo?


We don't need another anarchist splinter group, we need to work with the TU and Working Class.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well?

[Hate Is Art]

Sorry, I've been busy with real life so I didn't have time to come onto this internet message board and persue a petty fued with you.

I'm not saying there has been absolutly nothing Blair has done which could be classed as progressive, but you are making out that if the Tories got back in we would suddenly go back to the dark ages. You are claiming they are not the same. I am asking you to be specific about the things you think the Tories could undo. What progression? I listed the unprogressive things Blair has done since being in power, they are all Tory like policies. What progression is it you think the Tories will undo?

Yawn - Look to my post earlier where I said all the progressive things Labour have done. Or can't you read?

You don't know what you're talking about.

Same goes Big Nose.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream+Oct 19 2004, 08:11 PM--> (The Arcadian Dream @ Oct 19 2004, 08:11 PM) Sorry, I've been busy with real life [/b]
What, masturbating and worrying about how shit life is and why your next door neighbour doesn't love you.


so I didn't have time to come onto this internet message board and persue a petty fued with you.

Feud? Who said anything about a feud? This is an internet message board, as you pointed out. It's purpose is to debate. That's what I wanted to do....debate.


Yawn - Look to my post earlier where I said all the progressive things Labour have done. Or can't you read?

Oh, you mean that list...


EMA

There is that yes. £30 a week...well, it's a start I admit.


Tax Credits,

For families that have two married people, regardless of income. Yes, very prgoressive.


Support for Single Parents,

What support?


Making the House of Lords Elected,

Now they're appointed by Tony Blair. Surely it would have been progressive to abolish the lords all together...what is he waiting for?


Minimum Wage,

The lowest in Europe.


Voting Reform,

What voting reform?


Allowing Wales and Scotland independant governments.

Now the Welsh and Scottish have their own ruling class...woohoo for progression!!


The Arcadian Dream
I also said all the progress we have made under Labour - lets go back to oppression for Blacks and Gays under the Tories shall we.

You didn't reply to my response to this statement...Why was that?


In 2003 the Labour government discussed allowing same sex partners to have a civil wedding that would allow us to have the same tax breaks or entitlements that straight married couples enjoy, including access to a partner's pension. It would also mean that gay couples would have the same rights in property and inheritance laws for the first time ever.

This seemed like a huge step, and in many ways it was. It wasn’t until 1994 that homosexuality was “decriminalized” and given the age of consent of 18. Lowered from 21, which had been the age of consent since homosexuality was finally “legalized’ in 1967. It was a step in the right direction, publicly. The Labour government was being seen as a force for social change and Barbara Roche the Minister for Social Exclusion and Equalities said, “Change would send a strong message against homophobia.”

What a load of bullshit! To begin with, the age of consent was not a Labour idea. It was forced on the Labour government by the European commission of human rights who told Tony Blair that the ”discriminatory age of consent” was “unlawful.” When the legislation was passed it had an “abuse of trust” clause in it, which directly linked homosexuality to pedophilia. That’s what they really think.

When it came to giving legal rights to same sex relationships, even though, extremely patronizingly Roche had said “there is a strong case for allowing same-sex couples to register their relationships” Jack Straw, then Home Secretary made it clear what the governments position was when he said, "Marriage is about a union for the procreation of children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple. I see no circumstances in which we will bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages”

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the same Labour government refused to amend the draft Charities Bill to make equal opportunities a condition of charitable status, effectively saying it is ok for charities to discriminate against Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals.

To further their campaign of institutionalized homophobia the Labour government has repeatedly refused to crackdown on homophobic hate crimes, including vetoing an amendment to the Crime & Disorder Bill in 1998.

Labour then exempted religious bodies from the new laws against homophobic discrimination in the workplace. This means that religious-run institutions - such as schools, hospitals, care homes and hospices are free to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers.

In 1998 the government vetoed an amendment to the Human Rights Bill, which sought to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only one Labour MP told the Labour whip to fuck off! And supported the amendment. All the other “left-wing” and even openly gay MPs either abstained or voted against protecting these basic human rights for gay men and women.

In 1997, then again in April and July 1999 Labour blocked legislation to stop discrimination against gays in the workplace by refusing to support the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, and thwarting similar amendments to the Employment Relations Bill. In other words defending the right for bosses to sack gay workers.

Labour made claims leading up to the last election that they were clamping down on homophobic bullying in schools, but the vast majority of schools still have no specific anti-homophobia program. While gay youth are being victimized by their schoolmates, the schools are being allowed to get away with doing nothing!


Same goes Big Nose.

It's tuff being wrong isn't it.

[Hate Is Art]

What, masturbating and worrying about how shit life is and why your next door neighbour doesn't love you.

No, it's actually called College.

For families that have two married people, regardless of income. Yes, very prgoressive.

It helped out my family and loads of other people I know. Should we not allow married couples a bit of support?

What support?

Paying For: Schooling, Child Care, Travel Costs, allowing Single Mothers a chance to go back to school and get an education or go to work and earn a living.

Now they're appointed by Tony Blair. Surely it would have been progressive to abolish the lords all together...what is he waiting for?

Cos It's so easy isn't, this isn't a revolution this is reform. No one is pretending it's great or that it will get us to where we really want. It has improved the lives of many in Britain though and got a Labour Govt. in Power which is great and means we can move on to get a proper labour government in power.

The lowest in Europe.

Better then it used to be.

What voting reform?

Starting to implement PR and AV changes to make Britains Democracy a much more representitive democracy.

Now the Welsh and Scottish have their own ruling class...woohoo for progression!!

I'd rather be ruled by my own ruling class then one imposed upon us.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 20 2004, 11:43 AM
For families that have two married people, regardless of income. Yes, very prgoressive.

It helped out my family and loads of other people I know.
Yes, middle class couples must feel a lot better to know that the goverment would wants to give them money.


Should we not allow married couples a bit of support?

Not if each parents are high earners..


Schooling,

Secondary education and college education is free and single parents don't get their tuition fees paid for them.


Child Care

Most single parents claim benefits.


Travel Costs

Thanks Tony Blair.


allowing Single Mothers a chance to go back to school and get an education or go to work and earn a living.

An education system you have to pay for and a job you hate. This isn't progression boy, this is more of the same.


Cos It's so easy isn't, this isn't a revolution this is reform.

And now we get to the bottom of it. Reform. Such a dirty word. No, this isn't revolution is it, maybe that's the problem.

You call the government appointment of land owning aristocratic fuck wits like Baroness Young progressive!? You're delusional.


No one is pretending it's great or that it will get us to where we really want.

If won't get us anywhere.


It has improved the lives of many in Britain though and got a Labour Govt...

I get £42.50 a week or a the prospect of earning £4.50 an hour working in some shit job serving people behind a counter. I just got turned down for a house even though i'm officially homeless! I had more money working in a third world country.

Your life might be pretty rosy, after all, your parents do get a nice fat hand out from the government...FOR BEING MARRIED (regardless of how much they earn), never mind the 3,000,000 people on job seekers allowance who get BELOW the European poverty rate.

Try living in the real world mate, then we will see how much the Labour government has done for us. What a fucking joke!


in Power which is great and means we can move on to get a proper labour government in power.

It's a lie, a delusional lie.


Better then it used to be.

Your not really looking at the bigger picture. So people over the age of 25 get £1 more than they did before, but what has that actually achieved? You say it's better than it use to be, but how. Because we have a minimum wage of £1 more than it was in 1997, for over 25's.


Starting to implement PR and AV changes to make Britains Democracy a much more representitive democracy.

How is that going to be a more representitive democracy? The country will divide the vote by a percentage meaning we will have lots more capitalists in government than just the Labour and the Tories?


Now the Welsh and Scottish have their own ruling class...woohoo for progression!!

I'd rather be ruled by my own ruling class then one imposed upon us.

They're all the same.

You still didn't answer the question of gay rights?

[Hate Is Art]

Firstly it is ovious you know shit about education and single mums.

Most single parents claim benefits.

Errrr yeah, the benefit to have Child Care payed for by the government so they can go back to school or go to work without having to worry about their children!!!

Geee, that sucks doesn't it.

And now we get to the bottom of it. Reform. Such a dirty word. No, this isn't revolution is it, maybe that's the problem.

Yes it is a problem, I'm not saying this is what we want, but it's a start.

I get £42.50 a week or a the prospect of earning £4.50 an hour working in some shit job serving people behind a counter. I just got turned down for a house even though i'm officially homeless! I had more money working in a third world country.

So you diss my 'rents for being richer then you then you complain that your poor? Go figure.

It's a lie, a delusional lie.

Yawn.

You still didn't answer the question of gay rights

I know I didn't, If I was Gay I would know who I would rather have in power. You can twist and turn the facts so much, congratulations.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 20 2004, 05:46 PM
Firstly it is ovious you know shit about education and single mums.
Yes, considering my mother is one, I know nothing.


Most single parents claim benefits.

Errrr yeah, the benefit to have Child Care payed for by the government so they can go back to school or go to work

Most single parents claim income benefits. Child Care help is not a motivation to go through education which eventually you have to pay for or get a shit job. What's the labour government doing about that.


I'm not saying this is what we want, but it's a start.

Only to the naive and stupid.


So you diss my 'rents for being richer then you then you complain that your poor? Go figure.

Stop acting like a child. I attacked middle class parents for getting cash handouts from the government, when they don't need it (which stigmatises single parents). You then went on to say "It has improved the lives of many in Britain though and got a Labour Govt..." To which I responded with my situation, which is the situation for millions of other people. All you have managed to prove is that the labour government has improved the lives of the middle classes.

Your half arsed attempts to structure logical debate is ridiculous. I don't quite understand how you you have managed to connect these two things in the way you have.


Yawn.

Yawn all you like, it doesn't stop it from being fact.


You still didn't answer the question of gay rights

I know I didn't, If I was Gay I would know who I would rather have in power. You can twist and turn the facts so much, congratulations.

So you're claiming my article is a lie?

Those events are facts, and they are facts that haunt the gay community every day. You have now just reduced gay oppression to nothing more that a distortion of the truth.

Are you saying that Labour didn't do the things I have researched for that article. Are you saying that it's gay propoganda?

Twist and turn facts how? You claim that Labour has done a lot for gay rights. What exactly has labour done?

You are defending Tony Blair, you are defending someone who protects the rights of the middle classes while betraying gay men and women and turning single parenthood into something which does not deserve to be rewarded, simply pitted. You have provided no facts to support your claims and you have single handedly turned the gay rights movement into a joke. You have been exposed for what you really are, congratulations.

[Hate Is Art]

I've been exposed for what exactly? A believer that democracy can achieve change? Someone who believes that a Labour govt is better then a Tory govt?

WTF have I become ey?!

Most single parents claim income benefits. Child Care help is not a motivation to go through education which eventually you have to pay for or get a shit job. What's the labour government doing about that.

Where the fuck do you get your infomation from? Single Mum's can't work, go to college and look after a child, so the Labour government will pay for a single mum's child care and college fee's so she can have her child looked after whilst learning/earning a living

Progress?!

Only to the naive and stupid.

No. Only to people who believe there are alternatives to revolution.

Stop acting like a child. I attacked middle class parents for getting cash handouts from the government, when they don't need it (which stigmatises single parents). You then went on to say "It has improved the lives of many in Britain though and got a Labour Govt..." To which I responded with my situation, which is the situation for millions of other people. All you have managed to prove is that the labour government has improved the lives of the middle classes.

So for the poor it's welfare and benfit but for the slightly better off its cash hand outs. When I was born my mum had to give up her job because we couldn't afford child care whilst she was working. Go Figure?

Labour are the only government that has done anything positive for Gay Rights, no where have I said the changes made have been perfect, it's better then the Tories though and having a Labour govt in power is good.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 21 2004, 04:14 PM
WTF have I become ey?!
A reformist, Tony Blair apologist.


No. Only to people who believe there are alternatives to revolution.

There is no alternative. People like Blair won't allow it.


Labour are the only government that has done anything positive for Gay Rights, no where have I said the changes made have been perfect, it's better then the Tories though and having a Labour govt in power is good.

The Labour government have done NOTHING for gay rights. Not one single thing, except lower the age of consent and that wasn't even there idea. It was forced on them by the European court of Human Rights who told Tony Blair that the ”discriminatory age of consent” was “unlawful.” When the legislation was passed it had an “abuse of trust” clause in it, which directly linked homosexuality to pedophilia. That’s what they really think.

When it came to giving legal rights to same sex relationships, even though, extremely patronizingly Roche had said “there is a strong case for allowing same-sex couples to register their relationships” Jack Straw, then Home Secretary made it clear what the governments position was when he said, "Marriage is about a union for the procreation of children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple. I see no circumstances in which we will bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages”

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the same Labour government refused to amend the draft Charities Bill to make equal opportunities a condition of charitable status, effectively saying it is ok for charities to discriminate against Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals.

To further their campaign of institutionalized homophobia the Labour government has repeatedly refused to crackdown on homophobic hate crimes, including vetoing an amendment to the Crime & Disorder Bill in 1998.

Labour then exempted religious bodies from the new laws against homophobic discrimination in the workplace. This means that religious-run institutions - such as schools, hospitals, care homes and hospices are free to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers.

In 1998 the government vetoed an amendment to the Human Rights Bill, which sought to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only one Labour MP told the Labour whip to fuck off! And supported the amendment. All the other “left-wing” and even openly gay MPs either abstained or voted against protecting these basic human rights for gay men and women.

In 1997, then again in April and July 1999 Labour blocked legislation to stop discrimination against gays in the workplace by refusing to support the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, and thwarting similar amendments to the Employment Relations Bill. In other words defending the right for bosses to sack gay workers.

Labour made claims leading up to the last election that they were clamping down on homophobic bullying in schools, but the vast majority of schools still have no specific anti-homophobia program. While gay youth are being victimized by their schoolmates, the schools are being allowed to get away with doing nothing!

There is nothing to contest here. It's all fact. It's in the charter, its on the statutes, you can write to Parliment and see for yourself!

Labour, JUST LIKE THE TORIES have betrayed gay rights at every possible turn.

And have you heard: Blair plans to kick ONE MILLION people off benefits.

You're blind mate. Sucked in and blind.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream
I've been exposed for what exactly? A believer that democracy can achieve change?

Well, yes. :(

The illusions of bourgeois "democracy" are among the most deeply harmful of all the illusions that people have about capitalist society.

It's always a real shame when someone falls victim to them. People like yourself will spend a lifetime attempting to "help people" with no measurable impact whatsoever.

You will believe and believe and believe...and invent endless "explanations" for why reforms either don't happen or make no difference when they do.

Had you lived in 1900 or thereabouts, you would have had at least some real world confirmation of your ideas...even as late as 1950, your case wouldn't have looked that bad.

But now? When every European government is weakening or abolishing all the old reforms...when the whole reformist paradigm is literally disintegrating right in front of you and you can't see it?

And you still prattle about "democracy achieving change"?

Good grief! :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hate Is Art]

It's always a real shame when someone falls victim to them

Well build a plinth to fallen Comrade Arcadia #3981

You will believe and believe and believe...and invent endless "explanations" for why reforms either don't happen or make no difference when they do.

Reforms do make a difference, we just disagree on how much difference they do make.

I'm not saying that Democracy can achieve Socialism, I'm just saying some changes that can be made through democracy are positive. Is that so impossible?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The changes "made-through-demcracy" aren't - they're made by pressure applied by the working class on the government. They're also things that can be won without government, therefore, why not, rather than telling people to become involved in electoral politics, why not keep it simple and cut the state out of the loop all together?