What a load of complete whatever

this country is full of bigots whats why bnp get their deposit back

swp socialist?.... fucking joke

the labour party have no right to call themselves socialists
look at the terror /internement bill they are bringing in
nuf said i think

didn't really respond to what I said.
what is socialism then if labour isn't it? which other socialist movement in the UK has achieved anything for working people in the past 50 years?
do anarchists have the right to call themselves libertarian socialists if they never do anything that practically brings the achievement of socialism any closer?

interesting comment, with some age old truths in it. i guess the question is, can i make more of a change working against the power, or from within government. Tony Benn for one believes that he can do better outside, though yes he is old, but even members of cabinet, once spouting sound socialist theories now sound more like fascits when on TV or in papers.
and as for the good labour have done, the gap between rich and poor has grown since labour came to power, thats the labour party we are talking about, and more people are living in poverty, and blair has 2, 2 wars under his belt. both supposedly for humanitarian aims.
i wonder if i became a labour mp it would be easier or harder for me to voice my concerns with these and other issues.

So what you think is that Anarchism needs 'modernising'.
Yeh i s'pose it does in a way. All the 19th century anarchist writers(where most of todays 'anarchists' get there ideas from)have little relevance to the 21st century.
But how do we go 'bout modernising anarchism??
I think anarchism has reached the next stage of evolution.

funny how you managed to forget the welfare state reforms, cutting benefit to single mothers, the state if the NHS falling futher into crisis and the poverty level rising. Oh and cuts in education funding (very cleverly managed to seem as increases in funding). Oh and clause 4 being scrapped, and petrol tax increases that hit the poor more than the rich. Oh and labour's hate for protest and therefore (in a way) free speech. Oh and blair's love of priavitisation. Oh and etcetra

If people want to vote for labour, that's fine by me, if the labour party even bother trying to keep their promises then fantastic. But what labour stand for now isn't what the labour of the past stood for, The labour government that brought in the NHS don't even bare a passing resemblance to this one. People who voted for labour in the 70's (presuming they know what they were and are voting for) must be pretty disillusioned with what they vote for now.

As for the BNP, stirring up racial hatred is a crime, not a valid campiaign tactic. The rise of racist parties worries me.

Love leon

So what you think is that Anarchism needs 'modernising'.
Yeh i s'pose it does in a way. All the 19th century anarchist writers(where most of todays 'anarchists' get there ideas from)have little relevance to the 21st century.
But how do we go 'bout modernising anarchism??
I think anarchism has reached the next stage of evolution.

Yes, what have parliamentary socialists achieved for us?

They have supervised the destruction of working class lives as they cowtow to the City. They allowed GM to close down its factory in Luton wrecking a community. They have continued the policy of privatising services so that the employees get treated even worse than they did before, the customers get a worse surface, but the bosses and shareholders make a profit. They are ignoring the plight of Hackney residents and workers as nurserys and libraries are closed down because Labour councillors fucked up.

Labour have been in power for 5 years and the education system is in crisis, there have been outrageous attacks on asylum seekers and our civil liberties.

Those things you mention are mere distractions. Bribes handed out after working class people fought long and hard for their survival. Just as trade union leaders again and again sell out their rank and file members in order to keep their cosy positions the parliamentarians will never give us what we need.

You are quite right - we haven't reached revolution yet. Perhaps we never will. But it IS the only thing worth fighting for. If we let up for a minute the gap between rich and poor will get worse, we will all be demonised, with such barriers to organising that the revolution becomes even more difficult.

It is because we don't live in Afganistan and don't get killed in our masses (RIP Carlo) for raising dissent that we have a duty to fight for the only thing that will stop this race towards barbarism.

"I give mankind no more than a chance in a thousand. But I would not be
human if I did not place my stake on this one chance." Albert Camus

No War But The Class War!

I've heard Tom's points many times before and they are important to address because they are the opinions of many in this country.

We want to create an alternative, which goes beyond the logic of profit, which is the ultimate concern of the modern state. I, and many others, want a revolution because we've seen the effects of capitalism in this country and abroad. I've seen people living literally in shit in India purely due to the injustice of capitalism. Their land and incomes have been destroyed by the west and they have to live by gathering and selling rubbish in the most demeaning way. I hate this system for creating misery and indignity and I want it overthrown.

It's not a matter of being 'left-wing', but advancing the freedom and welfare of all through the democratic control of resources and production. I think most of us can agree on that, even if most anarchists and Marxists are split on tactics.

Personally, I think the Socialist Alliance is futile and not particularly revolutionary. It boxes us in to a stereotype of left-wing losers who went out of fashion in the early 1980s. I don't think it achieves anything and is not really central to the wider anti-capitalist or anti-globalisation movement. It's a side-show (freak show?). The Labour party is also a lost cause, mainly because it is concerned with maintaining the capitalist system.

You might say that inherently selfish human nature is incapable of living without authority. But what is authority? It's not divine, it's made up of human beings and if humans are selfish as commonly suggested by authoritarians, there should not be authority and the state must be overthrown. I think that people should be more selfish, for it's in everyone's selfish interest to live in freedom and mutual aid. To go out to work for someone else's profit and to live an unfulfilling life is to sacrifice your liberty and waste your life.

I don't believe that people cannot live without the state or cannot know their own interests. This kind of argument was employed to oppose votes for women 100 years ago. Letting women have the vote did not create the kind of chaos Winston Churchill predicted - the chaos of the 20th century was created by the governments of Europe!

This cause may not result in anything in our life-times, but it is important to fight for what you believe in. Whether you can achieve something is far less important than staying true to your principles and potentially risking imprisonment and death to create a just and free society. It's better to die on your feet trying than to spend your life as a servile worker.

You may not be joking, but forgive us if we laugh. I seem to remember the Labour Party spending most of its time in the 80s attempting to expel or silence anyone with left wing views. (i.e. the sort of people who forced through most of the beneficial things you mention in your post and presumably you are trying to attract back as your membership falls incessantly as New Labour's sheen wears off.) The labour party is now not just actually pro capitalism - (it has been for a long time) but PHILOSOPHICALLY pro capitalist. As for "achieving real change" - the hard left may be sterile, but "New Labour" is a corpse - my experience of your average local labour party is tedium, backbiting, vile reactionary and opportunist views and a symbiotic relationship with freemasons, dodgy "businessmen" and any bright young thing with an eye for the main chance. This is no different at the top, only on a different scale of corruption. You fail to take the long view my friend - look at turnouts - the population are increasingly sceptical of ALL politicians.
No - if you want to fight fascism join an anti fascist group, if you want to fight for the environment join an environment group, if you feel the need to feel good by "helping the less well off" - join a charity - you will meet much nicer people and probably engage in more meaningful activity. In the long run new political forces will emerge (look hard Tom and you might see them..) which leave the corporate labour party in the dustbin of history. The future will be a battle between real democracy and corporate controlled shamocracy. One of the key tasks at the moment is to lift the mask, so that people can see the "Wizards of Oz" of global power who pull the levers of this controlled "shamocracy". You have nothing to lose but boring meetings..........

Oh come on...vote Labour? You could write several books about the huge array of disgusting and unforgiveable things that they've done, just in this Parliament, and just nationally, let alone in the mutilation of their own internal politics. Personally, and I'll probably get flamed for this, I say vote Green. In my opinion they have a more radical and needed agenda than the Socialist Alliance, and they have quite a large voter support base. They might not be quite at the levels they were in 1988 (over 2 million votes) but for a radical party their support is impressive. Of course, having said that, does anyone here really think that who you VOTE for is the be all and end all of politics? Of course it bloody isn't.....don't vote Labour to change things, you'll encourage the bastards...change things YOURSELF. Get involved.

Matt

I dont think I could ever vote for a bunch of war criminals, however much they were trapped in a dog-like shaft of Bush's rear.

Tony Blair is continuing with Thatcherism but with a nice glossy smile. At least with the Tories they actually said "We're a bunch of gits who only care about the rich", but whereas Tony and his Neo-Labour chums say "Ooh, we really care about the poor" and then do fuck all to help them. Neo-Labour are totally different from the Old Labour.
If I was forced to vote for one of the three main parties, i'd vote for the Liberals, they are more left wing than Labour. (But i'm not endorsing them its just the best of a really shit choice).

OK some interesting comments but nothing I haven't heard before or that really responds to what I wrote.

for instance Ginger, I am utterly gobsmacked that anyone can describe free healthcare, education and the wider welfare state as "bribes". to any one living in the real world they are vital institutions that do something practical every day to improve the lives of our citizens. 60 years ago they didn't exist and society was a worse place because of it.
do you really think anyone outside the hard left sees the welfare state as a bribe to blunt their desire for revolution?

leon
you menationed a lot of stuff. benefit cuts. the welfare state costs a lot of money. to ensure that popular support continues to exist for paying tax to maintain the system any party has to be sure that the money is spent wisely and that the tax burden is not too much. otherwidse the whole thing could fall apart. benefit cuts are not nice but sometimes they are necessary.
the NHS as you will have heard yesterday is to get a major boost from the govt. this will be paid for from a rise in tax. this is very important as it means labour remains committed to a free publicy funded health system. also they are being upfront about it and saying taxes have to rise to pay for it.
poverty. I know the gap between rich and poor has continued to rise under labour. this is due to a number of things but poricipally the shift from direct (income) taxation to indirect (VAT etc) taxation and badly-desgined benefit cuts under the Tories. I genuinely believe labour looks like it will shift the tax strategy back towards direct, and most of what it has done in the welfare reform area (look at the pensions stuff for instance) is redistributive.
don't know enough about eduactaion to comment sensibley.

Neo-Ceorl
on the one hand you say that people are sceptical of all politicians yet on the other you think there will be some upsurge in demand for direct democracy. it's the same argument that gets peddled in all the anarcho rags every election - that because people don't vote because they see the whole thing as a fix-up. but it wasn't true 50 yrs ago and it isn't true now. they simply don't give a toss.
and an alternative theory is that people actually feel that politics isn't important anymore because the basics are sorted. they don't think society is that bad.
finally, I don't labour has a monopoly on boring political meetings.

my central point is that the hard left is completely off the mark when it asserts that every done through parliament is a waste of time. far from it - as the NHS, Free eductaion etc prove this. in contrast by demanding a revolutionary anti-capitalist answer to everything the hard left never does anything effective.

the follow-up is the importance of experience. Labour has tried to change society for the better. it has at different times been more right or more left but it basically pushes towards a more egalitarian society. it has tried all kinds of policies to achieve this and has a much better idea of what can work than any of the 57 varieties of hard leftism that have never been put in practice. you can tell me that under libertarian socialism self-managing health collectives would provide treatment, but ask some bloke in the street if he fancies supporting a revolution to achieve that or just using the NHS and you know the answer.
it is not some giant conspiracy to buy-off revolutionary demands. it is just attempting to act practically rather than taling theory. ever consider that this might be why the parliamentary left is full of ex-trots etc?

so as a final challenge name me one thing the UK anarchist movement has done for the low-paid in the last 50 yrs that can match the introduction of the minimum wage.

Minimum wage a New Labour achievement, hm? Okay Tom, pop quiz; which organisation:
- campaigned for a minimum wage for years,
- patiently made the arguments against opposition from both Tory *and* Labour front benches,
- built a united campaign through the TUC,
- finally got it into the 1997 Labour manifesto through sheer weight of argument (combined with Blair's need to shore up union backing),
- is still campaigning for a decent rate (£5/hr at least) for all workers (no more exemptions) of all ages (end the lower rate for 18-21s)?

I'll give you a clue:

2 tom. I can't see how you can ask what have the anarchist movement done in the last fifty years. When it is plainly obvious that the anarchist movement have never had any powa to anything. This fact can be attributed to 1) we are always fighting amongst ourselves and 2) the powers that be have made sure that only representatives of the ruling elite get anywhere nr the controls, which is the exact reason that
Tory Blair is behind the wheel at the moment.
His policies of placating the pensioners and other groups by chucking them a few extra crumbs are calculated at gaining the a big enough majority of the vote get into power. as this is less than a quarter he is non representative of over 75% ...

I personally am not interested in voting for any of the current political groups, if the greens were not so off colour they would be my choice. No real anarchist would ever vote for any of the established parties as all they propose is the same old dogs dinner of a life style served up on the same old menu but with slightly different garnish.

vote for the sustainable community no plastix, no toxic chemicals, no cars lorries and trucks no pollution no wars
cheap integrated transport systemand no stress.(for starters)

Labour are not offering any of the above

LB

Tom,

in response to your above point, I personally don't see myself as part of any 'anarchist movement' and, therefore in the spirit of what i call anarchism, i can't tell you what the anarchist movement in the UK has done for low-waged working people, but I could give you examples of what low-waged working people have done for themselves. And that's more important.
Which is kind of the point that I'd like to make here, and i'm not sure its one that totally opposes your own. I'm fundamentally against the current system of parliamentary democracy because it is based upon disempowering people. It encourages an attitude towards politics as something that 'political specialists' do, its something that happens on telly, its something that takes place in a big posh room and involves mostly white, mostly male, mostly middle aged people.
None of which, of course, you seem to be totally disagreeing with. Your point, as I understand it, and its a point made by a lot of supporters of the 'third way', is that right here, right now new labour is making a difference to the lives of the poor. a minimal re-distribution of wealth.
but wealth isn't the only, or perhaps even the most important issue for me. It's quality of life. Which means the ability to relate to people on a non-exploitative level. It means strong, supportive communities. An environment where we are not constantly assaulted with stimuli designed to create more desires. An environment free from pollution. Freedom from the endless grind of alenated drudgery and wage slavery. its not money i want, its, to agree with mick, satisfaction.
which is not to patronise low waged people (i am one myself), and of course the minimum wage was a good thing.but a very, very little thing
Capitalism is like a cancer that stretches its roots out and infects every arena of existence and I am fundamentally opposed to reforms, to compromises...although I recognise that in some circumstances they are better than nothing (and a lot of those compromises have been fought for and won by the hard left ie. tolpuddle martyrs). Its the cause that needs to be attacked, not the symptoms. Already we're fucking the planet up beyond repair, people are dying daily in their tens of thousands because of the greed of a few, lots more hate their jobs, their lives, only spark of joy is wrung out of a drunken saturday night in some overpriced nightclub (its what i do myself most weeks). Nope, i just can't accept arsing around, tinkering with the tracking while the machine chews up the whole fuckin video and sets itself on fire. I have to do what i believe in, what i believe is best...not just what i believe is, possibly, slightly better than the worst......

Tom you say "so as a final challenge name me one thing the UK anarchist movement has done for the low-paid in the last 50 yrs that can match the introduction of the minimum wage."

Are you fucking serious? The minimum wage is a joke, I was working as a cleaner and getting nearly the same as the current minimum wage ten years ago! If you think that the minimum wage at its current shit level will help the poor then you're completly mad.

Labour have done fuck all to address the housing problems in the south east. Eg. in Brighton rents are rocketing, but all new development is new yuppie flats with no social housing provision. The Labour council is putting half a million into a private arts centre but cutting funding to women's shelters. Is that something a Labour supporter should be proud of????
I've taken to squatting (something anarchists have always supported - the do it yourself ethic) cos i can't afford the rents any more and there is bugger all chance of getting a council flat.

If you think voting Labour will help the poor then you are out of your fucking small mind, they are no better than the last bunch of shite Tories.

Excuse repeat post, but folk should know that at least one organisation is still campaigning to uprate the minimum wage to a living wage, and (even more important?) get rid of the various reductions and exemptions:

perhaps we do have a lot in common, the main difference would seem to be your canvassing for the labour party, by the way
my grandfather did a lot to help found the original labour party, he made it to chairman of the TUC,stood as a labour candidate a few times never got elected I understand that at one time he worked for Kier hardy and that they they were friends. He did however know a few seriously dodgy people like Cecil Rhodes for example .. I never voted labour, never voted 4 anyone..

still looking for that sustainable community

LB

internationalist
fair enough the unions lobbied for the MW but labour always supported the idea. I have a lot of respect for the TU movment in this country (I work for it a bit in my spare time). but it couldn't put the MW in place without labour.

ANGRY
what do you mean the MW is a joke?
are you arguing they should get rid of it then? I spent around three years in various factories where I never earnt more then £3 an hour. so it would have helped me.
also you don't think labour will help the poor. they just said they are putting £1bn extra each yr into the NHS (which is used far more by the less well-off), upping the state pension by £100 and giving pensioners £200 in winter fuel payments until the next election.
what does the anarcho-squatter manifesto offer?

Tom, perhaps you should re-read my posting which contained:

"If you think that the minimum wage at its current shit level will help the poor then you're completly mad."

The words "current shit level" are the important bits of the above phrase, if the minimum wage was decent (eg. at least £5 an hour for everyone, like the level that Unison want)then it would do some good.

Anarcho-squatters haven't got all the answers, but we can help out in industrial disputes, like in Brighton where we helped the Bin Men on a wildcat strike to get rid of the shit contractor and got everyone who was sacked re-instated.

So Labour have announced some more money for the NHS, ABOUT FUCKING TIME!! What took them so long?? They should have put money into the NHS and Education and Housing as soon as they got into power. Just cos they are now bailing out the NHS cos its going down the pan doesn't mean they are any good.
Voting Labour is a waste of time. Under John Major the gap between rich and poor narrowed, under Tony Blair it has increased!!
Still proud to support Labour??

I agree that it is still set too low. but if I and all the other labour voters took your approach and didn't vote labour wouldn't be in govt and it wouldn't exist at all. the reason it was initially set low was because of concerns it would result in small businesses going under causing lost jobs. I agree now it's been in place for 5 yrs and no jobs were lost they should give it a serious boost. but if you refused to support the party that brought in the MW, and so did nothing positive to bring it about, I don't see that you have any right to criticize what level it is set at.
ditto NHS spending. so you refuse to vote for a party that does actually deliver improvements to the health service and then you slag it off when it puts more money in because it's not enough and they should have done it sooner.
fair enough. then I say the anarcho movment has betrayed the people of Britain by failing to deliver anything at all that has improved their lives.
fair enough if you are helping in local disputes but what are you doing nationally? what are policies on health and education? how will they be implemented? where will the money come from? what about energy? transport? sport? media? pensioners? etc etc

PS. the rich continued to get richer under major as these stats show.
 http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/s13_personal_wealth_3.pdf

I agree that it is still set too low. but if I and all the other labour voters took your approach and didn't vote labour wouldn't be in govt and it wouldn't exist at all. the reason it was initially set low was because of concerns it would result in small businesses going under causing lost jobs. I agree now it's been in place for 5 yrs and no jobs were lost they should give it a serious boost. but if you refused to support the party that brought in the MW, and so did nothing positive to bring it about, I don't see that you have any right to criticize what level it is set at.
ditto NHS spending. so you refuse to vote for a party that does actually deliver improvements to the health service and then you slag it off when it puts more money in because it's not enough and they should have done it sooner.
fair enough. then I say the anarcho movment has betrayed the people of Britain by failing to deliver anything at all that has improved their lives.
fair enough if you are helping in local disputes but what are you doing nationally? what are policies on health and education? how will they be implemented? where will the money come from? what about energy? transport? sport? media? pensioners? etc etc

PS. the rich continued to get richer under major as these stats show.
 http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/s13_personal_wealth_3.pdf

You said "but if you refused to support the party that brought in the MW, and so did nothing positive to bring it about, I don't see that you have any right to criticize what level it is set at."

So cos i didn't vote for Labour means i can't criticise it?
So that means 75% of the electorate who didn't vote for Labour just have to accept everything they do?? You really have lost the plot now. I did and do support the Unison campaign for a £5 minimum wage.

As for Labour improving the NHS? Er........can't think of much there.