[skinster]

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Kaiser do I have to go and do a graph of the history of the welfare state in the UK from its inception to now and have to pull out speeches on the Parliament floor of why it was adopted and who were the ones fighting to not fund the welfare state? Do you have an idea of why it is necessary? What happens to workers who are laid off their jobs sometimes jobs they have worked for decades because the capitalist industry changes and they either have to fold or move out of the country to make higher profit margins Kaiser? If there is no welfare at all? How do these workers fare in the UK? Do they stay at home watching their bank accounts hit zero and getting turned out in the street for lack of funds to pay the rent? What kind of anger does this kind of lay off produce? Didn't you have some 'troubles' in the 1980's with the coal miners in Northern English cities because of lay offs or lack of work? As a government if you are feeling a bunch of angry workers hitting your streets and creating chaos and mayhem what solution is there to that but some kind of economic band aid to keep people from exploding politically and financially against the upper classes? Do you think Tories think giving away money from taxes is done because they care about the working class? Tories according to Corbyn have been taking payoffs to cut or slash public services? Why? If they are all loving the working classes? Explain. Discuss Kaiser. Go ahead?
Seems to me that Charles Dickens wrote some fictional novels that I loved called Oliver Twist, Little Dorrit and many others that were about child labor, poverty, work houses, debtors prisons in England of the 19th century. It wasn't a pretty picture. How did these nasty by products of the Industrial Revolution of Capitalism in England suddenly get transformed into the modern welfare state we witness today? Because the Toffs and the upper classes grew a heart and decided the suffering had to be dealt with? Or was it some kind of political pressure that was unbearable and the upper crust House of Lords had to concede some public funds to avoid being routed or beaten politically? Go ahead give me your non-economic explanation Kaiser I am all ears.

If you go back 100 years to make your point, you might as well call the US Democrats the party of the KKK today. That makes no sense to a reasonable person. The numbers I quoted in my last post are what the Tories spend today on welfare, health, etc. and this is what you should address when you say you prefer anarchy over the Tories.

The Tories were benefiting from the EU as your earlier graph stated (the upper income people were pro EU remainers, the supposedly lower income bracket were not generally wanting to stay in the EU and were Brexiters). So it is up to you to prove why the lower bracket people are not happy with that and apparently they outnumber in democratic votes the remainers. More lower bracket income British citizens than Toffs and middle class ones. So? Why aren't they happy? You tell me? I gave you my take on why they are not happy. They don't see real economic benefits and more economic ills in remaining. A conflict of class interests. Classic Marxist theory explains it. Not Tory double speak. Next.

I already told you what the main issue was: the question who makes the laws and the rules for the British people, Brussels or Westminster. Brexiteers are of the view that it should be Westminster now and, crucially, in the future too. This is quite easy to see for non-Marxists, as they don't need to seek a nail for their one dimensional hammer.

You need to open a book on socialism. I already told you what kind of socialist I am Kaiser. International Socialist. E. Fromm school of Humanist Communitarian Socialism. I also back Richard Wolff's form of Economic development. That is WHO I AM. Not an anarchist.

I've acknowledged this already more than once, so there's no need to repeat it as if I hadn't. I'm talking about your preference of anarchy over the Tories being in power.

But you need an education on anarchism. One of the best is talking to that 16 year old new member who lives in Damascus, Syria who knows his Anarchism front and back, right and left. Or go to the anarchism threads and figure it out. There are actual societies that thrived under Anarchism. Most of the most successful ones were Spanish Anarchists who had schools, communities and a lot more that did collect forms of communal money and ran a structure that functioned stateless. But I am not surprised you never heard of them because instead of being thorough and being able to attack with knowledge your ideological or political enemies with some real knowledge on every damn political philosophy out there you run around assuming and not reading hard facts and definitions on every type of political thought. A sign of a non-intellectual thinker Kaiser. Do your homework. You are a moderator in an international politics forum not in a Tory only website where everyone agrees. If I were debating anarchists? I would be studying a lot of anarchist theory. How else would I defend my international socialism which does still use a state structure Kaiser. It is not a Tory conservative rotten value one for sure. Lol. Ave Maria mujer.....a trabajar. Work!

See above answer. The anarchist literature is in these fora. Go and read them and analyze and distill anarchist theory. Go and ask anarchist members on here who are good at defending it. There are societies that function without a state structure. Do your political homework. My homework and promotion of political philosophies is international socialism not anarchism. The reason why the Tories are brought kicking and screaming into spending billions is called, political pressure from the working classes and keeping capitalists from spending on working families from their pockets. Farm it out to the state so they can keep more of their monies. The excuse they give is that the state is doing a bang up job and they can keep wages low and profits high for investors in their industries. Until another crisis happens. Politics Kaiser is about what politicians are pressured into conceding not in what they think is the 'moral' thing. Didn't you notice that before unemployment insurance, welfare cash payments, free health care, and food allotments for widows, and for seniors and dependent children, etc. what would happen to those people and what kind of political problems arose if you ignored them for a long time? Have you studied the history of the welfare state in your nation? NZ or in the UK? Figure it out.

I consider deflections such as "do your homework" and other variations of "read up on it" suggestive of an inability or unwillingness to defend a position. The number of words you've written in these two paragraphs, none of which answer my questions, could have gone towards doing just that rather than this more typical stream of consciousness. Since I'm a fairly patient person, I invite you to try again.

Didn't the EU explain to Westminster what joining up would entail according to the EU member rules? If the UK agreed? Then they need to hold up their part of their agreements. If they want to dissolve the relationship? Accept the economic hit. That is the way the cookie crumbles Kaiser. For international pacts and agreements.

I agree completely. The fear of economic repercussions was the most important reason for people to vote for remain. That is, being pro-EU had very little to do with the high minded and moralistic reasons we now hear so often from the Remain camp. On the other hand, economic reasons were far less important for the people who voted leave because they are concerned with the more fundamental question of who should rule the people.

Tories are treating them like children. Their job in a democracy is to reflect their will. If that means blowing up their preferences for remaining because their socioeconomic class is not happy with the will of the Brexiters? So be it. Suck it up. Lol. But they are bucking under the pressure because they are found out for the two faced liars that they are. They want to go against the will of the lower bracket income people because it goes against their own interests. Now they are exposed and it is a mess.

Well, that was exactly my point when I said that I had to reconsider some Tory MPs. But it doesn't change the fact that all parties left of the Tories are far worse on their job to, as you put it, "reflect their will". Note that that includes the Labour Party under Corbyn who is (or perhaps it would be better to say was) supposed to represent the social class that was more likely to vote leave. Again, the Tories have more in common with the working class on this issue.

People don't define themselves by their incomes? How many people of all income brackets in the UK have to sit down and assess every day practically if they are earning enough money to pay their homes, their bills, their debts and their children's needs and educations? How much are income considerations affecting this UK PM choice and the problems associated with frustrations with the system both political and economic in the UK? If everything is ok on the homefront there in the UK then why all this anxiety?

That is your society Kaiser....I don't patronize working class or underclass people. I am come from extremely poor people from the lowest class in my own societies. It just so happens they (my people or family) got an education despite all the issues with others trying to deny them everything. A few people survive all the bullshit Kaiser and become leaders despite being thrown with every damn obstacle known to humankind.

People are not passive victims Kaiser. All of them watch all these two faced liars and know exactly how rotten it all is. Many think the others are non thinkers. Nothing could be further from the truth. People watch their socioeconomic status like hawks...watching for many things. That is what political conflicts often are Kaiser, differing power groups fighting and pressuring for their interests.

Middle class people are orders of magnitude more obsessed with their status, socioeconomic or otherwise. You of all people should be aware of this. But then, you have actually invoked Dickens to back up your simplistic caricature of the working class, so I can't say I'm very surprised.

[Tainari88]

If you go back 100 years to make your point, you might as well call the US Democrats the party of the KKK today. That makes no sense to a reasonable person. The numbers I quoted in my last post are what the Tories spend today on welfare, health, etc. and this is what you should address when you say you prefer anarchy over the Tories.


I already told you what the main issue was: the question who makes the laws and the rules for the British people, Brussels or Westminster. Brexiteers are of the view that it should be Westminster now and, crucially, in the future too. This is quite easy to see for non-Marxists, as they don't need to seek a nail for their one dimensional hammer.

It is highly convenient for you to ignore that the Tories are not the party of the working man or woman in the UK. I don't care about the USA two party same values of rot system. That is not important to me. Sellouts are in both major parties in the USA and the sellouts are causing the problems today in the USA. So? Your argument dragging out some ancient history of the Dixiecrats who were KKK members and the party of Lincoln the Republicans and Carpetbaggers from the past is null and irrelevant to this discussion. The Brexit deal. I do prefer anarchy over Tories because Tories make the anarchists look good. By being corrupt and nasty snobs who don't give a damn about regular people working for a living. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to spend money on social programs that keep their class snob system from imploding. You think the issue is who makes the laws and rules and that is why people are voting to leave the EU union? That has some serious flaws Kaiser. First of all because if Westminster did not want to be part of the EU trade pact then why sign up? Brussels was the agreed center. No, the reason the lower bracket people are not happy is because the EU opened the borders to the lowest bracket people in the European Union to go and set up shop or get jobs in the UK without the hassles of the past. The UK was wealthier than some of the Eastern European nations and some of the Mediterranean members as well and Poland, Slovenia, etc. and they hit that economy along with the Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Hong Kong, etc immigrants. All of a sudden the lower bracket folk said to themselves, "Got to compete for wages and lower rung jobs with a bunch of foreign people and my union is threatened, my job stability, etc. The toffs don't have to worry about their jobs. They are running it from afar." They associate lack of job stability with policies coming from Westminster. Why is Westminster interested in the EU? For the trade. Who benefits from lucrative trade deals? The upper class snobs who are everywhere in the Tory party or the working people disaffected by fake socialists and semi neo liberals like that Tony Blair pendejo? We know the answer.

The hammer you say of one note? For this particular problem is very solid. Why don't you admit the truth? That Tories are not the working man's or woman's party in the UK. That is not their core. Admit that Kaiser. It is about the political philosophy of each political platform. Tories are about private enterprise and privatizing public goods and services, and upper income interests and class conscious snobs passing off as conventional Christians and traditional value English and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people. In reality they are a bunch of self serving snobs with little interest in people living in poverty or dealing with lower income problems. If they are honest about what they stand for the anarchists would not be incredible right about how the state in hands of a bunch of elitists is a recipe for oppression. Because that is exactly what it becomes. For working class British citizens.

I've acknowledged this already more than once, so there's no need to repeat it as if I hadn't. I'm talking about your preference of anarchy over the Tories being in power.


I consider deflections such as "do your homework" and other variations of "read up on it" suggestive of an inability or unwillingness to defend a position. The number of words you've written in these two paragraphs, none of which answer my questions, could have gone towards doing just that rather than this more typical stream of consciousness. Since I'm a fairly patient person, I invite you to try again.

No, Kaiser, Ms. Patience. Lol. You sadly think anarchy is about tribalism and primitive behavior and women running to what? A tent? Lol. I had to pull out to prominent anarchists Noam Chomsky and Emma Goldman who are both intellectuals and activists and academics of historical significance to show you that it is not that. What does that tell me? You don't read political philosophies Kaiser or you simply don't really pay attention. I am not a narrow field thinker. That is not my education. It might be yours? What are your educational endeavors? It is not political science. Unwillingness? I had to tell you and the vast majority of the posters in PoFo know I am not an anarchist at all. Never have been. But you assume I was because of one statement. I said anarchy is preferable to Tory leadership. An anarchist like Chomsky or Goldman in charge of running a society with no state structure is BETTER than some snob incompetent cowardly pieces of useless leadership that the Tories do all the time. Corrupted by power and having to deal with the fallout of their lack of making the trickle down economics work for the lower bracket citizens in the UK.

I agree completely. The fear of economic repercussions was the most important reason for people to vote for remain. That is, being pro-EU had very little to do with the high minded and moralistic reasons we now hear so often from the Remain camp. On the other hand, economic reasons were far less important for the people who voted leave because they are concerned with the more fundamental question of who should rule the people.

Yes, I am sure an average worker competing for bad wage jobs are overly concerned with the reigns of power there in Westminster because hey you don't want those Belgian nuts taking over what should be in the hands of solid snobs in England? Represented by the for rich and greedy Tory party...the party who is behind the working man in the United Kingdom. Lol. The ones concerned with ruling the people and ruling the BANKS are Tories. A bunch of corrupt, lying, callous nasty politicians who have failed policies Kaiser.

Well, that was exactly my point when I said that I had to reconsider some Tory MPs. But it doesn't change the fact that all parties left of the Tories are far worse on their job to, as you put it, "reflect their will". Note that that includes the Labour Party under Corbyn who is (or perhaps it would be better to say was) supposed to represent the social class that was more likely to vote leave. Again, the Tories have more in common with the working class on this issue.

That is your opinion about who is worse. The left is worse because you are with the right and the snobs. The Tories don't have much in common with the working class because the Tories never fight for the rights traditionally associated with working class interests such as: Unions, benefits for workers, NHS budgets being boosted and supported, making university educations affordable or free for all citizens eligible for it, and the slew of needs identified by a British socialist on here called @Kirillov . Did the Tories engage in that kind of fighting for the working class in the UK? Over history and time in that party? Yes or no? It is a simple affirmative and or not Kaiser. Historically what political actions have the Tory party done for the working man or woman in whole to support them? The concessions of welfare state was about political pressure. Not because the Tories think the needs of the working man or woman in the UK should be the core mission of the Tory party. Admit that. Accept that ROTTEN value system you love. Accept it. You don't care about the lower classes. Period. None of those conservatives would. It goes against that core word....CONSERVE. Conserve what. The elite's hold on power. Banks, elite, investors, owners of a lot of property and exclusivity. Of neighborhoods, private educations, bank accounts, investments and POWER. Never let it go. No matter what. Lie, cheat, steal and scream bloody murder every time the taxman takes a penny from your personal incomes because you feel you have a right to power and wealth and the rest of the society are your underlings. That is the mentality behind all that nasty political gymnastics.

Middle class people are orders of magnitude more obsessed with their status, socioeconomic or otherwise. You of all people should be aware of this. But then, you have actually invoked Dickens to back up your simplistic caricature of the working class, so I can't say I'm very surprised.

[/quote]

You re highly boring and unimaginative Kaiser. Lol. I am not. I use literature to illustrate my point. A very good one. That in the past in England there were horrible problems with poverty. Debtors prisons, child labor, and general exploitation and very little rights for the less prosperous in that society. How was it resolved? Through fiction? No. Through fights and political pressure put on the conservative people who always don't want change, don't want progress and don't want to let go of the money.

Some things change in society and others remain the same. The ones who keep on with the excuses that they should not give a dime more to the lower classes hold on to the same lame and dysfunctional mentality back then as they do now.....we don't want to change because it means giving up our power...yes you need to give it up if you got a bunch of voters who don't like what the hell is happening.

Don't live in denial. Lol.

[skinster]

[Tainari88]

https://twitter.com/Muqadaam/status/1166448270425632769?s=20

But Skinster? Don't you agree with Kaiser? The Tories do a great job of rerepresenting the lower income citizens. They care! Don't you agree?

No one believes that Kaiser. Jeremy Corbyn is there because the Tories are not trickling the dinero.

[skinster]

Almost a decade of austerity, homeless people numbers skyrocketing, an increase in poverty etc. under Tory rule indeed suggests that the Tories care about the working or poor man. If you're a mentalist.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It is highly convenient for you to ignore that the Tories are not the party of the working man or woman in the UK.

OK, let's keep this simple because this is going nowhere. Could you please answer the question whether you prefer anarchy over a Tory government that spends some GBP500 billion on welfare, etc.

[skinster]

It's not going to be anarchy when Corbyn is PM.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It's not going to be anarchy when Corbyn is PM.

Tainari said earlier in this thread that she prefers anarchy over the Tories. Since then she has been dancing around my question.

[Palmyrene]

Tainari said earlier in this thread that she prefers anarchy over the Tories. Since then she has been dancing around my question.

What's wrong with anarchy?

[skinster]

[skinster]

[skinster]

[skinster]

[JohnRawls]

https://twitter.com/AudreyAurus1/status/1170287344110297088?s=20

A peoples prime minsters is somebody who can get over 51% of electorate to vote for him. Or do you mean by peoples prime minister that he has left leanings?

With tories imploding and labour weakening, Lib Dems are increasing in numbers. If Tories implode then Lib Dems might even become number one. It highly depends how will tories implode. Tories seem to be loosing all of their moderates which means those votes will go to Lib Dems, especially in places like Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The people that are quiting the Tory party are household names of sorts which probably means that they will underperform during elections themselves although their support probably will remain quite high after all is done. (If moderates leave then Brexit party will merge with Tories.) A Scenario of Brexit not merging with Tories would be the best possible outcome for Lib Dems.

There is a very high chance that Labour will not be the largest opposition party within the next 2 months. Labour stabilised itself a bit after the anti-semitism scandals but that might not be enough. There was a significant exodus on top of the exodus because Corbyn didn't clearly state if he is for or against Brexit.

So its hard to say. I would give tories probably the highest chances to still remain number 1 after the election but lib dems are probably going to be the 2nd largest party followed by labour and then greens/SNP. All in all, it would shrink pro-Brexit MP presence in the parliament to around 30%/35% vs 70%/65% pro-remain.

[skinster]

A peoples prime minsters is somebody who can get over 51% of electorate to vote for him. Or do you mean by peoples prime minister that he has left leanings?

I mean the only one that has a huge amount of support amongst the people. There's only one, btw. He has the same initials as a Christian prophet.

also at you thinking the Liberal Democrats have any kind of chance.

[JohnRawls]

I mean the only one that has a huge amount of support amongst the people. There's only one, btw. He has the same initials as a Christian prophet.

also at you thinking the Liberal Democrats have any kind of chance.

Tories are becoming the Brexit party instead of, well, Tories then this means somebody is going to fill that niche which is Liberal democrats. There are defections to them from both sides because of remain. Blares labour and moderate Tories are becoming part of the Lib Dems. Tories are becoming Brexit party and Labour will shift firmly to your position without the Blarites. Basically what you would call moderate Tories and moderate Labour are joining Lib Dems right now since they don't have much of a choice where to go right now.

[skinster]

Thanks for your opinion.

[Nonsense]

It doesn't really matter which alternative party the rebels join, they are basically fair-weather, opportunist MP's looking for a safe haven in which they think(wrongly,in most cases)that they will get elected at the coming election.

They obviously homed in on the Lib Dems, which IMHO is a bit silly, because it's the 'Trash Bin' party in politics that's opportunistic,immature & comically trivial in it's political views.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I mean the only one that has a huge amount of support amongst the people. There's only one, btw. He has the same initials as a Christian prophet.

I'm genuinely curious if you can support this with anything other than assertions or random tweets. Everything I've seen points to the fact that there is little support "amongst the people" for Corbyn. They don't trust him and neither do they think he would make a good PM.

I mean, just today I've seen an opinion poll where the public trusts Boris Johnson more than Jeremy Corbyn on one of the central Labour issues, the NHS. Does something like this never penetrate into the media you read/watch or do you just ignore it?

also at you thinking the Liberal Democrats have any kind of chance.

It's certainly a possibility.