EU Referendum Discussion: Well That Worked Out Well Didn't It

[BecomingJulie]

"Worst" is already a superlative. You mean "least bad".

 

[Shambles]

Debatable - we are talking about politics here - and if anybody can manage to be worse than the worst it'll be politicunts

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

In the last couple of weeks I've gone from an idealistic 'No to Europe(ean neo-liberal economic straitjackets no matter what social justice you dangle as a carrot)' to 'Fucking hell I can't possibly vote with those bigoted numpties sort it out yourself' abstentionism.

Don't vote. It only encourages and legitimises them.

 

[BigG]

In the last couple of weeks I've gone from an idealistic 'No to Europe(ean neo-liberal economic straitjackets no matter what social justice you dangle as a carrot)' to 'Fucking hell I can't possibly vote with those bigoted numpties sort it out yourself' abstentionism.

Don't vote. It only encourages and legitimises them.

I dont vote.....Just recently I had to register for voting as a means of improving my credit score (apparently if you aren't registered to vote it negatively affects you ability to get credit) but felt a bit disingenuous since I have no plans to actually participate in any sort of election/vote...

The cunts are all as bad as each other.....

Burn it down!!

 

[Vurtual]

My definition of anarchy is archaic, inflexible, and based on history.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy


I hate ambiguous terminology, and I think the usage of a simple word for so many things is inappropriate. If someone calls themselves an anarchist without further defining, as you eloquently did, I will take them at their word. Your form of anarchism is a mistake of terminology dating back to some clever people who weren't creative enough to come up with new terms. I actually like the Catalan and Basque very greatly, but personally disagree that they are anarchists.

I think if people like you want to be taken seriously you need to find a new terminology for yourselves, because without further details, what is one to think? Anarchy as defined is only negative except with reference to definition 1C.



This is what I feel much modern anarchist philosophy attempts to build upon, but there are much more accurate terms for such people these days. It is also important to define government.

So, I hope I made it somewhat clear as to why I do not believe a true Anarchist has any means with which to protect social liberties and human dignities.

We are disagreeing on terminology in the end, which is ok, but which is also why the "good/philosophical" types of anarchists will never be taken seriously.

At the risk of inviting you for a dance on the judean people's pinhead, i'll respond to this: I certainly don't want to be taken seriously in any way by anyone so stop that for a start - but if i try and describe what i think, then anarchist (in the sense i mean) is just what it is. Anarchist was originally used by detractors as a pejorative term in the sense you use, but it was queer-ised and i'm cool with that (also bear in mind the difference between anarchy and anarchism (only the latter is politics)). There's a rich tradition of anarchism in europe and america so i don't think the term the way i mean is that obscure, though it may not find it's way into many online dictionaries (plenty of 'cool' bookshops though).

I have no problem with the definition of anarchism being: no leaders or hierarchy - this doesn't at all mean no order, or no rules (Kropotkin's phrase 'anarchy is order' is the origin of the A in the O symbol (and an early appreciation of self-organisation)), it just means we all have to be involved in the process of making them - i feel happy switching between anarchism and (direct) democracy. That's not to say there's a specific set of ideas that is the 'true' anarchism that i'm referring to (there isn't), but that to me is another strength - there's no rules set in stone to follow at the expense of the real world (like leninist-marxism can be) - it's adaptable by the people involved, that's the point. None of this is helped by the anarcho-capitalist strain (rothbard) popular in america, confusing the issue (that's just libertarianism though (yet another term denuded of its meaning by modern american politics)).

I take your point about clear language and unambiguousness - all the above can be included in a flexible enough socialism (Bakunin's anarchism is in fact just a splinter from the international); and in most cases to strangers i self-describe as socialist, communist (another problematic term) or democrat to save this long explanation; but i also balk at allowing the enemies of political ideas i agree with to define my chosen terms for me (that's doubleplusbad that is). Anarchism in the political sense was on everyone's lips a 100 years ago or so (the islamic terrorism of its day among the borjwah), that the term has become relatively obscure is down to the subsequent suppression of that movement. Anyway if it's good enough for William Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the wobblies, Noam Chomsky etc it'll do for me.

All of this shouldn't obscure that we're on the same side (although i think that about everyone (hippy that i am )

...

Yeah Varoufakis is a clever dude - have you read the Global Minotaur?

 

[BigG]

Didn't you anarchist fellas start world war one ?

 

[Vurtual]

A good thing about being an anarchist is that i don't have to answer for any other anarchists (though wasn't he an agent anyway? (and with your history knowledge i'm sure you know better than me how WW1 had really started many years before). There were those bomby, 'propaganda of the deed' types about then, but i suspect many of them were agents (like in the Man who was thursday) or just standard idiots - they weren't all that influential compared to some of the non-bomby ones (like the wobblies (IWW)). Funnily enough 'propaganda of the deed'/terrorism has never worked well to persuade people

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Not just Britain so much as worldwide and at a very fundamental level. Expanded upon a little below...

I've always had much sympathy with these thoughts too. Difficulties I've had more recently is that the first is marred by the fact that the playground bully is starting to look a lot like the EU itself with the way it has treated Greece, Ireland & Spain.

Do you really think the Greeks, Irish, or Spanish have it that bad relative to even certain places in the USA? My best friend is Spanish, and yes their unemployment is high, but so are their welfare benefits. Housing/land ownership is really their biggest problem and that comes from corruption within their own country.

Greece lied about its prosperity when first joining the EU, they fudged their economic data for a very long time. When the EU started addressing the inherent corruption within the Greek system the false numbers they had all based their data on were found out for the lies they were. Again, this was a problem started by the corruption and irresponsibility of the Greek government. They should have NEVER adopted the Euro. It looked like a good idea based on false data, but it turned into a horrible one when the real numbers came out.

Greece is in a hard spot because you have the IMF wanting one thing, the German taxpayer wanting another thing, and the Greeks themselves want to have their cake and eat it to. Why should a German taxpayer sacrifice their livelihood to pay for the mistakes of the Greeks (especially when no one else in the EU is willing to give them a hand). Where is the rest of the EU? Where was Britain? Of course the ONLY guy to offer help gets shit upon when he wants to get paid back. The demonizing of people who lent money on good faith (never a good idea IMO, I wouldn't have given them a single cent they couldn't prove would be paid back) in order to prevent a collapse caused by Greek corruption isn't helpful.

Do you think Germany is willing to give the Greeks another loan? It would be political suicide here. Again, why aren't more EU countries stepping up to help out? Germany already stepped and stopped a collapse, someone else's turn next time. It is also in the best interests of the EU to not let the IMF buy Greece.


----beginning tangent----(for you specifically Shambles)
That is the true failure of the EU, along with the failure to step up to the migrant crisis. The EU member states like to complain a shit load about the EU, but in the end they build walls, talk more shit, and do nothing productive. How about talking about solutions for once instead of playing the blame game?

If anything the Germans should be complaining the rest of the EU is not meeting its obligations to the Union, but they are diplomatic and want this thing to work. IMO Germany has a much better position than Britain to tell the EU to go fuck itself, yet they are trying their hardest to hold it together. They, more than perhaps anyone, understand the implications of a divided Europe.

Germany has been getting closer and closer to the USA for a reason. They don't trust the EU any more, and are ready to form a permanent alliance with the USA, and any other EU countries smart enough to follow. Why the hell do you think Merkel is considering the TTIP? She knows it isn't good for Germany, and that the USA will benefit, but she knows it will greatly strengthen Germany's standing and alliance with the USA.

The German finance minister Schäuble is standing up to the neo-cons of the ECB calling them out for wanting negative interest rates. He is getting slammed for his 'interference' by propaganda pieces from Forbes, the WSJ, the Daily Mail, Bloomberg, etc... Ask yourself what these publications all have in common. It should be obvious

If you all have no clue why this is important, then you must inform yourselves better. Consumer banks (real banks, for real people) will all go under if negative interest rates are applied. This will leave only investment banks ready to snap them up at rock bottom prices. Once the investment banks own the consumer banks you can kiss your precious 'Sovereignty' good bye. They already own so many across so many countries. Japan just sold their soul by instituting negative interest. They pawned it off as some new tactic to stimulate the economy, and it will simply crush those banks which are responsible for giving average people money to do average things like buy a car or house. When the investment banks have a monopoly they will be able to create even more indentured servants with unfair lending practices than they already have. I am so worried that this shit seems to be so over peoples' heads, and that they have no clue of the current attacks on what I consider to be the last bastion of the middle class (Germany).

For people unaware, the middle class is no longer the majority in the USA for the first time in its history. Make of that what you will.
----ending tangent----

Ireland. Where do you want to start? You are going to blame some insane economic policies and poor investments on the EU? How is their quality of life? The seem to have enough money for their youngsters to booze themselves to death in relative comfort.

Really Shambles, it is easy to blame the EU for everything, but I have yet to see any sources for predatory actions, regulations, and general douchebaggery from the EU. The last article I read had Juncker stating how the EU had pushed too far too fast, and needed to slow down and allow member states to handle specific areas in which they are better suited at administering than the EU.

Your real targets should be the IMF and the ECB. The ECB is no longer representing its people, and is no more than a pawn of the IMF and American Federal Reserve. The idea of the EU is alive and well, we just have quite a few assholes (many from the USA) with a lot of money who are trying to high jack it. Some of the EU technocrats are far from squeaky clean, but the laws created in order to protect us seem to be holding up as best they can under such an assault which is both internal and external in origin.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

I take your point about clear language and unambiguousness - all the above can be included in a flexible enough socialism (Bakunin's anarchism is in fact just a splinter from the international); and in most cases to strangers i self-describe as socialist, communist (another problematic term) or democrat to save this long explanation; but i also balk at allowing the enemies of political ideas i agree with to define my chosen terms for me (that's doubleplusbad that is). Anarchism in the political sense was on everyone's lips a 100 years ago or so (the islamic terrorism of its day among the borjwah), that the term has become relatively obscure is down to the subsequent suppression of that movement. Anyway if it's good enough for William Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the wobblies, Noam Chomsky etc it'll do for me.

Doubleplusgood to all of that.

(And you might want to revise your tending-towards-racist stereotyping views on Irish youngsters too Shimmer).

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

At the risk of inviting you for a dance on the judean people's pinhead, i'll respond to this: I certainly don't want to be taken seriously in any way by anyone so stop that for a start - but if i try and describe what i think, then anarchist (in the sense i mean) is just what it is. Anarchist was originally used by detractors as a pejorative term in the sense you use, but it was queer-ised and i'm cool with that (also bear in mind the difference between anarchy and anarchism (only the latter is politics)). There's a rich tradition of anarchism in europe and america so i don't think the term the way i mean is that obscure, though it may not find it's way into many online dictionaries (plenty of 'cool' bookshops though).

I have no problem with the definition of anarchism being: no leaders or hierarchy - this doesn't at all mean no order, or no rules (Kropotkin's phrase 'anarchy is order' is the origin of the A in the O symbol (and an early appreciation of self-organisation)), it just means we all have to be involved in the process of making them - i feel happy switching between anarchism and (direct) democracy. That's not to say there's a specific set of ideas that is the 'true' anarchism that i'm referring to (there isn't), but that to me is another strength - there's no rules set in stone to follow at the expense of the real world (like leninist-marxism can be) - it's adaptable by the people involved, that's the point. None of this is helped by the anarcho-capitalist strain (rothbard) popular in america, confusing the issue (that's just libertarianism though (yet another term denuded of its meaning by modern american politics)).

I take your point about clear language and unambiguousness - all the above can be included in a flexible enough socialism (Bakunin's anarchism is in fact just a splinter from the international); and in most cases to strangers i self-describe as socialist, communist (another problematic term) or democrat to save this long explanation; but i also balk at allowing the enemies of political ideas i agree with to define my chosen terms for me (that's doubleplusbad that is). Anarchism in the political sense was on everyone's lips a 100 years ago or so (the islamic terrorism of its day among the borjwah), that the term has become relatively obscure is down to the subsequent suppression of that movement. Anyway if it's good enough for William Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the wobblies, Noam Chomsky etc it'll do for me.

All of this shouldn't obscure that we're on the same side (although i think that about everyone (hippy that i am )

...

Yeah Varoufakis is a clever dude - have you read the Global Minotaur?

I agree, but the vast majority of people who follow anarchism have no idea what they are on about. You have obviously read great literature. I do disagree with its fundamentals, and see them as even more idealistic than those of true communism (IMO there has never been a truly communist country, the N. Vietnamese came pretty close). It relies too heavily on a human nature which could be defined as 'good'. I don't believe in good and bad in such ways (its all a field of gray, and the tones of gray are infinite), but ascribe to a more complex version of Maslov's Hierarchy (ironic within a discussion of anarchy =)). However, even if a culture has a good set of universal ethics and morals some people with everything will still be horrible people. This simple fact shows me that these systems will not work. They are nice to think about, but are inapplicable in a modern day real world scenario.

I would like to read Global Minotaur if it isn't too dry. I have too much dry/dense stuff to read right now related to my profession to read anything too dry/dense for fun. I'll put it on my Amazon list :D

Edit: and lol at the wobblies being called anarchic. They were a massive union with many, many members of different political affiliations (primarily worker oriented), are unions forms of anarchism?

I also feel Chomsky is talking about something different than 'anarchism', he just wants people to be able to understand him, and he is working with an imperfect vocabulary. Do I really need to go back to the times way before philosophical anarchism existed to find these philosophies under different names? What I mean is that these ideas and philosophies existed long before the term 'anarchism', and referring to these philosophies independently allows them more freedom of application.

Noam Chomsky on Anarchism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Bv2MKY7uI

We are most definitely on the same side.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Doubleplusgood to all of that.

(And you might want to revise your tending-towards-racist stereotyping views on Irish youngsters too Shimmer).

Seems to be a glut of information showing it to be more than just a stereotype:

Study Examines Why Heavy Drinking Is So Popular in Irish Culture

http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-examines-why-heavy-drinking-so-popular-irish-culture-246961

Unfortunately, the impact of the trend in drunkenness has already surfaced as chronic alcohol-related conditions among young people become increasingly common. Between 2005 and 2008, 4,129 people aged under 30 were discharged from hospital with chronic diseases or conditions of the type normally seen in older people. - See more at: http://alcoholireland.ie/policy/alc...do-we-need-be-concerned/#sthash.LBdVLZyk.dpuf

http://alcoholireland.ie/policy/alcohol-children-and-young-people-do-we-need-be-concerned/

The figures show that 47 percent of Irish students admitted to being drunk compared to the European average of 39 percent. 

The UK had the highest rate of drunkenness amongst its students at 57 percent.

Looks like you Brits have some shaping up to do as well

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-teenagers-have-one-of-the-highest-rates-of-drunkenness-91021154-237692091.html

The World Health Organisation's (WHO) global status report on alcohol and health in 2014 showed that Ireland has the second highest rate of binge drinking in the world. It found that 39pc of all Irish people aged 15 years old and over had engaged in binge drinking, or "heavy episodic drinking", in the past 30 days.

This puts Ireland just behind Austria (40.5pc) at the top of the 194 countries studied and well ahead of our neighbours in Britain (28pc). Positively however, Irish research also published last year, indicated a decrease in the number of our adolescents drinking.

What I put in bold is a great development, but it does indicate it is and was a problem.

http://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/health-features/irish-teens-are-starting-to-drink-at-age-13-31150910.html

Seems a bit like a lot of places are having trouble with alcohol, but the age and binge style of drinking is a legitimate concern in Ireland.

The point is, is that they don't have it that bad. The Irish are doing what they have always done, and are doing more or less just fine. How many Irish are homeless and starving with no other choice? Did the EU cause Ireland's economic problems, or did poor leadership and being sold out by their bankers/land owners.

 

[One Thousand Words]

There are plenty of potatoes to support the local chippy economy so things are as tough as 100 yr ago.

 

[Ceres]

Against the Double Blackmail: refugees, terror and other troubles with the neighbours

good listening.

this referendum is a pointless stupid distraction from the real issues britain and europe face, things like terrorism, the refugee crisis require a transnational response so voting for exiting the eu is also an abdication of responsibility to deal with these crises - the way the govt is acting illustrates the kind of isolationism that will be amplified if the uk votes to leave the EU.

england on its own, outside the EU, is analogous to a filthy pub toilet with some traces of cocaine on the cistern.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

There are plenty of potatoes to support the local chippy economy so things are as tough as 100 yr ago.

My ancestors left before that luckily.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Against the Double Blackmail: refugees, terror and other troubles with the neighbours

good listening.

Isn't playing on my browser, I tried the audio download, kind of odd.

 

[BigG]

Also what happened approx 100 years ago that your ancestors left before?

The potatoe famine...

 

[BigG]

Well no wonder I was confused- cos the potato famine ended closer to 200 years ago than 100 years ago i.e ended 1852

Yeah I thought it was longer ago....

Was just going off Busty's mindless comment about chip shops.....

Guess history isnt his strong point either

 

[Shambles]

Shimmer.Fade: I agree entirely about the IMF and ECB - and also with investment banks being an abomination (at least in their current state). As for the Greece, Ireland, etc stuff, check this rather fine piece of German investigative journalism - The Secret Bank Bailout.

 

[tokezu]

Your form of anarchism is a mistake of terminology dating back to some clever people who weren't creative enough to come up with new terms. I actually like the Catalan and Basque very greatly, but personally disagree that they are anarchists.

I think if people like you want to be taken seriously you need to find a new terminology for yourselves, because without further details, what is one to think? Anarchy as defined is only negative except with reference to definition 1C.

I really don't mind if you say the ideals of anarchism are unrealistic and could therefore be dangerous to pursue, that's a perfectly valid opinion. But this here? Come on that's hogwash. :D Ideas and terminology evolve, I could just as well claim that your definition of democracy (presumably) "is a mistake of terminology dating back to some clever people" who broke with the good old greek tradition of excluding women, slaves and immigrants from this 'demos'.

I mean you can publish your own dictionairy with your definition of anarchy, maybe it will catch on. But until then I'm afraid you have to accept that at this moment there is a well known definition of anarchy as an utopian society and that people will use the word as such, whether the term makes sense to you or not.

As Vurtual said, it's great that as an anarchist I can just speak for myself. For me the starting point of all anarchistic thinking is the following. If the state compels you by law to do something that goes completely against your conscience, you have the right to say no. But if I claim for me the right to say no to any law that I object to, then I must grant anyone the right to say no to any law. This means that the only ethical form of government (if you could even call it that) would be one that doesn't enforce laws, but merely gives suggestions to the citizens. Thats what free association is all about, people come together under certain rules because they choose to do so.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Yeah I thought it was longer ago....

Was just going off Busty's mindless comment about chip shops.....

Guess history isnt his strong point either

I was going along with him too lol. But yes, before the potato famine, and my people were defenders who were forced out.