Feathers

Spoke to some Spurs fans recently and they hate him...

yeah no mention of our ''goal''. Surely more worthy of discussion than the penalty (which they did discuss) but glossed over, not mentioned in the bbc match report either. Makes you start being a conspiracy theorist. I watched the game and have no idea why it was disallowed.

I''m working today so am relying on you guys to keep me in the loop of what''s going on, twitter blocked! Thanks

[quote user="Houston Canary"]Feathers, not everything requires a vote. It''s called the social contract. Free enterprise works the best so we use it. [/quote]   Ah the myth of the free will of the contract. "The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him . . . They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market . . . It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live . . . It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him . . . what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune . . . These men . . . [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. . . . They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?" -Simon Linguet

Just thought I''d throw this in the pot... http://www.theguardian.com/football/football-management-blog/2014/feb/21/football-managers-sackings-premier-league

[quote user="Fergodsake"]Personally I dont see what is special about soldiers, I would substitute Fireman or Nurses for the argument, but what I do know is that we have chosen our economic system as a society. [/quote] We did? When was that vote then? If I recall it''s just evolution from feudalism. I don''t remember there ever being a vote on the economic system, ever. "If voting ever changed anything, they''d make it illegal"

Guess what, we can win all of those games. Maybe this is the mindset us fans need to adopt to help push the boys over the line. Maybe we need to pull together as a club and do the best we can and stop being so bloody negative.

[quote user="I.S."]We have been embarrassing, but the referee has been equally as bad.[/quote] yeah when we don''t give it away, fluff it, get crowded out, the referee takes away any flow we might have had. Be interesting to see what Gutierrez can do to improve things, especially when it comes to keeping play upfield

So frustrating to watch- first half was utter shite, second was improved, generally, but we''ve been caught out on the break the defence is wide open, while the forwards are too sparse in the final third. Our general play isn''t bad in this half, it''s just rubbish where it counts.

[quote user="Bert sneakers"]For my sins I live in kings Lynn and with all it''s eastern Europeans it feels like a foreign country . Despite always living in this pit of a town I avoided the pull of supporting my local teams of red star Zagreb or Spartec shiny hand car wash and started following my beloved Norwich city which I''ve never regretted because I always struggled to to master the local polish language and find the the ooh argh and alright boy of Norfolk far more appealing .[/quote] well done for bringing down the thread to complain about immigration, booorrring. Change the record Bert and besides if King''s Lynn needs anything it''s an injection of fresh DNA into the low grade gene pool as your post confirms.

Amen.

Homage to catalonia is a good start! Old George wouldn''t lie. Anyway yes monty my post was rushed and pasted from an obviously pro anarchist website. I prefer the term libertarian socialist as it''s not so narrow in scope. We should indeed let people make up their own minds, but my original post about the Spanish revolution was to show it did work in practice for the most part, and to ignore the brutal civil war context and all that came with it would be foolish. Despite the obvious imperfections it would no doubt unfairly overlook what was achieved. And you should also see the doc i posted on the same post about Argentina too. No civil war or coercion there. Better go now before I''m in trouble with the missus!

Straight to the ''criticism'' on wikipedia eh Monty! Just disregard everything else. Well, it''s an important point to note that during the Spanish Civil War atrocities were committed on ALL sides, and the revolution was not perfect. You have to remember there was a war on don''t you know. To counter your paste: __________________________________________ I.8.7 Were the rural collectives created by force? No, they were not. The myth that the rural collectives were created by "terror," organised and carried out by the anarchist militia, was started by the Stalinists of the Spanish Communist Party. More recently, certain right-wing "libertarians" have warmed up and repeated these Stalinist fabrications. Anarchists have been disproving these allegations since 1936 and it is worthwhile to do so again here. As Vernon Richards noted: "However discredited Stalinism may appear to be today the fact remains that the Stalinist lies and interpretation of the Spanish Civil War still prevail, presumably because it suits the political prejudices of those historians who are currently interpreting it." ["Introduction", Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, p. 11] Here we shall present evidence to refute claims that the rural collectives were created by force. Firstly, we should point out that rural collectives were created in many different areas of Spain, such as the Levant (900 collectives), Castile (300) and Estremadera (30), where the anarchist militia did not exist. In Catalonia, for example, the CNT militia passed through many villages on its way to Aragón and only around 40 collectives were created unlike the 450 in Aragón. In other words, the rural collectivisation process occurred independently of the existence of anarchist troops, with the majority of the 1,700 rural collectives created in areas without a predominance of anarchist militias. One historian, Ronald Fraser, seems to imply that collectives were imposed upon the Aragón population. As he put it, the "collectivisation, carried out under the general cover, if not necessarily the direct agency, of CNT militia columns, represented a revolutionary minority''s attempt to control not only production but consumption for egalitarian purposes and the needs of the war." Notice that he does not suggest that the anarchist militia actually imposed the collectives, a claim for which there is little or no evidence. Moreover, Fraser presents a somewhat contradictory narrative to the facts he presents. On the one hand, he suggests that "[o]bligatory collectivisation was justified, in some libertarians'' eyes, by a reasoning closer to war communism than to libertarian communism." On the other hand, he presents extensive evidence that the collectives did not have a 100% membership rate. How can collectivisation be obligatory if people remain outside the collectives? Similarly, he talks of how some CNT militia leaders justified "[f]orced collectivisation" in terms of the war effort while acknowledging the official CNT policy of opposing forced collectivisation, an opposition expressed in practice as only around 20 (i.e., 5%) of the collectives were total. [Blood of Spain, p. 370, p. 349 and p. 366] This is shown in his own book as collectivists interviewed continually note that people remained outside their collectives! Thus Fraser''s attempts to paint the Aragón collectives as a form of "war communism" imposed upon the population by the CNT and obligatory for all fails to co-incide with the evidence he presents. Fraser states that "[t]here was no need to dragoon them [the peasants] at pistol point [into collectives]: the coercive climate, in which ''fascists'' were being shot, was sufficient. ''Spontaneous'' and ''forced'' collectives existed, as did willing and unwilling collectivists within them." [Op. Cit., p. 349] Therefore, his implied suggestion that the Aragón collectives were imposed upon the rural population is based upon the insight that there was a "coercive climate" in Aragón at the time. Of course a civil war against fascism would produce a "coercive climate" particularly near the front line. However, the CNT can hardly be blamed for that. As historian Gabriel Jackson summarised, while such executions took place the CNT did not conduct a general wave of terror: "the anarchists made a constant effort to separate active political enemies from those who were simply bourgeois by birth or ideology or economic function. Anarchist political committees wanted to know what the accused monarchists or conservatives had done, not simply what they thought or how they voted . . . There is no inherent contradiction involved in recognising both that the revolution included some violence and that its social and economic results . . . were approved of by the majority of peasants in an area." [quoted in Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 146] This was a life and death struggle against fascism, in which the fascists were systematically murdering vast numbers of anarchists, socialists and republicans in the areas under their control. It is hardly surprising that some anarchist troops took the law into their own hands and murdered some of those who supported and would help the fascists. Given what was going on in fascist Spain, and the experience of fascism in Germany and Italy, the CNT militia knew exactly what would happen to them and their friends and family if they lost. The question does arise, however, of whether the climate was made so coercive by the war and the nearness of the anarchist militia that individual choice was impossible. The facts speak for themselves. At its peak, rural collectivisation in Aragón embraced around 70% of the population in the area saved from fascism. Around 30% of the population felt safe enough not to join a collective, a sizeable percentage. If the collectives had been created by anarchist terror or force, we would expect a figure of 100% membership. This was not the case, indicating the basically voluntary nature of the experiment (we should point out that other figures suggest a lower number of collectivists which makes the forced collectivisation argument even less likely). Historian Antony Beevor (while noting that there "had undoubtedly been pressure, and no doubt force was used on some occasions in the fervour after the rising") just stated the obvious when he wrote that "the very fact that every village was a mixture of collectivists and individualists shows that peasants had not been forced into communal farming at the point of a gun." http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI8.html#seci87

From the past, an example of an alternative- "In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state. "Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, ''From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.'' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They replaced the war between men, ''survival of the fittest,'' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity . . . "This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other." http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI8 It''s no coincidence FC Barcelona is a massive co-op! Catalunya is the spiritual home of libertarian socialism... From the present, another example of it in practice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEzXln5kbuw Now enough of this ''won''t work'' nonsense! Bor you need to pay attention mate, that''s not what we''ve been agreeing at all! If anything your post has turned into a massive autopsy of capitalism! And finally, to get this back onto football, what about Socrates, God rest his soul... http://libcom.org/library/s-crates-midfielder-anti-dictatorship-resister I hope at least some of y''all take a good look at at least some of this stuff. I can''t keep trying to convince you, you''ve got to make up your own minds innit. I''m done. Peace.

shame when it comes to healthcare it''s a choice between a state bureaucracy and a private one. Which is the most accountable?

"And by the way, not a single country, as far as I can see has adopted any of these libertarian socialist models" Look harder.

Rock the Boat you''re being lazy with your research. You seem to think that I''m communist for a start, and also that examples of communism are bastardisations of the original idea. Libertarian socialism has been around since the forming of the first communist international in the 19th century (actually it''s origins are embedded in ancient Chinese philosophy). It''s not a convenient new ''coat''. Anarchists/Libertarians died fighting Stalinists. Trade unionists were sent to the gulags. Nothing is as simple as you think. It was Bakunin (the anarchist) that disagreed with Marx''s vision and caused the split way back. I suggest you read on. Also I''m not in any ivory tower- part of the reason I believe what I do is because every workplace I''ve ever been in seems like it will work so much better without a boss.

One more thing! (Damn!) If human nature is the problem, then why do we allow so few to have so much power? If human nature is so flawed, it would be a good idea to dissolve power equally to every citizen and have a system where no man can rule over another. The human nature argument works against capitalism- and who says human nature is inert? Look at how society has evolved in just 100 years...

P.S envisioning what a future society might look like is a bit like saying what are you doing at 10pm in on February 24 2054. There is no blueprint, it''s supposed to constantly evolve to the conditions of the time, the same way scientists always change their review papers and theories.

Well Monty, old Marx was best at his critique of capitalism. His vision for a future society was very unfortunately incredibly vague and open to interpretation. I haven''t tried countering all of Rock the Boats arguments because well, we could be here all year back and forth, and he''s too far down the other way for me to waste the effort. I got stuff to do! He''s on the internet, it''s a good place to start for research.. anarchyfaq.org is good. I still hope he sees my replies above though. Nobody said the alternative would be a utopia by the way. It will be ful of imperfections and problems. However, I believe the means of production being controlled democratically by those that work in it as a far better alternative than what is now. It will take something cataclysmic for this to happen of course, but in Greece a hospital and factory is now under worker''s control, and the co-operative movement in Argentina has been winning battles since the economic collapse there. It''s about ideas see. You may say I''m a dreamer, but I''m not the only one....

....forgot to say the freedoms we enjoy today were wrangled from the hands of power over many decades of struggle, not gifts flurried from above. So you can thank the trade union movement for example next time you take that paid holiday....

@Rock the Boat You need to read page 4 of this thread and see what I''m talking about. The idea that the only alternative to capitalism is some top-down stalinist nightmare is exactly what the powers that be want you to think! Judging by the amount of times I''ve had to explain this, it seems the propaganda is working very well. *Sigh*. Just go to wikipedia and search ''libertarian socialism''. Enjoy p.s Thanks Ron

Ha! I''m 30 and have plenty of hair. Just planting seeds is all.... I better stop though as arguing on internet forums can ruin your life- there is no clear winner, you''re both losers! Ciao for now

[quote user="Monty13"]Feathers, the baker is the capitalist, he bakes to make money out of his customers because they all want bread. Given the choice none of us would work at all.[/quote] Would we not? Depends on how you define ''work''. Many people spend much of their spare time doing activities that if they were paid, would be called ''work'', but they do them because they enjoy them, or they get satisfaction and a sense of well being. I certainly wouldn''t sit around all day, I''d get bored. I''d want to do something, and being part of a new society would be a good place to start. If the economy was under workers control, WE would be able to choose what direction we''d want to go in. That''s the point. If you think everyone''s going to stay in all the time playing computer games shows a lack of faith and imagination on your part. It''s about division of labour. If the baker bakes because he enjoys supplying his community with bread, the therapeutic process of rolling the dough, and he has no boss checking his watch and no landlord to sweat about, or he works equally with other bakers in a system based on solidarity and mutual aid not competition, he''d be the best damn baker in town! [quote user="Monty13"]What on earth would we all do? Sit around while someone else heats, clothes, waters and feeds us? What will their motivation for doing that be?[/quote] Many hands make light work- if the basics were shared, most people would be required to ''work'' about 1-2 days a week, lovely. Food production is mechanised (thank you capitalism), and it would be easy to push for other essentials to be so too. The technology is already there, it''s just owned by the ruling class. If the economy was based around the needs of the community, we''d be able to get the essentials sorted easily. The least desirable essential work would have the highest reward (opposite of what is the case now). [quote user="Monty13"]The motivation of capitalism isn''t fear of destitution, it is the generation of wealth. I don''t go to work because I''m scared of the consequences of not working, I go to work to live in comfort, buy nice things, go on holiday (watch football?) and basically enjoy myself when I''m not working.[/quote] Why can''t you live in comfort without renting your labour to someone else for most of your life? You could enjoy yourself a hell of a lot more you know. Even higher up the pyramid in the west, people are enslaved to some degree to the economy. Sure you can buy nice things, that''s great- but it doesn''t fill the spiritual hole in our society, and no amount of nice things will fill it up, at costs to our psychological well being and the planet we live (another huge argument against capitalism). Capitalism doesn''t let us as human beings reach our full potential, because we have to waste so much time paying ''the man'' to put it crudely. How many talented and creative people are working in coffee shops and cleaning offices because they can''t get work in their chosen field? Of course it is the fear of destitution or the humiliation of the Job Centre that makes this a reality. Also, work is sh1t for most people: "We want nothing from a world where the guarantee of not dying of starvation comes with the guarantee of dying of boredom" [quote user="Monty13"]Economics is the structure in which we live, it doesn''t rule us. Since the time man started bartering, economics has existed. Until someone finds a better way of measuring are individual worth other than the wealth we hold, this will always exist. Interesting line in that video "In any civilised society the government must intervene to prevent division of labour" an understanding that it is Governments role as our representatives to uphold our rights. And as the people being represented if we are unhappy we have the fundamental responsibility to change the way things are. Unfortunately as I have said the vast majority of us are apathetic, comfortable paying for someone else to provide us power, water, electricity, shelter, food etc etc. in return for the money we earn. We live in a society where the principles we are talking about, Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism are all intertwined and all effect are lives without one dominating it. It''s a world in which I can buy a big ass TV from any of the competing manufacturers, while getting free healthcare and voting green party if I really fancy it.[/quote] Capitalism as we know it is only 2-300 years old. You cannot say that it is some sort of benign fact of life that does not rule over us, it is not. Clearly in this ''competition'' the odds are stacked in favour to the owners of the means of production and property. They are on a different strata to the majority. It is inherently unfair and fundamentally flawed. It''s done great things but it will have it''s day in good time. Enjoy your TV while you still have the disposable income to pay for it, as capitalism will always drive down wages, and the latest sticking plaster of borrowing and debt has recently failed (you might have noticed), enjoy the free healthcare while it lasts, and I hold won''t hold my breath for the Green Party to get any meaningful power and are able to make a difference if and when they do!

[quote user="Monty13"] Haha I doubt Adam Smith would agree with your interpretation of his quote! He was demonstrating the principles of capitalism, that business (production) only exists to fulfil its own interests (profit). Without the desire for continued wealth, why would the baker bake? For the good of his fellow man? A governments "rule" of its people is far more than that of its interaction with business. Our world is shaped by economics, but it is not ruled by it.[/quote] The baker bakes in order to pay the capitalist AND the tax man who owns his house and the necessary essentials such as utilities etc. Of course we''re ruled by economics. Capitalism is an economic system opposed from above. The motivation in capitalism is fear of destitution. nobody gets up at 6am 5 days a week and commutes to work on their own free will. And governments and business are in bed with each other as badger said- corporations were originally sanctioned by the state and written into law. Look at this vid of old Chommers on Adam Smith. Very interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaZORYaygo0