Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Monty13

  1. As I say Nigel, I think it would be quite hard to prosecute in a court under the legal definition of Racism. I still don''t think that it should be used, but I don''t think a person using such a phrase once in a moment of anger makes them a racist. If anything a fair punishment, if the club was determined to ban such a person, would be to do so, but allow them to return if they agreed to some form of racism education. If someone repeatedly uses such a phrase, well then the question for their motivation in doing so is a little more open to interpretation by the law.
  2. I still feel it is rather ambiguously worded for a legal description! but suspect you are probably right walking man. So, if someone in the crowd shouts at a black player who has just scored against our team "you black (expletive)!" I would be surprised if any fan wouldn''t be, quite rightly imo, appalled. I have heard someone do this at Carrow Road (at the river end no less!). However by the LEGAL definition is he being racist? or in the heat of the moment has he latched onto the colour of his skin as a description in the same way that other fans shout "you fat (expletive)!" at Holt. His hatred of the player in that moment isn''t motivated by the fact he is black, but by the fact he has scored, but he has used the word black. It is quite clear legally that racism is where the motivation for the hatred comes from the fact the person is black. I''m not trying to be controversial and I realise that is probably an discussion not worth getting into on this board. I think whatever the reason for using it, such a phrase in modern society is quite rightly not condoned by people, I found it pretty personally appalling. But I can also see why legally a lot of these high profile racial cases, like John Terry''s, never result in criminal prosecution, because of proving motivation. In Terry''s case no one was defending the fact that Terry had been abusive, certainly not the accused, but the prosecution case was that "The Crown alleges that the words he used demonstrated hostility based on Mr Ferdinand''s membership or presumed membership of a racial group." In the end there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Terry''s words had been motivated by this reason, that is why he was found not guilty.
  3. RN Ships sometimes stop there, maybe they would drop you off for free pete??? Wouldn''t want to waste money on a plane ticket! Its a great idea, I would also be happy to contribute. I quite like the idea of buying Kamara printed shirts at cost to send out as an idea.
  4. "Parliament has passed legislation aimed at outlawing crime where the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred towards the victim''s race or religious beliefs (actual or perceived)." Is that straight of English Law Walking Man? If so I find the use of the word perceived rather disturbing, So whether racism was intended or not, you are guilty of racism if the victim perceives it as such? Without that word the legal definition makes perfect sense, with it it leaves it rather up to the alleged victims interpretation. Unless I am misunderstanding.
  5. I think you make a good point Nutty. My mother doesn''t have a racist bone in her body, but she refered to my black friends mum as "a lovely coloured woman", it made me cringe, she is just of a different time and understanding of racism, something thats been the norm for her for so long it seems strange to her that its become offensive. Norfolk has a problem as without exposure to other ethnic backgrounds/cultures you do have unintentional racism from people who cause offence, but don''t mean to. The problem is exposure is just as likely to promote racism, segregation and conflict as it is to educate.        
  6. I will watch it feathers, because its interesting, but another night. But my thoughts before I even start to watch are Argentina broke the fundamental rules, its government deregulated in pursuit of wealth, government shouldn''t directly pursue capitalist wealth. While I feel massive sympathy for the people of Argentina, and the country''s plight is one we could all face because of the last few years of ridiculous government overspending, the current regime is one to be held in utter contempt in my opinion. One has to ask why a country that had such a spontaneous uprising in protest of its treatment from capitalism, is now under such a corrupt regime and suffering from rampant inflation 10 years after effectively having the opportunity to reset itself as it saw fit. But I will watch the documentary with an open mind.
  7. Yes I have always found Orwell an objective read. ;) But I don''t dismiss his work either, I love Animal farm, and he makes points all of us should ponder upon.
  8. Haha, no I read it all Feathers, I like to be objective, it is you who painted the rosy picture without the criticism of it. If your an objective Historian what account would you believe? That written by an active members of the CNT? Gaston Leval is no historian, he is a promoter of his own revolution. Peirats is again auto bio-graphing, he was the CNT newspaper editor for gods sake! not an historian. Fraser is a pioneer of oral history, who''s book is described as a "a peerless account of the Spanish civil war, carefully constructed from interviews with participants on (drum roll please) both sides" by fellow (left wing) historian. He was also a lifelong socialist. Did all Germans embrace fascism? no the majority were coerced by fear and the nationalistic fervour, especially on the outbreak of war. After reading what you posted I merely added some objectivity to your terribly one sided and un-objective description of events. But as you say, intelligent people will make up their own minds based on the weight of evidence. You talk of Capitalist propaganda earlier yet are quite happy to write a purely Socialist/Marxist one. I like to be objective, I don''t have any particular entrenched political ideal and I look at each issue on its merit. I wish more people did rather than embracing unthinking partisanship.
  9. Two sides to every story feathers: Criticism of the Spanish Revolution has primarily centered around allegations of coercion by anarchist participants (primarily in the rural collectives of Aragon), which critics charge run contrary to libertarian organizational principles. Bolloten claims that CNT-FAI reports overplayed the voluntary nature of collectivization, and ignored the more widespread realities of coercion of outright force as the primary characteristic of anarchist organization "Although CNT-FAI publications cited numerous cases of peasant proprietors and tenant farmers who had adhered voluntarily to the collective system, there can be no doubt that an incomparably larger number doggedly opposed it or accepted it only under extreme duress...The fact is...that many small owners and tenant farmers were forced to join the collective farms before they had an opportunity to make up their minds freely." He also emphasizes the generally coercive nature of the war climate and anarchist military organization and presence in many portions of the countryside as being an element in the establishment of collectivization, even if outright force or blatant coercion was not used to bind participants against their will. "Even if the peasant proprietor and tenant farmer were not compelled to adhere to the collective system, there were several factors that made life difficult for recalcitrants; for not only were they prevented from employing hired labor and disposing freely as their crops, as has already been seen, but they were often denied all benefits enjoyed by members...Moreover, the tenant farmer, who had believed himself freed from the payment of rent by the execution or flight of the landowner or of his steward, was often compelled to continue such payment to the village committee. All these factors combined to exert a pressure almost as powerful as the butt of the rifle, and eventually forced the small owners and tenant farmers in many villages to relinquish their land and other possessions to the collective farms." This charge had previously been made by historian Ronald Fraser in his Blood of Spain: An Oral History of the Spanish Civil War, who commented that direct force was not necessary in the context of an otherwise coercive war climate. "Villagers could find themselves under considerable pressure to collectivize - even if for different reasons. There was no need to dragoon them at pistol point: the coercive climate, in which ''fascists'' were being shot, was sufficient. ''Spontaneous'' and ''forced'' collectives existed, as did willing and unwilling collectivists within them. Forced collectivization ran contrary to libertarian ideals. Anything that was forced could not be libertarian. Obligatory collectivization was justified, in some libertarians'' eyes, by a reasoning closer to war communism than to libertarian communism: the need to feed the columns at the front." Michael Seidman has suggested there were other contradictions with workers'' self-management during the Spanish Revolution. He points out that the CNT decided both that workers could be sacked for ''laziness or immorality'' and also that all workers should ''have a file where the details of their professional and social personalities will be registered.'' He also notes that the CNT Justice Minister, García Oliver, initiated the setting up of ''labour camps'' and that even the most principled anarchists, the Friends of Durutti, advocated ''forced labour''. Such policies obviously contradict the basic principles of anarchism. Yet, anarchist authors have sometimes understated the problems of workers'' self-management in the Spanish Revolution. For example, while Gaston Leval does admit that the collectives imposed a ''work discipline'' that was ''more strict'' than that of the former capitalist owners, he then restricts this comment to a mere footnote.
  10. "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..." Yes that would be great, now how would that practically ever work? Who decides whose baking that bread today? Who has to the dirty jobs? because if no man rules us then what if we all decide we are not going to and therefore the collective suffers. You give 10 random people enough food, water and materials for shelter to survive on a desert island for just a week and I guarantee they will argue over who is doing what job, some will try to take charge, some wont like what they end up doing, some will do more than others and resent the ones doing less etc. etc. Reality TV thrives on this! You talk about power and rule in terms that others may call it leadership or direction. And yes society is evolving and what is the catalyst, technology, and the current catalyst for that is capitalism. Rightly or wrongly it and it''s forerunners have generally always been the catalyst for change, the pursuit of wealth and power. I''m just trying to be objective rather than impassioned.
  11. "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." Great quote and that''s why the NHS does not fulfil its potential.
  12. We have imperfections and problems now, some would say why swap them for new ones? I love cooperatives, I don''t think they exist enough in society and they are great prospering advert for the ideals of which we have been speaking. I actually think they are where this form of thinking should be implemented, imposing the ideals in areas, rather than over nations. Let the people decide. I buy fair trade products because I want to, not because they are cheapest because they are not. Its a tiny example, but I believe in evolution not revolution and if people don''t want to, well its up to them. "Dream small dreams. If you make them too big, you get overwhelmed and you don''t do anything."
  13. "Capitalism use to have morals now it doesn''t, like we humans use to have morals now we don''t. Protestant morals use to encourage working hard which equalled hard working people and a prospering society" Is that the morals forced upon the common people by a powerful, authoritarian church with the threat of eternal punishment if not obeyed? ;)
  14. Feathers, can I make one thing clear, most reasonable people would I would have thought accept that the ideals of Marxism are ones to wish for. Looking back to page 4 this is the one bit the sums all up for me. "Marx was great, ''Marxists'' however are a different kettle of fish and usually idiots." The failures of Communism in the only forms that it has ever been found are historical fact, not propaganda. You can say that they were never really true Communism but all your are enforcing is the inability of people to bring Marx''s ideas to fruition. As noble as the world he envisages is, it relies on people, and people are the element that always have and will probably always cause it to fail. If there is ever a point in human evolution where we truly want for nothing, then I can see communism working. People living in a utopian society where the good of all and the individual strive to do better are key. While Rock the boat has gone for the jugular! You can''t deny many of his arguments, and you haven''t tried. I have read Marx, and have come across the ideals of Libertarian socialism before. If anything I would say the latter produces far more problems and questions in its execution than the pure ideals of communism. However far you devolve the exercise of wielding power, I cannot personally see a situation where people work harmoniously without its need. It goes almost against the ideas of free will, not with them. I don''t love capitalism, I just don''t see any viable alternative in the worlds current state, and I certainly don''t see it as some evil tyranny. I personally agree with your statement and that it is my main view. Marx was great, Marxists are idiots.
  15. You old b@astard feathers! I''m only 28. "There is no clear winner" aint that the rub. Reasonable if you think the majority of this forum is articulate and reasoned debate without insult, i think you are on a different forum to me. While massively off topic I''ve enjoyed this far more than most of the threads loosely related to football on here because it hasn''t resorted to name calling, and then mass hysteria about the name calling. I appreciate that seems to put me in either a minority, or a silent majority. I''m never sure which. 
  16. Without dominating was a poor choice of words! Apologies, I claim tiredness! The point I was trying to make is that modern society is not some capitalist dictatorship where feudalism has just been usurped by some newer term and land been exchanged for capital.  The capitalist economy is the background within which we operate, it doesn''t mean that somehow our Democracy is irrelevant and that policies that are grounded in socialism don''t exist. We live in a welfare state, within a capitalist ecnomy. Under true capitalist "rule" those out of work, the ill, old and infirm are useless to the generation of profit and wouldn''t be cared for. This idea that everything about are lives is "ruled" by capitalism is nonsense, it shapes the world we live in because there is no other proven, or aguably workable within all the constraints, economic system. If we are "ruled" by capitalism it is by our own choice, we have the power to enact change, and yet we continue not to.  My point is democracy is purely your individual right to representation, which all adults generally have in this country. In the modern world with our current laws and social media, enacting mass sweeping political change through the will of the people, should be far easier than any historic revolution against the estabilishment. My point is we choose not to because we are comfortable, because of our social policies and because we are as a majority happy with the current status quo. Those railing against capitalisms perceived control of democracy are failing to acknowledge that there is no popular revolution for change. Democracy isn''t broken, one could argue it never really works, because all those clamouring for representation all disagree on how they should be represented.  
  17. I was literally commenting on those words. i.e.. The inaccuracy of your spelling while making a point about accuracy. Come on City1st, what happened to the light hearted version of you before you went away!?
  18. I actually think your wrong btw, the financial crisis has actually put a dampener on what was a mini explosion of the right small business. Not in the sense of independent bookshops, or speciality bakers....corporations won because the consumer wants the cheapest, get over it you guys and find something else. But in the niches that big business has left itself open to, small internet ideas, businesses pushing quality over price and finding a market in an ever more savvy middle class. I find your small farmers example very interesting considering the huge explosion of farmers markets in the last ten years. My friends Dad is a pig farmer and since selling his pigs to a small independent butcher and them emphasising quality he is financially much better off than he ever was trying to sell to supermarkets. And demand continues to grow. The market is there to be exploited if you have a product that is worthwhile, and you find the market for it. The internet has opened this up massively. Yes when people want traditional high street goods, bread, meat they go to the supermarket because its cheaper. Small business evolves or dies, capitalism in action.
  19. But Smith didn''t care about small business, any more than Capitalism does. It only cares about success. You talk of high street businesses, these are small businesses in the modern global economy. The world has grown in population while simultaneously getting smaller geographically. Think how many car companies there are, realistically how many different versions of a competing product do you need for competition? 3, 4, 20? How many businesses offer insurance products? Communications? Electronics? When one company can now effectively span the entire planet how much competition is required to be competitive? One would argue, not much. If your a small independent with a niche, good luck to you, but it better be good or we will just go to Amazon, Tesco etc. My point Badger is that the main principle of pure capitalism is little to no interference from governments. Governments shouldn''t be for or against capitalism, it is not their role, capitalism doesn''t want interference from governments or it changes the game. If government regulates a market it closes it, you can''t have free markets and government control, that''s why governments do not control markets, they can''t because then it won''t be free. Badger the point i''m trying to get across is all our western governments are capitalist! They''re not pro or anti really, its just the system we live in. Whether under the umbrella of socialism or not, there is no other example of any working economic system. All modern socialist governments do is provide a social economic system for specific areas of our needs. The NHS being a great example of Welfare socialism. Their role is to regulate the labour force, to ensure workers get a fair deal, not to interfere with the flow of capital. "Fundamentally, however, I suspect our differences stem from our perception of the role of economics: you believe it is a “shaper” whereas I believe it is the key determining force." My argument would be they are pretty much the same thing, depending on what you believe they are determining. The way we live our lives, by consumption, yes they are the determining force. The way we act, speak and feel? Capitalism has no influence on this for me, it is just the background to which we live our lives. It doesn''t determine how I would treat another person, how I feel about the environment, whether I am religious, whether I read, whether I watch football, whether I think murderers should be punished, whether I think drug users should be rehabilitated etc.......
  20. Johnny, that''s a very succinct analysis. But whose role is it to regulate the banks? It''s Governments, and they have been happy to watch this happen, encourage it in fact, in the pursuit of national growth. Now its all collapsed and the entire worlds economy is barely being held together by duct tape, it seems that we blame only the Banks, when our governments were happy for the game to be played while they were able to borrow and while their economy''s were growing.
  21. 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. 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? 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. 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.
  22. Haha yes Ron very true. But the governments choice are use your money to stop you losing your money, or just let you lose your money. No real choice there, poor regulation at work.
  23. Johnny banks have always worked this way, the relatively simple principles of banking are not that much of a mystery, but most probably don''t know. The principles of banking are not directly linked to the capitalist model. Whatever your economic system as long as money was required banking would work by the same principle. In fact what people don''t understand is the money they have in the bank doesn''t exist either. When your pay arrives in your bank account its just a number in a ledger, as soon as you deposit any physical money in a bank it again disappears. Banks work purely on assets, money they have lent to people (and they are therefore owed) and the small amount of physical money they actually have. This is then set against their liabilities, mainly the money you think you have in your account! As long as these remain around equilibrium everything is ok. When loans get defaulted on the assets disappear and suddenly the bank doesn''t have the assets to cover your deposits. When a bank starts to go under people try and withdraw their money and make the situation worse. The bank has to start selling its assets (the loans) off cheap to cover its liabilities (your money). Because the loans were originally going to make more money over the length of the loan, by having to sell early the bank ends up with less assets than it had accounted for and suddenly not enough to cover its liabilities. Boom - bank goes under, you lose your money.
  24. "Marx’s work is widely misinterpreted - It is quite possible to be a conservative voter AND a Marxist." I don''t in anyway disagree, 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? I think you have misunderstood my point re free markets, and to say free market economists are hopelessly idealistic while quoting Marx left and right is amusing to say the least. The free market principle is purely one of competition, of course a company wishes to maintain its market share, this isn''t an assault, it is the systems essence. Governments are fulfilling their role in contradiction of the principles of Laissez-faire model of economics, because they have to. They are trying to promote an environment in which business will thrive within their own country''s. As the world grows smaller in geographical terms,due to the ever increasing technological revolution, each country must compete to promote its fertility to business. Governments don''t control markets, by controlling markets they would be going against the very principles of capitalism. But they do regulate business, that is their role. Of course big business in a capitalist society affects our lives, but it doesn''t rule them. Does business determine how much income tax you pay? The time you spend in prison for committing crimes? Whether your Healthcare is free or not? How much your education will cost? 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.
  25. Your right purple as far as I am aware, I went and had a look after posting, very bad of me not to check, and can only find reference to the season post promotion.
  • Create New...