What Kind of Socialism do you want?

[Fruitloop]

Opposition to landlordism = we should all live in identical houses? I mean, what the fuck? It's the politics of brain damage.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ooooohhhh the mixed up politics of envy......

Oooohhh, the rhetoric of someone who can't articulate their own argument so borrows one from the tories.

Do you think that all housing should be allocated to need,nino?

What do you think it should be allocated by?

We should all live in identical housing?

Has he said that?
Nah, you're just inventing bullshit.
Again.

We should all get the same amount of free years of education???????

So, shouldn't people be treated equally then, Mr. "Authoritarian Socialist"?

Or are you still a Tory?

Takes one to know one.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Opposition to landlordism = we should all live in identical houses? I mean, what the fuck? It's the politics of brain damage.

Yep, the politics of a reactionary who masquerades as a "socialist". No wonder tbaldwin is constantly puffing Blair's achievements. He's a kindred spirit.

 

[tbaldwin]

Yep, the politics of a reactionary who masquerades as a "socialist". No wonder tbaldwin is constantly puffing Blair's achievements. He's a kindred spirit.

Says the great Libertarain who left the Army and went to work for the Home Office.....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Says the great Libertarain who left the Army and went to work for the Home Office.....

You're making assumptions again, toryboy.

And really, is that the best you can do, try and smear someone by making assumptions about their employment?

You sad tosser.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ooooohhhh the mixed up politics of envy......
Do you think that all housing should be allocated to need,nino?
We should all live in identical housing?

We should all get the same amount of free years of education???????

Or are you still a Tory?

Ah, the politics of fuckwittery.

How much do you know about social housing, fuckwit? Bugger all, I'd wager.

 

[newbie]

I think that it is all relative. The only real winners are the already well-off and the financial institutions that profit from credit arrangements.

I don't agree with that, many people who did not start life well off have become prosperous. To some extent I think it's age related, with the odds apparently stacked against those who are young now, but a lot of those who were part of the 70's 'no future' generation have done well. Whether VP is right, and it's all temporary self-delusion remains to be seen, but in the here and now the housing choices available to those with capital far exceed what's there for those without.

I don't own my own home and I have no intention of ever taking out a mortgage. Does that make me a "loser"?

Only you can answer that, but IMO if you're at the mercy of profit seeking landlordism all your life (with no anticipation of inheritance) then your relationship with capital is to be exploited. So in the field of housing, yes, you're potentially a loser, compared with those who have greater choice, anyway.

A lifetime in the private rented sector probably also puts you worse off than those, like my parents, who've been in social housing for 50+ years unable to move when they wished, at the mercy of the estate office for repairs and for a lot of that time unable to choose the colour of their own front door (a small but highly symbolic issue). They haven't been exploited, but neither have they had the opportunities of owner-occupiers.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't agree with that, many people who did not start life well off have become prosperous. To some extent I think it's age related, with the odds apparently stacked against those who are young now, but a lot of those who were part of the 70's 'no future' generation have done well. Whether VP is right, and it's all temporary self-delusion remains to be seen, but in the here and now the housing choices available to those with capital far exceed what's there for those without.



Only you can answer that, but IMO if you're at the mercy of profit seeking landlordism all your life (with no anticipation of inheritance) then your relationship with capital is to be exploited. So in the field of housing, yes, you're potentially a loser, compared with those who have greater choice, anyway.

A lifetime in the private rented sector probably also puts you worse off than those, like my parents, who've been in social housing for 50+ years unable to move when they wished, at the mercy of the estate office for repairs and for a lot of that time unable to choose the colour of their own front door (a small but highly symbolic issue). They haven't been exploited, but neither have they had the opportunities of owner-occupiers.

My own observations tell me that the divide between the rich and the poor has become even wider and no amount of neo-liberal economic polices will level the playing field. If anything, neo-liberalism skews the playing field in favour of the ruling classes, while projecting the message of "egalitarianism through acquisition".

Oh and I live in social housing btw. If one cannot afford their own home, there is no reason why landlords should exploit them for profit. Thatcher's idea of creating a "homeowner society" came unstuck when people were forced into negative equity because the value of the council properties that they bought were damn near worthless.

 

[newbie]

My own observations tell me that the divide between the rich and the poor has become even wider and no amount of neo-liberal economic polices will level the playing field. If anything, neo-liberalism skews the playing field in favour of the ruling classes, while projecting the message of "egalitarianism through acquisition".

Oh and I live in social housing btw. If one cannot afford their own home, there is no reason why landlords should exploit them for profit.

I agree with that.

Thatcher's idea of creating a "homeowner society" came unstuck when people were forced into negative equity because the value of the council properties that they bought were damn near worthless.

No it didn't, as is quite evident. Not everyone who bought a council property in the 80s came unstuck. Some did, but many sold profitably, many others have never moved and have a huge paper profit. Either way there's a very widespread aspiration to own ones own home if it's affordable. We all know that capitalism relies on there being losers, but if the left paints it as though there are only losers they'll (continue to) be ignored.

 

[tbaldwin]

You're making assumptions again, toryboy.

And really, is that the best you can do, try and smear someone by making assumptions about their employment?

You sad tosser.

I think there is a difference between making an observation and assumption.
But obviously your dictionary is massive and ive only got a little one.......

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think there is a difference between making an observation and assumption.
But obviously your dictionary is massive and ive only got a little one.......

There is a difference between an observation and an assumption.

However, you didn't make an observation (given that you're not privy to my work or personal history, just to the few facts I've passed on, you're not equipped to make one), you made an assumption.

It's not a case of having a big dictionary, it's a case of knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

You don't.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't agree with that, many people who did not start life well off have become prosperous. To some extent I think it's age related, with the odds apparently stacked against those who are young now, but a lot of those who were part of the 70's 'no future' generation have done well. Whether VP is right, and it's all temporary self-delusion remains to be seen, but in the here and now the housing choices available to those with capital far exceed what's there for those without.

They always have, to a degree.

The "lock" on the current system is the massive unmet demand for housing, of the social, private rented and owner-occupier type, which has both narrowed choice, and perpetuated (and arguably extended) the degree of difficulty and risk in financing a house purchase.

 

[october_lost]

Basing a political analysis around 'winners' and 'losers' is beyond fucking parody.....

 

[newbie]

I don't know who introduced those terms first, but they're obvious shorthand being used in a conversation.

But please, go ahead, give us a political analysis of Britain in 2007 that actually fits the observable society in which we live.

I know I'm not clever enough to do that, but I also know that for the last 5 years or so I've been reading the debates here no-one else has managed it, generally preferring to attempt to shoehorn observation to fit some theory or other.

 

[nino_savatte]

I agree with that.




No it didn't, as is quite evident. Not everyone who bought a council property in the 80s came unstuck. Some did, but many sold profitably, many others have never moved and have a huge paper profit. Either way there's a very widespread aspiration to own ones own home if it's affordable. We all know that capitalism relies on there being losers, but if the left paints it as though there are only losers they'll (continue to) be ignored.

There is another element to Right to Buy and that is the problem of leasehold. Many people who bought their own council property weren't told about service charges and, as a consequence, found themselves saddled with huge debts that they could not pay off.

Home ownership is seen as the be all and end all; it isn't. Why should people kill themselves to obtain and maintain a mortgage? The only winner in all of this is the Exchequer, who can then point at this month's GDP figures and say "Look how well our economy is doing". It's pretty meaningless stuff.

 

[nino_savatte]

Or are you still a Tory?

Nope but you seem to be. The only folk who use the phrase "The politics of envy" are Tories or are you so thick that you think that it was used by some dead Labour politician like Eric Heffer?

 

[Fruitloop]

The economic figures are grossly skewed in terms of house prices IMO. The fact that they are no longer included in the reckoning of inflation means that the experience of people who don't own houses is completely unrepresented. The house I rent was worth 40-60 grand 20 years ago and now it would be worth about 340-360 (mad prices for a smallish terrace), which is great if you own it, but for the rest of us it's just an enormous addition to the cost of living that isn't really being recognised.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Basing a political analysis around 'winners' and 'losers' is beyond fucking parody.....

Unfortunately it's what our so-called politicians have been doing for a couple of decades.

Also, I think you'll find that splitting the polity into (sometimes oppositional ) subsets is a fairly common common practice in any political analysis, unless you're talking about a fairly constrictive format for the analysis.

 

[nino_savatte]

The economic figures are grossly skewed in terms of house prices IMO. The fact that they are no longer included in the reckoning of inflation means that the experience of people who don't own houses is completely unrepresented. The house I rent was worth 40-60 grand 20 years ago and now it would be worth about 340-360 (mad prices for a smallish terrace), which is great if you own it, but for the rest of us it's just an enormous addition to the cost of living that isn't really being recognised.

This is probably the reason why Sokrazy is going for the home ownership option in France.

All surface and nowt underneath.

 

[tbaldwin]

Nope but you seem to be. The only folk who use the phrase "The politics of envy" are Tories or are you so thick that you think that it was used by some dead Labour politician like Eric Heffer?

You used it on a thread arguing against my views on giving more money to Higher education,nino...

You might have forgotten it....You know the arguement where you said i was ridiculous to claim that H/E students were a privelleged minority.....
The one i followed up witha thread on what % of the worlds population has a higher education..

 

[tbaldwin]

There is a difference between an observation and an assumption.

However, you didn't make an observation (given that you're not privy to my work or personal history, just to the few facts I've passed on, you're not equipped to make one), you made an assumption.

It's not a case of having a big dictionary, it's a case of knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

You don't.

I made an observation given on your CLAIMS to have been a private in the army who then went on to work for the home office.

You made an observation on my employment based on a few things i had said on the remploy thread.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I made an observation given on your CLAIMS to have been a private in the army who then went on to work for the home office.

No, you made assumptions based on comments I made.
An observation would have reflected what I said, your assumption didn't reflect, it extrapolated.

You made an observation on my employment based on a few things i had said on the remploy thread.

Wrong again.
I made an observation based not only on the Remploy thread, but on what you've said about your employer and your employment on other threads (you know, the ones where you attempt to browbeat people with your "superior" knowledge of disability benefits etc?).

Muppet.

 

[tbaldwin]

No, you made assumptions based on comments I made.
An observation would have reflected what I said, your assumption didn't reflect, it extrapolated.

Wrong again.
I made an observation based not only on the Remploy thread, but on what you've said about your employer and your employment on other threads (you know, the ones where you attempt to browbeat people with your "superior" knowledge of disability benefits etc?).

Muppet.

I dont attempt to browbeat anybody with my superior knowledge of disability benefits...They are very complex and i struggle to keep up with all the changes to be honest...
But when people with far less knowledge than me, claim i dont know what im talking about....All my views are based on groundless prejudices etc etc i do like to show them the error of their ways...
And i have never said who my employer is on any thread for fairly obvious reasons......

 

[nino_savatte]

You used it on a thread arguing against my views on giving more money to Higher education,nino...

You might have forgotten it....You know the arguement where you said i was ridiculous to claim that H/E students were a privelleged minority.....
The one i followed up witha thread on what % of the worlds population has a higher education..

I've never used that phrase baldwin and you know it. So here you are again, engaging in smears because you lack the brainpower to reason; to argue and to comprehend. Pathetic.

 

[tbaldwin]

I've never used that phrase baldwin and you know it. So here you are again, engaging in smears because you lack the brainpower to reason; to argue and to comprehend. Pathetic.

Get Private Panda to look it up for you along with the thread on what % of the worlds population has a higher education.....You know that group of disadvantaged people you were keen to help....

 

[nino_savatte]

Get Private Panda to look it up for you along with the thread on what % of the worlds population has a higher education.....You know that group of disadvantaged people you were keen to help....

You appear to have a problem paying attention...not to mention staying on track.

This thread is just another opportunity for you to engage in a smearfest.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I dont attempt to browbeat anybody with my superior knowledge of disability benefits...They are very complex and i struggle to keep up with all the changes to be honest...

Your actions on previous thread belie that claim.

But when people with far less knowledge than me, claim i dont know what im talking about....All my views are based on groundless prejudices etc etc i do like to show them the error of their ways...

Except you didn't, did you?
As I recall tobyjug made you look like an idiot.

And i have never said who my employer is on any thread for fairly obvious reasons......

I haven't said you named your employer, I said that you'd talked about your employer and your employment.

Learn to actually understand what you're reading, eh?

It might make you better able to become a socialist some time in the future when you've managed to shrug off your reactionary instincts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Get Private Panda to look it up for you along with the thread on what % of the worlds population has a higher education.....You know that group of disadvantaged people you were keen to help....

Twister.