I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.
It doesn’t always work. I’ve been avoiding Gillette since their “be a better man” lecture, but they’re lucky because there aren’t many good alternative razor products on the market. As their prices will attest to.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
No, she's right. She was making a reasonable point, but expressed it very badly. (This is not to excuse her particularly - if there's one role where you need to be 100% careful on the words you choose, it's NI Sec).
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
What makes you say it backfired?
Comments on social media have been very hostile, and this has been backed up by market research carried out by YouGov.
In other words, social media is giving them free viral advertising?
It could backfire, but I think we'll have to see their sales numbers to know. It was clearly modelled on the earlier Nike campaign, which again included the backlash as deliberate part of the strategy.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
No, she's right. She was making a reasonable point, but expressed it very badly. (This is not to excuse her particularly - if there's one role where you need to be 100% careful on the words you choose, it's NI Sec).
I would have said that most killings carried out by the security forces were lawful, but not all of them.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
I assumed the logic there was that part of their customer base was actually women buying for their partners, although I can't see it really. I'm reasonably certain they were deliberately trying to generate controversy, and as you say, the people most likely to be offended were their core.
Didn't the antisemitism and waging wars of imperial aggression occur because they were already Russian characteristics and Soviet Russia was the first Communist power? China seems to have managed without the antisemitism (insofar as they had the matériel) and their imperial aggression seems mostly of the economic type nowadays.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
Yes. I’ve stopped buying their products.
Quite frankly I’m tired of these gender lectures. I’m doing my best to avoid IWD tomorrow as well.
My firm want as many of us as possible to stand and hold placards for a photoshoot event, so I’ve arranged to be busy.
Mr. Endillion, at university a figure of 80-85% of products bought being bought by women was suggested, including most 'male' items, such as aftershave.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
And to be fair to state-run railways, those of other countries in Western Europe are - on the whole - pretty damn good. But I must stop this line of discussion lest we raise the rest of the PB Rail Enthusiasts from their slumber.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
What makes you say it backfired?
Comments on social media have been very hostile, and this has been backed up by market research carried out by YouGov.
In other words, social media is giving them free viral advertising?
It could backfire, but I think we'll have to see their sales numbers to know. It was clearly modelled on the earlier Nike campaign, which again included the backlash as deliberate part of the strategy.
Nike's customer base is different, being young, left wing, and urban. Gillette is more like Hovis or John Lewis.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
No, she's right. She was making a reasonable point, but expressed it very badly. (This is not to excuse her particularly - if there's one role where you need to be 100% careful on the words you choose, it's NI Sec).
I would have said that most killings carried out by the security forces were lawful, but not all of them.
She was trying to say that the security forces were there to try to stop the killings, she wasn't trying to say that there were no illegal acts or killings by them.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
No, she's right. She was making a reasonable point, but expressed it very badly. (This is not to excuse her particularly - if there's one role where you need to be 100% careful on the words you choose, it's NI Sec).
Did she express it badly or did she just say something totally different to what she later claimed she meant?
I understand that people misspeak, but they should own up to it rather than implying that it was just an issue of language.
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
Military spending rose sharply between 1980-86, although it was certainly cut sharply as the Cold War ended.
Polaris and inflation, perhaps? Conservative defence cuts were then very steep in cash and capability terms. Your graph clearly shows Tory defence cuts either side of a rise under Labour, from 4.5 per cent to 2 per cent of GDP. As I've argued before, Jeremy Corbyn should make more of this: attack your opponent's perceived strengths, as Karl Rove told Bush. Corbyn has already done this effectively over police cuts.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
What makes you say it backfired?
Comments on social media have been very hostile, and this has been backed up by market research carried out by YouGov.
In other words, social media is giving them free viral advertising?
It could backfire, but I think we'll have to see their sales numbers to know. It was clearly modelled on the earlier Nike campaign, which again included the backlash as deliberate part of the strategy.
Nike's customer base is different, being young, left wing, and urban. Gillette is more like Hovis or John Lewis.
I'm not going to try to do market analysis in the comment section of this blog. If you provided me with numbers showing convincingly that it backfired, I wouldn't be particularly shocked. My point is that negative feedback on social media is part of the strategy, not evidence that the strategy failed.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.
It doesn’t always work. I’ve been avoiding Gillette since their “be a better man” lecture, but they’re lucky because there aren’t many good alternative razor products on the market. As their prices will attest to.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
Yes. I’ve stopped buying their products.
Quite frankly I’m tired of these gender lectures. I’m doing my best to avoid IWD tomorrow as well.
My firm want as many of us as possible to stand and hold placards for a photoshoot event, so I’ve arranged to be busy.
Does it bother you that every time you mention your boycott it's providing free marketing for Gillette, which is exactly what they intended when they created the ad?
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
Military spending rose sharply between 1980-86, although it was certainly cut sharply as the Cold War ended.
Polaris and inflation, perhaps? Conservative defence cuts were then very steep in cash and capability terms. Your graph clearly shows Tory defence cuts either side of a rise under Labour, from 4.5 per cent to 2 per cent of GDP. As I've argued before, Jeremy Corbyn should make more of this: attack your opponent's perceived strengths, as Karl Rove told Bush. Corbyn has already done this effectively over police cuts.
No, defence spending rose from about 4% of GDP in 1980 to 5% in 1986m so that's a big real terms increase. The army numbered around 170,000 in the eighties, a big force. I accept spending was slashed at the end of the Cold War.
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
Military spending rose sharply between 1980-86, although it was certainly cut sharply as the Cold War ended.
Polaris and inflation, perhaps? Conservative defence cuts were then very steep in cash and capability terms. Your graph clearly shows Tory defence cuts either side of a rise under Labour, from 4.5 per cent to 2 per cent of GDP. As I've argued before, Jeremy Corbyn should make more of this: attack your opponent's perceived strengths, as Karl Rove told Bush. Corbyn has already done this effectively over police cuts.
If you want to look at how Labour traditionally sees the military, look no further than the traitorous Labour MP Stafford Cripps.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I expect most voters bar a few Leave diehards will be happy with Leave with a Deal, whether May's Deal of Norway Plus, if Brexit is revoked though them you would see significant movement to Farage's new Brexit Party or UKIP, No Deal would of course boost TIG
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
No, she's right. She was making a reasonable point, but expressed it very badly. (This is not to excuse her particularly - if there's one role where you need to be 100% careful on the words you choose, it's NI Sec).
Did she express it badly or did she just say something totally different to what she later claimed she meant?
I understand that people misspeak, but they should own up to it rather than implying that it was just an issue of language.
She should have clearly said what she meant, if they were in British uniform they could do what they want , if not , the Irish , they were criminals and terrorists.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
No, she's right. She was making a reasonable point, but expressed it very badly. (This is not to excuse her particularly - if there's one role where you need to be 100% careful on the words you choose, it's NI Sec).
I would have said that most killings carried out by the security forces were lawful, but not all of them.
I would say you have no clue on that merely guessing and also what about the ones they got their chums to handle.
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
Oh, right. Like all those people who voted Leave to maximise our chances of eventually joining the Euro?
He has a consistent record of arguing that “flirting with a future outside” would increase our influence, and during the referendum campaign he argued against invoking article 50. Watch this from 15:20.
Afraid I can't until this evening, but the BBC strapline (yes, I know) doesn't exactly help your case...
My reading of him (for what it's worth) is that he: - agreed that our best long term outcome was staying in a properly reformed EU; - thought that voting to Leave would force the EU to give us enough to make it worth our while staying; but - was entirely prepared to walk away if necessary, cognizant of the fact that the EU do not have a good history of showing the necessary flexibility when faced with a crisis.
Likely that I'm just projecting my own views onto him though. He's one of a very few Tory Leavers I can still reasonably do that with.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
Careful. There's a test case before an employment tribunal which may result in veganism becoming a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46385597
That's really good news. Next step: get 'gastronome' registered as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, so that it becomes a breach of my human rights not to serve me excellent food and fine claret.
Not veganism. "Ethical Veganism". Apparently normal vegans are not ethical.
I love that the people he is having a go at are the League Against Cruel Sports, who sacked him for "Gross Misconduct".
On a more serious note, are Employment Tribunals binding in terms of changing primary law such as the Equality Act?
It's amazing what people are prepared to be offended by these days. Food business makes new product, forces nobody to buy it or eat it, continues to stock existing products. Reaction? Fascists! I'll eat what I want!! Kill all vegans!!! Consumer products business makes harmless video suggesting that maybe men might be nicer to women (background: historically men have frequently not been very nice to women). Reaction? You hate men! I'll grow a beard to avoid buying your products!! Feminazis!!! Of course if anger is your thing, there are lots of things that one could legitimately be angry about. But may I respectfully suggest that these things are not worth it?
Mr. Royale, I've probably told this story before but it's related to International Women's Day, so I shall retell it.
A year or two ago someone praised Empress Irene for ending the iconoclasm, and citing her as an example for IWD. I pointed out, politely, that she also blinded her own son so brutally he died of the mutilation. This led to me being blocked, the tweet to which I'd replied being taken down, and a replacement being put up (a 'grammar error' was blamed for the original being removed).
It just seems petty and pointless. I didn't jump all over the chap, I just pointed it she wasn't the best example to be used. There was no attempt to engage, refute, or agree whatsoever, the immediate response was to block, and remove the original tweet so nobody (viewing said chap's feed) could see what I'd written. Just a bit sad really.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
No, she's right. She was making a reasonable point, but expressed it very badly. (This is not to excuse her particularly - if there's one role where you need to be 100% careful on the words you choose, it's NI Sec).
I would have said that most killings carried out by the security forces were lawful, but not all of them.
I would say you have no clue on that merely guessing and also what about the ones they got their chums to handle.
Mao conquered Tibet, and his immediate successors tried to conquer Vietnam.
Not 'nowadays' though, and again those actions could be seen as characteristic of a 2000 year old empire.
What about all the current expansion in the disputed parts of the South China Sea - Spratly Islands etc? Destroying coral atolls by covering them in concrete just to claim them from the Philippines & Malaysia?
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
Oh, right. Like all those people who voted Leave to maximise our chances of eventually joining the Euro?
He has a consistent record of arguing that “flirting with a future outside” would increase our influence, and during the referendum campaign he argued against invoking article 50. Watch this from 15:20.
Afraid I can't until this evening, but the BBC strapline (yes, I know) doesn't exactly help your case...
My reading of him (for what it's worth) is that he: - agreed that our best long term outcome was staying in a properly reformed EU; - thought that voting to Leave would force the EU to give us enough to make it worth our while staying; but - was entirely prepared to walk away if necessary, cognizant of the fact that the EU do not have a good history of showing the necessary flexibility when faced with a crisis.
Likely that I'm just projecting my own views onto him though. He's one of a very few Tory Leavers I can still reasonably do that with.
I'm confused. Is the idea that we'd vote to Leave, then instead of talking about how to Leave, the EU would say "Wait! We'll give you X, Y, and Z to stay", then the government would say "Okay, forget the referendum, let's do that instead"?
Why should she resign while the Party leadership backs her? Corbyn didn't resign when 80% of the MPs said they wanted him gone.
Depends how many more MPs they think Formby is worth losing.....
Formby, of herself, is not worth many MPs at all. However, were she to be forced out, the question would be whether the leadership can replace her with someone equally reliable. Given the nature of the balance on the NEC, that's not quite a given. Even more pressingly, if there were a vacancy for GS, the Party would inevitably face scrutiny on how the candidates would address the antisemitism question. That scrutiny will be very difficult for the leadership because either the GS has to accede to demands for much greater transparency and action, or else it really does risk claims of institutional racism, as per today's EHRC comments.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
It's amazing what people are prepared to be offended by these days. Food business makes new product, forces nobody to buy it or eat it, continues to stock existing products. Reaction? Fascists! I'll eat what I want!! Kill all vegans!!! Consumer products business makes harmless video suggesting that maybe men might be nicer to women (background: historically men have frequently not been very nice to women). Reaction? You hate men! I'll grow a beard to avoid buying your products!! Feminazis!!! Of course if anger is your thing, there are lots of things that one could legitimately be angry about. But may I respectfully suggest that these things are not worth it?
There's a large and growing segment of the Right whose sole remaining pleasures in life are a) Triggering the Libs, and b) Being triggered.
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
Oh, right. Like all those people who voted Leave to maximise our chances of eventually joining the Euro?
He has a consistent record of arguing that “flirting with a future outside” would increase our influence, and during the referendum campaign he argued against invoking article 50. Watch this from 15:20.
Afraid I can't until this evening, but the BBC strapline (yes, I know) doesn't exactly help your case...
My reading of him (for what it's worth) is that he: - agreed that our best long term outcome was staying in a properly reformed EU; - thought that voting to Leave would force the EU to give us enough to make it worth our while staying; but - was entirely prepared to walk away if necessary, cognizant of the fact that the EU do not have a good history of showing the necessary flexibility when faced with a crisis.
Likely that I'm just projecting my own views onto him though. He's one of a very few Tory Leavers I can still reasonably do that with.
I'm confused. Is the idea that we'd vote to Leave, then instead of talking about how to Leave, the EU would say "Wait! We'll give you X, Y, and Z to stay", then the government would say "Okay, forget the referendum, let's do that instead"?
Yes. I think probably quite a few people voted Leave on that basis. Problem is, if you make a threat like that you have to be sincere about your willingness to carry it out, if you don't get what you wanted.
It's amazing what people are prepared to be offended by these days. Food business makes new product, forces nobody to buy it or eat it, continues to stock existing products. Reaction? Fascists! I'll eat what I want!! Kill all vegans!!! Consumer products business makes harmless video suggesting that maybe men might be nicer to women (background: historically men have frequently not been very nice to women). Reaction? You hate men! I'll grow a beard to avoid buying your products!! Feminazis!!! Of course if anger is your thing, there are lots of things that one could legitimately be angry about. But may I respectfully suggest that these things are not worth it?
There's a large and growing segment of the Right whose sole remaining pleasures in life are a) Triggering the Libs, and b) Being triggered.
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
Oh, right. Like all those people who voted Leave to maximise our chances of eventually joining the Euro?
He has a consistent record of arguing that “flirting with a future outside” would increase our influence, and during the referendum campaign he argued against invoking article 50. Watch this from 15:20.
Afraid I can't until this evening, but the BBC strapline (yes, I know) doesn't exactly help your case...
My reading of him (for what it's worth) is that he: - agreed that our best long term outcome was staying in a properly reformed EU; - thought that voting to Leave would force the EU to give us enough to make it worth our while staying; but - was entirely prepared to walk away if necessary, cognizant of the fact that the EU do not have a good history of showing the necessary flexibility when faced with a crisis.
Likely that I'm just projecting my own views onto him though. He's one of a very few Tory Leavers I can still reasonably do that with.
I'm confused. Is the idea that we'd vote to Leave, then instead of talking about how to Leave, the EU would say "Wait! We'll give you X, Y, and Z to stay", then the government would say "Okay, forget the referendum, let's do that instead"?
Yes. I think probably quite a few people voted Leave on that basis. Problem is, if you make a threat like that you have to be sincere about your willingness to carry it out, if you don't get what you wanted.
I feel like that's a pretty fundamental misreading of just about every group involved in Brexit (the EU, government, Leave advocates, Leave voters). If you'd have gotten any one of those right, you'd have seen that cunning plan was never going to work.
Mao conquered Tibet, and his immediate successors tried to conquer Vietnam.
Not 'nowadays' though, and again those actions could be seen as characteristic of a 2000 year old empire.
What about all the current expansion in the disputed parts of the South China Sea - Spratly Islands etc? Destroying coral atolls by covering them in concrete just to claim them from the Philippines & Malaysia?
I'll have to reset my dial as to what 'wars of imperial aggression' means.
I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.
But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.
Michael Gove.
That's kind of the problem. If you go thru the list of MPs and discard those who are too thick, too panicky, too drunk, too affected, too ethereal, too cowardly, too inexperienced, etc, it's a really short list. Gove is in it but few others. I don't like him and I don't want him to be PM but even I can acknowledge he's at that level.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
In the real world, the way that it worked was that the punishment for anyone who stepped out of line was truly appalling, and all that it took to deliver that punishment to you and wreck your life (and probably your family's as well) entirely was a denunciation, most likely anonymous, from anyone who took a dislike to you or your views, whether justified or not. Hence most people did what they could to control themselves.
The idea that anyone would want to live in such a society beggars belief.
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
Oh, right. Like all those people who voted Leave to maximise our chances of eventually joining the Euro?
Afraid I can't until this evening, but the BBC strapline (yes, I know) doesn't exactly help your case...
My reading of him (for what it's worth) is that he: - agreed that our best long term outcome was staying in a properly reformed EU; - thought that voting to Leave would force the EU to give us enough to make it worth our while staying; but - was entirely prepared to walk away if necessary, cognizant of the fact that the EU do not have a good history of showing the necessary flexibility when faced with a crisis.
Likely that I'm just projecting my own views onto him though. He's one of a very few Tory Leavers I can still reasonably do that with.
I'm confused. Is the idea that we'd vote to Leave, then instead of talking about how to Leave, the EU would say "Wait! We'll give you X, Y, and Z to stay", then the government would say "Okay, forget the referendum, let's do that instead"?
Yes. I think probably quite a few people voted Leave on that basis. Problem is, if you make a threat like that you have to be sincere about your willingness to carry it out, if you don't get what you wanted.
I feel like that's a pretty fundamental misreading of just about every group involved in Brexit (the EU, government, Leave advocates, Leave voters). If you'd have gotten any one of those right, you'd have seen that cunning plan was never going to work.
If you remember when Boris Johnson first joined the Leave campaign after much discussion with Gove, his argument was that Brussels only listens when you vote ‘no’ and that it would allow us ‘to get the change we want’.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
What makes you say it backfired?
Comments on social media have been very hostile, and this has been backed up by market research carried out by YouGov.
In other words, social media is giving them free viral advertising?
It could backfire, but I think we'll have to see their sales numbers to know. It was clearly modelled on the earlier Nike campaign, which again included the backlash as deliberate part of the strategy.
Nike's customer base is different, being young, left wing, and urban. Gillette is more like Hovis or John Lewis.
And didn't its share price [from memory] go up while all the attention was on the trolls on social media having a backlash? BTL and social media comments are not representative of the public.
Personally speaking, as a Gilette customer, a man and a father of two young girls who mean more to me than the rest of the world . . . I see nothing wrong with encouraging men to be good and treat girls and others with respect. If Gilette's actions encourage even one boy to grow up and treat girls like my daughters better then they've done a good job and I'm proud of them.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
Actually I think pretty much all politics is based on violence. We rely on violence to enforce the law.
What very few people away from politics realise is that the really difficult issues over Brexit are yet to come. Sensible people are planning their escape before the government embarks on this next stage of the journey to hell. Assuming some sort of sanity can't prevail in the meantime.
PS I imagine I'm far from the only Gilette customer to have a wife or daughters or other female friends and relatives whom I'd want to be treated with respect.
The idea that men only care about men is for the birds. I put my wife and daughters before myself and that's part of being a man in my eyes.
What very few people away from politics realise is that the really difficult issues over Brexit are yet to come. Sensible people are planning their escape before the government embarks on this next stage of the journey to hell. Assuming some sort of sanity can't prevail in the meantime.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
What makes you say it backfired?
Comments on social media have been very hostile, and this has been backed up by market research carried out by YouGov.
In other words, social media is giving them free viral advertising?
It could backfire, but I think we'll have to see their sales numbers to know. It was clearly modelled on the earlier Nike campaign, which again included the backlash as deliberate part of the strategy.
Nike's customer base is different, being young, left wing, and urban. Gillette is more like Hovis or John Lewis.
And didn't its share price [from memory] go up while all the attention was on the trolls on social media having a backlash? BTL and social media comments are not representative of the public.
Personally speaking, as a Gilette customer, a man and a father of two young girls who mean more to me than the rest of the world . . . I see nothing wrong with encouraging men to be good and treat girls and others with respect. If Gilette's actions encourage even one boy to grow up and treat girls like my daughters better then they've done a good job and I'm proud of them.
PS I imagine I'm far from the only Gilette customer to have a wife or daughters or other female friends and relatives whom I'd want to be treated with respect.
The idea that men only care about men is for the birds. I put my wife and daughters before myself and that's part of being a man in my eyes.
"The idea that men only care about men is for the birds"
PS I imagine I'm far from the only Gilette customer to have a wife or daughters or other female friends and relatives whom I'd want to be treated with respect.
The idea that men only care about men is for the birds. I put my wife and daughters before myself and that's part of being a man in my eyes.
"The idea that men only care about men is for the birds"
These idiots are actually surprised given the mess they are making of the country.
Not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting online abuse of a woman politician is acceptable if they are Tory?
What I am saying is that these morons are useless , they are wrecking the country, put only themselves and party first and should not be surprised that people are angry and hurl abuse at them. The fact they are Tories is irrelevant other than fact that they are the nasty self seeking cretins currently doing the wrecking. Opposition , hapless Lib Dems should expect the same as they again have no interest in the country but just plot to enrich themselves and push their party interests. If they do not like it stop taking the huge amounts from the public purse or start acting in the interests of the people as they were elected to do. Personally I think they get away with far too easy a life in UK given their incompetence and f***wittery.
You are clearly are not a very nice man to justify the abuse of anyone in this way. You don't have much of a political insight either, otherwise you would know that this particular individual has put her head above the parapet numerous times rather than just follow what some would think was best for her party. Try to be less blinded by your hatred of others, it might make you feel cosy, but it sure as hell doesn't make you look clever.
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
Military spending rose sharply between 1980-86, although it was certainly cut sharply as the Cold War ended.
Polaris and inflation, perhaps? Conservative defence cuts were then very steep in cash and capability terms. Your graph clearly shows Tory defence cuts either side of a rise under Labour, from 4.5 per cent to 2 per cent of GDP. As I've argued before, Jeremy Corbyn should make more of this: attack your opponent's perceived strengths, as Karl Rove told Bush. Corbyn has already done this effectively over police cuts.
If you want to look at how Labour traditionally sees the military, look no further than the traitorous Labour MP Stafford Cripps.
Or we could contrast Tory defence cuts with Labour increases.
PS I imagine I'm far from the only Gilette customer to have a wife or daughters or other female friends and relatives whom I'd want to be treated with respect.
The idea that men only care about men is for the birds. I put my wife and daughters before myself and that's part of being a man in my eyes.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Socially exclude, denounce, fire, evict, imprison, kill, slander upon death then collectively forget. What dissidents? You must be thinking of somewhere else, comrade....
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
Military spending rose sharply between 1980-86, although it was certainly cut sharply as the Cold War ended.
Polaris and inflation, perhaps? Conservative defence cuts were then very steep in cash and capability terms. Your graph clearly shows Tory defence cuts either side of a rise under Labour, from 4.5 per cent to 2 per cent of GDP. As I've argued before, Jeremy Corbyn should make more of this: attack your opponent's perceived strengths, as Karl Rove told Bush. Corbyn has already done this effectively over police cuts.
If you want to look at how Labour traditionally sees the military, look no further than the traitorous Labour MP Stafford Cripps.
Or we could contrast Tory defence cuts with Labour increases.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
No, she's right. She was making a reasonable point, but expressed it very badly. (This is not to excuse her particularly - if there's one role where you need to be 100% careful on the words you choose, it's NI Sec).
I would have said that most killings carried out by the security forces were lawful, but not all of them.
I would say you have no clue on that merely guessing and also what about the ones they got their chums to handle.
I would say that I do have a pretty good clue.
I would say that of the two people in your discussion the one that has a clue is not called malcolm.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Socially exclude, denounce, fire, evict, imprison, kill, slander upon death then collectively forget. What dissidents? You must be thinking of somewhere else, comrade....
No other ideology has matched communism for the shear weight of deaths through murder, starvation etc. It's completely out on its own.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Well some people will always be unhappy with the status quo, just as there are people not happy with the imposition of capitalism on their lives.
Such disagreement is a benefit of a free and open society and should be encouraged and protected.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
In the real world, the way that it worked was that the punishment for anyone who stepped out of line was truly appalling, and all that it took to deliver that punishment to you and wreck your life (and probably your family's as well) entirely was a denunciation, most likely anonymous, from anyone who took a dislike to you or your views, whether justified or not. Hence most people did what they could to control themselves.
The idea that anyone would want to live in such a society beggars belief.
Yes I agree. I don't want to live in such a society.
Socially exclude, denounce, fire, evict, imprison, kill, slander upon death then collectively forget. What dissidents? You must be thinking of somewhere else, comrade....
More people should read "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," and realise that whilst it was a work of fiction, it was a realistic image of what millions of people suffered. Depending on how you measure it, anything up from 1.6 million people died.
Most Communist states have something similar. The Gulags were not an aberration of the system; they were part of the system.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Well some people will always be unhappy with the status quo, just as there are people not happy with the imposition of capitalism on their lives.
Such disagreement is a benefit of a free and open society and should be encouraged and protected.
But that goes directly against collectivism, doesn't it?
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.
Indeed. 'Cause marketing'.
It's very, very effective.
The Nike furore over Colin Kaepernick has been a great success for the brand.
Most cause marketing relies on right-wingers being easily triggered, but, as we see daily on PB, that is usually a given.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Well, maybe. Though Anarchism is another political ideology without an accepted definition that means different things to different people.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
Actually I think pretty much all politics is based on violence. We rely on violence to enforce the law.
That sounds line a debating society argument. To argue that there's no difference between the violence of a Stalinist regime or a western liberal democracy is absurd. The quantity and quality of violence is very different.
I'd argue that you could have an even less violent alternative to both.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
I must have missed the 'can-do' attitude on the part of the train companies on the very frequent occasions I take the train. A can't do attitude – be it a refund for a late train, a seat when I have paid premium prices or even just some bloody ice for my drink – seems to be the common credo.
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
Military spending rose sharply between 1980-86, although it was certainly cut sharply as the Cold War ended.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Ah, the old "give me everything I want otherwise I'll vote for Nazis" argument. Never fails to win hearts and minds.
I am not saying I would vote far right. But the very reason leave won in the first place was because tin eared politicians of all parties for decades have ignored the silent majority, refused to discuss real issues like immigration and dismiss genuine concerns from the people labelling them as little Englanders and racist, refusing referendum promises on Lisbon, and neglecting to help those left behind by globalisation, and giving more and more of our sovereignty away, year on year, to eventually bring us to accept ever closer union and end the nation state. Democracy in the UK is dying
The people on here who objected to the Little Englanders label were in many cases the very same people who regularly refer to French people as Frogs.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
Have you got any evidence that it backfired?
People said the Nike campaign backfired –– until the sales figures came out.
Most of them thoroughly approve of such abuse (they mostly seem to be extreme left, rather than extreme nationalists).
Well it has been posted by a left wing tweeter so you'd perhaps expect more comments from the left, and the extreme left are if anything even keener on Brexit than the extreme right. But I don't see a single one approving the abuse that is definitely from the left?
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.
Indeed. 'Cause marketing'.
It's very, very effective.
The Nike furore over Colin Kaepernick has been a great success for the brand.
Most cause marketing relies on right-wingers being easily triggered, but, as we see daily on PB, that is usually a given.
I had a look at the add. A bit exploitative of the #metoo movement for the purpose of rapracious capitalism, but good to see a company taking notice of the issue.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Well some people will always be unhappy with the status quo, just as there are people not happy with the imposition of capitalism on their lives.
Such disagreement is a benefit of a free and open society and should be encouraged and protected.
But that goes directly against collectivism, doesn't it?
I don't see why you can't have a more collective economy, based on sharing and mutual aid, and independent thought. I'd argue that if you don't have the latter then you will be unable to efficiently and fairly organise the former.
A quotation from Churchill is always appropriate in an ongoing discussion. Hence 'The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.'
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
I must have missed the 'can-do' attitude on the part of the train companies on the very frequent occasions I take the train. A can't do attitude – be it a refund for a late train, a seat when I have paid premium prices or even just some bloody ice for my drink – seems to be the common credo.
Disagree. LNER (old virgin) is great imo. GNER has seemingly ancient rolling stock but the best onboard wifi, while GWR are also good (crap wifi).
All staff (97%) are very much can-do with a big smile.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
I must have missed the 'can-do' attitude on the part of the train companies on the very frequent occasions I take the train. A can't do attitude – be it a refund for a late train, a seat when I have paid premium prices or even just some bloody ice for my drink – seems to be the common credo.
Disagree. LNER (old virgin) is great imo. GNER has seemingly ancient rolling stock but the best onboard wifi, while GWR are also good (crap wifi).
All staff (97%) are very much can-do with a big smile.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
I must have missed the 'can-do' attitude on the part of the train companies on the very frequent occasions I take the train. A can't do attitude – be it a refund for a late train, a seat when I have paid premium prices or even just some bloody ice for my drink – seems to be the common credo.
Passenger numbers have over doubled, whereas BR was actively shrinking the network and services in a managed decline. I might also suggest you'd have found it hard to get a drink on many BR services, yet alone ice for it!
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Ah, the old "give me everything I want otherwise I'll vote for Nazis" argument. Never fails to win hearts and minds.
I am not saying I would vote far right. But the very reason leave won in the first place was because tin eared politicians of all parties for decades have ignored the silent majority, refused to discuss real issues like immigration and dismiss genuine concerns from the people labelling them as little Englanders and racist, refusing referendum promises on Lisbon, and neglecting to help those left behind by globalisation, and giving more and more of our sovereignty away, year on year, to eventually bring us to accept ever closer union and end the nation state. Democracy in the UK is dying
The people on here who objected to the Little Englanders label were in many cases the very same people who regularly refer to French people as Frogs.
Funny old world.
That is because they think that Frog is a semi-racist epithet they can get away with. The words they would prefer to use for other people they are prejudiced against they know are proscribed by law, which is, of course, "political correctness gone mad I tell you"
Passenger numbers have over doubled, whereas BR was actively shrinking the network and services in a managed decline. I might also suggest you'd have found it hard to get a drink on many BR services, yet alone ice for it!
.. and you certainly wouldn't have got a refund for a late train from BR.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
I must have missed the 'can-do' attitude on the part of the train companies on the very frequent occasions I take the train. A can't do attitude – be it a refund for a late train, a seat when I have paid premium prices or even just some bloody ice for my drink – seems to be the common credo.
Disagree. LNER (old virgin) is great imo. GNER has seemingly ancient rolling stock but the best onboard wifi, while GWR are also good (crap wifi).
All staff (97%) are very much can-do with a big smile.
Welcome to the club, Topping!
LNER is a nationalised operator!
And one of the first things it did was reduce the number of services it was going to run! E.g.:
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
I must have missed the 'can-do' attitude on the part of the train companies on the very frequent occasions I take the train. A can't do attitude – be it a refund for a late train, a seat when I have paid premium prices or even just some bloody ice for my drink – seems to be the common credo.
Disagree. LNER (old virgin) is great imo. GNER has seemingly ancient rolling stock but the best onboard wifi, while GWR are also good (crap wifi).
All staff (97%) are very much can-do with a big smile.
Welcome to the club, Topping!
LNER is a nationalised operator!
It is still trading in every respect as though it was Virgin East Coast. The dead hand of the State has not yet enveloped it.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Well some people will always be unhappy with the status quo, just as there are people not happy with the imposition of capitalism on their lives.
Such disagreement is a benefit of a free and open society and should be encouraged and protected.
But that goes directly against collectivism, doesn't it?
I don't see why you can't have a more collective economy, based on sharing and mutual aid, and independent thought. I'd argue that if you don't have the latter then you will be unable to efficiently and fairly organise the former.
The profit motive is a major driver for rising living standards and innovation.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Well some people will always be unhappy with the status quo, just as there are people not happy with the imposition of capitalism on their lives.
Such disagreement is a benefit of a free and open society and should be encouraged and protected.
But that goes directly against collectivism, doesn't it?
I don't see why you can't have a more collective economy, based on sharing and mutual aid, and independent thought. I'd argue that if you don't have the latter then you will be unable to efficiently and fairly organise the former.
The profit motive is a major driver for rising living standards and innovation.
Wars have also been a major driver for technological innovation. Maybe there's a better way?
Instead of reducing crime, expanding Stop and Search will only increase discrimination and undermine the community relations police officers need to prevent knife crime.
We know what is needed to tackle this knife crime epidemic: more police, more youth services and a proper public health approach.
So we need to hire more police, but not allow them to do anything.
That's all good and well, but what do you do with the people who don't want to live in an imposed collective society?
Well some people will always be unhappy with the status quo, just as there are people not happy with the imposition of capitalism on their lives.
Such disagreement is a benefit of a free and open society and should be encouraged and protected.
But that goes directly against collectivism, doesn't it?
I don't see why you can't have a more collective economy, based on sharing and mutual aid, and independent thought. I'd argue that if you don't have the latter then you will be unable to efficiently and fairly organise the former.
The profit motive is a major driver for rising living standards and innovation.
Wars have also been a major driver for technological innovation. Maybe there's a better way?
Sport seems to work quite well as a substitute for war (at least as far as an outlet for aggression goes).
Maybe we need more technologically complex sports? Ban football, and wall-to-wall motor racing...
I'm amazed anyone pays that close attention to which razor they buy.
I'd consider boycotting Lush but the smell of their stuff is so hideous I didn't buy it in the first place.
I agree on both points, but clearly we are in the minority as Dollar Shave club has become an incredibly successful business and Lush appears still to be going strong (well overpowering scents certainly given as soon as you get within 100 yards of one of their shops I feel like I need a gas mask like some sort of anti-capitalist protester).
JC was unable to win an election in 2017 when faced with the worst campaign in living memory. The polls are clear that he can't win an election now or ever. Labour has never won from the extreme left. An extreme left government tainted with anti-Semitism would get large number of centrist loyal moderates wanting to flee the country in shame.
The non moderate majority, given the awesome example of the SDP - who were led by giants compared with those around today - have only these choices: to accept that their leaving and protests in dribs and drabs might one day lead to a moderate Labour party which could win power at the cost of their personal careers; secondly to stay and fight long term knowing they can never be in government - and would not wish to be - under this regime; thirdly, and most promisingly, to realise that only if more or less all the Labour moderates set up within parliament and very soon a new and alternative regime to form the official opposition. Only this radical risk would stand a real chance of overturning the system, and unless it included the Benns, Coopers, Kinnocks Becketts etc then whatever happens will only a repeat of past events - though this time there might not be a Kinnock or Blair to rescue them.
Comments
It could backfire, but I think we'll have to see their sales numbers to know. It was clearly modelled on the earlier Nike campaign, which again included the backlash as deliberate part of the strategy.
https://twitter.com/IzaTabaro/status/1103138748752150529
Of course, Corbyn and especially Seumas Milne are very much of that tradition.
Quite frankly I’m tired of these gender lectures. I’m doing my best to avoid IWD tomorrow as well.
My firm want as many of us as possible to stand and hold placards for a photoshoot event, so I’ve arranged to be busy.
The massive exception was cars.
I understand that people misspeak, but they should own up to it rather than implying that it was just an issue of language.
My reading of him (for what it's worth) is that he:
- agreed that our best long term outcome was staying in a properly reformed EU;
- thought that voting to Leave would force the EU to give us enough to make it worth our while staying; but
- was entirely prepared to walk away if necessary, cognizant of the fact that the EU do not have a good history of showing the necessary flexibility when faced with a crisis.
Likely that I'm just projecting my own views onto him though. He's one of a very few Tory Leavers I can still reasonably do that with.
I love that the people he is having a go at are the League Against Cruel Sports, who sacked him for "Gross Misconduct".
On a more serious note, are Employment Tribunals binding in terms of changing primary law such as the Equality Act?
Food business makes new product, forces nobody to buy it or eat it, continues to stock existing products. Reaction? Fascists! I'll eat what I want!! Kill all vegans!!!
Consumer products business makes harmless video suggesting that maybe men might be nicer to women (background: historically men have frequently not been very nice to women). Reaction? You hate men! I'll grow a beard to avoid buying your products!! Feminazis!!!
Of course if anger is your thing, there are lots of things that one could legitimately be angry about. But may I respectfully suggest that these things are not worth it?
A year or two ago someone praised Empress Irene for ending the iconoclasm, and citing her as an example for IWD. I pointed out, politely, that she also blinded her own son so brutally he died of the mutilation. This led to me being blocked, the tweet to which I'd replied being taken down, and a replacement being put up (a 'grammar error' was blamed for the original being removed).
It just seems petty and pointless. I didn't jump all over the chap, I just pointed it she wasn't the best example to be used. There was no attempt to engage, refute, or agree whatsoever, the immediate response was to block, and remove the original tweet so nobody (viewing said chap's feed) could see what I'd written. Just a bit sad really.
The situation appears to be that if radical left-wing politics are advocated then it is labelled as Communism and damned by association with the violent tyrannies that used red flags. If I claim to be an anarcho-collectivist instead, then I can be accused of dishonesty, because arguing for a collective alternative to capitalism necessarily draws from some of the ideas shared by Marx.
So I feel like I have to argue that a non-violent Communism is the only "true" Communism, on the basis that people cannot be free to govern themselves and their societies collectively unless they are free from the fear of violence, and so the idea of a violent Communism is self-contradictory.
The idea that anyone would want to live in such a society beggars belief.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167855/boris-announces-decision-on-eu-as-it-happened-21-february.html
Personally speaking, as a Gilette customer, a man and a father of two young girls who mean more to me than the rest of the world . . . I see nothing wrong with encouraging men to be good and treat girls and others with respect. If Gilette's actions encourage even one boy to grow up and treat girls like my daughters better then they've done a good job and I'm proud of them.
The idea that men only care about men is for the birds. I put my wife and daughters before myself and that's part of being a man in my eyes.
I'm saying nothing.
Can I smirk at that?
Such disagreement is a benefit of a free and open society and should be encouraged and protected.
Most Communist states have something similar. The Gulags were not an aberration of the system; they were part of the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_Denisovich
https://twitter.com/JackTindale/status/1103643422445977600
It's very, very effective.
The Nike furore over Colin Kaepernick has been a great success for the brand.
Most cause marketing relies on right-wingers being easily triggered, but, as we see daily on PB, that is usually a given.
I'd argue that you could have an even less violent alternative to both.
Inflation Nov 1990: 9.2% (Thatcher resigns)
Funny old world.
People said the Nike campaign backfired –– until the sales figures came out.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1103643727707492352
All staff (97%) are very much can-do with a big smile.
LNER is a nationalised operator!
https://www.lner.co.uk/travel-information/leeds-timetable-changes/
I'd consider boycotting Lush but the smell of their stuff is so hideous I didn't buy it in the first place.
Instead of reducing crime, expanding Stop and Search will only increase discrimination and undermine the community relations police officers need to prevent knife crime.
We know what is needed to tackle this knife crime epidemic: more police, more youth services and a proper public health approach.
So we need to hire more police, but not allow them to do anything.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/07/hammond-tells-tories-to-back-mays-deal-or-risk-softer-brexit--politics-live
13:43
Maybe we need more technologically complex sports? Ban football, and wall-to-wall motor racing...
On second thoughts, let's not.
How utterly stupid to have the leader of Labour there going against a second EU vote in country that voted by a huge majority to Remain.
The non moderate majority, given the awesome example of the SDP - who were led by giants compared with those around today - have only these choices: to accept that their leaving and protests in dribs and drabs might one day lead to a moderate Labour party which could win power at the cost of their personal careers; secondly to stay and fight long term knowing they can never be in government - and would not wish to be - under this regime; thirdly, and most promisingly, to realise that only if more or less all the Labour moderates set up within parliament and very soon a new and alternative regime to form the official opposition. Only this radical risk would stand a real chance of overturning the system, and unless it included the Benns, Coopers, Kinnocks Becketts etc then whatever happens will only a repeat of past events - though this time there might not be a Kinnock or Blair to rescue them.