Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Welcome to the forum → The Lounge → The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

New Britain
Yesterday at 01:10 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
October 18, 2025, 09:54 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
October 15, 2025, 10:20 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
October 15, 2025, 08:57 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 14, 2025, 11:52 AM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 07, 2025, 09:50 AM
What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM
Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM
Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM
Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM

Theme Changer

 Poll

  • Question: Who will you vote for?
  • Labour - 1 (2.8%)
  • Conservative - 4 (11.1%)
  • Liberal Democrat - 12 (33.3%)
  • UKIP - 0 (0%)
  • SNP - 0 (0%)
  • Green - 0 (0%)
  • Democratic Unionist - 0 (0%)
  • BNP - 1 (2.8%)
  • Plaid Cymru - 0 (0%)
  • Sinn Fein - 0 (0%)
  • Ulster Unionist - 0 (0%)
  • SDLP - 0 (0%)
  • Other - 0 (0%)
  • I'm undecided. - 0 (0%)
  • I can't vote. - 13 (36.1%)
  • I won't vote. - 5 (13.9%)
  • Total Voters: 36

 Topic: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?

 (Read 65676 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 8 9 1011 12 ... 22 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #270 - May 01, 2010, 12:25 AM
    I don't want a hung parliament, especially right now. Tempted to vote Tories.
    ~My story~
    ~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #271 - May 01, 2010, 08:35 AM
    My single vote is unlikely to make a difference, particularly in my constituency, so voting with my heart.  LibDem all the way  dance
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #272 - May 01, 2010, 11:19 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on April 25, 2010, 08:23 PM
    @ Panoptic, I used to think Capitalism was right but now I'm sympathetic to Socialism, if that is the change you're talking about in me. However, we clashed in a thread (I think it was the drugs thread) about Statism. I still think Government is necessary to maintain social order.


    What do you mean by 'social order'? Do you mean the order of things as they are now, with a minority class in control of all the production, or do you mean order in socialism - which, if you support it, then do we need a state 'government' to maintain order in a classless, property-less, democratic world?

    The reason that socialism/communism means anarchy is that there won't be an institution, person, or set of people, who are ruling us. The state is a tool in the hands of the ruling class; Socialism means the historic abolition of any ruling class. There is a ruling class because there is private property; if there is no private property there therefore exists no state.

    The state* is the reason why we clashed. One thing I remember is you said the 'state is the people'. That idea is the idea of the radical democratic state that Rousseau and the American founders, among others, have had, but what they envisaged hasn't been realised. The (second) Paris Commune was probably the closest that has ever been to a 'general will' state, and that was a worker's state whose aims were socialist.

    I think that is one of the reasons that Friedrich Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific said that 'ideology is false consciousness'. Democratic ideology, even if its aims are egalitarian, ignores the basis of unequal social power, and just offers more 'democracy' alone as the solution.

    Socialism (at least in its original historic sense) means collective ownership and control of the means of living. If ever we need anything more desperately.

    *[whose precise definitions may become a point of contention.]
    "...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #273 - May 02, 2010, 09:19 PM
    I this poll is skewed because most people here are pretty open minded and liberal.

    While waitering the other day a bond trader said if Liberal Democrat get into power there would be panic in the bond markets, especially because of the LD stance on Trident.

    I'm voting conservatives more through process of elimination.
    Hear ye -->> DONATE TO CEMB

    Relativism | Cognitive dissonance | Cognitive biases | Memeplex | Consequentialism
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #274 - May 02, 2010, 10:43 PM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on April 29, 2010, 04:39 PM
    I can't disagree with you. His style is cocky and this is what I like about him. It's one of those things you either love or hate.



    Yeah, I really like that style of his too, I gotta say. Although I can imagine there's a lot me and him will disagree about.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #275 - May 02, 2010, 10:46 PM
    Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2010, 12:25 AM
    I don't want a hung parliament, especially right now. Tempted to vote Tories.


    How come? I thought a hung parliament could only be a good thing...
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #276 - May 02, 2010, 10:51 PM
    Quote from: panoptic on May 01, 2010, 11:19 PM
    What do you mean by 'social order'? Do you mean the order of things as they are now, with a minority class in control of all the production, or do you mean order in socialism - which, if you support it, then do we need a state 'government' to maintain order in a classless, property-less, democratic world?

    The reason that socialism/communism means anarchy is that there won't be an institution, person, or set of people, who are ruling us. The state is a tool in the hands of the ruling class; Socialism means the historic abolition of any ruling class. There is a ruling class because there is private property; if there is no private property there therefore exists no state.

    The state* is the reason why we clashed. One thing I remember is you said the 'state is the people'. That idea is the idea of the radical democratic state that Rousseau and the American founders, among others, have had, but what they envisaged hasn't been realised. The (second) Paris Commune was probably the closest that has ever been to a 'general will' state, and that was a worker's state whose aims were socialist.

    I think that is one of the reasons that Friedrich Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific said that 'ideology is false consciousness'. Democratic ideology, even if its aims are egalitarian, ignores the basis of unequal social power, and just offers more 'democracy' alone as the solution.

    Socialism (at least in its original historic sense) means collective ownership and control of the means of living. If ever we need anything more desperately.

    *[whose precise definitions may become a point of contention.]


    It's not for economic reasons that I feel a state is necessary. As I remember, you never answered my question which to this day I toil with. What on earth does an anarchy do with murderers, rapists, thieves and general troublemakers?!
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #277 - May 02, 2010, 11:24 PM
    Panoptic, I can't see how socialism is compatible with anarchy. From what I understand capital is not limited to money.

    What would prevent a farmer from seizing a piece of land and planting apple trees until he produces so much apples that he will effectively be more affluent than others? After all he can exchange his reserve of apples for any other form of material wealth.

    Who would decide who gets to live/acquire the house/land on the ocean and who gets to live/acquire the house/land in the area with the shitty weather?

    Many other scenario pop into mind when I hear the words anarchic socialism.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #278 - May 02, 2010, 11:29 PM
    An organisation called the British Muslim Initiative recommends that Muslims vote for the following candidates, presumably to further the Muslim cause in the UK...

    http://www.bminitiative.net/bmi/en/details_home.aspx?ID=291&table=sub
    .
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #279 - May 03, 2010, 04:49 AM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on May 02, 2010, 11:24 PM
    Panoptic, I can't see how socialism is compatible with anarchy. From what I understand capital is not limited to money.


    Capital also includes 'fixed-capital', like machinery; in any case it exists and arises within the process of accumulation of surplus value in capitalism. So capital is limited to (or dependent on) the circulation of money in the sense that it has to complete the M-C-M circuit, although they're both not exactly the same thing.

    In fact socialism and anarchy are mutually dependent. One is barely conceivable without the other, as Marx and others understood.

    Quote
    What would prevent a farmer from seizing a piece of land and planting apple trees until he produces so much apples that he will effectively be more affluent than others? After all he can exchange his reserve of apples for any other form of material wealth.


    Who is he going to seize the land from? If the land is unused, however, there's probably nothing stopping him - except that's likely to be land he needs help to develop.

    But even if that's not the case - he harvests a bunch of apples. Are people going to exchange things they need for them? I don't think so. The scenario you describe is more likely to result in him sharing apples he doesn't need, or brewing cider (as I would).

    Quote
    Who would decide who gets to live/acquire the house/land on the ocean and who gets to live/acquire the house/land in the area with the shitty weather?


    If not the people themselves then the ones who already live there.
    "...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #280 - May 03, 2010, 05:07 AM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 02, 2010, 10:51 PM
    It's not for economic reasons that I feel a state is necessary. As I remember, you never answered my question which to this day I toil with. What on earth does an anarchy do with murderers, rapists, thieves and general troublemakers?!


    If they're still a problem then you have find ways of dealing with them, as people have always done. It's entirely possible, of course, to have laws, or rules, it's just that you have to do that outside of a state system, which necessitates participatory democracy. One can imagine the jury system being preserved to that end, for example.

    You need other institutions, most likely. I expect that all serious crime would be dealt with as a mental health issue. Without private property, however, the majority of what is called crime is unimaginable - and men will still be prisoners of their conscience.
    "...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #281 - May 03, 2010, 05:24 AM
    Only a week to go, is it?  Afro
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #282 - May 03, 2010, 05:33 AM
    The goals of communists and anarchists are the same. The only thing Marx and Bakunin disagreed on was how to get there.

    It's important to remember though that communism presupposes a post-scarcity society. There can't be communism (the higher stage of socialism, in the Marxian sense) in a world of scarcity.

    And if you think a world without scarcity is impossible, many scientists would disagree with you. In fact, in so many ways, we've already transcended scarcity. Think of peer-to-peer sharing, for example. When one person uploads a music album and another person downloads it, it doesn't decrease the number of albums available to download but in fact increases it -- the seeds multiply and the next user now has two seeds to download from instead of one... and they keep multiplying and multiplying. And many scientists believe that the world will be entirely post-scarcity thanks to nanotechnology. This would render wealth accumulation useless and thus private property would be meaningless. After all, property can only be privatized because there's a finite number of it; otherwise people would just take whatever they need/want and it wouldn't reduce the amount available for everyone else.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #283 - May 03, 2010, 05:50 AM
    Moreover the 'scarcity' that exists now is in fact artificial, because it's imposed by private ownership. In most important respects there's enough for everyone, and has been for some time now.
    "...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #284 - May 03, 2010, 06:32 AM
    Quote from: panoptic on May 03, 2010, 04:49 AM
    In fact socialism and anarchy are mutually dependent. One is barely conceivable without the other, as Marx and others understood.

    Quote from: Abood on May 03, 2010, 05:33 AM
    The goals of communists and anarchists are the same. The only thing Marx and Bakunin disagreed on was how to get there

    Care to elaborate?


    Quote from: panoptic on May 03, 2010, 04:49 AM
    Who is he going to seize the land from? If the land is unused, however, there's probably nothing stopping him - except that's likely to be land he needs help to develop.

    But even if that's not the case - he harvests a bunch of apples. Are people going to exchange things they need for them? I don't think so. The scenario you describe is more likely to result in him sharing apples he doesn't need, or brewing cider (as I would).

    Not necessarily. It could be things they don't need but just have an excess of.
    Look you didn't get my point. What if the farmer was more productive than other farmers? what if he discovered techniques that enabled him to produce twice as much as the average farmer? thrice? or even more?
    Can't he exchange that excess produce for other forms of material wealth whether it is jeans, gold, cookies, or sofas? won't he be "richer"? wouldn't that mean he would have more power and influence than others? and with time, isn't there a possibility of an affluent class rising?
    Unless there is a state imposing wealth aggregation limits, I can't see what's preventing that from happening.

    Quote from: panoptic on May 03, 2010, 04:49 AM
    If not the people themselves then the ones who already live there.

    Let's assume it's an uninhabited stretch of fertile ocean shore in Ecuador. Can anyone just go there and build a house? if so, how can he protect the house from others who might wanna seize it?

    Quote from: panoptic on May 03, 2010, 05:50 AM
    Moreover the 'scarcity' that exists now is in fact artificial, because it's imposed by private ownership. In most important respects there's enough for everyone, and has been for some time now.

    Enough of what? wheat and barley?
    But seriously, people will always want the best be it the latest iPhone, prime kobe beef, luxury automobiles, or vintage wine. And I don't think we have enough of that.


    BTW, are you for the abolition of money?


    Quote from: Unechance on May 03, 2010, 05:24 AM
    Only a week to go, is it?  Afro

    3 days actually.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #285 - May 03, 2010, 07:35 AM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on May 03, 2010, 06:32 AM
    Care to elaborate?

    Not necessarily. It could be things they don't need but just have an excess of.
    Look you didn't get my point. What if the farmer was more productive than other farmers? what if he discovered techniques that enabled him to produce twice as much as the average farmer? thrice? or even more?


    He could share those techniques with others.

    Quote
    Can't he exchange that excess produce for other forms of material wealth whether it is jeans, gold, cookies, or sofas? won't he be "richer"? wouldn't that mean he would have more power and influence than others? and with time, isn't there a possibility of an affluent class rising?


    Socialism, like capitalism, is an entire system of production. Except it's based on collective ownership and democratic control of the means of living and the natural resources. But also like capitalism (and any other mode of production), it will produce a surplus. This surplus, too, is collectively owned either becoming social or personal property.

    The system of production will accumulate surplus which is shared collectively. If there's a bit (or a lot) more left over all good. Bear in mind that no-one has truly derived power from having too many apples; they had to disposes others.

    Quote
    Unless there is a state imposing wealth aggregation limits, I can't see what's preventing that from happening.
    Let's assume it's an uninhabited stretch of fertile ocean shore in Ecuador. Can anyone just go there and build a house? if so, how can he protect the house from others who might wanna seize it?


    If there's a state whose role that is it will constitute a ruling class who actually own the wealth. In other words state-ownership - capitalism, again (or worse).

    That's why such an institution is incompatible with socialism.

    Socialism like anarchism involves the absence of money, classes, and state-governments.

    Quote
    Enough of what? wheat and barley?


    Food, shelter, water, medicine, transportation, communications etc..

    Quote
    But seriously, people will always want the best be it the latest iPhone, prime kobe beef, luxury automobiles, or vintage wine. And I don't think we have enough of that.


    Just because a relative minority of the world have in recent times been told constantly through propaganda they want those things all the time, and often seek them, doesn't mean that's what they need, that people always have, and always will want them. Anyway, I think there are already enough cars, computers and telephones around for everyone to have access to them. As long as there's farming of any kind there will be alcohol. Vintage wine is over-rated, anyway.

    I mean, really! I don't think there are many people around the world who would prefer a new television to free food, water, shelter, medicine etc.. all at the point of need.

    Quote
    BTW, are you for the abolition of money?


    Of course. Money and exchange values of any kind are incompatible with real socialism. No private ownership = no money.
    "...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #286 - May 03, 2010, 08:44 AM
    Quote from: panoptic on May 03, 2010, 07:35 AM
    The system of production will accumulate surplus which is shared collectively. If there's a bit (or a lot) more left over all good. Bear in mind that no-one has truly derived power from having too many apples; they had to disposes others.

    Its probably undeniable that capitalism accumulates a lot more surplus when compared to the 20th century interpretation of socialism. But the real problem here is the human nature.
    Humans are unlikely to produce excessive stuff/services if that doesn't positively affect them in a direct way. It seems to me that a complete shift in values would be needed.

    Quote from: panoptic on May 03, 2010, 07:35 AM
    Just because a relative minority of the world have in recent times been told constantly through propaganda they want those things all the time, and often seek them, doesn't mean that's what they need, that people always have, and always will want them.

    True that. Consumerism as an ideology at its purest.
    Nowadays we acquire stuff not just because its useful or in order to signal our status but also to give meaning to our lives.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #287 - May 03, 2010, 03:18 PM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
    Care to elaborate?

    Both aim towards a stateless, classless society.

    Quote
    Look you didn't get my point. What if the farmer was more productive than other farmers? what if he discovered techniques that enabled him to produce twice as much as the average farmer? thrice? or even more?

    You're missing the point and looking at it from the point view of an economy that revolves around scarcity. In a post-scarcity world, there would be absolutely no reason for the farmer not to share his produce and technology with everyone else, because no matter how much he shares, the amount available to him would not be reduced.

    Currency, exchange and wealth accumulation would be useless, because there'd be an abundance of everything to the point where anyone can take anything and everything would still be available for everyone else. People would produce things because they'd want to, and they'd want to share their products with everyone else. Think of a music band, it releases an album and puts it online. Because everything the band needs and wants exists in so much abundance that it's free, the band would have absolutely no reason to charge for the album. It gives it away for free. And it'd want as many people to have it as possible, because it takes pride in its product and wants everyone to listen to it.

    Simply put, the conflict of interest between individuals and society would cease to exist. There would be absolutely no force necessary for people to share their work.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #288 - May 03, 2010, 04:05 PM
    Condell trying to explain his UKIP views  Roll Eyes

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LTKzg1K7Es
    Pakistan Zindabad? ya Pakistan sey Zinda bhaag?

    Long Live Pakistan? Or run with your lives from Pakistan?
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #289 - May 03, 2010, 04:30 PM
    I've noticed quite a few parties now with this same absurd message: "show your protest at politicians by voting for us instead (yes... we're politicians too)." Bit it in brackets is an unsaid thing, you know?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #290 - May 03, 2010, 04:45 PM
    I sympathise with what Pat's saying but I'm afraid I couldn't bring myself to vote for UKIP. My ballot remains blank.
    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #291 - May 03, 2010, 05:46 PM
    Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2010, 12:25 AM
    I don't want a hung parliament, especially right now. Tempted to vote Tories.

    Nonsense. Don't buy into this bullshit. Hung parliaments work just fine for so many countries.
    You need to read this book.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #292 - May 03, 2010, 06:02 PM
    Nick Clegg's comments on a hung parliament leading to a coalition government:

    "Single party governments in this country have taken some really stupid decisions, from privatising the railways, imposing the poll taxes, invading Iraq, destroying our civil liberties, presiding over the expenses scandal and letting bankers get away with bonuses.

    This idea that good old fashioned slam-dunk results in general election where you give a small clique of people a huge amount of power even though a minority of people voted for you, if that were so great, why on earth are we in the mess we are in in the first place?

    I think most people out there don’t feel as neurotic as the political classes do about the prospect that maybe politicians might need to talk to each other."

    Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1270647/Nick-Clegg-says.html

    Makes sense. I only wish I could vote "hung" lol.


    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #293 - May 03, 2010, 06:24 PM
    Non-voters and people planning to vote Conservative: don't you want proportional representation? If you vote Liberal Democrat, there's at least the chance that they'll push through the STV system if there's a hung parliament. I'm really quite shocked that 15% of our users want David fucking Cylon as PM... C'mon people, what the fuck?

    Quote from: J4m3z on May 03, 2010, 06:02 PM
    Makes sense. I only wish I could vote "hung" lol.

    Nick Clegg is our best bet.
    You need to read this book.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #294 - May 03, 2010, 09:53 PM
    Indeed, Lib Dems get my vote. victory
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #295 - May 03, 2010, 10:30 PM
    Quote from: Kenan on May 03, 2010, 08:44 AM
    Its probably undeniable that capitalism accumulates a lot more surplus when compared to the 20th century interpretation of socialism. But the real problem here is the human nature.
    Humans are unlikely to produce excessive stuff/services if that doesn't positively affect them in a direct way. It seems to me that a complete shift in values would be needed.


    Or a shift in the organisation of production.

    &They do all the time, by the way.

    Quote
    True that. Consumerism as an ideology at its purest.
    Nowadays we acquire stuff not just because its useful or in order to signal our status but also to give meaning to our lives.


    To use the more old-fashioned term "commodity fetishism"...
    "...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #296 - May 03, 2010, 10:41 PM
    Richard Dawkins and Harry Potter are voting Lib Dem!  dance

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7673295/General-Election-2010-Liberal-Democrats-and-Labour-unveil-celebrity-backers.html
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #297 - May 03, 2010, 10:53 PM
    I've heard they rob from the rich and give to the poor!


    Oh, wait... that wasn't Robin Clegg? Who cares, Girls Aloud are voting for him!
    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #298 - May 03, 2010, 11:55 PM
    As one Labour MP admitted, the vote is for how fast your throat gets cut.
    "...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
  • Re: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?
     Reply #299 - May 04, 2010, 12:05 AM
    Dawkins for LibDems?! Holy memes!

    Well, The FT and The Economist back Conservatives.
    Hear ye -->> DONATE TO CEMB

    Relativism | Cognitive dissonance | Cognitive biases | Memeplex | Consequentialism
  • Previous page 1 ... 8 9 1011 12 ... 22 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »