Tottenham riots

  On 8/10/2011 at 8:19 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 7:08 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 6:42 PM, chenGOD said:

Eugene -

Did you read what i wrote? South Korea's growth (and Taiwan's and now China's) was based on the developmental state. This is a model where the state has a high level of intervention in growing companies and the nation's GDP. South Korea and Taiwan are now both democracies, and yet there is still a high level of government intervention in their political economy. In fact, in the case of South korea, the conservative government in power now has increased state control compared to the previous government (more socialist leaning).

When the US and England underwent their growth periods, they did so by using economies that in no way, shape or form represented a "free market".

I'm not trying to evade anything - your ideas on political economy and the history of industrialization are simply a fairy-tale.

i don't have any ideas on economy at all, this area is major black hole for me, lol. i just got dragged into a territory i shouldn't have. you couldn't probably infer that i kinda easily juggle free market and capitalism in general...

 

i'm simply still stuck at your argument that "dogmatic free market is no better than communism"..which still sounds absurd.

lets try to rephrase it, do you think that economic systems that were having more in common with communism than democracies and capitalism and all that jazz are just as bad ?

 

it is just as bad. its dogmatic. that's very different from witnessing the historical effects in reality.

 

Pre-Leninist Marxists and even post-Lenin Marxists would have told you that the USSR was no more communist than Caesar's Rome was democratic.

 

 

by turning it into a "which one has done better", you are essentially demanding an answer that cannot, at least historically, be forthcoming. we could be witnessing capitalism's slow decay, which may or may not be contrasted with the Soviet bloc's immediate collapse in less than a century.

 

it would be like saying the Roman Empire was "better" than other empires simply because it lasted longer.

this kind of detached overview is of no use in practice. we obviously can't know where current capitalism leads but we've had about 70 years of those two systems juxtaposed, that's a whole lifetime, it matters.

i think you should ask what system proved to be better this last century, im not talking longevity either, there's more than enough data about quality of life.

okay let's compare haiti to cyprus

cyprus (democratically elected communist government) - #28 on the HDI

haiti (free-market libertarian paradise) - #124 on the HDI

welp

yeah but for those numbers to have any significance you need to adjust for BPI (black people index)

i've had a long stressful day and i'm exhausted so i'm going to bed so here is my point

there are entirely too many variables to make the statement "capitalism works, communism doesn't" a fair statement based on your comparison of quality of life between former soviet nations and the first world.

i wonder what would have happened if russia had fared better during world war ii?

what if stalin hadn't been a complete madman?

what if truman or eisenhower had?

there are like a bajillion variables that went into the failure of the soviet union, as well as the success of the united states.

so yeah. stupid fucking comparison. neither is even a good example of the economic systems we're talking about anyway.

  On 8/11/2011 at 12:29 AM, lumpenprol said:

yeah but for those numbers to have any significance you need to adjust for BPI (black people index)

those are the "inequality adjusted" numbers, i assume that's what that means.

  On 8/10/2011 at 11:32 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 10:41 PM, rumbo said:

Constant comments on those right wing shit rags from Americans about "The right to bear arms" and offering shock at such circumstances observed taking place over the pond. Usually followed by "If that happened here...blah blah.".

 

Death Toll: LA Riots 1992 - 51

Death Toll: London Riots 2011 - 4 (last count)

 

 

4.

 

brits are fucking posers, that's why.

Fuck off already.

there are trends and patterns that characterize each system, there are people who know how to make sense of them, i really love to get to that scientific pedanticity myself but it's just pointless in this case. so ok, there are millions of variables, but isn't economic and political system an important variable itself ? you think its impossible to try to isolate its effect ?

The young Malaysian lad mugged after being knocked unconscious will receive a new PSP from Sony. It seems that's what the scumbag pulled from his backpack in the vid. There's also a website set up to take small donations from Brits to buy him something nice. I like those kinds of stories. He's currently having surgery on his broken jaw.

  On 8/10/2011 at 9:40 PM, Adam Beker said:

http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/

wow, now that is a quality tumblr

robocop is my favourite

  On 8/11/2011 at 1:38 AM, oscillik said:

 

robocop is my favourite

love it!

London Riot Fire Destroys Warehouse Containing 150 Indie Record Labels’ Inventory

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/08/fire-from-london-riots-destroys-warehouse-containing-150-indie-

record-labels-inventory/

love your username even though jazz

  On 8/11/2011 at 12:07 AM, eugene said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 8:19 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 7:08 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 6:42 PM, chenGOD said:

Eugene -

Did you read what i wrote? South Korea's growth (and Taiwan's and now China's) was based on the developmental state. This is a model where the state has a high level of intervention in growing companies and the nation's GDP. South Korea and Taiwan are now both democracies, and yet there is still a high level of government intervention in their political economy. In fact, in the case of South korea, the conservative government in power now has increased state control compared to the previous government (more socialist leaning).

When the US and England underwent their growth periods, they did so by using economies that in no way, shape or form represented a "free market".

I'm not trying to evade anything - your ideas on political economy and the history of industrialization are simply a fairy-tale.

i don't have any ideas on economy at all, this area is major black hole for me, lol. i just got dragged into a territory i shouldn't have. you couldn't probably infer that i kinda easily juggle free market and capitalism in general...

 

i'm simply still stuck at your argument that "dogmatic free market is no better than communism"..which still sounds absurd.

lets try to rephrase it, do you think that economic systems that were having more in common with communism than democracies and capitalism and all that jazz are just as bad ?

 

it is just as bad. its dogmatic. that's very different from witnessing the historical effects in reality.

 

Pre-Leninist Marxists and even post-Lenin Marxists would have told you that the USSR was no more communist than Caesar's Rome was democratic.

 

 

by turning it into a "which one has done better", you are essentially demanding an answer that cannot, at least historically, be forthcoming. we could be witnessing capitalism's slow decay, which may or may not be contrasted with the Soviet bloc's immediate collapse in less than a century.

 

it would be like saying the Roman Empire was "better" than other empires simply because it lasted longer.

 

this kind of detached overview is of no use in practice. we obviously can't know where current capitalism leads but we've had about 70 years of those two systems juxtaposed, that's a whole lifetime, it matters.

i think you should ask what system proved to be better this last century, im not talking longevity either, there's more than enough data about quality of life.

I think you should learn about what the system the west (global north is the academic term) actually used to achieve their prosperity was. Here's a hint - it's not free market capitalism. Here's another hint - it depended very much on the exploitation of poorer nations, and the use of many many unequal treaties that were able to be enforced due to superior weaponry.

No injuries were reported in the blaze, but all inventory is feared lost. XL/Beggars, Warp, Rough Trade, Domino, 4AD, Sub Pop, Secretly Canadian, Jagjaguwar, Drag City, Thrill Jockey, FatCat, Kompakt, Mute, Ninja Tune, Vice, and Soul Jazz are among those affected.

  On 8/11/2011 at 2:14 AM, Dr.Acula said:

London Riot Fire Destroys Warehouse Containing 150 Indie Record Labels’ Inventory

 

 

 

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/08/fire-from-london-riots-destroys-warehouse-containing-150-indie-

record-labels-inventory/

  On 8/11/2011 at 2:51 AM, Dr.Acula said:

No injuries were reported in the blaze, but all inventory is feared lost. XL/Beggars, Warp, Rough Trade, Domino, 4AD, Sub Pop, Secretly Canadian, Jagjaguwar, Drag City, Thrill Jockey, FatCat, Kompakt, Mute, Ninja Tune, Vice, and Soul Jazz are among those affected.

old news. already been discussed in this thread, and i have made a separate thread regarding the implications this will have.

Interesting article on reasonable force for self defence regarding riots.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/10/metropolitan-police-rioters-reasonable-force

  On 8/11/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 8/11/2011 at 12:07 AM, eugene said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 8:19 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 7:08 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 6:42 PM, chenGOD said:

Eugene -

Did you read what i wrote? South Korea's growth (and Taiwan's and now China's) was based on the developmental state. This is a model where the state has a high level of intervention in growing companies and the nation's GDP. South Korea and Taiwan are now both democracies, and yet there is still a high level of government intervention in their political economy. In fact, in the case of South korea, the conservative government in power now has increased state control compared to the previous government (more socialist leaning).

When the US and England underwent their growth periods, they did so by using economies that in no way, shape or form represented a "free market".

I'm not trying to evade anything - your ideas on political economy and the history of industrialization are simply a fairy-tale.

i don't have any ideas on economy at all, this area is major black hole for me, lol. i just got dragged into a territory i shouldn't have. you couldn't probably infer that i kinda easily juggle free market and capitalism in general...

 

i'm simply still stuck at your argument that "dogmatic free market is no better than communism"..which still sounds absurd.

lets try to rephrase it, do you think that economic systems that were having more in common with communism than democracies and capitalism and all that jazz are just as bad ?

 

it is just as bad. its dogmatic. that's very different from witnessing the historical effects in reality.

 

Pre-Leninist Marxists and even post-Lenin Marxists would have told you that the USSR was no more communist than Caesar's Rome was democratic.

 

 

by turning it into a "which one has done better", you are essentially demanding an answer that cannot, at least historically, be forthcoming. we could be witnessing capitalism's slow decay, which may or may not be contrasted with the Soviet bloc's immediate collapse in less than a century.

 

it would be like saying the Roman Empire was "better" than other empires simply because it lasted longer.

 

this kind of detached overview is of no use in practice. we obviously can't know where current capitalism leads but we've had about 70 years of those two systems juxtaposed, that's a whole lifetime, it matters.

i think you should ask what system proved to be better this last century, im not talking longevity either, there's more than enough data about quality of life.

I think you should learn about what the system the west (global north is the academic term) actually used to achieve their prosperity was. Here's a hint - it's not free market capitalism. Here's another hint - it depended very much on the exploitation of poorer nations, and the use of many many unequal treaties that were able to be enforced due to superior weaponry.

yeah thanks, but what are you implying exactly ? that this was a more important factor than the political and economic system that defined the two blocs for decades ?

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot … you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin.

  On 8/11/2011 at 4:05 AM, eugene said:

  On 8/11/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 8/11/2011 at 12:07 AM, eugene said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 8:19 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 7:08 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/10/2011 at 6:42 PM, chenGOD said:

Eugene -

Did you read what i wrote? South Korea's growth (and Taiwan's and now China's) was based on the developmental state. This is a model where the state has a high level of intervention in growing companies and the nation's GDP. South Korea and Taiwan are now both democracies, and yet there is still a high level of government intervention in their political economy. In fact, in the case of South korea, the conservative government in power now has increased state control compared to the previous government (more socialist leaning).

When the US and England underwent their growth periods, they did so by using economies that in no way, shape or form represented a "free market".

I'm not trying to evade anything - your ideas on political economy and the history of industrialization are simply a fairy-tale.

i don't have any ideas on economy at all, this area is major black hole for me, lol. i just got dragged into a territory i shouldn't have. you couldn't probably infer that i kinda easily juggle free market and capitalism in general...

 

i'm simply still stuck at your argument that "dogmatic free market is no better than communism"..which still sounds absurd.

lets try to rephrase it, do you think that economic systems that were having more in common with communism than democracies and capitalism and all that jazz are just as bad ?

 

it is just as bad. its dogmatic. that's very different from witnessing the historical effects in reality.

 

Pre-Leninist Marxists and even post-Lenin Marxists would have told you that the USSR was no more communist than Caesar's Rome was democratic.

 

 

by turning it into a "which one has done better", you are essentially demanding an answer that cannot, at least historically, be forthcoming. we could be witnessing capitalism's slow decay, which may or may not be contrasted with the Soviet bloc's immediate collapse in less than a century.

 

it would be like saying the Roman Empire was "better" than other empires simply because it lasted longer.

 

this kind of detached overview is of no use in practice. we obviously can't know where current capitalism leads but we've had about 70 years of those two systems juxtaposed, that's a whole lifetime, it matters.

i think you should ask what system proved to be better this last century, im not talking longevity either, there's more than enough data about quality of life.

I think you should learn about what the system the west (global north is the academic term) actually used to achieve their prosperity was. Here's a hint - it's not free market capitalism. Here's another hint - it depended very much on the exploitation of poorer nations, and the use of many many unequal treaties that were able to be enforced due to superior weaponry.

yeah thanks, but what are you implying exactly ? that this was a more important factor than the political and economic system that defined the two blocs for decades ?

alright, Eugene, I tried to be nice, but you are a fucking idiot.

"I don't have any ideas on economy"-this is what you said

im about to drop a bombshell on you (and chenGOD should agree):

Capitalism has NEVER BEEN THE SAME CAPITALISM IN REGARDS TO FREE MARKETS

see:

Joseph Schumpeter

Milton Friedman (quote "hardline Reagan conservative") which, if you might have spent more time you'd understand the guy was incredibly frustrated with the U.S. economy

Francis Fukuyama

the power of Capitalism is that its ELASTIC. it is not bound to free market rules. It creates and adapts itself to whatever target you want, hence, corrupt democratic republics in africa, in asia, in latin america, and so on and so forth.

Try asking someone in Guatemala or Honduras how well the capitalist system works for them.

I cannot in good faith take your complaints seriously anymore. I am sorry.

  On 8/11/2011 at 4:05 AM, eugene said:

  On 8/11/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

I think you should learn about what the system the west (global north is the academic term) actually used to achieve their prosperity was. Here's a hint - it's not free market capitalism. Here's another hint - it depended very much on the exploitation of poorer nations, and the use of many many unequal treaties that were able to be enforced due to superior weaponry.

yeah thanks, but what are you implying exactly ? that this was a more important factor than the political and economic system that defined the two blocs for decades ?

yes. since the political and economic system that you think defined capitalism didn't actually exist in the way you think it did. Here's a final hint, and then I'm done with your willful obtuseness: that system of exploitation and enforcement of unequal treaties due to superior firepower still exists today.

  On 8/11/2011 at 4:37 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 8/11/2011 at 4:05 AM, eugene said:

  On 8/11/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

I think you should learn about what the system the west (global north is the academic term) actually used to achieve their prosperity was. Here's a hint - it's not free market capitalism. Here's another hint - it depended very much on the exploitation of poorer nations, and the use of many many unequal treaties that were able to be enforced due to superior weaponry.

yeah thanks, but what are you implying exactly ? that this was a more important factor than the political and economic system that defined the two blocs for decades ?

 

yes. since the political and economic system that you think defined capitalism didn't actually exist in the way you think it did. Here's a final hint, and then I'm done with your willful obtuseness: that system of exploitation and enforcement of unequal treaties due to superior firepower still exists today.

Like, for instance in Israel.

*throws oil in the fire*

Sorry, this was way too easy.

Anarchy in edinburgh streets (sorry if this is jazz)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0356brnrE&feature=share

Mindhacks blaming the Daily Mail, (and Watmm) :

    Quote

As the cacophony of politicians and commentators replaces that of the police sirens, look out for the particularly shrill voice of those who condemn as evil anyone with an alternative explanation for the looting than theirs. For an example, take the Daily Mail headline for Tuesday, which reads “To blame the cuts is immoral and cynical. This is criminality pure and simple”

    Quote

If I’ve got them right, this means that when considering what factors contributed to the looting, identifying government spending cuts is not just incorrect, but actively harmful. For the Mail, the issue of explanations for the looting is of such urgency that they are comfortable condemning anyone who seeks an explanation beyond that of the looting being “criminality pure and simple”.

    Quote

The Daily Mail editors feel they are in a moral community in which society is threatened by the looters and by those who give them succour, ‘the handwringing apologists on the Left’ who ‘blame the violence on poverty, social deprivation and a disaffected…youth’ (to quote from the rest of Tuesday’s editorial). For some, the looting is an immoral act of such a threatening nature that to think about it too hard, to react with anything other than a vociferous condemnation, is itself worthy of condemnation.

 

 

The sad thing about adopting this stance is that it prevents media commentators from thinking about how they themselves might have contributed to the looting. The footage on TV and in newspapers such as the Daily Mail has been vivid and hysterical. Television has shown the most dramatic footage of the looting, while headlines have screamed about the police losing control and anarchy on the streets. You don’t have to be a scholar of psychology to realise that this kind of media environment might play a role in encouraging the copycat looting sprees that sprung up outside of London

    Quote

Some, like the Daily Mail, see any attempt at explaining the looting as excusing the looting. The looting, like so much for them, is a moral issue of such virulence that they see people who understand society differently as part of the same threat to society as the looters.

http://mindhacks.com/2011/08/11/when-explaining-becomes-a-sin/

  On 8/11/2011 at 8:41 AM, flurobox said:

Anarchy in edinburgh streets (sorry if this is jazz)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0356brnrE&feature=share

looool