transatlantic trade and investment partnership

[The Mad Monk]

I still like you, AAHZ.

[ZEE]

most people do, i think


that's one of the dangers of being both useless AND annoying

good thing your opinion means about as much to me as a pile of shit.

I still like you, AAHZ.

[C0ckney]

Those who pine for the wonders of Communism truely do own that prize, sunshine.

BTW, Stalin killed a hell of a lot more than just Commies. Had he limited it to that, hell, we might erect statues to him, but way to go glossing over the same **** over and over again. You can never finish polishing a turd pattycakes. It will never shine no matter how much you try.

that's right folks, capitalism or stalinism are the only choices.

[Elok]

Actually, C0ckney, do you know anything about distributivism? I'm trying to put off reading a lot of Chesterton, because his writing style tends to grate on me after a couple of chapters. It seems like you'd run into problems keeping wealth from just re-concentrating no matter how you spread it out.

[pchang]

It's simple. Cockney would just impose the death penalty for being rich.


And what's the definition of rich: anyone with more money than Cockney!

[C0ckney]

Actually, C0ckney, do you know anything about distributivism?

it's pre-marxian socialism and a little physiocracy combined with private property.

actually i'm not sure that describes it particularly well, but i'm struggling to come up with a better one line definition. it's a bit like the original third way, taking elements from a traditional conservative perspective but combining them with radical elements based on challenging the status quo via a process of renovation, class cooperation as opposed to class struggle, all coated in some traditional catholic teaching on the family, etc..

it's also very english, and it's necessary to have an idea about the political ideas and issues in 19th century britain to really understand it (don't worry, i shan't bore you with all that here). it has had and continues to have quite a large effect on british politics, though not in an overt way. recently, you can see parts it in some of thatcher's policies and also in cameron's big society.

from my point of view, there's a lot to like about it: getting rid of most banks, the localism and communitarianism, the devolution of power to the lowest possible level. however, it suffers from a romantic and very early 20th century medievalism, an attachment to private property and, most seriously in my view, bases itself on the pretence that the interests of workers and bosses, landlords and tenants, etc. can be aligned.

[C0ckney]

It's simple. Cockney would just impose the death penalty for being rich.


And what's the definition of rich: anyone with more money than Cockney!

no, but i may impose a death penalty for lazy trolling; or better yet, taking my inspiration from mao, encourage the other trolls to organise themselves to remove the lazy trolls.

[Elok]

I don't really understand economics; I'm inclined to distrust it simply because everybody who argues from it seems to use arguments that happen to favor the interests of the rich somehow, but it could be all my ignorance talking, IDK. I do know that whatever system we have now doesn't seem to be working, in the sense that a disconcertingly large proportion of Americans are essentially functioning on the level of peasants. They eat better than actual peasant peasants--many of them are fat--but they have different but equally terrible health problems, and none of them have any real prospects for advancement. I just stopped working at the welfare office to go back to subbing (I have yet another Plan to Stop Being Broke, but it's long-term), and I'd say fully half the people who came in were essentially unemployable due to criminal records, homelessness, or debilitating health problems. They might get work at McDonald's, but that's basically foodstamps provided by the private sector; it'll never get them tools to stop working at McDonald's.

Distributism/ivism appeals to me mostly because it seems centered on fixing that one ****ed-up aspect of society at the heart of the problem, that we produce people incapable of helping themselves. The infatuation with giving everybody plots of land with cows on it does seem a trifle quaint, though.

[Lorizael]

Don't worry. Once the robots come, the segment of the population that is unemployable will expand to include people who actually have political influence. At that point, we'll be forced to restructure the system. Or this experiment we call civilization will end. One or the other.

[The Mad Monk]

That's my cue!

[C0ckney]

I don't really understand economics; I'm inclined to distrust it simply because everybody who argues from it seems to use arguments that happen to favor the interests of the rich somehow, but it could be all my ignorance talking, IDK. I do know that whatever system we have now doesn't seem to be working, in the sense that a disconcertingly large proportion of Americans are essentially functioning on the level of peasants. They eat better than actual peasant peasants--many of them are fat--but they have different but equally terrible health problems, and none of them have any real prospects for advancement. I just stopped working at the welfare office to go back to subbing (I have yet another Plan to Stop Being Broke, but it's long-term), and I'd say fully half the people who came in were essentially unemployable due to criminal records, homelessness, or debilitating health problems. They might get work at McDonald's, but that's basically foodstamps provided by the private sector; it'll never get them tools to stop working at McDonald's.

Distributism/ivism appeals to me mostly because it seems centered on fixing that one ****ed-up aspect of society at the heart of the problem, that we produce people incapable of helping themselves. The infatuation with giving everybody plots of land with cows on it does seem a trifle quaint, though.

i agree with a lot of that. one of things that's striking is how the discourse about the poor remains fairly constant over decades and centuries, subtracting a little christian charity here, adding a little liberal concern there. the poor are a problem to be dealt with, to be managed and, if possible, systematised at the least inconvenience and expense to the taxpayer, in a more or less humane way depending on the mood of the times.

one of the most interesting sets of ideas in recent times is that which started in france in the early 80s under the catch-all term of autogestion. this, while not being explicitly anarchist, started out (vaguely and not always in so many words, often suffering from that typically french problem of taking a long time to not quite say what one means) from the simple and undeniable proposition that the one fundamental, absolute distinction in society is between the managed and the systems that managed them. from this perspective, the conflict between capitalism and communism obscures the fact that both are systems of economic management, in which labour is put to work to ends defined by increasingly centralised and integrated systems of control. the goal was and is 'growth' - the growth of the ever-more-fully-autonomous organism that the national (and now the global) economy was and is becoming. consumption, no less than work, has been managed and shaped to that end.

one of the strengths of distributism is that it seeks to get people to manage themselves. the problem, however, is that it proposes no real solution to what i described above, that is, to break down the structures that create and are created by capitalism in order to bring about the change it desires.

there's more, but it's late and i'm rambling. good luck with the plan for not being broke.

[kentonio]

A deal that lets corporations sue governments for democratically passing laws, and lets a small group of non-elected corporate figures rule on it is so far beyond acceptable that it just defies belief. It seems like one of those things that either people haven't heard about yet, or that just sounds so crazy that people don't believe it could be real. I'm astounded that the corporations who have lobbied for it can't see just how devastating its going to be to them long term. It's exactly the kind of over-reach that could lead to massive political change.

[C0ckney]

in a UK context it will certainly increase the left-wing 'out' vote.

[FlameFlash]

That's my cue!

That's a good video to inspire thought.

[Dauphin]

A deal that lets corporations sue governments for democratically passing laws, and lets a small group of non-elected corporate figures rule on it is so far beyond acceptable that it just defies belief. It seems like one of those things that either people haven't heard about yet, or that just sounds so crazy that people don't believe it could be real. I'm astounded that the corporations who have lobbied for it can't see just how devastating its going to be to them long term. It's exactly the kind of over-reach that could lead to massive political change.

This wouldn't be new, and is quite common.

My concern would be more that you can sue without being a signatory. Not that you have independent arbitrators.