# Anyone actually believe there is any chance of a revolution in the UK



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

Does anyone here think that a revolution that puts in your favoured government is actually possible or is far-left talk of revolution just pointless fantasy?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 3, 2013)

Not democratically no, I think Joe and Joanna average British voter is politically middle of the road and will continue to vote for whatever they perceive as the centre party.

As to any other kind of revolution, like Cromwell coming to power, I can't see it at the moment, no popular support.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Does anyone here think that a revolution that puts in your favoured government is actually possible or is far-left talk of revolution just pointless fantasy?


 

Short of people starting to starve or Tories deciding to cull the poor no. You don't get revolution if things are a bit meh. You get it when people want change and are prepared to kill and die to get it. 
   And by the people I mean the majority not just a few radicals.


----------



## chilango (Jul 3, 2013)

There will be a revolution, yes. It's inevitable.

That's not the question.

The question is what kind of revolution and who wins. And whether we even recognise it when it happens.

It's highly unlikely that it will be revolution that resembles 1917 or any other Leftie fantasy. 

But capitalism and it's social order cannot and will not go on for ever. No system ever has.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 3, 2013)

I am concentrating on the Euromillions personally and the bonus ball sweep at The Headless Chicken


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 3, 2013)

One will be arranged but it'll rain so everyone will go home.


----------



## RedDragon (Jul 3, 2013)

I think if enough people were to spontaneously gather in Trafalgar Square then the army would give Cameron & Co a 48hr ultimatum.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

need a few general strikes first


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> need a few general strikes first


 

But they can only last for one day. And be endorsed by all the major public-sector unions.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 3, 2013)

dylanredefined said:


> Short of people starting to starve or Tories deciding to cull the poor no. You don't get revolution if things are a bit meh. You get it when people want change and are prepared to kill and die to get it.
> And by the people I mean the majority not just a few radicals.


 
Perversely, if you want a revolution you're probably more likely to get it if you encourage austerity cuts and the lowering of living conditions for the majority.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 3, 2013)

That was the RCP's rationale


----------



## RedDragon (Jul 3, 2013)

We've been there, done that long before it became fashionable.


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> There will be a revolution, yes. It's inevitable.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> ...




I mean revolution not our current economic system changing into something else which it is constantly doing anyway.


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

DJ Squelch said:


> Perversely, if you want a revolution you're probably more likely to get it if you encourage austerity cuts and the lowering of living conditions for the majority.




True but people can just vote in another party if they want those policies.As weltweit pointed out that most people are going to vote towards the middle of our politics so the idea that a few extremist fringe groups would be able to grab power is pretty risable. As long as the left doesn;t appeal to the majority of the country then íts pretty pointless to talk about government change other than by lection.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals as great a chance as a revolution in say thailand


----------



## chilango (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I mean revolution not our current economic system changing into something else which it is constantly doing anyway.



What do you mean by "revolution" then?

I mean a drastic, relatively sudden, change of the social, economic and political order caused by "force" against the wishes of the current ruling class.

I didn't mean to imply a peaceful evolution of the system rather a violent upheaval.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I mean revolution not our current economic system changing into something else which it is constantly doing anyway.


meaningless.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I mean revolution not our current economic system changing into something else which it is constantly doing anyway.


 
So what do you mean by revolution?  It would seem to me that a radical transformation of our 'current economic system' (and our political social and cultural relationships?) would be pretty revolutionary.

Chilango's point about whether or not we would recognise it as it happened is worth considering; what are your measures that need to be satisfied for change - be it economic, social or whatever - to constitute revolution?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I mean revolution not our current economic system *changing into something else which it is constantly doing anyway.*


 
differing modes of capitalism, not a different economic system


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> What do you mean by "revolution" then?
> 
> I mean a drastic, relatively sudden, change of the social, economic and political order caused by "force" against the wishes of the current ruling class.
> 
> I didn't mean to imply a peaceful evolution of the system rather a violent upheaval.



And you think this inevitable? I can;t see how this will happen. If people want change then the political parties will shift position to accommodate that change.


> So what do you mean by revolution? It would seem to me that a radical transformation of our 'current economic system' (and our political social and cultural relationships?) would be pretty revolutionary.



Equivocation



> Chilango's point about whether or not we would recognise it as it happened is worth considering; what are your measures that need to be satisfied for change - be it economic, social or whatever - to constitute revolution?



A replacement of the government of the United Kingdom by an internal movement , that is not already part of the government system (such as a coup d'etat) that takes power, by force, other than by the normal process of being elected.

Essentially a popular uprising that directly takes power and institutes a new system of government. It would'nt refer to a government being forced to resign and then being immediate being replaced  at a General election


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> differing modes of capitalism, not a different economic system




Define Capitalism. And no I am not going to look up someone else's definition. I want your one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

really? appropriation of a workers surplus labour value by the owners of the means of production.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

Marvelous - he means a political revolution - i.e not a proper revolution, i.e not a social one, one that encompasses serious changes in both political and economic forms and organisations. Thus rendering his own question pointless by turning it into _do any of you dicks really believe that the sort of revolution i've ill-defined here is possible? _


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 3, 2013)

I do think there will be one yes. 

I don't think it will be anything like 1917 tho ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I mean revolution not our current economic system changing into something else which it is constantly doing anyway.


 
Oh yeah? What are some of these constant changes of economic system then? What's capitalism currently changing into?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 3, 2013)

Got a feeling that Protestical may be having to resit the politics and economics option this summer


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

He spelled 'believe' incorrectly too.


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> really? appropriation of a workers surplus labour value by the owners of the means of production.


 
So by your definition then feudalism was also capitalism. Indeed all economic systems we have ever used have entailed 'capitalism'.


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Got a feeling that Protestical may be having to resit the politics and economics option this summer


 
Re-education camps, Another of the more unpleasant facets of Authoritarian leftism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So by your definition then feudalism was also capitalism. Indeed all economic systems we have ever used have entailed 'capitalism'.


 
Oh jesus. You described yourself an anti-capitalist green (yeah, looking thinner by the day i know, and as if anyone actually bought it) - yet you don't know what capitalism is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So by your definition then feudalism was also capitalism. Indeed all economic systems we have ever used have entailed 'capitalism'.


 

christ on a bike


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So by your definition then feudalism was also capitalism. Indeed all economic systems we have ever used have entailed 'capitalism'.


 

Bollocks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Re-education camps, Another of the more unpleasant facets of Authoritarian leftism.


 

its liberal whiners bingo here and I'm two cliches away from house


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Does anyone here think that a revolution that puts in your favoured government is actually possible or is far-left talk of revolution just pointless fantasy?


 
According to my better half, it is more likely to happen than some of my other fantasies.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 3, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> I think if enough people were to spontaneously gather in Trafalgar Square then the army would give Cameron & Co a 48hr ultimatum.


 


 Probably try and ignore it tbh. What with withdrawing from Afghanistan and  Germany and their reorganization  their a bit busy.
And the cavalry are sulking as the health and safety committee say their not allowed to charge rioters anymore on horseback and they can't afford the congestion fee for their tanks


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Bollocks.


 

So apart from 23 days and 3 hours somewhere in Spain in 1937 where hasn't a system been about people living off the labour value of others?



> ts liberal whiners bingo here and I'm two cliches away from house



I suppose something has to rewards you for all those years of non achievement. The capitalists have won the economic battles of the last quarter century and the liberals have won the social ones. Communists have won ...well fuck all really.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 3, 2013)

Capitalism has lasted only a fraction as long as some of the previous ruling dogmas and empires.  Of course there will be a revolution at some point -- everything ends eventually, and it tends to end with a bang rather than a whimper -- but don't ask me to guess the timescale


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So apart from 23 days and 3 hours somewhere in Spain in 1937 where hasn't a system been about people living off the labour value of others?
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose something has to rewards you for all those years of non achievement. The capitalists have won the economic battles of the last quarter century and the liberals have won the social ones. Communists have won ...well fuck all really.


 

Capitalism has only been around for the last couple of hundred years, class society has been around a lot longer.


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Capitalism has only been around for the last couple of hundred years, class society has been around a lot longer.


 

So when  Dot communist claimed Capitalism was:


> appropriation of a workers surplus labour value by the owners of the means of production.


 then he can't be correct since clearly workers surplus labour value has been appropriated for millenia.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So when Dot communist claimed Capitalism was:
> then he can't be correct since clearly workers surplus labour value has been appropriated for millenia.


 

no he is right.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Re-education camps, Another of the more unpleasant facets of Authoritarian leftism.


 

Mask is slipping again, isn't it?


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 3, 2013)

I would have said no an hour ago, but having just got off the phone with my ultra right-wing granddad, I've changed my mind.

He was advocating a national rent strike to protest against the bedroom tax and "all those young lasses with nowhere to go" and an "uprising" because "these MPs don't have any of our best interests at heart".

I usually avoid talking politics with him as it's all BNP/anti-immigrant stuff, but today the way he was talking, he could have been a U75 poster.


----------



## chilango (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So when  Dot communist claimed Capitalism was:
> then he can't be correct since clearly workers surplus labour value has been appropriated for millenia.



No. He's right.

Think about the difference between a peasant and a worker.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 3, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I would have said no an hour ago, but having just got off the phone with my ultra right-wing granddad, I've changed my mind.
> 
> He was advocating a national rent strike to protest against the bedroom tax and "all those young lasses with nowhere to go" and an "uprising" because "these MPs don't have any of our best interests at heart".
> 
> I usually avoid talking politics with him as it's all BNP/anti-immigrant stuff, but today the way he was talking, he could have been a U75 poster.


 

I think that anyone who can watch PMQs and see Osborne and Cameron bang on about Unite like a bunch of smug cunts in a sixth form common room while they dismantle the country at the tax payer's expense and not want the lot of them strung up has no soul.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 3, 2013)

My ultra tory grandma has been talking that way too.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> My ultra tory grandma has been talking that way too.


 
I'm sure his preferred result of an 'uprising' would look vastly different to mine, but the fact that he's even talking that way shocked me.

So the left aren't happy with the country and want a revolution; the right aren't happy and want a revolution. And meanwhile these cunts appeal to a few swing voters and get re-elected every time.

Add a worsening of living standards, and no real improvements in the pipeline, along with the threat of tax rises (paying more for even less?!) after the next election.

Hmm, maybe.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 3, 2013)

i reckon the older generation'll uprise before we do - teach us a thing or two about how it Should Be Done 
*we have nothing left to lose but our winter fuel allowance*. zimmer frames and walking sticks are quite brandishable 
(sorry for any ageism in the above post )


----------



## treelover (Jul 3, 2013)

> Their aim is to highlight domestic and global conflicts and austerity measures and to spur the kind of protests recently seen in Turkey and Brazil.


 

its begun! protestors are now on the roof on County Hall as we speak...

can't disagree with the banners sentiments


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So when Dot communist claimed Capitalism was:
> then he can't be correct since clearly workers surplus labour value has been appropriated for millenia.


Under feudalism (to generalise, classic definition), your peasant is obligated to do some work for the Lord, and the rest of the work they do is their own. So the extra labour extracted by the Lord is separated out.

Under capitalism (to generalise, classic definition), a proletarian freely sells their labour to a capitalist, because the latter owns the means of production (factory, farm, whatever), for which they receive a wage to live off. The capitalist's profit derives from the difference between that wage and the value of the labour the proletarian does. It's the surplus after the wage has been paid, hence "surplus value", rather than just labour (which is what the Lord is getting).

[/Easy Marx]


----------



## protesticals (Jul 3, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Mask is slipping again, isn't it?




What Mask? What are you on about? I certainly make no presence at being a Marxist/Communist. Never denied that I'm essentially a Social-liberal-green.


> No. He's right.
> 
> Think about the difference between a peasant and a worker.


 
A peasant works for his lord and creates produce that the lord can now sell at profit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

You were an anti-capitalist green the other week. You don't know what surplus value is, what wage-labour is, or what the hell you are talking about.


----------



## tony.c (Jul 3, 2013)

You can get a used copy of this for 1p on Amazon.


----------



## chilango (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> A peasant works for his lord and creates produce that the lord can now sell at profit.



See what Lo Siento wrote above.

Of course they are both being exploited. But the mechanisms by which this done do differ. The social relationship created by these mechanisms also therefore differ.

It's also worth looking at the idea of revolution as being more than a mere coup d'état. As said above its the transformation of social and economic structures and relationships as well as the formally political.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Re-education camps, Another of the more unpleasant facets of Authoritarian leftism.



One of the more pleasant aspects would be that people would know the difference between feudalism and capitalism. Not only would it be good for the intellect but it would save a lot of embarrassment .


----------



## TruXta (Jul 3, 2013)

I'd be up for re-education spas.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'd be up for re-education spas.


 
We don't use language like that anymore truxta.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> We don't use language like that anymore truxta.


What, spas or re-education?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

protesticals, read a fucking book


----------



## protesticals (Jul 4, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> protesticals, read a fucking book



I read plenty. I have no interest in theories that the world rejected and a few whining morons still cling to.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 4, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I read plenty. I have no interest in theories that the world rejected and a few whining morons still cling to.


Too transparent for a good troll, 4/10.


----------



## Tom A (Jul 4, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> i reckon the older generation'll uprise before we do - teach us a thing or two about how it Should Be Done
> *we have nothing left to lose but our winter fuel allowance*. zimmer frames and walking sticks are quite brandishable
> (sorry for any ageism in the above post )


 
Well, DAN in the 90s proved you don't have to be young and fit in order to kick up a royal fuss about injustice 



tony.c said:


> View attachment 35068 You can get a used copy of this for 1p on Amazon.


 
Ahh, I've got that book, had it since 2001


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I read plenty. I have no interest in theories that the world rejected and a few whining morons still cling to.



Then why try and start a thread on one?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 4, 2013)

chilango said:


> Then why try and start a thread on one?


To point and laugh it seems.


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2013)

TruXta said:


> To point and laugh it seems.



You mean for us to point and laugh?

What strange motivation.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 4, 2013)

chilango said:


> You mean for us to point and laugh?
> 
> What strange motivation.


For him, but yeah, joke's on him innit. Right. I'm gonna revolutionise my innards with a pint in the sun. Believe it or not.


----------



## cesare (Jul 4, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Too transparent for a good troll, 4/10.


It's just layabout on another crash and burn thread


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 4, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Does anyone here think that a revolution that puts in your favoured government is actually possible or is far-left talk of revolution just pointless fantasy?


 

I never thought I'd see the Berlin Wall fall, Apartheid ended; Mandela as SA president; A black US president, Well over a million people on a demo in Britain or Man City win a trophy...so I would not bet against it!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I read plenty. I have no interest in theories that the world rejected and a few whining morons still cling to.


 

the enormity of this lie is so huge it vibrates across the ethereal plane and has its own standing wave on planet bullshit.

Just admit you hadn't a fucking clue when you started the thread. Or don't. I care not a jot. You've made a mug of yourself, just move on


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Jul 4, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I never thought I'd see the Berlin Wall fall, Apartheid ended; Mandela as SA president; A black US president, Well over a million people on a demo in Britain or Man City win a trophy...so I would not bet against it!


 
So the only change thats gonna happen will be a gradual process, step by step (hopefully in the right direction) the question then is. Is our future social evolutuion going to follow a progressive line(in terms of morality) as technology is currently doing, or is it going to be peeks and troughs, or backwards/cyclical ?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 4, 2013)

Disjecta Membra said:


> So the only change thats gonna happen will be a gradual process, step by step (hopefully in the right direction) the question then is. Is our future social evolutuion going to follow a progressive line(in terms of morality) as technology is currently doing, or is it going to be peeks and troughs, or backwards/cyclical ?


 
I was not saying that the only change was gradual change...The Berlin Wall, The huge anti war demo and man city changes weren't gradual


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Jul 4, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I was not saying that the only change was gradual change...The Berlin Wall, The huge anti war demo and man city changes weren't gradual


oh yeah


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Jul 4, 2013)

but...... The last two didn't just happen,the civil rights to allow big demos took years of struggle and Man city had to build the team over, dunno 5yrs? (I don't follow football)


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 4, 2013)

we've had the right to demonstrate since the chartist times....There have been big demos ever since...suffragettes in the 1910s, anti war demos like the vietnam ones in the 1960s, anti fascism like cable street in 1930sand lewisham in 77, strikes like the general strike, the 1970's strikes, anti aparthied... since the 1990's we've had some very big demo's...200,000 plus polltax demo; 150,000 on the cjb demo's; 200,000 on the 1992 miners demo's etc. etc. but 2 million on the anti war demo in 2003 was did "just happen" in terms of it being out of the blue...city was just a joke!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh jesus. You described yourself an anti-capitalist green (yeah, looking thinner by the day i know, and as if anyone actually bought it) - yet you don't know what capitalism is.


 
Do you need to, in order to pose protest against capitalism by not drinking Starbucks products, maaan?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

chilango said:


> Then why try and start a thread on one?


 
Well, he *thought* he was going to give the revos what for, but as it is, he's done what he does on every thread, and made himself look a thoroughgoing twat.

Probably because he *is* a thoroughgoing twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's just layabout on another crash and burn thread


 
Coke must have seriously eroded what was left of his central processing unit in the interim since his last banning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I was not saying that the only change was gradual change...The Berlin Wall, The huge anti war demo and man city changes weren't gradual


 
Yes and no. The causes of the events were gradual, but the events themselves were (relatively-speaking) immediate.
Man City got where they did through a slow accumulation of a decent team, manager and ethos; The collapse of the Eastern Bloc, and the DDR were a result of years of social forces pushing the boundaries of permissible behaviour until Gorbachev's _perestroika_ gave them an identifiable philosophy which their regime found hard to refute (being good drones, as they were); The anti-war demos, although realised over a more attenuated period than a decade or a couple of soccer seasons, still took many weeks of people gradually boiling over.  It's just a pity that the forces that sought to limit and control the protest (no, not the police, the Swappies) managed to achieve their aim.  I'd have loved to have seen a peoples' march wandering into the Duke of York barracks or the MoD and dismantling it brick by brick.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 4, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Does anyone here think that a revolution that puts in your favoured government is actually possible or is far-left talk of revolution just pointless fantasy?


 

do you think all this just carries on, endlessly? that's not how history works at the best of times, but look around you ...Egypt/Turkey/Brazil in the last month, 130 F in Death Valley this week, shits heating up - the idea that the UK is somehow immune is daft. Where / when/ how/ who ? - those are the questions imo


----------



## friedaweed (Jul 4, 2013)

Sadly no


----------



## yield (Jul 4, 2013)

Sadly yes. A repressive authoritarian right wing revolution.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 5, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Re-education camps, Another of the more unpleasant facets of Authoritarian leftism.


Six million Americans either in prison, or being supervised - probation etc. Re-education camps? Authoritarian? Gulags? And has all become clear, 'everyone monitored' (400,000 contracted security company's). A person gets arrested for smoking a joint (marijuana possession) every 38 seconds in the "free world" (US).

Counter-Intelligence Doc.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes and no. The causes of the events were gradual, but the events themselves were (relatively-speaking) immediate.
> *Man City got where they did through a slow accumulation of a decent team, manager and ethos;* The collapse of the Eastern Bloc, and the DDR were a result of years of social forces pushing the boundaries of permissible behaviour until Gorbachev's _perestroika_ gave them an identifiable philosophy which their regime found hard to refute (being good drones, as they were); The anti-war demos, although realised over a more attenuated period than a decade or a couple of soccer seasons, still took many weeks of people gradually boiling over. It's just a pity that the forces that sought to limit and control the protest (no, not the police, the Swappies) managed to achieve their aim. I'd have loved to have seen a peoples' march wandering into the Duke of York barracks or the MoD and dismantling it brick by brick.


 
Lol


----------



## protesticals (Jul 5, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> the enormity of this lie is so huge it vibrates across the ethereal plane and has its own standing wave on planet bullshit.
> 
> Just admit you hadn't a fucking clue when you started the thread. Or don't. I care not a jot. You've made a mug of yourself, just move on


 
Oh dear. poor little armchair Lenin is having a sulk.Go and practice some raised fist salutes.


----------



## protesticals (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, he *thought* he was going to give the revos what for, but as it is, he's done what he does on every thread, and made himself look a thoroughgoing twat.
> 
> Probably because he *is* a thoroughgoing twat.




Pooir little Panda. No one takes hims eriously in teh real world wiith his citizen smith pose but right here he can be VIOLENT panda and can strut his stuff.


----------



## protesticals (Jul 5, 2013)

yield said:


> Sadly yes. A repressive authoritarian right wing revolution.


 

Unlikley as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Oh dear. poor little armchair Lenin is having a sulk.Go and practice some raised fist salutes.


 

look at what you have been reduced to


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Oh dear. poor little armchair Lenin is having a sulk.Go and practice some raised fist salutes.


 

Proper LOL


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2013)

The end of history.


----------



## protesticals (Jul 5, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> look at what you have been reduced to


 
Wow what a cutting reply. I am crestfallen.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Wow what a cutting reply. I am crestfallen.


And you, sharp as a cue-ball right?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Wow what a cutting reply. I am crestfallen.


 

I'm sure you could go lower.

worked out the difference between feudalism and capitalism yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> the 'anti=capitalist green' protesticals said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Any attempt at even pretending to try and answer the questions?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Wow what a cutting reply. I am crestfallen.


 

Yes, yes you are, because you're being pwned on this thread


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But they can only last for one day.


 
Says who? Surely the whole point of a general strike is that there's fuck all the state can do about it?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Says who? Surely the whole point of a general strike is that there's fuck all the state can do about it?


 

Yeah but if it's for more than one day then you're jumping ahead of the class and you're going to alienate broad layers of leading trade unionists.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Says who? Surely the whole point of a general strike is that there's fuck all the state can do about it?


There's plenty the state can do about it. I think fw was being sarcastic about the union tops verbal rhetoric about GS's.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but if it's for more than one day then you're jumping ahead of the class and you're going to alienate broad layers of leading trade unionists.


 
Oh I don't think it would actually happen, only that it would be nice if it did.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Oh I don't think it would actually happen, only that it would be nice if it did.


 

Yeah but you can't be ultra-left like all the other sects, you have to be realistic. Just a one-day public sector strike. In 2015.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but you can't be ultra-left like all the other sects, you have to be realistic. Just a one-day public sector strike. In 2015.


 
I'm not even sure that's realistic, but I'd agree that it would take time to build momentum for it and attempting to call a general strike for next week (as some of the swappie sects constantly seem intent on doing) is just daft.


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but you can't be ultra-left like all the other sects, you have to be realistic. Just a one-day public sector strike. In 2015.


The PCS called for members to go on a walk out on their lunch break a few days ago


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2013)

Disjecta Membra said:


> but...... The last two didn't just happen,the civil rights to allow big demos took years of struggle and Man city had to build the team over, dunno 5yrs? (I don't follow football)


 
You're nearly right, just replace 'build' with 'buy'


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The PCS called for members to go on a walk out on their lunch break a few days ago


 

See what a fighting left leadership they've got


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Pooir little Panda. No one takes hims eriously in teh real world wiith his citizen smith pose but right here he can be VIOLENT panda and can strut his stuff.


 
Poor little protesticals, struggling so hard to be controversial, and failing miserably, like he always does.
I mean seriously, you're not even bright enough to work out that "violent panda" isn't about violence, it's about a contradiction in terms, you dimbulb.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Any attempt at even pretending to try and answer the questions?


 
How can he? He hasn't got a clue what he's babbling about, and to answer would be to reveal his ignorance, hence his rather banal attempts at insults instead.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The PCS called for members to go on a walk out on their lunch break a few days ago


 
That rumbling sound you hear is capitalism quaking in its boots.


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> That rumbling sound you hear is capitalism quaking in its boots.



"We're calling a crippling series of weekend strikes to be carried out by the Monday to Friday membership, supplemented by off duty actions by our shift brothers (and sisters)"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The PCS called for members to go on a walk out on their lunch break a few days ago


 
I can't even figure this out, is the idea that you refuse to eat your lunch? Because I get all sorts of cranky if I work all day with no food and I really don't see how me being hungry and miserable is gonna cause any trouble for my employers who, being employers, absolutely love it when I'm miserable


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I can't even figure this out, is the idea that you refuse to eat your lunch? Because I get all sorts of cranky if I work all day with no food and I really don't see how me being hungry and miserable is gonna cause any trouble for my employers who, being employers, absolutely love it when I'm miserable


I think the idea was that the members went to eat their sandwiches outside rather than at their desks. Management would panic at all the empty desks during lunch breaks in sunny June


----------



## xenon (Jul 5, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> I think if enough people were to spontaneously gather in Trafalgar Square then the army would give Cameron & Co a 48hr ultimatum.



You think? I reckon despite widespread reluctance, sporadic disobeyance, The army would turn their guns on us civillions as ordered. That is if people actually tried to move out of Trafalgar square to any where importanc. Otherwise they'd be ignored... I mean, national debate etc.


----------



## xenon (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The PCS called for members to go on a walk out on their lunch break a few days ago



My JSA adviser told me about that.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The PCS called for members to go on a walk out on their lunch break a few days ago


 
I remeber the Youth workers strike which took place during the day so as not to disrupt any services.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 5, 2013)

xenon said:


> You think? I reckon despite widespread reluctance, sporadic disobeyance, The army would turn their guns on us civillions as ordered. That is if people actually tried to move out of Trafalgar square to any where importanc. Otherwise they'd be ignored... I mean, national debate etc.


 
I think he was refering to events abroad happening here actually.


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

I suppose once the realisation that A to B marches don't work and leisure time/no disruption to services industrial action doesn't work, matters might escalate to candlit (out of hours) vigils.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I suppose once the realisation that A to B marches don't work and leisure time/no disruption to services industrial action doesn't work, matters might escalate to candlit (out of hours) vigils.


 

Maybe a whole lot of hipsters will come over here from different parts of the world and "show solidarity"


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Maybe a whole lot of hipsters will come over here from different parts of the world and "show solidarity"


After doing an intersectional analysis of how much solidarity to give each identified group.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> After doing an intersectional analysis of how much solidarity to give each identified group.


 

Do you reckon that they'll have some non-violent direct action training to deal with the job-centre managers?


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Do you reckon that they'll have some non-violent direct action training to deal with the job-centre managers?


"There were some frightful people from the jobcentre there, so we headed off to the climate camp tent and had a totes amazeballs time"


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> "There were some frightful people from the jobcentre there, so we headed off to the climate camp tent and had a totes amazeballs time"


 

"such an amazing experience at the council offices, tho, they were so grateful to us"


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2013)

The evil oppressive job-centre regime threw us out after telling us not to do our ritual clowning act. Quite a lot of of the dolescum agreed - colluding in their own oppression


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> There will be a revolution, yes. It's inevitable.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> ...


 
Don't know if i agree with that - i'd like to, but something inside me says it won't. Got a feeling capitalism will be with us as we fly about the universe engaging in primitive accumulation star trek style.


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The evil oppressive job-centre regime threw us out after telling us not to do our ritual clowning act. Quite a lot of of the dolescum agreed - colluding in their own oppression


We felt pretty oppressed ourselves after all that. Some people just don't want to be saved


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> "We're calling a crippling series of weekend strikes to be carried out by the Monday to Friday membership, supplemented by off duty actions by our shift brothers (and sisters)"



You joke.

Last year when I was working in Italy my union (the CGIL) called a general strike for a Friday evening. 5.30 til 8.30.


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> You joke.
> 
> Last year when I was working in Italy my union (the CGIL) called a general strike for a Friday evening. 5.30 til 8.30.


Good turnout?


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Good turnout?



There were loads of us sat in the bar for the duration. So, yes!


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> There were loads of us sat in the bar for the duration. So, yes!


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


>



In fairness we would've been sat in the same bar with the same people most Fridays.

However, it being a general strike meant we couldn't hope on the tram home till it finished this time...


----------



## emanymton (Jul 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I think the idea was that the members went to eat their sandwiches outside rather than at their desks. Management would panic at all the empty desks during lunch breaks in sunny June


I would imagine this was about staff doing unpaid overtime during their luchbreaks. Noting at all wrong with the union making an issue of that in my opinion.


ETA, Yes I know I am killing the joke, sorry.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2013)

Now if only pub and restaurant workers would down tools.....


----------



## emanymton (Jul 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Now if only pub and restaurant workers would down tools.....


Most of the people on the left I know would react with horror if bar staff went on strike.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Most of the people on the left I know would react with horror if bar staff went on strike.


Yeah, where would they go to plot the violent overthrow of the system then eh? EH?


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Most of the people on the left I know would react with horror if bar staff went on strike.



Occupy the bars!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> Occupy the bars!


Dibs on the ales.


----------



## cesare (Jul 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I would imagine this was about staff doing unpaid overtime during their luchbreaks. Noting at all wrong with the union making an issue of that in my opinion.
> 
> 
> ETA, Yes I know I am killing the joke, sorry.


It's OK, em. The PCS have probably had to patiently explain what the reason for the action was to hordes of managers quite accustomed to seeing their staff decide to eat their widges in the park when the sun's out.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 5, 2013)

Is it possible to get a degree /MA or even a NVQ type qualification in Tilting at Windmills?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but if it's for more than one day then you're jumping ahead of the class and you're going to alienate broad layers of leading trade unionists.


 

speeches by len and benn or its not a revolution


----------



## audiotech (Jul 7, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Don't know if i agree with that - i'd like to, but something inside me says it won't. Got a feeling capitalism will be with us as we fly about the universe engaging in primitive accumulation star trek style.


 

John Connor?


----------



## CharlieChaplin (Jul 10, 2013)

Reform is better than revolution.

Revolutions are bloody.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2013)

CharlieChaplin said:


> Reform is better than revolution.


 
Reform is mostly incremental, which usually means that reforms are never fully realised. They're a mechanism so that the boss class can get away with the minimum of concessions.



> Revolutions are bloody.


 
No, revolutions *can* be bloody. That doesn't mean they are of necessity "bloody".

Stop spewing platitudes and start thinking, eh?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 10, 2013)

_freedom has no value if violence is the price,_
_i dont want your bloody revolution, i want anarchy and peace.._

sorry couldn't resist


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> _freedom has no value if violence is the price,_
> _i dont want your bloody revolution, i want anarchy and peace.._
> 
> sorry couldn't resist




Much as I admired Crass's stance, and their dissemination of some of the ideas of anarchism, I never agreed with their pacifism. Pacifism would require submission to and acceptance of physical violence from the state, and that isn't part of my political make-up.  I've always been a firm believer in never starting a fight, but always attempting to be the one that finishes it.  Sometimes it's a sad necessity that people have to engage in reactive violence in order to protect ourselves and insulate ourselves from greater violence.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Much as I admired Crass's stance, and their dissemination of some of the ideas of anarchism, I never agreed with their pacifism. Pacifism would require submission to and acceptance of physical violence from the state, and that isn't part of my political make-up. I've always been a firm believer in never starting a fight, but always attempting to be the one that finishes it. Sometimes it's a sad necessity that people have to engage in reactive violence in order to protect ourselves and insulate ourselves from greater violence.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Is it possible to get a degree /MA or even a NVQ type qualification in Tilting at Windmills?


 

BA in Philosophy


----------

